The heck with Little Green Footballs

I have determined that it is all the rage to attack Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs.

So I’m going to post about Charles, too.

Did you know he rides bicycles? Like, for fun? Not because he’s trying to lose weight or anything. Because he wants to. And then he watches the Tour de France, which is at least slightly more interesting than televised golf, but not by much.

Charles also takes photographs and posts them on his blog. Can you believe it? And what’s with the theme behind this one? An angel? An angel? How does that fit in with his Darwinism?

I’m telling you, there’s something wrong with that man. As for his blog, well, gee, definitely stay away from one of the most popular places in the blogosphere. Cut all ties with it. Why would you want to be friends with a guy who’s been exposing the jihadists’ agenda since 2001? Why not get into stupid, useless fights? Hell, I’m going to do my best to make Charles hate me, too.

You got that, Charles? In your face, buddy. It’s ON.

This entry was posted in Bloggers, Humor. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to The heck with Little Green Footballs

  1. annoyinglittletwerp says:

    Charles Johnson believes that anyone who dare strays from orthodox Darwinism is akin to a witch burner or flat earther.
    I believe that the Lord used evolution-I agree with evolution…to a point-to create the world and that He is actively involved with it, us, me-every day.
    Call it intelligent design. Call it whatever.
    Charles Johnson has no use for people like me…and I have no use for Charles Johnson.

  2. I don’t think that’s an accurate portrayal of his stance.

    But, uh—the intention of this post was humor.

    And maybe a little link-whoring.

    But I don’t get the “Let’s jump on Charles Johnson” bandwagon. Everyone has flaws, but I simply don’t get why so many people are in his face these days.

    There are a fair number of highly popular bloggers out there that I really can’t stand. I just don’t write about them, to them, or hang with them in any way. I have better things to do with my time than start blogwars.

    People should take a breath and step back the next time they want to jump on another blogger. I mean, really.

  3. What is “link whoring”?

    I was thinking of adding some links to anti-jihad sites on my blog, so I did try to understand what the reasons were behind all the feuds with Charles Johnson. I was going to link to his site, but then I noticed there were “factions”. I wanted to figure out who to link and it seemed fraught with danger.

    As far as I can tell, Charles Johnson is the one who initiated each feud I could identify by either 1) cutting off his prior anti-jihad blogger allies for associating with racists, or with one or two degrees of separation from racists, or 2) blocking people from his site for thinking Intelligent Design wasn’t as dangerous as he thought it was. Apparently he turned out to be right about the racist issue. And he may turn out to be right about the Intelligent Design issue. But he is not effective at helping people understand why he has come to the conclusions he has reached. So, he “gets it” early, but isn’t sharing his insight in a way that is helpful.

    In my case, he blocked me for a good reason. I was doing something that was rude to Salamantis. (It was funny, though, and he deserved it.) Anyway, I seem to be the exception, as far as I could tell.

  4. xyzzy says:

    I’ve been a reader of LGF, and a very infrequent commenter, for many years. I think that a lot of people look at LGF as having taken a substantial lurch away from what they thought the blog was about. Some people put different time frames on when they think the lurch occurred, for me, it was the election in November. Since then, it has been anti-Jindal, anti-Palin, anti-creationist, and generally just anti.

    The anti-creationism is an example of where a lot of people are seeing divisiveness. If someone responds to an evolution thread and expresses reasonable concerns about how science is taught in public schools, then one is almost immediately accused of being a ‘stealth creationist’ and trying to implement some ‘wedge strategy’.

    It seems to me that there is a lot less room at LGF for reasonable discussion these days, and much more about group-think.

    So, I understand and appreciate the humor, but I think some folks find the situation generally less than funny.

  5. Perpetua, “link-whoring” is writing about someone in the hopes that they’ll link to what you write. None of us is above it now and then.

    I don’t agree that Charles initiated the blogwars, either. While things can be misinterpreted pretty easily in the blogosphere, Charles does have a history of getting jumped on for no reason.

  6. Buck says:

    So now Meryl has discovered the horrible truth. If you really need hits from LGF, you need to insult and trash Charles.

    I really hope you enjoy the hits…

    I tried the same thing a few years ago, and all I got was listed on the anti-idiotarian page.

    It is funny how a few people took you seriously and came out with the knives…

  7. LynnB says:

    xyzzy — what LGF has “become” (always was) is anti-Nazi, anti-fascist, anti- anti-science. It remains (as it always has been) anti-jihad and anti-idiotarian.

    If you pay attention, there are any number of creationist commenters that Charles hasn’t banned. It’s the ones who use his bandwidth to call him names and tell him what and what not to post that he deletes or cuts off.

    I don’t know. I think most of us would have a limited tolerance for guests insulting us in our own homes. But that’s just me…

  8. ladycatnip says:

    Great site, Meryl. I’ve been at LGF since 2004 and yes, Charles has broadened his horizons, but it’s still a great site, with information you’re not necessarily going to get elsewhere in the msm, and there’s a hoard of great lizard posters.

    annoyinglittletwerp: There’s plenty of room for those of us who believe God created the earth. Charles and most of us get really annoyed when someone thinks they can use LGF as a forum to foist their beliefs on others, which is just plain rude.

  9. andrew73 says:

    My father always told me that a gentile’s true character is revealed in his attitude towards Jews. Although I disagree with C. Johnson on his blind support for evolutionary theory, I laud him for his support of Israel, which is as strong as anyone else’s in the blogosphere. The logic is simple: Johnson likes Jews and therefore I like him.

  10. Yisrael Medad says:

    JWFool terms it “blog pimping” and he hates me for it. Watch out, he might come your way.

    As for LGF/Charles, maybe he’s just…evolved?

  11. A word to the commenters whose remarks were deleted: I am not approving personal attacks on Charles, and so far, precious few of you have managed to criticize LGF without attacking Charles.

    I’ve been reading LGF every day since shortly after 9/11, 2001. I have yet to find a single reason to side with those bloggers who have become Charles’ enemies. I don’t agree with everything Charles says or does. But I don’t understand the vitriol launched at him, either.

    I won’t allow it here.

    Andrew73, Charles has always been a friend to Jews. That puts him pretty high up on my list, too. I know that if he and I ever get into a disagreement, he will never throw around anti-Semitic slurs.

    That happened with another blogger that used to travel in my circles. He retired, and came back, and has since sent me link requests. Yeah, over my dead and buried bones. I have a long memory about things like that.

  12. wahabicorridor says:

    Love you Meryl. Too Funny. Thanks for everything.

  13. greenmr says:

    Hey Meryl… you got your “John” to pay attention. ;-)

  14. DamnCat says:

    “annoyinglittletwerp Says:
    I believe that the Lord used evolution-I agree with evolution…to a point-to create the world …”

    Charles Johnson has written many times that evolution and belief in God are not incompatible. He really does not have any problem with religious people – he just doesn’t want their faith taught in science classes. Don’t try to paint him as the second coming of Madeline Murray O’Hare – he certainly isn’t.

    Personally, I find his anti-creationist jihad dull – so I just skip over those posts. There is plenty of other good stuff on his blog.

  15. Amendment to my #3:

    Charles has posted a comment that got someone blocked from his site.
    Clearly, the comment was an implied threat of physical violence against CAIR. So we can see that Charles is making appropriate decisions in blocking previously registered users.

    Actually, it would be great if Charles did a post with more examples and included the explanation of why the comment was unacceptable so we could better understand what is going on. For example, would Angry White Guy have been banned for saying “towelhead” if he had not also made the violent threat?

  16. Ben F says:

    Agree with DamnCat. CJ isn’t anti-religion, as his “Lao Stinky” sayings make clear.

    Science is a “materialistic” subject in that it aims at understanding the material world. The Discovery Institute’s express agenda is to discredit the materialistic world-view, and it seeks to undermine science as a means of understanding our world by muddying the very definition of science.

    Pushing intelligent design is just one of DI’s tactics.

    Science is science. Some scientists believe that science renders spiritual beliefs superfluous; others do not. Both positions are ultimately matters of faith, and neither belongs in a science class IMO.

    Some creationists fear science for the same reason that some Muslims fear critical (in the non-pejorative sense) analysis of Islam and some Jews fear proselytization: they are afraid of losing part of their flock.

    What I find odious about outfits like the Discovery Institute and Jews for Jesus is that they fly under false colors.

  17. Aaron's cc: says:

    Also agree with DamnCat.

    I’m Orthodox Jewish and pretty much skip the anti-Creationist stuff and increasingly skip the comments. I know of many Ivy League Orthodox Jewish science professors who contribute more to science and humanity (religious AND secular) in a month than the entire Religion of Peace does in a millennium.

    Is there a Muslim equivalent to ?

    When was the last time a non-Muslim benefited from a fundamentalist Muslim?

  18. Kolya says:

    The reason Charles gets jumped on is that he writes from an unashamedly moral point of view. There are countless bloggers who are bigoted, moralistic or chauvinistic, who mouth off in a forthright way.

    Charles isn’t any of those things, yet he writes from the standpoint of taking right and wrong deadly seriously. He makes bold value judgements in a way that exudes moral integrity. That is an inherently powerful platform from which to voice one’s opinions.

    It is that attribute of his writing that evokes CDS (Charles Derangement Syndrome) in many of his opponents.

  19. pst314 says:

    If we’re going to denounce Charles for his bicycle riding, here’s one of my favorite jokes from The Joy of Yiddish:

    At a mass meeting in Berlin, Hitler was haranguing the crowd, shrieking: “And who is responsible for all our troubles?,” expecting the crowd to shout, “The Jews.”

    However, a little Jew shouts back, “The bicycle riders!”

    Hitler looks up, astonished. “Why the bicycle riders?” he asks.

    “Why the Jews?” replies the Jew.

Comments are closed.