No Convo

As I observe Rod Dreher explain why he agreed to get interviewed by the NYTimes in a piece filled with ludicrous, stupid lies, I have this to say.

I engage in exactly zero discussions with liberals / leftists / Biden voters / ‘democratic socialists’ / pandemicians / anti-racists or whatever they call themselves. I don’t try to reason with them, I don’t offer evidence, I don’t explain my position. I’m open to discuss shopping, recipes, weather, gossip, etc. But the moment they start on with vaccines, Trump, horse dewormers, insurrections, etc, I change the topic or use the bathroom. There can be no debate with people who hold the power to wipe you out of productive life on a whim. The very act of engaging in a discussion perpetuates the massive lie that there is free and open debate.

I have to shut up and bite it at work every day while horse dewormer freaks are nattering on their bizarre (and actually very racist) conspiracy theory on every corner. There is no debate any more. I’m not going to allow these people to use me as a salve for their consciences all the while anything I say will be filed away to persecute me later. If you can say anything you want while I can’t because I’m terrified of what you can do to me, we don’t have a conversation. We have a hostage situation.

I’m talking right now about normal everyday people who have been duped by propaganda. The actual stormtroopers at NYTimes – these are horrid people working for a horrid organization. Only days ago they knowingly perpetuated the lie about 900,000 pediatric COVID deaths. This is a despicable thing to do but it’s one in 25 even worse thing the paper did on that day.

I’m not judging Rod, I’m sure he has his reasons. But we’ll be giving the benefit of the doubt and pretending that a conversation is possible right as they cut our tongues out.

15 thoughts on “No Convo

  1. “I’m not judging Rod, I’m sure he has his reasons.”

    Dreher is a hyper-religious nut who feels like it’s his mission to get the truth out on every conceivable subject (American politics, the absolute evils of LGBTQ culture, the minute details of the Catholic mass,whatever, etc., you name it) to the entire world three times a day.

    The guy can’t shut up. He keeps writing essentially the same thing over and over and over on TAC website, and he keeps bragging about all the speeches he’s volunteered for/ been requested to give — and in case you missed it, he’ll tell you again in twenty minutes.

    Yes, I know that successful people are entitled to brag about all their achievements, publications, and so forth, but Dreher reminds me of an out-of-control bipolar 1 maniac who ran out of meds months ago.

    Melissa McEwan did the same thing, but she was less annoying and much more entertaining.

    (And this is MY daily rant!)

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I used to read him, and I was seeing this too. Especially the bipolar thing. I found myself trying to figure out if the problem had more to do with the meds he was on (apparently a lot of painkillers), or the meds he wasn’t on. There was a point where I could keep up with his writing volume, but then his daily word count went rocketing into the stratosphere, with no accompanying increase in interesting content. I’m a slow reader and I can’t handle that, so stopped reading.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. “Dreher is a hyper-religious nut… Dreher reminds me of an out-of-control bipolar 1 maniac who ran out of meds months ago… And this is MY daily rant!”

      Truthfully, your rant seems more like a series of undisciplined and unkind ad hominems.

      As far as I can see, Dreher is a self-employed writer with a family to support and so his income depends on putting his name out there. Not everyone has a job with benefits, tenure and a retirement plan.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I understand that he has to do it but this article is laying the foundation for the narrative that there’s a Christian fascist threat in this country and all sorts of vile things will be justified by this narrative. These people don’t give a platform to dissidents unless they are planning something evil.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. “These people don’t give a platform to dissidents unless they are planning something evil.”

          Understood. Neither you nor I would have agreed to an open-ended interview with the NYT given what’s going on.

          Best one can say is that Dreher, because of his newspaper days, has a serious blindspot when it comes to the NYT. And then there’s the theory of “no publicity is bad publicity” in terms of promoting his books.

          Liked by 2 people

  2. There are some day to day Biden voters I’m willing to talk with, but not the type you are describing here, and not in a situation with any actual stakes or risks. I have some Biden voting twitter mutuals who I have great conversations with and I have one coworker who knows I voted for Trump (I’m not a professor so I have coworkers who are capable of tolerating people with different political views than them.) I talk about politics with my parents sometimes, they are old enough that they don’t see political disagreement as a personal attack. That’s about it. I’m sure most people assume I voted for Biden and I’m happy to let them think that.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. “I’m open to discuss shopping, recipes, weather, gossip, etc. …”

    Funny, I’m this way with everyone on the Left and the Right.

    The shorthand way of seeing this is that Ludwig von Mises was right when he told his audience that they were all socialists.

    The longer version?

    Most people participate in a banal form of politics where the terms of their engagement have been established through a dialectical process and have been given phrasing according to Marxist ideology.

    This applies especially to the conservatives who are content to lose battles in order to get along with people who openly behave like adversaries instead of potential allies.

    And so I shoot the crap with you mostly about food and the current state of public participatory theatre (also known as the “narcissism of small differences”) primarily for this reason.

    I don’t believe for a second you’re really a conservative, for what it’s worth. 🙂

    I see your present “conservativism” as just a way point in the evolution of your thinking, a stop on the way toward completing the rejection that you started many years ago, what I called elsewhere a refusal of Great Refusals.

    You just like this part right now because it lets you embrace small towns along with their higher trust and open cultures as an escape from the insanity of what you could be experiencing elsewhere.

    That’s obviously not been so healthy for Ron Dreher and it wouldn’t be so healthy for you.

    But what do I know, I’m just a Crackpot, and people just can’t get enough bad press about us Crackpots these days, can they? 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

    1. @ Post Alley Crackpot
      For a crackpot you sound extremely lucid and immensely well-read, and, at least superficially, somewhat annoyingly overbearing, but only just.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. My great motivating idea is my opposition to neoliberalism. I used to be on the left while that was where the anti-neoliberal thought existed. Now that the Left started aggressively championing neoliberalism in its most totalitarian expression, I’m going to be on the Right. For me, there’s no way back because I’ll never forgive the left for everything that happened in the last few years. They can’t redeem themselves in my eyes. I’d need another lifetime to get over it all.

      Like

      1. Can you define exactly what you mean by neoliberalism? I am seeing different definitions on the web and it would be helpful to know your exact POV.

        I heard an interview recently by Dennis Prager where he was quoted as saying the “NYT is Pravda for America; complete propaganda.” Do you agree?

        I quit reading Dreher for the reasons Methylethyl mentioned above. Too many words saying the same things. I did love his book, “The Little Way of Ruthie Leming.” It was real and raw and demonstrated the power and beauty of small communities to care for those who are suffering.

        Just a few years ago I would have said I’m a conservative. I even used to be proud to say the word “Republican.” Now, I think the whole US political system is rigged. I think they’re all crooked as hell and dragging the country down to the fiery abyss with them just for kicks. But I’m puzzled when you say you won’t defend your position to the liberals. I am still reeling from your story about being in college when the administrator ran in and told everyone to go sweep the alley and you said, “No. I’m not going to do that.” There are people – like Dreher – who think that by defending their position they are standing up to the woke mob machine. He really thinks he can make a difference. And…he may be right. There may be some who read the article then go read some of his work and “wake up.” One never knows. And while yes, some of it is needing to feed and provide for his family, I think he’s a Christian trying to share the message of faith with people in hopes he can change the world. Is he foolish? Probably. But we all do dumb things every now and again. At least he is forthright about his position and willing to defend it even though he knows there is likely to be blowback of the dizzying kind.

        Like

    3. “you’re really a conservative…”

      Who’s really a conservative? Edmund Burke? James Madison? Michael Oakeshott?

      Like

      1. I’m really a conservative. In the Russell Kirk ten principles sense. That’s the only meaningful form, and in my mind it’s the only path to sanity. I think Clarissa’s on that same path.

        Concerning Rod, he’s gotta fit in with his friends. That’s where the money is. That’s why he mouths the David French pieties. He wants still to be able to hobnob with the likes of David Brooks at Manhatten and Georgetown cocktail parties. He won’t touch the screwy election or the COVID/vaccine fraud with a ten foot pole. He just pretends that the official story is true.

        Just like Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone shooter, Jack Ruby’s motive was to save Jackie from having to come back to Dallas for his trial, and the FBI has a good reason not to show us the videos of what hit the back of the Pentagon.. You know, all the sociopaths’ lies. His entire gig is in perpetuating them, because that’s how you get on the CIA gravy train, which is pulled by the New York Times/NPR Pravda/Izvestia locomotive.

        Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.