The Wit & Wisdom of Dinesh D'Souza

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (242 of them)
"So leftist activists such as Michael Moore and Howard Zinn and Cindy Sheehan seem willing to let the enemy win in Iraq so they can use that defeat in 2008 to rout Bush -- their enemy at home."

FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!

1. It wasn't any of these people (or ANY leftists) that got us involved in this retarded war.
2. How do any of these people have any control over whether the USA "loses" in Iraq? Bush doesn't even pay attention to the 3/4 of the American people who want out of Iraq, let alone luminaries of the left.
3. Can any of these numbskulls fucking get it through their thick skulls that MAYBE, the way to "win" the WOT is not through violence and torture? That running around the middle east and threatening and slaughtering people is not a way to win friends and influence people? Seriously! Why is this common-sense argument so hard to grasp?
4. Is there anything more pointless than arguing with this fuckwit in a posting he will never read?

schwantz (schwantz), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 00:01 (seventeen years ago) link

Who are you arguing with? I don't even see where that (admittedly stupid) quote is from.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 00:05 (seventeen years ago) link

"So right-wing activists such as Dinesh D'Souza seem willing to bury another 3000 American soldiers and slaughter thousands more Iraqis in order to prop up Bush - their master at home."

x-post - from the ridiculous .

schwantz (schwantz), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 00:07 (seventeen years ago) link

WaPo editorial.

schwantz (schwantz), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 00:08 (seventeen years ago) link

(last "quote" was mine)

schwantz (schwantz), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 00:09 (seventeen years ago) link

I think that quote is from Dsouza

xp

kingfishy (kingfish 2.0), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 00:09 (seventeen years ago) link

more accurate analogy = rightist activists such as Dinesh D'Souza seem willing to take the enemy's side so they can formulate a shared agenda with fundamentalists in other countries to rout their "enemy at home."

Curt1s St3ph3ns, Wednesday, 7 February 2007 00:10 (seventeen years ago) link

also, with this bit:

Perhaps your readers would be intrigued with a discussion of the argument rather than anathemas against its expression. To call the book McCarthyite and a “national scandal” will neither stop the jihad nor save Israel in a nuclear age.

we have both the simplistic obfuscation and fear-mongering in the 2nd sentence, and an appropriation of the other side's languge in the 1st. Please, please, you liberals should use your pussy "debating" ways to truly find out if liberals are america haters and the cause of the worst domestic terror attack evar.

kingfishy (kingfish 2.0), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 00:14 (seventeen years ago) link

george gilder?? he was some kind of nu-economy seer back in the 90s, a star stock-picker type guy, made a bundle and then lost it all, i think. no idea he turned into (or always was) a hard-right zombie.

geoff (gcannon), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 01:31 (seventeen years ago) link

Wikipedia: After he wrote an article for the Forum opposing a day care bill in Congress, some lobbied for his removal. Gilder responded, appearing on Crossfire to defend himself and discovered he'd found "a way to arouse the passionate interest of women ... it was clear I had reached pay dirt." He decided to make himself into "America's number-one antifeminist". (quoted in Backlash, 285) He went on to write four books attacking feminism: Sexual Suicide, Naked Nomads, Visible Man, and Men and Marriage (a revised and reissued version of Sexual Suicide)...

He helped found the Discovery Institute with Bruce Chapman. The organization started as a moderate group which aimed to privatize and modernize Seattle's transit systems but it later became the leading think tank of the intelligent design movement, with Gilder penning many articles in favor of ID and opposing the theory of evolution.

: "I do think that writing about technology and picking stocks is a very powerful and edifying discipline," he said. "It requires you to have a purchase on reality that is much more rigorous than the average evolutionary biologist has or the average free-floating technology writer has."

Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 02:51 (seventeen years ago) link

Eh, that last part should be:

WSJ: "I do think that writing about technology and picking stocks is a very powerful and edifying discipline," he said. "It requires you to have a purchase on reality that is much more rigorous than the average evolutionary biologist has or the average free-floating technology writer has."

Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 02:51 (seventeen years ago) link

The organization started as a moderate group which aimed to privatize and modernize Seattle's transit systems but it later became the leading think tank of the intelligent design movement

Well you know, after the part where Kyra Sedgwick lost her baby in the car accident, Campbell Scott got really interested in the fate of the unborn, and eventually wound up having a bit of a religious conversion.

nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 03:01 (seventeen years ago) link

wow i had no idea. i remember reading a big NYer profile on him and i don't remember a thing about being the "number one antifeminist."

imagining the cognitive gymnastics it must take to be both a techno-utopian and an intelligent design fanatic is giving me a headache

geoff (gcannon), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 03:07 (seventeen years ago) link

haha today I noticed that TELECOSM is still on a bookshelf in my house from back who knows when and thought "George Gilder. I know that name, what sort of horrible fascist bullshit must he have gotten into that I know who he is?"

TOMBO7 (TOMBOT), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 03:12 (seventeen years ago) link

"ok, dear readers, strong buy on the following biotech firms (managed to the last by damned and deluded souls scurrying away from the sight of their god), A++ return"

geoff (gcannon), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 03:14 (seventeen years ago) link

not to go back too far, but what the fuck is an "anti-natalist"?

GOD PUNCH TO HAWKWIND (yournullfame), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 09:12 (seventeen years ago) link

ohhh, it's people who don't want kids and are thus destroying society. of course.

GOD PUNCH TO HAWKWIND (yournullfame), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 10:10 (seventeen years ago) link

Geo Gilder is quite trendy, he first invaded my consciousness back in the late 70s, as a supply-side economics enthusiast.

m coleman (lovebug starski), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 11:46 (seventeen years ago) link

two weeks pass...
[Removed Illegal Link]
Rethinking Abu Ghraib
By Dinesh D'Souza
Monday, February 26, 2007

...Most Muslims did not view it as a torture story at all. Muslims were not outraged at the interrogation techniques used by the American military, which are quite mild by Arab standards. Moreover, many Muslims realized that the most of the torture scenes in the photographs—the hooded man with his arms outstretched, the prisoner with wires attached to his limbs—were staged. This was simulated torture, not real torture.

[...]

Lynndie England and Charles Graner were two wretched individuals from Red America who were trying to act out the fantasies of Blue America. Casting aside all traditional notions of decency, propriety and morality, they simply lived by the code of self-fulfillment. If it feels good, it must be right. This was bohemianism, West Virginia-style.

At some level, the cultural left recognized this, which is why most of its comments about Abu Ghraib assiduously avoided the issue of sexual deviancy. The left’s embarrassment on this matter seems to have drawn on class prejudice. For some liberals, soldiers like Graner and England were poor white trash getting into trouble again. Of course if Graner and England were professors at an elite liberal arts college, their videotaped orgies might easily have become the envy of academia. If they were artists staging these pictures in a loft in Soho they could have been hailed as pioneers and encouraged by leftist admirers to apply for a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts.

But being low-life Appalachians, Graner and England inspired none of these elevated thoughts. Instead, liberals moved opportunistically to attack the military and discredit its prisoner interrogation policies—even though these polices had nothing to do with what actually happened...


Oh yeah, no mention of the fact that this shit happened in Gitmo and other places, that the CIA guys told the enlisted folks to fuck with the prisoners, etc. It's because these two bad apples were pree-verts. Oh, and torture never upset any right-thinking individuals. I get the idea that ol' Dinesh is really startin' to sweat here, due to the strain.

kingfish, Monday, 26 February 2007 21:47 (seventeen years ago) link

Oh for FUCKS sake fix that linking code

[Removed Illegal Link]

kingfish, Monday, 26 February 2007 21:48 (seventeen years ago) link

dammit

kingfish, Monday, 26 February 2007 21:49 (seventeen years ago) link

HAHAHAHA dude D'Souza has officially surpassed Ann Coulter as the most wonderful, lovable, experimental commentator on the neurotic right: this stuff is heartwarming and priceless! There used to be this recurring bit character on Conan (I think on Conan?) who could make a bong out of any three items you gave him: D'Souza is increasingly that guy, able to weave really stupendous and almost non-insane-sounding arguments where more or less anything bad that happens is a result of the amorality of liberals.

The coolest one here is this:

If they were artists staging these pictures in a loft in Soho they could have been hailed as pioneers

Not just for the retro Soho location, but just cause it's like the Where's Waldo of "what important distinction am I missing?" "By the way, we're totally unfair to rapists -- if those women had been consented, we wouldn't bat an eyelash!"

nabisco, Monday, 26 February 2007 21:57 (seventeen years ago) link

dude has enuf balls to make it seem like he's got some kind of political autism; he's been hung out to dry over and over again by his own side for this shit and he just. keeps. going. the powerline guys, everybody has taken a shot at him, and he hasn't even flinched.

gff, Monday, 26 February 2007 22:03 (seventeen years ago) link

The comments are just as entertaining, alternating between "WTF are you talking about?" and "Yer right! It's the hippies' fault!"

Y'know, I'm looking forward to the days when the Boomers are no longer in power, so we don't have a national politics seen entirely thru the lens of what happened when we were teenagers, and none other possible.

kingfish, Monday, 26 February 2007 22:07 (seventeen years ago) link

you can't spell "gff getting depressed" without "townhall comment box"

gff, Monday, 26 February 2007 22:15 (seventeen years ago) link

While D'Souza's argument suffers from exaggeration, errors of scale, unexamined assumptions, and simplistic ideas of causation, those conservative pundits who bend over backwards to deny that "they" hate us (at least partly) because of our permissive culture probably are engaging in more outright intellectual dishonesty. I think that the reason the pundits don't like D'Souza's argument has more to do with their embarrassment at finding themselves on the same side of the culture & values debate as the terrorists and their fears of how this uncomfortable alliance would play out in the broader media discourse than it does with any factual inaccuracies they might identify in his evidence.

o. nate, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 21:47 (seventeen years ago) link

Lynndie England and Charles Graner were two wretched individuals from Red America who were trying to act out the fantasies of Blue America.

thinking up this sentence really takes a certain kind of brilliance

modestmickey, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 21:51 (seventeen years ago) link

similarly for Glenn Beck...

kingfish, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 21:51 (seventeen years ago) link

On today's edition of Revise Your Own History with Dinesh, he goes on and on about how The Left was rooting for America to lose in Vietnam, and that the sexual revolution was probably not the result of loosening attitudes and the wide availablity of birth control, but because of the war.

So how long before he openly calls for the death of left-leaning folks, anyway? He's been whining about us being "the enemy at home" and more concerned about defeating Bush(how? voting him out?) than protecting the Vaterland. Oh, and we're in active cahoots with Bin Laden, accomplices in both the killing of Americans and God since the '60s.

kingfish, Monday, 5 March 2007 19:32 (seventeen years ago) link

The eliminationist rhetoric really is starting to make my skin crawl. It's scary.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 5 March 2007 19:52 (seventeen years ago) link

i dunno, it sounds more desperate than anything.

latebloomer, Monday, 5 March 2007 19:56 (seventeen years ago) link

i mean if they actually got their way it would be scarier, but really at this point it's pathetic

latebloomer, Monday, 5 March 2007 19:56 (seventeen years ago) link

gimme a break I'm not scared of this idiot

Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 5 March 2007 20:01 (seventeen years ago) link

Dude, I go to a Tier 3 University full of kids from the outlying areas of Texas. I've talked with students who thought the "Ghetto Party" at UT Law was "no big deal", think Ann Coulter is an admirable political leader for our time, and think that Muslims should be put in camps "like in that movie 'The Siege'" until "we're more confident of their allegiances."

It may be desperate, but its got a sizable following.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 5 March 2007 20:02 (seventeen years ago) link

Yeah, that's the thing, and one of the reasons why I pay attention to these assholes. This kinda shit has incrementally gained more traction and more airtime, and gets dismissed way too easily, or held up as equivalent by David Broder types to "radical leftist"/campus maoist loudmouth/bloggers who don't get invited to speak at major party events, are used in the advertising, and have blocks-long lines of worshippers needing signed books.

kingfish, Monday, 5 March 2007 20:02 (seventeen years ago) link

Having taken all criticism on board, it seems Dinesh is extremely annoyed. And this is the first of four parts.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 12 March 2007 17:01 (seventeen years ago) link

You know, the sad thing is that if D'Souza really really cared about his central idea here -- you know, about creating a kind of traditional-values bridge with the mainstream Muslim world -- there are any number of fairly reasonable ways he could have written this book to get that idea taken seriously. (Most of them would have just involved laying out the argument and letting other crazy people actually denounce the left for him, which they'd have happily done.) It's bizarre to see him defend and pedal back toward his central ideas these days, as if totally unaware that its his own lunacy that torpedoed the points he could easily have invited people to take seriously.

nabisco, Monday, 12 March 2007 17:10 (seventeen years ago) link

You know, the sad thing is that if D'Souza really really cared about his central idea here -- you know, about creating a kind of traditional-values bridge with the mainstream Muslim world -- there are any number of fairly reasonable ways he could have written this book to get that idea taken seriously.

Yeah. A lot of the conservative criticism voiced something similar.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Monday, 12 March 2007 17:25 (seventeen years ago) link

the bit for today decides to rehash the whole WMD bit, except going for the sophistry of how a particular claim was formed, regardless of whether that claim was actually true or not:

If you want to know how the Iraq debate got so acrimonious, the tipping point was when mainstream Democrats went from accusing Bush of bungling the Iraq war to accusing him of lying to get America into that war.

Of course, up until that point, debate was quite civil, with no accusations whatsoever of treason or collaboration, or calls for the removal and elimination of anyone not entirely gung ho with whatever the Admin called for that day.

kingfish, Monday, 12 March 2007 18:01 (seventeen years ago) link

and HAHAHA for the traditional defense of the troll:

My goal is to stimulate a lively and civil discussion

kingfish, Monday, 12 March 2007 18:11 (seventeen years ago) link

Part two.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 12:50 (seventeen years ago) link

God, this guy is a douche:

It takes a Midwestern lawyer who blogs in his spare time to cite three semi-popular books of varying quality, but not a single scholarly work, in order to establish the real motives of bin Laden and the 9/11 conspirators.

and stuff like this

But Qutb has become increasingly relevant as American popular culture has grown increasingly permissive and shocking to the sensibilities of traditional people around the world.

just kinda re-iterates over and over again that this guy _really_ agrees with them, and adds to the fun by tossing codewords like "traditional" around w/o regard to their meaning or context. e.g. despite the fact that violent islamic suicide-bombing fundies are a relatively new development. Still, is he talking about traditional saudi society? traditional afghani? libyan? lebanese? turkish?

kingfish, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 19:32 (seventeen years ago) link

Corner types are trashing him, which amuses me greatly. Cripes, even Goldberg said something pithy:

Isn't there just a teeny-weeny disconnect between arguing that conservatives — including NR's reviewer of Dinesh's book — have a "closed mind" while at the same time getting four days in a row of space to defend your position, not to mention an initial elucidating interview on NRO?

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 19:34 (seventeen years ago) link

D'Souza's next book should be about James Burnham.

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 13 March 2007 20:08 (seventeen years ago) link

he's pretty much the worst person ever

J.D., Wednesday, 14 March 2007 00:35 (seventeen years ago) link

d'souza, not burnham

J.D., Wednesday, 14 March 2007 00:35 (seventeen years ago) link

Another great day. Would you believe there are such things as 'traditional Muslims?' Who knew?

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 17:19 (seventeen years ago) link

I'm coming in late here -- D'Souza's entire argument, which he repeatedly circles around, is that there is a mainstream Muslim sensibility that somewhat lines up with a mainstream Judeo-Christian/moral sensibility in western culture that believes we're too permissive and promiscuous, right?

Does that mean we can we just turn off the MTV feed to the Middle East and set up a firewall to block TMZ.com or whatever and they'll stop being pissed off at us? Really, what the hell is he going at?

mh, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 20:22 (seventeen years ago) link

Jesus, he just keeps going. He hits upon the same points again & again, declaring that the bogeymen of "The Left" and "liberals" are now active allies of the terr'ists. This shit is more insidious than your standard rightwing blogger screeds, b/c this guy is writing all of this with a calm, bespectacled scholarly tone. It's just a matter of fact that people you don't agree with politically are in fact working in cahoots with Bin Laden and the Iraqis to give you the ol' dolchstoss in the back.

Of course, when a conservative critic calls him on this shit, he suddenly has to reverse direction and deny the logical conclusion of all his writings:
At one point Berkowitz accuses me of holding that “the cultural left presents a threat to America as grave as that posed by radical Islam.” What? The Left is as dangerous to America as al Qaeda, the radical mullahs in Iran, the jihadist insurgents in Iraq, and the worldwide network of radical Islam? Nowhere do I say this, and I challenge Berkowitz to substantiate his allegation. My point is that the cultural Left, through its well-documented policies and its values projected abroad, is greatly strengthening the position of radical Islam. The two groups, I write, work in a kind of scissors motion, each prong operating separately, but moving toward the common end of defeating Bush’s war in Iraq. Yet Berkowitz accuses me of equating the danger posed by the Left and the Islamic radicals, as if I’m weighing one against the other.

kingfish, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 21:26 (seventeen years ago) link

Radical Islam and the right also work in a kind of scissors motion, each prong operating separately, but moving toward the common end of reshaping world culture into something that adheres to traditional religious tenets. If dude's grand claim were that "OMG opposing groups may have limited aims in common" you'd think he wouldn't bother wasting paper on it.

nabisco, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 21:39 (seventeen years ago) link

Dinesh somehow has all the worst properties of both Trumpites and NeverTrumpers. He’s both extremely racist and unconcerned with intellectual honesty AND a credential-fetishizing nerd who longs for mainstream validation. A primetime asshole.

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) August 15, 2018

Glower, Disruption & Pies (kingfish), Thursday, 16 August 2018 05:53 (five years ago) link

one year passes...

self-clowning oven

This is actually the correct pronunciation. Most Americans say it wrong. Thailand is pronounced phonetically. It’s “Thighland,” not “Tai-land.” https://t.co/kiQI7FveEM

— Dinesh D'Souza (@DineshDSouza) August 6, 2020

Jersey Al (Albert R. Broccoli), Friday, 7 August 2020 04:57 (three years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.