Yet another former LGF'er. (I prefer double-secret anonymity, so no old nic revealed here because of dreaded correlator tool.)Why I left:
CJ is simply not honest - intellectually (e.g. with argumentation), or factually (e.g. with 'flounces'). His 'flounces' are more accuraely 'phlounces' (phony flounces) because many, many times (as anyone still there paying attention *knows*) they're not 'flounces' at all but rather reasonable, respectful comments that are entirely and purposefully mischaracterized by CJ after he deletes them as quickly as possible (deleted so as not to reveal his sooper-sekrit methods of identifying socks, so he claims ... riiiiight).
All the speculation of *why* CJ has effected the 'andrewsullivanification' of LGF is interesting but pointless because it's ultimately unknowable. But ... his repeated recent references to himself as 'daddy' IS more than a little weird and sounds like so much projection from someone whose real world daddy experience comes entirely from a book. Evokes Papa Doc and Jim Jones daddy figures for me.
The intellectual dishonesty is compensation for CJ's third-rate intellect (his musical and coding skills notwithstanding). If it weren't HIS blog he'd quickly be relegated in the free marketplace of ideas to that third-tier of posters whose arguments are first refuted, then derided, then ignored. But it's HIS BLOG so those who are left ('left' indeed!) get to endure his proofs by assertion, his "snark for me but not for thee", and especially his wacky guilt-by-association where he teases out threads of connections on the interwebs, and then sits back and awaits praise, so proud with his efforts, not unlike the two year old who's dumped a bowl of spaghetti on his own head.
The whole, tiresome "guilt-by-association" trope on thread after thread is just stultifyingly, insultingly stupid.
It's typically of the form:
"A says 2+2=5" + "B has some connection in some context with A" = "QED!!1!"
And I'm left thinking "okay they've gone to a lot of trouble to try to demonstrate some connection B to A, and then they've pulled out the logical fallacy guilt-by-association to 'prove' something, so why don't they spell out what it is they think they've 'proved'??
Hey LGF ... WTQ??? Spell out what you think you're 'proving' on this meta-logical plane with your guilt by association. GbA is simply invalid in the domain of *ideas*. So what is the domain of this meta-logic anyway, since it's not ideas? And what meta-logical conclusions are we supposed to draw? (Surely it's not just all about smearing?/)
The few 'Q's that are explicitly stated are rather prosaic and unhelpful conclusions like "B is tainted" or "B has (metaphorical) fleas". A typical implication is "B (and A) should be shunned". (Someone there needs to write a Guide to Shunning - I'm not clear how that works).
And one has to assume that GbA is transitive. So, from the example above, if B *doesn't* properly shun A, then I suppose B is to be shunned too? So if C doesn't shun B, then C is to be shunned, etc? Doesn't six degrees of separation mean that for some critical mass of luzards a runaway chain reaction of shunning obtains and the entire site vanishes in a poof of meta-logic?
Or maybe the "necessity to shun" decreases as the square of the degree of separation from A:
Necessity_to_shun = K / n^2
where n is the degree of separation from the original stinker A?
Maybe one of the super-geniuses at LGF can figure the meta-physics of it all out. Lately it's been interesting like a train wreck. Now it's just boring, dishonest, weird. Did I mention dishonest?
- nil stooge