…is how the Slug described last year’s Obo the clown v Old Holborn blog war, and this year it seems it’s B+D’s turn to wank off publically.
It seems to be Anna Raccoon teaming up with OH to take down B+D, a sort of tag team cage match, except without the blood, physical violence, or fun.
B+D argue that it’s time we boycott the Daily Fail, following on from that story about a homophobic article that I’m going to admit to not actually having read. Something to do with a pop star, I dunno.
The whole thing managed to snowball in the way things only can on the internet, and as usual, it’s over practically nothing.
Yet more proof, as if it was needed, that if you’re on a train and the only two seats left are between a socialist and a libertarian arguing, and two libertarians arguing, pick the former. You’ll get less of an ear ache.
B+D’s side of the story runs like this:
The Mail is a sick, nasty, deranged fascist rag and ought to be shunned, ignored, boycotted and publicly reviled.
The other side puts it like this:
In other words, they want to censor the Daily Mail. They want to turn it into something THEY would like to read. And stop it printing what they don’t want to read.
Every day, I see pseudo Libertarians who really, really should not be abusing the name.
Kudos to OH and Anna for standing up for free speech, but I myself think B+D are right then they say boycotting is consistent with being a libertarian. No where have the pair actually called for laws stopping the Daily Fail from being published, or stopping them printing more articles about dead people who took it up the bum. They’re calling for people to choose not to buy the newspaper on the grounds it’s full of utter reactionary shite.
It’s a bit like me telling you that I tried some new flavour of Walker’s crisps (Squash Risotto flavour with a hint of badger, anyone?), and it was awful. Do you then buy it? I don’t know, and it’s not my fucking problem since I’m not spending my money in keeping the shitty new flavour on the market. This is, in effect, all B+D’s boycott is. It’s trying to convince and not force people to get a different paper.
It’s not going to take off, no doubt; the Fail is one of the bigger dailies out there, so that means there’s a helluva lot of people who do like what it reads. Should some boycott take off (it won’t), and the Mail finds itself losing revenue and readership so fast it’s forced to U-turn into another Guardian, so be it. It’s a perfectly libertarian, market based approach. It’s not using force to get the market to change, it is the market in action.
I myself won’t be joining this boycott. I don’t see the point, but as a matter of principle it’s totally voluntary and libertarian. Why Anna and OH don’t see this, I have no idea. It may be the political connotations of the word- “boycott” brings up pictures of worker’s unions stopping some honest Joe making a living because he’s hiring Johnny Foreigner, or what have you. That’s not what our favourite couple want, though.
Spats like these happen in even the happiest of families.
PS I was on your old blogroll so please could I be on your new one. Thanks muchly
‘course, man. The fact you’re not already on it is an accidental oversight on my part.
Difficult to boycott that which you don’t already use.
I have sympathy for both sides of the argument. Would I rather the Mail didn’t print this sort of thing? Yes. Am I going to get wound up about it? No. Wailing about it just makes you seem a bit of a moaner.
In order for offence to be given, it must be taken.
I like both sides in this argument. Don’t always agree with them and I’m concerned that both sides are getting a little too worried about how many followers they have, but hey, that’s their choice.
BTW, I wasn’t on your old blogroll, but would like to be on the new one.
Bit of a storm in a teacup, in this instance OH and Anna are in the wrong, however B & D have a tendency to make mountains out of molehills.
I’ll still read them all of course, it’s usually damned good entertainment with some good points made on the way too.
Raising awareness of things being shit and encouraging them to boycott is exactly what Libertarianism is about. /facepalm
Just one small problem. You won’t find anywhere that Anna Raccoon has passed any comment on whether B & D are right or not in their boycott. In fact until Saturday you wouldn’t have found any comment for some months from Anna Raccoon on the subject of B & D or their viewpoint or anything about them.
Saturday OH made a comment about them on my site, and I merely responded that it made a pleasant change from them banging on about me. It did.
Your comment that OH and myself are ‘teaming up to take down B & D’ is totally incorrect. He has his views, I have mine. I write on his site, that is our only connection. We are not joined at the hip in thought or deed.
Today I finally went onto the B & D site and pointed out that despite their frequent claims to the contrary they have never been banned from my site, threatened with being banned from my site, told they were banned from my site or anything remotely like it. They have been moderated and they took great exception to that. They were already in a bad mood becasue I had pruned them from my public blog roll for no other reason than it was getting over long, they had never commented on my site, nor made any posts that I was interested in. My perrogative.
That was something like last April and they have been banging on about it ever since, frankly I’m bored witless by it.
In so far as I can understand, their main complaint against me is that I said support totally another Libertarian, Guido – and that is despite the fact that Anna Raccoon actually is banned from his site (oh, the irony!) not for anything I have said, but because my name contains the banned word ‘coon’!!!!
Apparently, according to comments B & D left on my site, you cannot be a Libertarian and ‘totally support’ anyone, even another Libertarian – although it seems to be the case that you can totally condemn someone…….
All very confusing, I shall be glad when the official B & D rule book of Libertarianism comes out and I can decide whether to stay in the party or not…..
In the meantime I would be grateful if you would not fall into the trap of bracketing my views with Old Holborn’s views, there is no evidence that they are even remotely similar. I have never claimed that anyone else either is or isn’t Libertarian.
As Anna says, this latest festival of cock-waving is just the latest in a long line of tedious “Judean Peoples’ Front” bollocks from that blog. When B & D run out of ideas – which is frequently – they just revert to attacking certain other bloggers.
I only came across them following Dale’s awards, when they were wittering that their award, shown proudly at the top of the page and boastfully blogged about, was pointless and meant nothing to them.
That kind of massive internal inconsistency, bordering on hypocrisy, seems to be their trademark. Whenever this is pointed out, they immediately attack the messenger.
It’s a shame because occasionally – very occasionally – they write some thought-provoking stuff, but on the whole its like rummaging through a jumble sale, looking for gems among the dross.
The only other entertainment to be had, which to my shame I indulge in, is by baiting them in the comments. Because they can be guaranteed to explode with rage, its almost irresistable to poke them regularly.
I really shouldn’t…
_
p.s. I’d be up for a link-swap too, baby!!
I’ll buy you all a pint on November 5th
Feel the love….
i’ll hold you to that OH mines a pint of orange juice and lemonade
I love Big Ass
You’ve made some good points in this post, nicely done!