ATW makes the Guardian (again)

I got some mild criticism for linking to A Tangled Web yesterday. But we aren’t the only ones to have a taste for the wild side of Unionist opinion. For the second time in a week they make page two of the print version of the Guardian.

  • Pete Baker

    Today’s Guardian Mick?

    You must have a different version than the one I’m looking at..

  • EWI

    But we aren’t the only ones to have a taste for the wild side of Unionist opinion.

    Is this what constitutes a defence these days?

  • Mick Fealty

    Pete, it’s in the Today on the web section with a post on Moussaoui.

    EWI, check out post 25 on the thread above.

  • Pete Baker

    Sure about that, Mick?

    I have moltbe, evenlittlesparrows, sovietinthecity, mbanks, yin, and slate in my copy. No atw.

  • Jo

    Why do the Guardian and the BBC give, respectively, print space and airtime to such people when both are routinely abused and their personnel insulted?.

    The most appropriate space to be provided in response to incitement to racial hatred is cell space.

  • Censor Vance now! Behead him if neccessary – it’s the only language these people understand. Why can’t we have a tolerant, diverse blogosphere, where only reasonable minded liberals speak solely to, erm, other reasonable minded liberals? Defend free speech: ban different opinions! Blah, blah, blah.

  • Mick Fealty

    It’s all Moussaoui in mine – 9 blogs in all.

  • Pete Baker

    Yes, Mick.. all Moussaoui.. but my copy only has 6 blog extracts – see previous comment.

  • Young Fogey

    There seems to be a lack of understanding of this wee free speech thing about here…

  • joinedupthinking

    “Why do the Guardian and the BBC give, respectively, print space and airtime to such people when both are routinely abused and their personnel insulted?.”

    It is for that very reason they provide a platform.
    The routine abuse is a tactic that has proven productive.
    DV has learnt from experience that if he complains long enough about bias and no space for right wing views in certain sections of the mainstream media, they will make room for him every so often.
    He is exploiting the PC tendencies of the likes of the BBC and the Guardian.
    He has even been as open about it as claiming “if only I were given a chance I would tear so-and-so apart in debate”.
    The over the top views and claims of bias etc. are essentially attention seeking devices for someone who lusts after a media profile and perhaps even a regular column, radio or television slot.
    It’s a sort of “why not me?” syndrome
    Good luck to him.
    It sure ain’t pretty to watch but it takes all sorts to make a world.

  • Jo

    In providing airtime and space they are implicitly accepting the views of extreme racial prejudice and hatred which are either promulgated or accepted. That to me is unacceptable.

    It is akin to providing pornography to a compulsive masturbator (an apt image, I hope some will agree)

    Sooner or later the encouragement of this type of exploitative “free speech” provides enough comfort and networking confidence to the extremes so that they think they can and should do more than simply type words and press the Enter button.

  • Shore Road Resident

    I disagree. The Guardian and the BBC deliberately pick their right wingers from the political fringes while completely and consciously ignoring, for example, the tens of millions of ordinary people who voted for Margaret Thatcher.
    Far from balancing the media’s soft-left consensus, pundits like DV simply enable the luvvies to indulge their own prejudices and flatter their own ‘tolerance’.

    ‘Normal people’ holding views even slightly similar to DV’s are quite literally banned from the airwaves. Several who have gotten through and made comments on gay marriage or even, god save us, the Welsh, have actually been investigated by the police.

    Do the right a favour David. Expose your own cynical exploitation – by shutting up for a bit.

  • Shore Road Resident

    PS: I disagree with ‘Joinedupthinking’, that is.
    Jo’s post above is just bonkers – every bit as intolerant than anything I’ve read on ATW.

  • The important thing is, we all agree with Jo’s post. Vance hurts her feelings, so his fingers should be chopped off. One by one, live, on Newsnight Review.

  • Shore Road Resident

    Jo offends me.
    What happens now?

  • I DEMAND that I, from this point on, only now hear or read opinions Jo agrees with. Peace, Freedom, and Justice depend upon it.

  • Garibaldy

    SRR,

    The investigation into Anne Robinson was a joke. But surely if incitement to hatred legislation had been applied here more rigorously against those whipping up sectarian hatred on both sides, then things mightn’t have been as bad, and may well have ended sooner.

  • Ain’t dat dey truth, Gar! Why if only, thirty years ago, we had had brought into law hate-speech codes worthy of a middle ranking American university campus circa 1997 ,then who could even imagine eg a Provo planting a bomb? The idea is unthinkable. And ought – see Jo passim – to be unsayable too.

  • Jo

    Karl, if I thought shutting you or anyone up would save a life, I’d shut you or them up.
    Try me.

  • Shore Road Resident

    Prepare to be spanked with a rolled-up copy of The Guardian, Karl.
    Personally, I prefer to be spanked with the Daily Telegraph.

  • Try me, my little censoring posterlette (and quick, because if you don’t shut me up soon, Vance WILL kill again . . .).

  • Garibaldy

    So Karl, decades of sectarian rhetoric by politicians on both sides had no impact whatsoever in creating and fostering a climate where it was respectable within certain communities to engage in sectarian violence. No, sure it was all a bunch of psychopaths with no connections to the wider political culture of the place.

  • Shore Road Resident

    Note: Garibaldy. If the law as it stood had been applied here more rigorously against bigots of all stripes then things would have been very different.
    Thought Police are no solution to anything – as you’d imagine the left would agree. Unless it’s their Thought Police, of course.

  • The Telegraph? Good God no: far too racy, what with the photographs on the front. I’m still reading the Morning Post. I predict that young fellah Deedes will go far.

  • Garibaldy

    SRR,

    my point exactly

  • Karl Rove

    Balders – I enjoyed your carefully nuanced usage of ‘certain communities’, helpfully hinting that two, at the very least, were tangoing. Speaking for myself, and ‘my community’: we never murdered anyone.

    All murderers belong to one community: criminals. And since they were evidently willing to break the law on that point (you know, what with murder being pretty illegal), you’ll forgive me for lacking your faith that a ‘Do NOT use naughty words, please [See Jo passim for what those naughty words are]’ law would have stopped them from killing people.

    But Godspeed in getting a law passed banning Vance. One more word from him and civilisation as Peter Hain, the APNI and the Wimmin’s Coalition know it may well come to an end.

  • Jo

    Posterlette?

    Oh why do the Right have such an inventive vocabulary?

    You leave me virtually incoherent and speechless, hardly able to string a series of words together…just how you like your women, eh, Mr Rove? 😉

    So, is Free Speech an Absolute Value, or Contingent? DO take your time, I know you’re not as young as you once were, *smiles sweetly*

  • Garibaldy

    Karl,

    I have no interest in getting Vance banned. I do have an interest in ensuring that incitement to hatred be punished. As for the point of breaking the law, well there was a legitimising rhetoric that gave huge numbers of people who statistically would never have engaged in murder otherwise a sense that what they were doing was approved of by others, and thus was regarded by the people they sought approval from as not murder. How did they get that impression? How, to take an extreme example, did people in the mid-C20th get the idea that Jews were responsible for all their problems?

  • jone

    One reason the Beeb like having Vance on is that its actually pretty difficult to find people in NI who can articulate a coherent (not to say entertaining) anti-statist position.

    Basically none of the parties here believe the state should be spending less – they want the state to spend more but only on their own community. That can make for some pretty dull discussion. Vance is rarely dull.

  • Jo –

    Naturally I like my women in the kitchen. Free speech is, patently obviously, not an absolute – and being the good authoritarian that I am, I’m more than willing to defend restrictions on it. Your problem, it would seem, is that you want to pretend to yourself that you favour hippy-dippy pluralism and tolerance, when, in fact, subject you to an opinion that you don’t like, and you call for it to be banned!

    G-ster –

    See above for my attitude to banning things. All for it – no one should have the freedom to falsely cry ‘fire!’ in a crowded venue, etc, etc. BUT, the restrictions you seem to wish had been in place years ago simply would not have achieved the ends you hope of them.

    Telling Gerry Adams, or his parents come to that, that were not to use sectarian language, in public, in relation to ‘Brits’, ‘Prods’, ‘Turks’, ‘Jaffas’, or whatever, would not, I suggest, have stopped him from growing up to be an advocate of ‘political’ murder.

    And as far as the Nazi’s industrial slaughter of European Jewry is concerned, for pity’s sake the very heart of the matter is that so few people were involved. Even in the Thid Reich, even after a decade of anti-Jewish legisaltion, the holocaust had to be carried out in secret, and denied in public. Much like Adams being a Bad Egg, the failure here was not preventive but reactive. Once the Nazis wee identified as what they were, and once Adams was identified as what he is, both should have been dealt with in the same manner.

    In short, don’t be scared of words: but do respond to actions.

  • BogExile

    ‘Oh why do the Right have such an inventive vocabulary?’

    Because we are tempramentally unable to eat large indigestible chunks of excluding cut and paste agit-prop masquerading as liberal opinion.

    Do I get a free bun?

  • Jo

    Karl, its not just that I don’t like it.

    Its that it feeds into actions which I dont think you or I would like.

    See? We do have something in common, although I do use my own name.

  • Couldn’t agree more with Jone btw – the stagnant, statist uniformity of this wee place’s political class makes me want to vomit. Thank our bearded Christian God in heaven that, albeit nowhere near soon enough, their salaries are going to be cut off when Stormont is shut down. What a pity that the quangohogs of the Wimmin’s coalition et al aren’t likewise set to be ripped away from the teat.

  • Garibaldy

    Karl,

    Couldn’t agree more on the quangos, though the extent to which the German population knew about and supported the holocaust is a much more open question. I’d say banning the use of derogatory words for black people at places like football grounds has helped reduce racism, and racist violence, but incitenment to hatred legislation is not a panacea, but it can have a part to play

  • BogExile

    KR:

    You aren’t surely suggesting that a time might really come when our over promoted parish councillors will be ripped away from their expense claims? We’re talking realtime or Haintime (12th of never/my deputy leadership bid whichever is the soonest)

    This is wholly inconsistent with the GFA. Redundant ‘politicians’ should be decomissioned with care as they might still be unstable.

    We will also need to spend about £30 milion on a retraining scheme to ensure that these blighted slush funders do something useful. The PSNI is short a few cannon fodder at interface areas this 12th. What about it. Imagine a portable screen of impenetrable SDLP MLA’s at Ardoyne shops? An insurmoutably dull rampart of DUP arses at Drumcree? (direction of arse subject to risk assessment)

    It all makes sense.

    Oh, and on an unrelated note, I still love her.

  • Jo – how on earth do I know who you are? ‘Jo’, sweetcakes, is not much to go on. Maybe it would be if like ‘Madonna’, [t.a.f.k.a.] ‘Prince’, or, ‘Jeffrey’, you had achieved worldwide uni-named fame and renown. But not yet, not yet.

    Anyway, I am glad that there are things we can agree upon; and still more that you are sweet and foolish enough to attribute good motives to me (it must be the Libran in you: I’ve always been good with them).

    Look, people shouldn’t be allowed to advocate political murder and expect not to be locked up: that’s my, entirely practical and, pace Garibaldi, empirical conclusion about this place. As for ‘sectarianism’ – snobbishly I disapprove of it, but am loath to see (mere advocacy of) it criminalised. Since, unlike political murder, which is a perfectly straightforward and immediately dangerous subject, alleged ‘sectarianism’ is utterly subjective, lingusitically and morally. Thus, in another context, an Iman urging on Tube bombers should be locked up in the Rovian scheme of things; whereas, an Iman who says Christians are losers, nerds and jerks, and that it would be waaay cool if we had a Caliphate in Western Europe should not.

    I more or less do hope this is helpful, and after a fashion apologise for earlier sarcasm.

  • Boggy – 16 years of pain, and it still hurts, but back to business –

    Norn Iron’s numpty politicos have ramped up so much by way of pay, expenses, employed family members and other backhanders from The Man that, why, they must be rich enough for even David Cameron. So come, join the all new, all liberal Tory party! Soon-to-be-ex MLA, with your love of committees, right-on BBC approved opinions, and devotion to raking money off the state, Dave’s the man for you. Come on in, the water’s slightly yellow. Let’s all meet up in Cheyne Walk . . .

  • Jo

    Karl, in a nice wishy washy liberal way, I agree with you and thank you for reading my profile. 🙂

    Mr Exile, you should get over that thing you have for Maggie. I know shes available again now, but really….

  • joinedupthinking

    Shore Road Resident
    “… The Guardian and the BBC deliberately pick their right wingers from the political fringes.”

    Yes. When I consider your point you’re right.
    It allows them to evade the bias charge by being seen to give some room to right-wingers, but by carefully selecting them from the lunatic fringe they allow the Adolf to do more damage to the right of centre argument than a hundred well-meaning editorials could ever hope to.

    I am struck as I write by the lasting damage decades of Paisley has done to the wider perceptions of unionism and the Protestant population. I blame that on no one, incidentally, except the man himself.

  • Just in case anyone had forgotten, here’s Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

    “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”

    Presumably this also applies to blogs?

    It’s also interesting to note that whilst Mick (and others) take unfair criticism for linking into ATW , another blog which appears on Slugger’s links and which advocates the forceful repatriation of NI Unionists raises not a chirp of protest.

    Not trying to imply double standards or anything…

  • “The wild side of Unionism”? Is that what it means on Slugger to consistently oppose terrorists in Government? Is that what it means to resolutely oppose the UVF and UDA, and their proxies? Is that what it means to insist that the tenets of democracy must remain untainted by the toxicity of paramilitarism. If so, perhaps one could respond that Slugger is from the “mild side of republicanism”?

    As for the collective mewlings of drippy lefties elsewhere on this thread – am I bovvered?

    I do note that when I link to Slugger on ATW, comments tend to stick on topic rather attack the character and views of Mr Slugger or whoever has originated the discussion. Could that be that those of us on the right are…gasp…grown-ups, whilst left wing/Republican opinion is mired in the juvenality of those who imagine they are “say it as I see it types”….when in fact they cannot even see their own massive prejudice?

  • David Michael

    That’s the problem with this freedom of speech thing. Everybody thinks his opinion is as valid as the next man’s.

    Well, not quite. The taxi-driver who drove me home this evening had a very definite set of opinions, and dare I say a most colourful way of expressing them.

    But it doesn’t follow that his opinion has a right to be aired on national TV, radio, or reported in the press or on the net, next to the considered opinions of a more informed and less prejudiced observer.

    Same goes for ATW.

  • “But it doesn’t follow that his opinion has a right to be aired on national TV, radio, or reported in the press or on the net, next to the considered opinions of a more informed and less prejudiced observer.”

    Interesting comment David.

    Who makes that decision about whose opinion is “more informed and less prejudiced”?

    Do we simply follow the consensus and ban everything that the majority dislikes or do we leave it up to the individual viewer, listener or reader to employ their own self-censorship if something offends them?

  • David Michael

    Paul

    Who said anything about banning?

  • Jo

    It isn’t a matter of personal like and dislike –
    its a reasonable (Clapham omnibus woman) interpretation of what the consequences are likely to be: to act and speak so as to increase racial religious intolerance can reasonably be seen as inciting or leading to acts of racial/religious hatred.

    At the very least that is immoral and it is certainly unChristian (it isn’t hard to find words and phrases on certain sites that one could never, ever imagine being uttered by Jesus Christ.)

    I am prejudiced, yes, prejudiced against those who would seek to increase racial disharmony, incite racial hatred and who want more platforms from which they would preach that message. I will never apologise for that prejudice.

  • David

    “Who said anything about banning?”

    How would you define denying someone “the right to be aired” (especially on the net)?

  • joinedupthinking

    “…am I bovvered.”

    Yes Davey boy, or you wouldn’t have bovvered mentioning it.

  • You mistake comment for concern, AND the name is David. I refer not to cower behind the veil of anonymity

  • joinedupthinking

    Davey boy

    You would never “cower behind a veil of anonymity” because you refer (sic), or crave more like, the attention for all of the reasons I explained in an earlier post.
    Nighty, night,

  • David Michael

    Paul

    “How would you define denying someone “the right to be aired” (especially on the net)?”

    Simply. My taxi-driver has every right to be broadcast on prime-time TV, or even in place of Paul O’Grady.

    But thankfully Mr O’Grady (and Buster) will be aired and not my taxi-driver. He’ll be denied, and rightly so. He can put up a website if he wants but wtf would visit it, besides his mum?

    So you see, we all have rights but not all have opportunity.

    That help you out?

  • Comrade Stalin

    Censorship certainly is not the solution, I think the best thing for reasonable people to do with nutcase sites such as ATW is ignore them.

    Vance doesn’t cower behind the veil of anonymity, which is useful because he is the most shallow of any of the contributors here (republican or unionist), if you corner him on any of his so-called principles and he runs away and dodges the question. This is particularly if the debate is about gay marriage, or who really is a freedom fighter rather than a terrorist. Try it and you’ll see.

  • Such eloquence from poor old Comrade Stalin! (I could point out that someone who calls himself after the biggest mass murderer of the 2oth Century probably wants to be a tad cautious when throwing around terms like “nutcase” but hey, we’re all liberals these dasy..)

    Happily, ATW’s traffic grows all the time. Perhaps that’s because there are many people who CAN distinguish between bloody minded terrorist scum like say the IRA and UVF, and those who fight for freedom like the Coalition forces in Iraq. Moral relativists never get that.

  • David Michael

    Comrade

    You forgot the part about bloggers like Vance bleating about their right to free speech. It pisses me off no end that such nasties will invariably use that right to rouse the rabble, and will inevitably wish to silence all dissent.

    If Vance ever got the sort of state he wants, the first thing the state authorities would do is silence him. Then they’d kill him.

    Intolerance can’t be tolerated. And that’s no paradox.

  • David,

    Your ignorance of my political views is staggering. For a start, I favour a minimal State and maximum personal liberty. You would look less foolish if you read what I said before blathering about it.

    Perhaps you were thinking about the sort of state that Sinn Fein/IRA seek?

  • One could almost be forgiven for thinking that some sections of the community in Northern Ireland only see the right of freedom of speech or freedom of expression if that speech or expression is in support of SF/IRA!

    There are a few matters I would disagree with DV on, there are a few I would agree with him on. He has the right to talk about and express both.

    Those who seek to see his viewpoint silenced are the enemies of freedom.

  • Garibaldy

    David Vance says that he can distinguish between terrorists and freedom fighters. I was wondering how he, or any other right-wing commentators here such as Karl Rove, viewed people like Osama bin Laden during the Afghan war against the secular government. After all, bin Laden’s aims have not changed, but most right-wingers supported the islamists against the Communist, government, which allowed more freedom to, for example, women. So, were the islamists freedom fighters in the 1980s? Did the fact they islamist ideology does not threaten capitalism determine the key factor in who was a freedom fighter, in the right-wing view at that time? How can we be assured the US neo-cons and their European equivalents won’t slide into such thinking again?

  • foreign correspondent

    ´´those who fight for freedom like the Coalition forces in Iraq´´
    What a joke. Anyone who believes that is every bit as misguided as the paramilitaries were.
    That´s not moral relativism, that´s just the way it is.

  • David Michael

    David Vance

    “Perhaps you were thinking about the sort of state that Sinn Fein/IRA seek?”

    A united Ireland?

    David, the difference between us is that you are an absolutist. It’s goodies v baddies with you. Four legs good, two legs bad.

    This is the thinking of infants. On your site I read nothing positive about the people your refer to as Sinn Fein/IRA. Surely this cannot reflect reality. We are all of us part devil, part angel. Unless you can come to terms with this, and are able to see good in your “enemy”, then I’m afraid our positions cannot ever be reconciled.

    I might as well try to reason with an infant.

  • Shuggie McSporran

    David Vance

    What if a Coalition soldier, home on leave, met an IRA man and fell in love?

    Would that make the Coalition soldier a bad person?

  • David Michael

    LOL, tough call, Shuggie! Wish I’D thought of that one.

    Reminds me of the definition of “mixed emotions”:

    Watching your mother-in-law reverse your brand-new Porsche off a cliff.

  • Snuff Box

    Lay off all the Vance bashing eveyone. David Vance is a proud and dignified Unionist. He refuses to be cowed into submission by sf/ira terrorist sympathisers or dance to the tune of the surrender monkeys in the bearded lefty brigade. He is a beacon in many a Loyalist bloggers sad and lonely life………..

    Oh who am I kidding I’ve been searching for a picture of Vance to put in the Comedy Unionist section of my picture album on my homepage. Can anyone help? Current members are Rhonda Paisley, Sammy Wilson, Bob McCartney and ofcourse Paul Berry. He (Vance) also may make it into my comedy Lunatic Political Fringe Gallery which contains Tom French, Jean Marie Le Pen, Robert Kilroy Silk and Alliance party’s own IJP. I have left a question mark to sybolise Marin Ingram in the gallery because I’ve heard that through years of exposure to intrigue and mystery that he has actually started to turn into one.

  • David Michael,

    Sorry for the late reply.

    ““How would you define denying someone “the right to be aired” (especially on the net)?”

    “Simply. My taxi-driver has every right to be broadcast on prime-time TV, or even in place of Paul O’Grady.

    But thankfully Mr O’Grady (and Buster) will be aired and not my taxi-driver. He’ll be denied, and rightly so. He can put up a website if he wants but wtf would visit it, besides his mum?
    So you see, we all have rights but not all have opportunity.

    That help you out?””

    Excuse my thickness, but not really.

    Your taxi-driver has the right to be broadcast on TV. He won’t be because it may upset the advertisers (if it’s a commercial channel) or it may upset the delicate political/ PC balance(if it’s a state broadcaster). In both cases the channel will be looking at the probable viewers’ reaction and making the commercial decision that it’s just not worth the hassle.

    As you say, he then sets up the website. If his opinions are interesting, provocative are just plain batty enough, they may well reach the attention of someone like Mick at Slugger. Mick( not having to worry about advertisers etc) decides that they are worthy of being delivered to a wider audience. That audience will read them and decide for themselves whether to visit his site. To my way of thinking that is how the concept of freedom of speech should be employed on a site like Slugger.

    But when you said this

    “it doesn’t follow that his opinion has a right to be aired on national TV, radio, or reported in the press or on the net, next to the considered opinions of a more informed and less prejudiced observer”

    you appear to be arguing that Mick is wrong in exposing the wider audience to an opinion which would not fall into your approved category.

    So a simple question and this is for everybody, should we have David Vance‘s opinion and point of view reported on here, if Mick believes that it is worth reporting?

  • joinedupthinking

    Yes

  • Stephen Copeland

    Snuff box,

    I’ve been searching for a picture of Vance …

    This is my favourite picture of David Vance.

  • missfitz

    Stephen
    If thats David Vance, he can say anything he wants…… In fact, there’s a spare spot in the old feather bed……. and he wouldnt get kicked out for snoring

  • “On your site I read nothing positive about the people your refer to as Sinn Fein/IRA. Surely this cannot reflect reality. We are all of us part devil, part angel. Unless you can come to terms with this, and are able to see good in your “enemy”, then I’m afraid our positions cannot ever be reconciled”

    Yea why doesn’t ATW have a thread about Hitler’s angelic side? A bit of balance would surely be lauded. …oh and while he’s at it where are the threads on ATW about the positive side of the UVF, the wee dears?

  • Missfitz,

    I’ve put a few pounds on since then….lol!

  • David Michael

    Paul

    “Your taxi-driver has the right to be broadcast on TV. He won’t be because … ”

    Because there ain’t time. This is what I meant by opportunity. If the TV gave airtime to everybody with an opinion we’d get ranting heads well into the next century and nothing else. So aside from the nepotistic choices [insert bete noir talentless mediocrity here] the channels have to be discerning, as you point out. This does not affect the principle of free speech – or shouldn’t.

    “you appear to be arguing that Mick is wrong in exposing the wider audience to an opinion which would not fall into your approved category.”

    It’s Mick’s site therefore Mick’s call. If he wants to give Mr Vance’s poison more opportunity then so be it. But here’s the thing, and it applies to everything that you or I do not like/disapprove of:

    * You don’t have to read it if you don’t want to. *

    Before Mick linked to it I’d never heard of ATW. Now I’ve visited it, and found that nothing at ATW adds to the sum total of human thought. I therefore won’t be visiting it again.

    “So a simple question and this is for everybody, should we have David Vance‘s opinion and point of view reported on here, if Mick believes that it is worth reporting?”

    Sure. But I’ve flagged ATW so I for one won’t be reading it.

  • Lafcadio

    Actually, I googled “David Vance” after all the fisticuffs broke out about the ATW link, because apart from knowing him as one half of the overblown pantomime villain act with A McC, I’d never really heard of him before – anyway, try it!!

    a sample from page one of the search:

    http://www.ohlalaparis.com/ohlalaparis/2006/03/timeless_david_.html

    sorry it just cracked me up! (and maybe the accusations of homophobia have been too hasty?!)

  • Mick Fealty

    Chill out guys. This is a blog, not American Scientist or Nature. You do the peer analysis. I’ve explained why I linked it. That people don’t like a straight forward Ulster Protestant view says more about their blind spots and Mr Vance’s.

  • missfitz

    I’m lost.

    Is the David Vance on ATW the same one that is linked above? I dont think so, but getting more confused by the minute.

    But, thank you lafcadio for the link to the very gorgeous and hunky male pictures. One of the most pleasant slugging moments I’ve had for a long time.

  • Lafcadio

    I don’t know, is it the same David Vance??

    I think we should be told

  • joinedupthinking

    Believe me, it’s not.

  • David Michael

    If so, he can clear up a mystery for me. Is the guy on the left missing his willy? Or has he clamped it twixt his thighs? Ouch!

  • Jo

    “a straight forward Ulster Protestant view ”

    Mick, the views on ATW do not qualify as the above and thats precisely the basis of the objections to those views raised here by myself and others. Surely to God you’ve seen that? Manys an Ulster Protestant would be horrified at your assertion.

    Perhaps you should meet more Ulster Protestants that don’t happen to have a blog called ATW.

  • Mick,

    See what you’ve started. Even when you are a straightforward “Ulster Prod”, flitting moonbats say you’re not! Maybe if I joined the ROP respect would be offered… 😉

    Now, where did I leave my copy of those 39 Articles of faith..

  • Mick Fealty

    Jo,

    I know plenty.

    I’ve not said David is representative. And even he will tell you we don’t link his site that often. But I’ve yet to hear any of his critics tell me what precisely was wrong with the link other than they don’t like the person who runs the blog. That’s an ad hominem argument. As Brendan O’Neill notes on today’s Guardian site:

    Too many liberals and progressives are picky when it comes to freedom of speech, defending it for some people but not for others.

  • Jo

    I will not defend those who promulgate hatred and there are clear restrictions to freedom of speech which are admitted and agreed by the Right, not just by “liberals”.

    Its not being “picky”. But enough, already.

  • Brendan is very good, Mick. I enjoy reading him.

    Like you and ATW, we don’t link to Slugger that often but when we do, the point is to discuss the TOPIC – not whether Mick Fealty is good, bad, mad or otherwise.

    In peace.

  • David Michael

    Mick, I thought I’d been clear on this, but here goes.

    Right-wingers and their sites are ten a penny. Almost to a man, they subscribe to a certain list, or suite, of prejudices. This nearly always includes homophobia and sectarianism of one hue or another.

    I didn’t know that ATW included homophobia until somebody here pointed this out. I’m assuming then that the full right-wing suite of hates is present.

    No? Well, sorry, but life is too short to dig in there to find out. I repeat: such blogs are ten a penny.

    Not so Slugger. Yours is wonderful, with a broad gamma of opinions that generally speaking are far from being absolutist.

    That’s why I settled here and hope to stick around.