28 December 2006

More on that rant

Turns out that my rant last week has struck a bit of a chord. Duncan picked it up on the Scottish Blogging Roundup (and like he says, I'm not the first to challenge Councillor Kelly) while David Farrer has opted to remove the Councillor from his blogroll.

I should point out that I wasn't calling for people to do that, but it does show what a low opinion bloggers are getting of the Councillor. And with an election around the corner, you'd think that elected officials would be wary of annoying anyone who publishes their thoughts where other people can read them.

UPDATE (29.12): Kelly has opted to blame the Scottish Blogging Roundup for the latest wave of criticism. He seems to think it's an SNP propaganda tool, a charge which, as far as I'm aware doesn't hold much water. He's also suggesting that there's an element of collusion here, that right-wing/libertarian and pro-SNP blogs, plus the Roundup (which I have to say, is pretty neutral) are working together to attack him. To be honest, I don't think we're organised enough to even consider that seriously, even if we wanted to...

ANOTHER UPDATE: Duncan has responded to Kelly's unfair attack on the SBR. I think it's a robust response and probably more eloquently worded than anything I could have managed in such a situation (mine would have involved asterisks).


Reactionary Snob said...

What worries me, Will, is that so many bloggers are attacking this Councillor anonymously and offensively.

Why the vitriol at one man? I've highlighed him so am somewhat guilty. Yes, his views aren't coherent and, in my opinion, deeply simplistic but I'm not sure why the Scottish Nats and right-wing/libertarian bloggers have attacked him so vociferously.

He is, after all, only a Councillor.


Will said...

Well, I'm not a fan of anonymous attacks for sure. However, he doesn't seem to have a clear consistent policy on comments (well, on anything really), and I suggest that it boils down to comments that he likes or thinks he can answers.

Then, of course, he doesn't answer them but just recites the same old slogans.

What I suspect is that those people who are attacking him so vociferously have more often than not tried to challenge him only to find that he appears impervious to logic or alternative arguments. Then the frustration boils over and then comes the attack on him. I'm not yet convinced that the attacks on his daughter's blog are all that justified though.

Why the frustration? It's more than the fact that he's saying something we disagree with (most of us are good at dealing with that). I'd say that his argumentation style is the main complaint (David Farrer's post gives good examples of him in action), but also the fact that even when he does allow a comment through, we get the same buzzwords back each time.

For me, it's also the fact that he seems to represent everything that's wrong with Labour: he seems to have nothing positive to say, and is capable only of demonising other groups (even if he has to stretch the truth beyond all recognition to do so); and when you challenge him, he can only come back with the same stream of meaningless slogans and bile. Though the main reason I went for him like I did was that I was tired of him claiming that he was producing all that garbage in order to defend people like me.

Logic like, 'Brigham Young University opposes homosexuality - BYU has contacts with Brian Adam MSP - Brian Adam is in the SNP - therefore the SNP is homophobic' makes me want to throw my laptop out of the window in rage. :D