Vin Suprynowicz

Brunette here again. Guess I’m in an uncharacteristically chatty mood lately . . . not to worry, Vin will be back. And I’ll revert to my usual quieter self sooner or later. 😉

So, a friend asked over brunch yesterday why I recently banished a comment-poster I’ll call “Redacted.” Redacted had been around for a while, dogging Vin’s posts — I don’t recall him ever targeting mine before. He’d post a brief snarky comment, challenging Vin regarding figures (particularly voter fraud, which — if such figures ever come out in the wash — will likely take years to emerge) or on some other endlessly debatable point. Nit-picking, basically.

Vin, being admirably patient, would spend his time larding up posts with links and sources, and his always thoughtful (if spirited) commentary. Redacted would proceed to ignore Vin’s painstaking efforts to address his objections, responding again with something equally brief and snarky. Roughly the keyboard equivalent of “Na-Na-Na, I can’t HEAR you! So say it again!” That sort of thing gets tiring awfully quick. 🙁

Redacted’s initial comments must have sounded reasonable enough to approve, although his choice of email address indicated (deceptively) that he detested liberals. From now on, that too should be a red flag . . . see, we DON’T hate liberals; our family members are all liberals! We just wish they’d take their fingers out of their ears occasionally. 😉

Lucky me, it was my turn to deal with Redacted this time around. By that point, I’d recognized the hit-and-run pattern that is the subject/title of this post, and I suspect Vin and I will recognize it more readily next time a Redacted comes along. Here’s what Redacted had to say:

So you don’t like echo chambers but you have no television, only occasionally read headlines, and watch some youTube videos?

Then write stories here which are greeted almost universally by comments applauding what you’ve said.

Exactly what is an echo chamber other than what you’ve described?

It would have been an atrocious waste of time and energy to wrangle with him in the comments section of a post where very few readers would see it. So off Redacted went to the spam folder, where he probably belonged in the first place. He had his chance to contribute to the conversation, quite a few chances. However, contributing was apparently never his goal — instead, his aim was to detract from our posts and derail civil conversation. Cordial disagreements are a frequent occurrence here, we welcome them and don’t mind responding to thoughtful comments even when we find them challenging.

Vin is a writer by vocation; he writes well and quickly, and has a keen eye as an editor. I have only written intermittently as a hobby, it can take me days to assemble a post like the last two (see here, and here.) And I rely on Vin’s editorial eye before I publish anything here . . . he often has helpful suggestions.

While I can hope that readers might sense the amount of thought and research that go into our posts, perhaps it isn’t obvious what a labor of love writing can be. Redacted showed a particular disregard for our time and trouble, attempting to goad us into wasting even more on him and his sneering, petulant objections.

Allow me to dissect Redacted’s comment, and respond to it properly:

“So you don’t like echo chambers but you have no television, only occasionally read headlines, and watch some youTube videos?”

Redacted thinks I’d be better informed by watching CNN, or MSNBC, or FOX? Generally, I just can’t stand television. I get the vast majority of my news by READING. And I do a lot of that. Sure, I glance at headlines . . . he wants to imply that’s all I do? And yes, I do watch YouTube videos. More often to learn — and/or absorb other points of view — than for entertainment. I’ll watch (or just listen to) videos or periscopes, especially when I’m working with my hands as a way to pass the time.

Some of my favorite YouTube channels are: David Wood (of course), The Rubin Report, Timcast (Tim Pool), David Seaman, MEMRI TV, Greg Hunter — I also enjoy Paul Joseph Watson, Mark Dice, Rebel Media, and many others . . . but mostly, I read online.

Some of the sites I enjoy are, naturally, Breitbart News, The Daily Caller, New York Post, and True Pundit. Aside from Drudge Report, I like Freedom’s Phoenix, and just recently found a few newer sites: Whatfinger News, One America News Network, and Big League Politics, that all look promising. Also, Media Equalizer appears to be an interesting new project. Lastly, a special tip of the hat to The Last Refuge (AKA The Conservative Treehouse) — if you haven’t bookmarked that yet, go ahead — I’ll wait. 🙂

Yes, these are largely conservative sites, but they’re also a small sample consisting of favorites. It’s getting harder to find sites that even pretend to be non-biased, a pretense that has worn pretty thin these days.

Redacted continues:

“Then write stories here which are greeted almost universally by comments applauding what you’ve said.”

Sure, often we get applause and/or agreement. Sometimes thanks for taking the time to write. But: See what he did there? I write “stories.” Suggesting fiction, rather than presenting facts and/or carefully considered perspectives. He doesn’t bother to read the comment section, since it’s hardly all applause and agreement — most disagreements, however, are civil and heartfelt. We prefer to keep it that way. 😉

“Exactly what is an echo chamber other than what you’ve described?”

One could argue that we’re each stuck in the echo chamber inside our own skulls. That’s precisely WHY I feel it’s so important to sound out echoes from OTHER people’s heads. By listening to them, talking with them, trying to grasp how different the world must look through THEIR eyes. It’s the decent, and human, thing to do. It’s why I find myself in the odd position of being what I might have loathed as a much younger (and impressionable) person, surrounded by bleeding heart liberals. Conservatives are, oddly, much more liberal in terms of values than leftists today . . . and that’s becoming increasingly obvious with each new deranged pronouncement from the left, or desperate act of violence whether actual (James Hodgkinson) or symbolic (Kathy Griffin.)

Vin and I believe in free speech. Absolutely. A blog like this is much like a front porch gathering . . . it’s neither private, nor an open public forum. People are welcome to join in and engage with us, we’re glad to have their company here. However, abusive and ill-mannered intruders ought not to be allowed to spoil it for the hosts and other guests.

Redacted deserves the benefit of a doubt that he’s a human being, and not some sophisticated bot programmed to churn out antagonistic replies to conservative posts. He can go start his own blog and try to attract like-minded people. Or set up a soap box on the town square. He’s free to say whatever he wants, elsewhere. We feel no obligation to offer him soapbox space here, now that he’s made himself clear that he’s here to berate, to verbally attack us and others who choose to post comments.

What Redacted (and others like him) may not do, is misuse the comment section of this blog in an attempt to shut down civil conversation . . . hit-and-run leftism* is not welcome here. Thoughtful liberals are another story . . . there are at least a few out there that still cling to the “liberal” brand, though I suspect that number may be rapidly dwindling as the left goes further and further off its collective rocker. Thoughtful liberals — genuine, classical liberals — are indeed most welcome here. We’d love to see more of them. 🙂

*A tip of the hat here is due to Thomas Wictor, whose Twitter (fair warning) can be addictive. Although I’d already taken note of the hit-and-run pattern, he recently used the term “hit-and-run leftism.” It was perfect enough that I might well have come up with the phrase on my own; though I did see it there first . . . credit where it’s due. 😉 And another Wictor gem: “a leftist’s caricature of non-leftists” — precisely describes Redacted’s use of a misleading email address. It’s called ‘Projection.’