Here’s a good one: some idiot fellow actually started an anti-La Shawn Barber blog. Ms. Barber is very proud, and rightfully so.
For a moment, I couldn’t understand why anyone would go to all the effort to anti-blog La Shawn, who’s one of the nicest people in the blog community. She’s certainly firm in her convictions, but she never attacks anyone or anything in an ad hominum fashion. She admits to not being the biggest blog in the neighborhood, though I wish I had half her traffic. (She’ll be seeing a big increase shortly due to an unexpected instalanche).
Then it all came to me. You see, La Shawn is a Black Christian Conservative. All her regular readers know that. This is a fact that some people still refuse to accept.
The moron fellow who started the anti-blog obviously cares very much what La Shawn is without giving a lot of consideration to who she is. He is simply one of those people who will never accept the fact that there are such things as Black Christian Conservatives…or as commenter Carlotta Morrow labeled them…Americans. The pinhead fellow with the anti-La Shawn site apparently believes that she’s not supposed to be who she is, but what he thinks she’s supposed to be. So, in order to attempt to bring her and all those other uppity Black Christian Conservatives back to the liberal reservation, he’s decided to go after her words and ideas.
At least, that’s what I think he’s trying to do. Something about irony…I don’t know, maybe I’m getting to old for this.
I hope La Shawn isn’t annoyed that I’ve taken it upon myself to berate and belittle the guy with the site. She’s the kind of person who would say attacking him like this isn’t a Christian thing to do. She’s right. As a Catholic, I should know better.
Sorry. He’s still an idiot fellow.
Update: after visiting this fellow’s site and reading the comments he wrote here, I’ve come to the conclusion that perhaps I shouldn’t be calling anyone any names, hence the edits in the above posting. Frankly, I’ve determined that, in his quest to expose the “irony” in La Shawn’s postings, he has completely lost me in a swirl of disjointed prose and meandering commentary. I have to go back to work with a clear head tomorrow. See ya ’round, bud. I’ll stick to the sites I like and writing about geek stuff and football and other diversions.
{ 5 } Comments
hello joe –
actually — i don’t think “she’s not
supposed to be who she is. . .” — i think
she’s not who she pretends to be. and
that is a very important difference. . .
as to “what [i] think she’s supposed
to be,” i have no idea.
i just know her blog persona is a
very rich source of entirely unin-
tended irony. . . and i was born
to be a hard-rock-miner of irony. . .
but thanks for the input,
just the same, joe. . .
increase the
p e a c e
– tae, out.
Tae;
Just an observation about you…if your so concerned with “exposing” who La Shawn really is, why is it necessary for you to hide behind someone else’s name? Or, are you really Ta(y)e Diggs?
And what’s the deal with the disjointed prose style on your site? If you want to be e.e. cummings, start a poetry blog. If you want to “dissect” someone, just say it…I read a few pages on you’re site and I can’t figure out exactly what you’re trying to say.
Sorry.
joe — again, thanks for your
observations; thanks for the
advice about poetry, as well.
very thought-provoking. really.
now — i guess i’m not as sharp
as you, because i don’t under-
stand how my identity would,
in any way, be relevant to the
question of whether ms. barber’s
published views are internally-con-
sistent, logical, illogical, or. . .
simply. . . ironic.
isn’t the relevant question whether
my analysis is sound — not what my
name might be? or are you still
laboring under the misconception that
i am, in some way, bent on “hurting” her?
really, this puzzles me.
please explain. and use small
words — i am not that bright, you know. . .
he he!
pax tecum
– tae, out.
I’m not claiming to be sharper than anyone. I also don’t know what you’re “bent” on doing to La Shawen or anyone else. All I know that someone who stands up a blog to “expose” something about someone, then does it in such a way as to make it difficut to figure out what he’s trying to say, well, that’s just a bit odd.
I’ll tell you what…you carry on. Good luck. I’ll be tuning in elsewhere.
c o o l. . .
thanks for your permission.
p e a c e
– tae, out.