Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Arguing and Silencing the opposition: two different things

Janet Albrechsten has written a good piece attacking the call from who must be the most non-democratic blogger in the world, Guy Rundle of Crikey.

My comment on the piece is repeated here:

I'm prepared to stand up an be counted as a conservative and I fully support what Janet has said. So what if the tone was harsh. Her job is on the line. I'd prefer she fight back rather than than whine like an actor in an ALP election advert.

Might I remind the other commentators here that arguing against another's opinion, say by describing left-wing opinions (correctly) as 'anti-american', and asking for opposing opinions to be silenced are two completely different things. Janet does one. The left does the other. Arguing against you is an invitation for you to try to justify yourselves. You cannot, or at least not very well, so instead of argue back you demand that the argument be ended my herd intimidation of the media.

The gloating of the cultural left will be short-lived when they realise that Rudd is just a populist. He will not be implementing your agenda if he wants to stay in power.

I lived in Britain under New Labour. I know all I have to do is sit back and wait for you all to turn on Rudd.

Soon you will wish you had Howard back so you could fantasize that conservatives were what was wrong with the world.

This is going to be a right laugh.