Casper keeps claiming that "right-of-center" bloggers are also among those who've launched demonic campaigns. And that's just more lies. Specifically, Casper is lying about E.D. Kain's ideological attacks of workplace harassment.Whatever ED Kain was calling himself by August of 2010, back in December 2009--when the "workplace harassment" incident between Dr. Douglas and Mr. Kain occurred, most folks--including ED Kain--considered him a right-of-center libertarian blogger. (No, he wasn't a conservative, not even then--though it was a good try for Donald to attempt to conflate "right-of-center" with "conservative," and pretend I ever claimed the latter--but he was a right of center blogger, nevertheless.)
And for the record: E.D. Kain long ago came out as a progressive. Despite this, W. James Casper, for over a year, has been spreading a disinformation campaign about how Kain's allegedly right-of-center. He's not, and he said so himself at the hardline progressive blog Balloon Juice: "Why I am Not a Conservative."
I blogged about E.D. Kain because he betrayed me and a number of other bloggers who he burned by pulling the plug on Neo-Constant without even so much as a thank you or acknowledgment of their contributions. Kain did that because he embarrassed himself by selling out the right to join up with the likes of communist Freddie deBoer. I didn't like it. I blogged about it. I make no apologies. That's life. And Erik Kain's a cowardly little prick and Andrew Sullivan wannabe. I don't like him.Yep, that's pretty much what I said:
"E.D."Erik" Kain is a pretty well known right of center libertarian writer and blogger. As best I understand it, Donald was mad at him because Mr Kain rethought his one-time neoconservative views, and pretty much killed off a blog he used to run called NeoConstant (See: New to the Blogroll: Neoconstant | All American Blogger, and How Did I End Up In the Middle of a Blog War? | All American Blogger) Donald repeatedly lashed out at him in response, and ED Kain did eventually reach out to someone at Donald's college, in the hope that that person could get Donald to back off. (Another take, by another right of center and former NeoConstant blogger: The Blog of Walker: Donald Douglas: give it a rest, mate)."---
"W. James Casper, who, folks will recall, endorsed racist attacks against me by The Pale Scot..."The Pale Scot made no racist attacks against Dr. Douglas. He said "Damn Don, howda a swarthy looking fellow like you end with a fine Scottish name Like Douglas? And a Donald to boot!? America is a wonderful place where we can all re-invent ourselves." And I didn't endorse (or even agree with) anything. I said I didn't believe the comment was racist.
---
What I said was, Donald barely mentions the folks who contacted LBCC anymore... And correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what Donald just said, too... I don't know his reason... Maybe it's because they took action against him, or maybe it's just because they're "no longer worth Don's time." But whatever the reason, aside these ridiculous whiny, weepy "I'm such a victim" diatribes, Donald barely mentions the folks who actually contacted LBCC, anymore... For whatever reason, Donald would rather lash out at me over this whole "workplace intimidation" thing, even though I never contacted anyone... I leave it to others to deduce why...Donald barely mentions any of the people who contacted LBCC, anymore...That's another malicious falsehood. There's only one person I've stopped mentioning, one of the asshats at Lawyers, Guns and Money, and that's because there's a legal arrangement in place that prevents me from making references to this asshole at the blog. As for the others, they haven't been worth my time, but it's not because their attacks have been effective, as racist W. James Casper claims.
---
...there is no moral equivalence between the left's campaign to get me fired and the right's response to whatever happened years ago to Jeff Goldstein.Here's the thing... I wasn't the one who brought up the comparison... Donald was, in the course of trying to claim some moral equivalence (or was it moral relativism) between his situation with David Hillman--who most certainly ALSO didn't make any death threats against any 2 year old child, Donald's, or anyone else's--and the Frisch/Goldstein situation. All I did was call Donald out for MAKING the bullshit hypocritical comparison in the first place, and say that I believe the rules are universal; If one believes it's wrong to contact someone's workplace about online issues and disagreements, it's wrong NO MATTER WHO THE PERPETRATOR(S) OR THE VICTIM MIGHT BE... No matter how despicable Frisch's postings and threats, it was wrong for the 300+ conservatives to contact her workplace. The place to report harassment and threats is with the police. Donald cannot have it both ways...
And I take exception to W. James Casper's sick moral relativism. In Casper's nihilist hate world, speaking my mind on my blog is tantamount to making death threats like those of Deb Frisch against Jeff Goldstein's 2 year-old child.
The rest of his post, fore and aft, is the same old specious ad hom, and not worthy of reply (or even the notice I've already afforded it, frankly.)
---
While folks like Donald Douglas seem eager to hide what those he disagrees with have to say by moderating his comment sections for content and limiting the number of verbatim quotes, citations, and links he uses when blogging, I want nothing more than to give folks every opportunity to read exactly what Dr. Douglas has to say, in all of it's contextual glory, and thus will quote and link to his exact words as often as I can...
Everyone please, go look at Donald Douglas, and particularly at the post(s) in question. Read everything he has to say. Weigh his arguments--as well as the arguments of those who disagree with him, of course--judge as fairly as your conscience allows you to, and come to your own conclusions.
I ask for nothing more.
And I ask for nothing less.
---
Further Reading:
6/19/09 - American Power: Conor Friedersdorf: Avoidance, Obfuscation, Prevarication
12/14/09 - American Power: E.D. Kain Alleges Defamation: True/Slant Blogger's Workplace Intimidation Attempts to Shut Down American Power!
12/15/09 - Donald Douglas stamps his feet in a(nother) petulant frenzy
12/17/09 - Donald Douglas/ War on E.D. Kain, Part 1
12/18/09 - Donald Douglas' War on E.D. Kain, Part 2
2/19/10 - American Power: Jeff Goldstein Knows a Thing or Two About Low-Life Leftist Scum
2/20/10 - Donald Douglas - An Ethical "Push-me, Pull-you"
Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - American Power: It's Come to This: Progressives Reduced to Racist Slurs Against American Power
9/22/10 - bjkeefe: Take the shovel away from Donald Douglas before we get accused of invading China
10/1/10 - bjkeefe: Recent Examples of Conservative Values
10/7/10 - The Devil's American Nihilist Henchmen: Don Pulls Up The Welcome Mat
10/10/10 - The Right to Hate: Donald Douglas is Gettin' Desperate
10/19/11 - Online Disagreements and The Offline World We Live In...
10/22/11 - In Reply: Robert P. Tuttle - Six Up, Six Down
10/28/11 - American Power: Continuing Lies by Cowardly Hate-Blogger W. James Casper in Left's Demonic Workplace Intimidation Campaign
![[photo]](http://rimstation.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/IMG_0501_2.220102653_std.JPG){kind=link}
16 comments:
According to the good doctor "[l]iars are demonic, IMHO". As this and your many other post on this general topic make evident to anyone with the ability to read, Don is clearly lying. It follows then that Dr. Donald Douglas has declared himself demonic, and just in time for Halloween. Bet you're scared of him now!
Damn Don, howda a swarthy looking fellow like you end with a fine Scottish name Like Douglas? And a Donald to boot!?
Does anyone else smell the faint vapors of "political correctness" in Donald's whine?
Now, am I the only one to think AssProf is making an huge mistake in trying to tackle Conor Freidersdorf?
So lemme see...I count at least five separate incidents where AssProf has so antagonized someone that the person has been forced to reach out to Eloy or whomever at LBCC.
Hm, if I had known I wasn't being original, I would have let loose the other nuke I have in my arsenal. :-)
Reppy, nice post you link at Walker's. Hadn't seen that before. He's obviously a commie, too. So Donald will surely not pay heed to him.
I was sitting in my office today, slogging through the 90-minute+ annual online HR policy refresher that the uni requires us all to complete, and a question occurred to me: Could the Donalde have been stupid enough to have posted any of his ad hom ranting from an LBCC ip address?
The thought occurred to me because AmPow in general would almost certainly violate a number of the terms of my school's conduct policy, but I don't know what policies public schools in CA have. I'm fairly sure that at my uni, even commenting from a university network would be a violation.
Regardless, I think it's silly to complain to LBCC about his online antics. Clearly he does more harm to the image of the causes that he supports than he does to those that he opposes. However, a government employee engaging in political and private commercial activity (he sells ad space on his blog) using public resources is generally considered misappropriation of public resources regardless of the contents of the speech. My uni also requires that we avoid behavior that would reflect poorly on the institution, but I have no idea whether LBCC has such a clause in their conduct policy.
To me it's always seemed like EDK, SEK, and Octo were just whining about Don being nasty and trying to stir up trouble in return. However, if there is a part of the story that's been left out, i.e. Don using public resources to launch his personal attacks and to promote his online business interests, that would alter my perspective somewhat.
Does anyone here know the back story?
Dr X
Could the Donalde have been stupid enough to have posted any of his ad hom ranting from an LBCC ip address?
This was"investigated" by LBCC and found not to be the case, by personal request.
Now, if you ask me, do I think he does, I do think that, and that LBCC blew smoke up both my ass and the ass of the Atty Gen'l of California (whom I also asked to investigate and who confirmed that he does not, but probably just based on asking the LBCC administration).
However, should it be proven later that he has, I now have evidence of a cover-up, and as we all know, the cover-up is always worse than the crime.
Why is Professor Douglas's race even relevant? Seems that comment saying it's amazing for a black man to have a Scottish name is indeed racist. Even defending a lowbrow attack like that, which is totally irrelevant to what Professor Douglas has to say, is in itself racist or racially-motivated. And ideologically, libertarians are not "right-of-center." They don't even fit on a left-right continuum of ideology. Looks like Professor Douglas was right about that. And that the attacks on him are indeed dishonest and unscrupulous.
"Why is Professor Douglas's race even relevant? "
Why is any demographic information about anyone relevant? Hell, why does anyone here on the internet even know what Dr. Douglas' racial (or ethnic, or religious, or... or...) makeup (or any of ours, for that matter) happens to be?
The answer, I think, is because we do judge the things our fellow human beings say and do based on their innate and chosen demographic categories. Some folks do so in a bad (bigoted, racist) way, but most of us, most of the time, do so more as a point of interest, and I don't think that is bad--and if I may suggest, neither do the people who we're judging, most of the time, which is why so many proudly announce "who they are," ethically, religiously, politically, and so on... They're in effect saying that there is something worthy of recognition in being italian, or black, or jewish, or a tea party conservative, and I don't believe it's bigoted of either them or us to say so or talk about it...
"Seems that comment saying it's amazing for a black man to have a Scottish name is indeed racist."
Can you explain why?
Do you think this Starburst commercial is also racist (or if you prefer, bigoted)?
"Even defending a lowbrow attack like that, which is totally irrelevant to what Professor Douglas has to say, is in itself racist or racially-motivated."
I didn't defend it. I simply disagreed with Dr. Douglas' assertion (and now yours, my anonymous friend) that it was "raaaaacist!!"
Racism isn't making mention of race. It's judging a group of people as being less... (less worthy, less intelligent, less attractive, less... well, less anything) based on their race. Saying it's unusual for a dark skinned person to have a celtic name--or for a chinese guy to play bagpipes--isn't racist or bigoted.
In fact, if ya ask me, it's a whole lot more bigoted to say that liberals (or conservatives) are un-American, gay folks are radical sinners, or muslims are extremists-- (a few of Dr. Douglas' favorite claims)--because in these latter cases you are judging a whole group of folks based on who they are...
"And ideologically, libertarians are not "right-of-center." They don't even fit on a left-right continuum of ideology."
There're a whole lot of political thinkers who disagree with you... ...though you are correct, it doesn't absolutely have to be so... ...though it most often is.
I guess it depends on what factors your political continuum is judging... (...and, while I expect this'll turn out to be a one-time "hit and run" comment from you, I hope you'll come on back to explain what your continuum looks like, as well as some of the other assertions you've made in your comment.) But if it is a question of government intervention into the economy (or public life, for that matter)--the most common attribute(s) on a left-right continuum--libertarians are on the same side of the scale as conservatives.
"And that the attacks on him are indeed dishonest and unscrupulous."
You've failed to even assert a single dishonest or unscrupulous thing I've said here, so I have to ask... How so? Can you perhaps provide an example or two?
While I don't actually expect any answers, I look forward to the possibility, just the same... ...and thanks for stopping by...
Carl
I've got to say that I'm with Reppy on this one. I can't see any argument in favor of contacting Don's employer about his online activities. Admittedly, a lot of the things that he does would violate the policies of my university, particularly if they were done using university resources, but it's really up to his employer to monitor his compliance with their policies, whatever those might be at a public juco. (Not at all sure that an institution like that would have a public image clause.)
My question regarding traces of postings from college IP addresses was prompted by my own policy refresher combined with my long puzzlement at how this had become such a big deal. Absent some pretty convincing evidence that his school was somehow a party to his online behavior, what possible reason could there be to involve them?
Dr X
Reppy
(sorry if this is a repost, not sure what happened to the first one)
I wouldn't be quite as hard on this anonymous fellow as you were. I think that for those who weren't around to witness the Pale Scott affair in real time, Don's out-of-context synopsis makes it appear almost plausible that what the Scott said was racist. In fact, as none of us (so far as I am aware) knows the Pale Scott, he could well be racist, even if there is little evidence for that in the remark in question.
Likewise, someone who has not read Don over the years might not be so familiar with just how frequently he references the race / sex / religion / sexual preferences / nationality etc of those he labels and condemns. Though, Don's bigotry is not license for others to direct bigotry towards him. It only provides one of many arguments that Don is, at best, a hypocrite when it comes to the condemnation of bigotry.
What I believe the anonymous commentator can be criticized for is his lack of understanding of the generally accepted definition of racism. Though, I have found that this is fairly common. Of course, people are free to use words in idiosyncratic ways, but they do need to recognize when they've done so and provide a usable definition.
So I would like to see the anonymous commentator explain what he means when he says a remark is racist and how that definition applies in the context of the Pale Scott's original comment and the reactions by Don, you and the rest of us. My guess would be that the anonymous comment comes from someone who has not read the original post and comments thread.
On a mostly unrelated note, I see that Don is again going to lengths to misconstrue some of my earlier comments, reinforcing his own self-condemnation as a "demonic" liar. He's going on to claim that we're hatching a conspiracy to affect his employment. I find it impossible to believe that his capacity for reading comprehension could be so impaired. Willful misrepresentation seems to be the only plausible explanation.
Dr X
"(sorry if this is a repost, not sure what happened to the first one)"
You got caught in the spam filter... (It happened to you at least once before (with your Nov. 2nd comment at this very thread, I think)... ...and I'm sorry to say I didn't catch it for a few days, the last time... (I think I found and released it on Saturday, 11/5).
I don't see anything "spammy" in either comment, but apparently Google's filter sees it differently... I'll try to pay more attention when you post (I get 'em via e-mail, even when they don't post.) and get your comments out... ...at least until you start trying to enlarge my penis, anyway...
"I wouldn't be quite as hard on this anonymous fellow as you were."
Other than holding him/her responsible for knowing what they were talking about as far as the Pale Scot comment was concerned--which you're right, s/he may not be aware of--I don't think I was hard on Anonymous at all... I simply asked him/her to explain why s/he believes what s/he believes... Hopefully, s/he'll come on back to clarify the earlier comments (though sadly, I expect not).
"... lack of understanding of the generally accepted definition of racism. Though, I have found that this is fairly common."
It is a fine line, sometimes, but there is a difference between taking notice of race or whatever and saying something racist or bigoted. And that's what I was trying to get at in my earlier comments...
Honestly, the only reason I know Donald is biracial is because HE posted about his makeup--in the context of coming down on black "thug" culture, if I remember correctly--justifying his right to do so as a black man.
And that's what I mean... Whether or not it should, it DOES make a difference if criticism of a particular subset of the population is coming from within or without. It makes a difference when it's a long term practicing Catholic talking about the pedophile priest scandal vs when it's someone of another faith, or of no faith. It matters when it's Karl Rove saying Herman Caine has no chance of winning the general election, vs when Rob Emmanuel says it. Whether it's innate characteristics like race or gender or characteristics one chooses (or can choose, anyway) like religion or political persuasion, looking at who a person is and where they come from does matter when judging the value of their opinions... And Donald knows that full well, which is why he mentions his biracial heritage when discussing matters involving race...
The idea of a colorblind society may at first sound like a great idea, but there is a whole lotta value in being proud to be all the various demographic categories that make you who you are, even if there is a little underlying "discrimination" in doing so. In fact, I believe it's essential, here in America.
E pluribus unum
We are many (and have been since our founding), and from that many, we become one. But we do not give up all we were in the process... The many affiliations we willingly (and perhaps even eagerly) divide ourselves into (different churches, different political parties, different ethnic, racial, gender-based ..., ... groups/organizations/???, and on and on...) is evidence of that...
We are one. But we are also many. And in my opinion, anyway, maintaining the delicate balance between the two is a big part of what it means to be an American.
"On a mostly unrelated note..."
Donald counts on the fact that a portion of his readers don't care enough to check whether he's telling the truth, and that another portion just blindly accepts whatever he says based on their shared political affiliation. (Which, by the way, is the REAL reason he refuses to quote or link to anything I say, or allows me to speak in my own voice on his blog.) There's little that can be done about these groups of folks, I guess, but it is kinda sad...
But for anyone who read your comment--yeah, even loyal AmPow readers, whether or not they're willing to say so publicly--it's obvious that Donald's repeatedly misleading characterizations of your comments are completely dishonest... ...and even Donald knows it, which again, is why he does everything possible to keep any of his readers from ever actually seeing it. (When it comes right down to it, Donald--like all bullies--is a coward.)
"And ideologically, libertarians are not "right-of-center." They don't even fit on a left-right continuum of ideology."
There're a whole lot of political thinkers who disagree with you... ...though you are correct, it doesn't absolutely have to be so... ...though it most often is.
True enough. I consider myself to be a libertarian in the truest sense of the word. A true libertarian doesn't believe in no government, a true libertarian believes in enough government for people to be able to compete on level footing.
That speaks to opportunity, not results, I should add, since its about how each of us can achieve, not will achieve. And it also implies, no, demands, that we give back because no one takes advantage of their opportunities alone
Absent some pretty convincing evidence that his school was somehow a party to his online behavior, what possible reason could there be to involve them?
The time stamps on his posts and comments. That's "probable cause" to make sure his employer is at least aware of his activities. While Reppy has pointed out that Blogger allows for pre-posting of blog posts, it does not allow for pre-posting of comments.
Since many of his comments are within the hours he's contracted to be working, I made the assumption he used university facilities. It's possible he posted on his spare time at the local Starbucks, or via some cellular dongle, but do either of you imagine him making that kind of effort or investing that kind of money?
Likewise, someone who has not read Don over the years might not be so familiar with just how frequently he references the race / sex / religion / sexual preferences / nationality etc of those he labels and condemns.
As in "Obama is a Halfrican."
To me, it makes no difference if AssProf is white, black, Latino, Asian, from Planet 9, 10 or Planet 69, he's an asshole, and THAT knows no colour or race.
Reppy, I see Don is still feeling the love for you and still spreading the same bullshit.
Post a Comment