It’s all good fun until someone points out the eyes.
- Share
Defender of political correctness, Tim Blair, has joined Andrew Bolt in denouncing The Age’s use of of an unflattering photo of Viscount Christopher Monckton on their website.
So lets make sure that all you Leftards out there get this straight. It is completely OK to mock someone because of their weight;,
The greater danger to two-faced, five-chinned Irfan’s life is his own diet.
because of their weight;
Thanks, Al. Have a pie.
or because they have bad teeth.
AIEEEEEEE! It’s alive! ….. Congressman Nosferatu.
That type of thing is harmless mocking, and if you argue about it then you’re just humourless.
But if you mock someone with a disease then you are a very bad person. Do you understand the difference? Because I want to make it perfectly clear to you I’ve assembled some visual aids about this topic.
This is piss funny.
This is completely inappropriate and debases a serious debate.
Do you all understand the important difference now? Making fun of the features someone has been burdened with someone suffering from a disease that he claims to have cured is no way to win the climate change debate, but making fun of your tubby opponents is just good fun.
The face of hypocrisy.
Do not make eye contact, lest he steals your immortal soul.
And remember how often timmy has had us all rolling in the aisles with his references to A MAN WITH FIVE CHINS
Spot on.
Bolt’s sanctimonious column on this subject last week was the Dutchman at his very best. Which is to say, his very worst.
The jibes were ugly, but defending the man’s whole daft ideology on the basis of some cherrypicked comments from those nasty communists (yes, communism was invoked), was a cheap sleight of hand.
Bolt regularly sticks up unflattering photos of academics and invites readers to make personal jibes against them. Yet he’s terribly, terribly, precious if anybody says anything “personal” against people he agrees with. What a nong.
Lee Harvey Oddworld, that is a cheap shot at someone’s disability.
Andy’s not slight of hand.
Au cointreau, he’s quite ham fisted.
Marty Feldman – what a legend..
Yep that other trollumnist not trollumnist number one is an utter hypocrite. To give Trollumnist number one his due, I’m sure I’ve read him admonishing his own for hanging shit on others appearance, I’ll cut him some slack in that regard, however he’s just using his outrage at the Age to divert attention from the issues.
Feldman also suffered from Graves disease, then again I think that’s rather evident from the picture.
Great post, Dave.
So, following your handy advice, it’d be within the rules to point out that Tim Blair is a {snip}, {snip}, {snip}, flatfooted squealer?
Fine, but I’d never stoop so low. {It might be within the rules, but we, like you, hold ourselves to a higher standard – Dave}
The similarity to this image is uncanny. Maybe its in his ancestry?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2536/3926399164_e0a85cbc85.jpg
I wonder if he still has his “gift”?
ahhhh faux outrage. When you are losing the debate and getting caught out telling porkies, faux outrage can be used to steer the debate back in your direction.
eg:
Q- When is Mnckton going to correct his online bio that states he has a Nobel prize?
A- EYES! Did you say EYES!!??? I have never been so insulted! It’s disgusting picking on a mans disability like that! … rant rant rant.
*Sigh*
You forget the photo of Jason Wilson and the sheep spittle in response to it.
And what Ben Tehan said.
I’ve just posted to Blair’s and Bolt’s blogsites with their relevant quotes. We’ll see if they get published, but I’m not holding my breath.
As an aside – can anyone tell me what it is that tim blair actually does that gets him paid? I understand andrew’s shtick – he writes columns, sometimes quite well. He turns up on chat shows and so on. But the only thing I’ve seen of tim blair’s (other than his blog) was a badly done thing in the bulletin called “the continuing crisis”. Honestly – is that IT? I’m astounded that anyone can earn an income on what he contributes.
But back to the point – I actually agree with andrew bolt that the comments on monckton’s appearance are stupid. It’s also completely unnecessary, when the guy gives a writer so much material to work with free of charge. He’s a dishonest showman with an established (and documented) history of fibbing – why not just stick with that?
Ignoring blair (because I actually do, so I have no idea what he’s written lately), andrew’s hypocrisy about this is noteworthy. He also has a history of attacking people he he doesn’t like on a personal level – and sometimes quite viciously. It’s not his usual routine, but he does go there.
The irony in his attack on response to carlton and the age is that it’s just more fodder for the click-machine – it profits andrew, not monckton. Most of his readers wouldn’t have even known about the mockery unless andrew had highlighted it, but was it really necessary to publish the image? I guess it is, if clicks to your blog help put shoes on your kids’ feet. Not much is off-limits – particularly if you can say it’s really your nasty opponent’s fault.
Meanwhile, here are some examples of the evil pornography that shouldn’t be allowed on the internet, just so you know what I’m talking about …. (just kidding).
Speaking of which, this is hilarious: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/28/australian_censors/
I also recall Clive Hamilton’s photo being plastered on at least one of their blogs and some fairly ordinary comments being posted in response. The irony is that the Far Right refuse to distance themselves from Monckton’s loony opinions and his over inflating of his CV and credentials – all they do is bleat about his appearance and how unfair it all is. Babies the lot of them.
Mike Carlton had a good wrap up of Monckton’s untruths – the list is pretty comprehensive. The question remains why anyone would associate themselves with this man much less defend him? And for those who claim to be interested in pursuing the truth wrt climate change and who call for an inquiry into the science, isn’t it about time you show Australians that you actually are interested in the truth by denouncing Monckton’s repeated deceptions instead of aligning with them?
Because when you fail to call out deception by anti AGW proponents you lose some of your credibility as someone who claims they just wants to report the truth.
Tim and Andrew are absolutely correct. It is a travesty that this poor self promoting, deceiving, pompus, fraudulant, pre-copernican obscurantist hereditary peer is mocked because of a side affect of the disease he suffers from.
This is why it is good that Pure Poison exists, to call out the Bolts and Blairs of this world on their intellectual dishonesty. It’s just a pity the rest of the media wont do it too, and seem to think they need to be represented in the name of balance.
There is a slightly similar thingy over at huffpo which has some nice Palin hypocrisy. Emmanuel vs Limbaugh and the r-word.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/07/palin-considering-2012-ru_n_452602.html
Is anyone surprised by anything Palin says anymore? I can only hope the Republicans are stupid enough to put her up in 2012 again, .
That is amazing Firstdog. Limbaugh a satirist? Give me a f$%$ing break.
Actually it’s even worse, because Limbaugh’s use of the term apparently was directed at a group of people organising a meeting of advocate for the mentally handicapped!
So not only should Palin have been calling for Limbaugh’s cancelation (or at the VERY least apology), she should damn well have been supporting the very group he was criticising.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/sunday-roundup_b_452243.html
Dewgong @ 19, methinks your faith in the intelligence of American voters is unwarranted.
If Sarah Palin runs in 2012, she’ll win.
The conservatives, via their reductive, anti-intellectual cheerleaders, have made folksy ignorance synonymous with sincerity.
More Palin hypocracy: criticise Obama for using a teleprompter, but write speech notes for yourself on your hand.
LHO @ 19
Part of me hopes that she does win in 2012…..
Her incompetence will relegate the Republican Party to the dustbin of history
Gezzem, only 18 months ago everyone was saying that about Bush. How incompetent do the Republican party need to be before people start rejecting them?
I suppose you are right there Dave, the American political machine is a different beast than ours. I mean look at the way Kerry was systematically taken down by the right wing attack machine. How Bush managed to get re-elected is beyond me!!
The Dems have to grow some kahuna’s and play hardball like the Republican’s do, or they have to be better at getting their message out – yelling and screaming at town hall meetings and wedge politics seems to work….
But Palin only excites the base, she couldn’t possibly win the presidency could she?
Dave @ 25 – vote-rigging and election fraud helps:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/rigvote.html
The famous case of the (I think it was) Ohio polling booth with 247 registered voters, which produced 756 votes; suprisingly, almost all of them for Dubya, kinda springs to mind.
I’d recommend Joe Bageant’s book “Deer Hunting with Jesus” if anyone wants a good insight into how the Republicans have so successfully managed to convince so many Americans to vote against their own interests.
Agree with the general principal that physical appearance should not be used as a barometer of how credible a person’s opinions are. If only it were applied as a general principle. It was, perhaps, an unnecessarily unflattering photo. Bad subeditor, bad!
Sky news reporting that she has confirmed (of sorts) she will run in 2012. If she does then she is highly likely to win the primaries. From there anything is possible in the current climate. This is actually an opportunity for sensible conservatives and sane Republicans to reclaim their party from the loons. To do that they need to tear Palin down – whether there’s anyone with the guts to do that however is debatable.
I wouldn’t put any money on that result were I you.
If Palin gets the Republican nomination then serious conservatives will simply stay home, and she will not pick up any swing voters.
Someone prematurely predicts the beginning of the end of the tea party movement with Palin’s trying to assume the role as its leader.
http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2010/02/07/the-begining-of-the-end-sarah-palin-hijacks-the-tea-party-movement/
I also hope Dave that serious conservatives would identify more with what Obama’s trying to do and vote for him. But you never know….
There are a few variables that make calling the next US Pres. election a bit of a gamble at this early stage. People are probably still quite pessimistic about their job prospects at the moment; so a gradual recovery over the next two years might mollify some of the disgruntled swingers. The continuing mess in the Republican camp is being thrown into sharp relief by Palin, who polarises like no other. The recent loss of Massachusetts by the Dems wasn’t a referendum on Obama, it was a referendum on the Democratic candidate. I would hazard a guess that things are going to look considerably different in 3 years time.
Confessions, I doubt that they’d vote for Obama, but if enough of them simply stay home then low turnout would be enough to damage Palin’s chances.
I doubt they would too.
How did this post get so far off topic??
Thanks guys for re-posting that shameful example of Blair work. And he even had the nerve to do it after coming back from his health scare looking a bit worse for wear.
I hope that Tim Lambert can cut through the bull dust with Monckton and keep arguments clear, concise and accurate.
Good point DBoP – we might move the US stuff over to today’s open thread OK folks?
Back on topic – this little gem of a comment from Bolt’s post re Friday’s debate between Monckton & Lambert:
Maybe there are some distinguishing features of Tim Lambert’s appearance that the Age or SMH would like to enlighten us about so that we skeptics might use to try to denigrate his arguments. (sarc.)(as if we would lower ourselves down to their level.)
- Adiboy
Are these people for real?
As a side note, work permitting, I’ll be attending. I’ll be interested to see exactly what tricks Monckton will pull out to counter the fact that he’s going to cop an intellectual arse whuppin’. I’m sure Tim could also use a little crowd support. He’s bound to be a sole lion in a den of rabid Daniels.
Have you seen the video of Monckton Bolt links to in the update?
- lame political correctness joke
- lame politicians should be washed away in a flood joke
- lame attempt to compare climate change concern with malaria deaths after banning DDT
- admission that the Earth is warming…
Jeremy it was also interesting that that little highlights video contained very little of the “science” to disprove man made global warning and seemed more about cheap shots at Al Gore and IPCC with a few dodgy graphs including one of Bolts favs on arctic sea ice extent. I also listend to part of the audio from the Brisbane debate and it appears the point Monckup is making about GW not being as great as claimed is based in his own 2007 letter to the American Physical Society. The one found to contain at least 98 errors.
Mockton pwned an Media Watch……..brilliant
Sorry, on Media Watch
Gezzam, correct. The host gave ‘Lord’ Monckton a real swipe, but it was the compliant media that got the biggest serve (Alan Jones in particular) in my opinion.
Of course – and this is ironic, given how M.W. demonstrated clearly that Monckton, Plimer et al are given PLENTY of air time and free publicity – those ‘skeptics’ (let’s not call them ‘denialists’, no, no …) will still manage to twist this as evidence of left-wing bias by the ABC. Groan.
Young Australians putting the more aged to shame with the questions posed to our PM on Q+A…
Unfortunately a few also demonstrating some indoctrination from their right whinging parents too…you get that.
Generally, I think this group of kids (and generally, too) are far sharper, in touch, with world affairs than my generation was at the same age.
I had a wide-ranging political conversation with my 20 year-old son on the weekend. He more than held his own, and I consider myself reasonably well-read.
I’m optimistic about the future of our nation, and the world, when I think these kids will be in charge.
supercededman @ 47: Australian’s in general I have found are well aware of what is happening around the world and with most current affairs. Of course there are exceptions to the rules but I feel our news outlets coverage of “world news” is better than elsewhere. Watch a replay of US News and the “World News” section generally consists of items that directly affect the USA.
On this one, I agree with you. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as they say. The fact is, Monckton has funny-looking eyes and is a controversial figure. The two things fit together in satire like peaches and cream…