SVNT or Not?

1 01 2013

Your Blogmeister’s Desk

As part of my sincere wish for people to start being able to discern shock value nut talk and then ignore it in this the new year, I’m going to ask you to read the entirety of this “outrageous” NYT column, then come back here and use the comments section to answer this question:

Is this column SVNT or not?  I think there’s a right answer and a reason why the right answer is right, but I won’t say what I’m thinking now until I get enough input from the rest of you.  I also think that the right reasoning presented by one of you could make me change my mind on what I already think is the “right” answer to my own question.

About these ads

Actions

Information

13 responses

1 01 2013
Puggg

I haven’t made up my mind about whether this is “SVNT” or not, but I think you think the “right answer” is that it isn’t, simply because you linked to it. If you thought it was, you’d just quote the nutty parts without linking to the source or IDing its author.

1 01 2013
The Friendly Grizzly

The author is right in that the Constitution has been more or less disregarded almost since the founding. I also wonder if there is any truth of the idea that FDR issued an executive order effectively suspending the Constitution back around 1932 or 33?

And speaking of executive orders: they should be outlawed. Or, congress needs to stop going along with Obama’s dictatorship-by-order game.

1 01 2013
countenance

So far so good, but I’m looking for yes/no and why this column isn’t SVNT, in your opinions.

1 01 2013
Puggg

I’m going to side with that it’s not SVNT, and the reason it’s not is because I’ve read mostly similar items from the New York Times since I’ve been paying attention to politics.

1 01 2013
lowlywhisper

Well, the gentleman appears to believe what he is saying. So, no shock value, no nut talk.

1 01 2013
countenance

I’m not saying whether I think your opinion of the SVNT-ness of this differs from mine, yet, because I want some more opinions before I tip over my hand. But I don’t think it’s a prerequisite that the person not believe what he or she is saying or writing or (in the following case) drawing for the item in question to be SVNT:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pOYcuJiksXc/UOGGqU7BimI/AAAAAAAAThw/3FGD9a5KWIw/s1600/gunnuts.jpg

This is SVNT, IMHO, but I’m sure these are the cartoon artist’s true feelings.

But saying something one doesn’t believe just to draw attention is quintessential SVNT. For instance, I’m sure the no-namer from the no-name paper who wants the NRA to be declared a terrorist organization doesn’t actually believe that, and I believe that the musicology professor from Vienna who wants “climate change deniers” to be executed (hello? Musicology? There’s our first hint) actually believes that either. Both just want attention, ergo both items of rhetoric are classic SVNT.

1 01 2013
Bon, From the Land of Babble

I do not know what “SVNT” means, but here is my take on this malicious, odious article:

From the article:

What has preserved our political stability is not a poetic piece of parchment, but entrenched institutions and habits of thought and, most important, the sense that we are one nation and must work out our differences.

Nonsense. Typical blather from the NY Times, which believes that our rights are granted by government.

That “poetic piece of parchment” known as The Constitution and Bill of Rights is what has preserved our political stability. The Constitution is not a system of laws; it describes a set of individual, immutable rights and liberties, recognized as divine rights that come directly from the Creator, rather than a tyrant.

The Constitution does not grant rights, it protects them. The Second Amendment, for example, refers to “the right of the people” –it assumes the right is already there and establishes protections for it.

Because government does not grant rights, it cannot take them away no matter WHAT opinion makers in the NY Times screech.

Those who scorn liberty (liberty, not freedom, there is a difference) do not deserve it. Those who attack the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not deserve the protections of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They are announcing that they would rather live lorded over by tyrants — or in a violent system of anarchy.

Anyone who wishes to deprive others of the protections of the Bill of Rights must give up his own rights first. The professor should immediately relocate to N. Korea and become a subject of Kim Jong-un to know what he’s lost and what he insists others should abandoned.

Those who despise liberty do not deserve liberty.

Poetic Piece of Parchment Indeed.

Bon

1 01 2013
countenance

SVNT = Shock Value Nut Talk

1 01 2013
Bon, From the Land of Babble

Whether or not the author is merely an attention seeker or not or whether this is shock talk or not matters little, IMAO.

The NY Times is hugely influential and the fact that the author is a (so-called) Constitutional Scholar at prestigious Georgetown University reinforces his credibility — giving his diatribe “gravitas” whether we like it or not. The NY Times has been one of THE key instruments used to destroy White America (Walter Duranty’s glowing reports of communist Russia as one example).

IOW, who are YOU to disagree or argue with a “great,” “learned” professor?? YOU are an unwashed, uneducated, misinformed nobody (according to the likes of the NYT) who doesn’t understand the Constitution or Constitutional Law. Do YOU have a professorship at Harvard? Georgetown? Princeton? Then STFU.

This is how our culture has been torn asunder and we Whites demonized. Gould, Freud, Boas, Zinn, Marcuse, Alinsky –same thing. All frauds –but pushed, praised, lauded and awarded by massively influential institutions such as the NYT –and whose destructive ideas have permeated White American Culture, ultimately destroying it.

WE here could dismiss and ignore this rant but our silence is an affirmation and this author is planting the SEEDS of subversion, backed up by the NY Times AND the current US government. K-12 textbooks already scorn the Constitution — claiming evil, Slave-holding Whites stole it from the Iroquois.

We must attack mendacious lies such as “The Constitution is merely a piece of poetic parchment that has NO relevance in today’s world” every single chance we have, otherwise it starts to look like it represents the prevailing view of the American people.

2 01 2013
countenance

I think the SVNT-ness of this is important, because responding to SVNT only encourages more SVNT. That’s my point.

I’ll wait for a few more theories, then I’ll tip my hand over.

2 01 2013
lowlywhisper

Well, I don’t think this fellow thinks it is nut talk, and I think he considers it realistic and practical advice. Some folks hearing it might be shocked. It is a matter of perspective.

My take on what he is saying is that, like most folks, he is advocating what he believes to be good for him and his. It is in conflict with what is currently extant, so he seeks to change it. If he can convince enough people that it is also good for them, then the change will take place. And, that is the way it should work.

It would take a monumental political effort, an upheaval of sorts, to bring about the kind of (official) change he is advocating. Perhaps, he thinks, the times are right?

4 01 2013
More SVNT « Countenance Blog

[...] obvious to everyone that they are.  However, I wish I could get a few more opinions about this.  I’d like to tip over my hand on that story sooner rather than later, and I don’t [...]

7 01 2013
countenance

I guess I better pay this off before I forget about it.

The reason I don’t think the NYT column is SVNT is that, while the language is a little bit intemperate by printed NYT standards, and while the NYT’s web-only content is given to SVNT, the reason this is not is that this has been long standing NYT editorial policy for as long as I can remember.

As such, Bon from the Land of Babble was right to formulate a response to it. But I wouldn’t bother acknowledging SVNT at all.




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,590 other followers

%d bloggers like this: