SUBSCRIBE:
Error: Unable to create directory uploads/2018/07. Is its parent directory writable by the server?

To Roger Ebert’s Followers: Which Side Is Truly Prejudiced In the Cordoba House Debate?

by
Posted on August 27 2010 5:00 pm
Walter Hudson is a political commentator and co-founder of Minnesota's North Star Tea Party Patriots, a statewide educational organization. He runs a blog entitled Fightin Words. He also contributes to True North, a hub of Minnesotan conservative commentary. Follow his work via Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.

Pages: 1 2

Be Sociable, Share!
Print This Post Print This Post

I appreciate Roger Ebert’s recent effort to promote my detailed breakdown of his take on the Cordoba House mosque near ground zero of the 9/11 attacks. To be fair, I’m not sure he intended to promote it. However, when you tweet a link to over 200,000 followers, that’s the end result.

Rather than address the content of my post, Ebert instead choose to focus on its format. He criticized NRB’s editorial choice to organize larger posts into several pages when multiple points are addressed.

Ten things he knows better than me, including how to spread them across 11 pages to drive up the hit count.

Of course, no amount of format trickery is going to drive traffic if no one is interested in reading past Page One, or lure readers quite like a tweet from the likes of Ebert. If he truly took exception to the post, I’m not sure why he opted to draw attention to it.

Regardless, the publicity provided occasion for Ebert’s followers to consider why he’s wrong. One of them, “Doc Zeus,” took up Ebert’s cause. Like Ebert, Zeus labeled opposition to Cordoba House as irrational religious prejudice, as if that accusation dismissed his obligation to speak to the substance of my arguments.

So wait? Your basic thesis of your article seems to be that Roger Ebert’s moral and intellectually bankrupt when he accuses all critics of the Cordoba House of being racist troglodytes (my words) and your supporting argument includes statements that the true prejudice of Islam is that it’s not a religion of peace [sic; in fact, my statement was the opposite] and therefore be subject [sic] to heavy scrutinization [sic] not subject to other religions. Ignoring your intentional sublimation of Ebert’s rhetorical techniques in your criticism for a moment, it seems positively baffling that you would launch a defense of Cordoba critics and basically reinfornce [sic] the entire crux of Ebert’s argument in the first place.

Follow that? Apparently, the only reinforcement required to bolster Ebert’s “argument” is continuing to disagree with him. In the exchange that followed, Zeus disregarded substantive points made in both the post and my replies to his comments. Instead, he opted to rephrase the same tired accusation of prejudice.

Be Sociable, Share!

Continue reading page: 1 2

8 Responses leave one →

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS

Copyright 2018 NewsReal Blog

The Theme Foundry