40 comments on “Oh tee hee, tee hee indeed

  1. Quite, JuliaM, as Homer Simpson would observe: ” you can’t spell ‘disengagement’ without ‘engagement’.

  2. And commenter Nile on TRUK:

    “…keep up with the moderation on the blog: it’s working, and it’s worth it. Free speech isn’t free of cost, and the chore of moderating comments is a cost-effective way of maintaining the value of free speech.”

    In other news, war is peace…etc.

  3. Fellow murphologists may have observed that by first buttering up the prof in so extravagant a fashion that only the most famished ego could swallow it, it subsequently becomes possible to slip in supplementary observations addressed not to the prof but to other commentators on the thread which would ordinaily not stand a chance. This is Ackermann’s Gambit.

  4. I love his delusions, he tries to make the world in his own image despite it not being so.
    I wonder if he took lessons from Comical Ali, also known as Baghdad Bob – there are no American tanks in Baghdad.

  5. Rob +1

    The “I’m a libertarian” schtick was too obvious. He can’t even troll well. Is there no beginning to his talent?

  6. “Here on my modest little blog we have all shades of opinion, ranging from those who think the Curajus State should be colossal to those who think merely massive will suffice, from those who think the rich are evil parasites who should be bled with taxes to those who think they should be shot, and from those who think I’m a god-like genius all the way down to those who think I merely deserve a peerage for my selfless and self-effacing public service”

  7. I loved this:

    “Belief in free speech and deeply libertarian instincts are things to cherish and entirely consistent with rigorously moderated comments.

    Useful to compare notes with an MEP accustomed to hate and I hope this encourages you to stand for office as you would be an ornament to our public life.”

    Kudos to whomever smuggled that past him.

  8. He is now endorsing the bullying of the Christian bakers over the gay wedding cake (whom he acknowledges were ‘teased’) as consistent with his definition of libertarianism as protecting people’s identities in their communities from abuse.

    ‘But they broke the law’.

    Wow. This has to be some kind of Godfrey Elfwick-like satire.

  9. 🙂

    That’s part one of Ackermann’s Gambit (see above).

    Part two (later in that same thread) goes on to praise the heroism of East German border guards and you have to visit more than a few blogs to find a kind word for that lot of murdering swine.

  10. Yes yes everyone here knows that he is stupid and has known for a long time. Going on and on about it in the comments here doesn’t achieve anything though.

    He needs to keep embarrassing himself in lefty circles until sincere lefties actually stop citing him as though he was a proper authority

  11. Adrian

    Where that Northern Irish judge was a complete idiot (IMVHO), ditto RIchard et al, is in not distinguishing sensibly between “the person being served” and “product being sold”.

    The baker wasn’t discriminating against the gay couple, he was simply saying that he didn’t sell what they wanted.

    He could have said exactly the same to anyone else coming into the baker without any discrimination.

    If someone approached a photographer and said “I would like you to do a photograph for me of X”, and the photographer didn’t do X, it wouldn’t matter if the person asking was white, black, female or otherkin.

    And it wasn’t simply “a cake”. It was a cake with a particular piece of “art” on the front of the cake. The baker should have been able to say “I don’t do “extras” on the top of the cake, unless it’s in this specifc (limited) caralogue, as that’s outside of my capability / what I do / whatever” (or something).

    It was an utterly misguided judgement.

  12. PF, agreed.

    I don’t have a strong view on gay marriage (doesn’t affect me, seems a restriction on otherwise free relationships but whatever).

    But straight supporters of the bakers should have descended on the bakery asking for the same cake. The bakers would have said no to them too. No discrimination – we just don’t sell that kind of cake to anybody.

    The plaintiffs in this case did this deliberately to stir trouble. They know they could have got their cake anywhere else. Abusers of others which should have upset Ritchie’s sensibility. But abuse of the enemy is OK in his eyes.

    Totally unprincipled.

  13. Yes rather more to the Bakers story.
    As a business however they don’t get to decide which groups can buy from them. They can refuse service to a customer for a reason but they’d better be able to back it up.
    Like a buyer who kicks off in the shop and threatens staff.

  14. Someone did a sting of sending putative gay couples into muslim-owned bakeries for the same thing.

    Can’t think why the media didn’t pick up on that one…..

  15. abacab

    If bishops eventually get forced to marry various BLT and otherkin Christians, presumably the same principle will apply to Imams ……

    Re the muslim Bakers, how come a judge didn’t get involved in that one? Yes, yes, it’s a rhetorical question, but…

  16. For the Fat Prof, “engagement” means agreeing with the comment. Most people would assume that there were more to engagement than that.

  17. This has to be trolling, under today’s suggestion from the good professor of a new Leftsturbating blog:

    Sean M. says:

    Good idea! We once had Sunny Hundal’s Liberal Conspiracy, though the problem with that forum was that the comments policy was too liberal and constructive socialist debate was swamped by neoliberal trolls like Worstall.

    I believe all left-wing blogs should censor neoliberal propaganda in their comments sections. Every day, we are deluged with right-wing propaganda, so we need some ‘safe spaces’ where the left can formulate policy and discuss strategy without interference from capitalist trolls, such as Worstall and his minions.

    Of course, said trolls will squeal that this is censorship and – horror! – authoritarian. There is nothing wrong with using authority – the legitimate power of a state – to achieve noble and moral ends like equality and brotherhood and the elimination of poverty.

    We too often are thrown on the defensive by malign neoliberal propaganda that presents Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea as far, far worse places than they actually are – and which, naturally, never mentions their positive achievements. Yes, serious mistakes have been made in all those countries, but we should never forget the nobility of the original intentions of their founders and their many achievements – such as Cuba’s health service.

    Reply
    Richard Murphy says:

    Thanks

    The comparison with Liberal Conspiracy is interesting – and you’re right that was swamped

  18. He is now saying the bakers could have avoided this trouble by simply saying they were busy.

    No doubt the stirrers had an accomplice in the queue to ensure this excuse didn’t wash.

    Is there no end to this genius’ wisdom?

  19. Devotees of Monty Python might spot on the libertarian thread that Murphy’s blog has been compared to a stream of bat’s piss.

  20. I profoundly disagree with Ashers Bakery’s opposition to same-sex love – but believe the discrimination verdict infringes vital freedoms

    Peter Tatchell

    That’s having libertarian views.

  21. Adrian

    He is now saying the bakers could have avoided this trouble by simply saying they were busy.

    What that suggests is that he supports the judgement (against the bakers), but believes that the bakers should simply have lied in order to avoid / break the law…

    Ah, is that my tax assessment on the doormat.

  22. He is now saying the bakers could have avoided this trouble by simply saying they were busy.

    He is advocating lying to subvert a just and necessary law of the Curajus State? Burn the neo liberal heretic! Candidly!

  23. There is no way that is not blatant piss taking!

    Unfortunately, I have liberal friends who have college educated children who say exactly that sort of thing in all seriousness.

    That’s why I call them children and that’s why I go out of my way to avoid them.

  24. Rob, he is now saying you are free to refuse to contract – their crime was stating their opinions.

    Howler of a misunderstanding of the law. If that were true, landlords refusing to let properties to blacks and Irish could simply say ‘it’s gone’ and let it to someone else.

    Not to mention complete turnaround of his view that his brand of libertarianism protects communities and identities. He has no wish to protect anybody!

  25. “My blog is exceptional for actually having the author engage with those who do not agree”

    This is true. He’ll even go so far as to engage with their employers to try to get them sacked, IIRC.

  26. Over there they all seem to be circling each other trying to define what words mean. I expect an argument over what “means” means soon.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.