UPDATE TO THIS ARTICLE: Hola. After talking with mi amigo, I looked at the transcript of this faux-debate (the most recent of the Republicano candidates). Part of the problem is that the article on the World Socialist Website about this faux-debate was not clear on whether their writer was quoting Marco Rubio or what? Because no quote marks were used for the text that mi amigo/my friend quoted from their article to write his comment on their site. And the transcript of this faux-debate is not clear on who is speaking in places. For example, when it looks like Rubio was speaking it was really Wolf Blitzer asking Rubio a question. Confusing. Various forms of the “i” word were used in this faux-debate by everyone (except the moderators: Blitzer, Arrasas) who consistently used the term undocumented immigrants. Good for them! All the others — including the Latino/Hispano candidates, of all people! — used the hateful “i” word language. Disgusting. In the overall context of this article below it really changes nothing so I’m keeping the article as it was. Just keep in mind this update when you read it, por favor. What this does show is that all of the self-described Socialists, Comrades, Marxists, Communists and Troykists commenters who commented on this particular article on the World Socialist Website are just as hateful towards undocumented immigrants as are the Republicano candidates in this faux-debate — and that’s wonderful company to be in! — because their “messiah” writer/their “brilliant writer” on the World Socialist Website used the “i” word term (whether quoting, paraphrasing or whatever he was doing) therefore all the commenters felt the need to rush to his defence and attacked mi amigo/my friend for criticising their writer for using the “i” word. It was a case of “Attack the Messenger.” Chau.—el barrio rosa
Hola. Mi amigo/My friend was reading an article on the World Socialist Website about the most recent faux-debate with the Republicano candidates. He told me he couldn’t get past the paragraph where the writer referred to undocumented immigrants using the “i” word. As he told me: “This is on a socialist website !!” The language “undocumented immigrants” did appear in the same paragraph but mi amigo questioned why the “i” word was used at all. He looked to see whether the writer was quoting Marco Rubio, but that wasn’t the case as there were no quote marks. So mi amigo wrote a comment on their site about this. He gave me a copy of his comment:
(Beginning of comment:) I couldn’t get past this:
Rubio set the tone with a series of prepared attacks on Trump’s business career, baiting him as an employer who hired illegal immigrants…
Ugh. There’s the offensive “i” word once again referring to undocumented immigrants, that the right-wing always use as they’re foaming at the mouth with their rednecks and hating on migrants. The “i” word is not something I expect to read on a socialist website. But apparently Patrick Martin uses the term in his daily life (WTF?) otherwise he wouldn’t be writing it here. I also read the term the other day from a commenter on here. Sigh. We really are going backwards very quickly. It’s hopeless. (The end of his comment)
That’s all he said and you might be surprised at the hateful, hostile, nasty, arrogant and patronising over-reaction he received just for writing that. As you can see, he was critical of the writer’s use of the emotionally-charged “i” word term which angers both of us to read. He pointed out that the “i” word is the ugly hate language of the right-wing, and not something he expects to see on a socialist website. Yeah well. In these Orwellian days one should expect to see that on that socialist website. Mi amigo told me that this happened once before — their use of the “i” word — and he wrote them about at that time. They responded by apologising. They said it was a mistake that had “slipped by their Editors.” Really? Mi amigo and I questioned why the “i” word was used to begin with to “slip by their Editors?” That would seem to imply that the writer of the article has the “i” word in his standard vocabulary and uses it on automatic pilot instead of using the language undocumented immigrant(s), but mi amigo didn’t challenge them on that.
Mi amigo says he regrets saying anything about their use of the “i” word on this occasion because he received nothing but hate in response, and that was not the reaction he expected on this site. Any other site yes, but not this one. He was attacked by multiple people for being critical of “the brilliant writer” of the article and for “lowering the level of political discourse on this site.” Oh fuck off! Get a grip, people! Are you really that fucking thin-skinned? You and your snooty, pretentious “political discourse” nonsense. Ugh. It seems on that site that the writers are seen as Sacrosanct and Above Reproach by the regular commenters. One is not to be critical of anything that they write but rather read their articles from a position of blind allegiance and complete agreement followed by gushing cheer-leading in the comments complete with pom-poms. That’s the impression I’ve had too. I asked mi amigo if anyone supported him? He said (with my edits):
“No, not a one. No one supported me. There was such a glaring over-reaction to what I had written. I couldn’t understand it. I began to get the sense I was being trolled by one or two of the regulars. One person slightly supported me and then backtracked by writing this snippy thing back to me saying I was nit-picking considering what the article was about. The article was about the nastiness of this gutter-based, depraved faux-debate, and in my mind using the “i” word only contributes to that nastiness so my comment seemed quite appropriate to me. Then, one person accused me of accusing the writer of being right-wing, which I had not done. I was saying that he used language that the right-wing uses. Damn, the people are dense. Most commenters exaggerated what I wrote, they twisted my words around, they misinterpreted what I wrote, they “put words in my mouth” that I didn’t say, and I received nothing but hate and nastiness from all commenters. I sensed that most people didn’t read what I wrote even though it was very short in length. They read a couple of sentences and then started in on their attack of me because they saw my comment as being critical of the site and taking a “pot-shot at the site” as one person called it. I didn’t respond back to most commenters because people didn’t seem to be reading or comprehending what I had already written. I responded back to one commenter in a very polite and friendly style and received even more venom and hostility back from that person, which blew me away. So I realised that responding back even in the most polite style would only likely inflame the situation even more and cause matters to be worse and then probably cause me to be banned, not that I plan to go back. The commenters hadn’t read or understood what I’d written so far so why would they understand any clarification? The way their responses were written I sensed that people came on there to pick a fight with me.”
Mi amigo said that it takes the moderator on that site “forever and a day” to post comments which makes it very difficult to have any meaningful conversation on the site because of the many hours’ time-lapse/delays in posting comments, and he senses that they don’t want any discussion or conversation anyway. They apparently read every comment before posting it. He later went back only to tell the commenter who was the first to attack him that he had checked the transcript of the faux-debate and the “i” word was not used in the “debate.” Both Marco Rubio and Wolf Blitzer used the term “undocumented immigrant(s)” according to the transcript. That’s surprising. But that didn’t make any difference to these commenters. They remained blind to that or as mi amigo said, “One commenter said that the writer of the article should have used the “i” word term, so the writer of this article is correct (the commenter wrote). Sigh. The commenters go to any extreme to defend the “brilliant writer” of the article.
Mi amigo also told me:
“The first person who attacked me used the same tactic that Dembots use about their Dem politicians which is that any criticism of their politicians — even the slightest — is seen as an “attack” on them. That commenter had accused me of “attacking” the writer. I wanted to make that analogy, but I knew I wouldn’t be allowed to. The moderator would interpret that as “a personal attack” on the commenter. I didn’t attack anyone, including the writer of the article. All I did was to question why the writer used the “i” word when it was not used in the faux-debate.”
Yes. (Sigh.) Pathetic.
Many of their commenters on the World Socialist Website feel the need to gush over their writers and eat the ass of their writers on a regular basis as if the writers are gods in their mind. Neither of us can understand that. One will frequently see in the comments these words: “BRILLIANT ARTICLE” and other gushing praise. Or, “Brilliant writer.” They have many writers on that site and we have both wondered on occasion whether it is one writer gushing/cheer-leading in the comments for one of the other writers with this “BRILLIANT ARTICLE” stuff as a way of promoting the site with the thinking being that if enough people read “BRILLIANT ARTICLE” and “BRILLIANT WRITER” repeatedly in all caps that this will encourage people who visit the site for the first time to come back for more “brilliance.” *roll eyes* I doubt that will work because stupidity is in today, not “brilliance.” Their articles are usually very informative and well-researched and nonpartisan, but I don’t see any need to constantly gush over them or their writers. That’s a bit much to me. Mi amigo described the responses to his comments as:
“The responses to me were rather rabid and it took all I could do to read them. These comments in response to me were what I have come to expect to read from right-wingers, but these people wear the “socialist” label. Some commenters agreed with calling undocumented immigrants by the hateful “i” word which is not something I expected to ever see on a socialist site. One commenter went so far as to say that the writer did not use the “i” word. I guess that commenter skipped the second paragraph of the article.”
Well one can expect to see the hateful “i” word on any site (except this one) these days. We have both noticed that the “i” word is now being used by people who once despised it and objected to it. Yes, phony “liberals” and fake “progressives” are now using it unfortunately. I’ve seen that. I don’t allow the “i” word on this site.
It’s a Matter of Respect
The “i” word is a disrespectful, hateful, ugly, emotionally-based word historically screamed by the right-wing, usually in all caps. Apparently those idiots think that people can’t read lower case words. Whereas the words “undocumented immigrant(s)” are respectful, neutral, non-emotionally-charged words which give deserved respect to immigrants/migrant workers. It is based on whether a migrant/immigrant has “papers” or documents to be here in The Cesspool/the US/Los Estados Unidos. So one is either undocumented (without papers) or documented (with papers). There’s nothing emotionally-charged about that neutral language. But the not-very-bright basura who need somebody to disrespect and scapegoat routinely use the emotionally-charged “i” word on a regular basis.
Mi amigo said he ended his first comment with something I’ve said: “We are going backwards very quickly. It really is hopeless.” That’s just the reality. But he was attacked for saying that too. He was accused of not being a “Trotskyist.” He said to me: “I’ve never claimed to be a Trotskyist or a socialist. I didn’t wear any label on there. I was just a reader of their site, or at least I was up until now.” He’s noted that on several occasions commenters there make baseless assumptions about other commenters without knowing anything about them. (That’s very intelligent isn’t it?!) For some reason, they assume that anyone that reads that site is a Trotskyist or Marxist.
I asked mi amigo if he plans to continue to read their site. He said:
“I don’t know. Maybe. Maybe selectively so. I’d prefer to go elsewhere. I know I won’t be reading the comments again. I’m so very turned off by these experiences on their site. The commenters are not who you think they are. I’ve learned that the commenters there are no different than the commenters on any other site, but they think they are. They think they are better and/or more intelligent than other people because the wear the Marxists, Communists, Socialists or Trotskyist labels.”
Yes, I’ve read all of those descriptions on their site, along with that outdated word “Comrade,” which some of the regular commenters address each other by, as well as addressing the writers as “Comrade” so and so. From my research, today the term “Comrade” is associated with Communism/Marxism. I’ve noticed the pretentious “philosophical” style of how some (many?) people on there write their comments. I can see them sitting at their keyboard with their nose in the air pretending to be the authority on all matters philosophical-political, Dahling.) Mi amigo continued:
“Commenters on there use one or more of those labels I listed above to describe themselves and some of the commenters rather frequently quote some “celebrity writer” (from some website to give their comment credibility?) as if they need to be told what to think by a “celebrity writer?” There’s also no sense of community there at all. One will read “we must do” sloganeering there that’s connected with their wishful-thinking that socialism is somehow going to miraculously take over the world.”
Yes, that’s damned delusional. I know from my experience on their site my opinion of them has changed within the last year. I agree with most of their politics (from what I’ve read of their politics), but their commenters generally can be assholes and I can confirm there’s no sense of community there at all. There can also be this tone of arrogance in some of the comments from the self-described Marxists and Trotskyist. And I’ve seen that “BRILLIANT ARTICLE” nonsense many, many times on there over many months when I hesitantly went down to the comment section. They have been excellent with their articles on Bernie Sanders and his now mostly-dead campaign. They’ve written lots about that, and closet-case Democrats pretending to be “socialists” have predictably gone on there and tried to get the commenters there to support Ms Hillary and the thoroughly corrupt Democratic Party. Note to Dembots: A real/true socialist wants nothing to do with a thoroughly corrupt, pro-capitalist, pro-imperialistic party such as your scum of the Earth, misnamed “Democratic” Party rut.
Gracias for your report, mi amigo, and I’m very sorry to hear about your experience. That’s most unfortunate that you were so misunderstood by thick people with an agenda including blind worship for their site’s writers, and that’s what this amounts to. It’s also too bad that some people take criticism of someone as “an attack” on someone. I think that comes directly from D and R partisan politics where one’s candidate is seen as Sacrosanct and not to be criticised, which is really shallow thinking. And this blind worship of people just because they write articles for a website is pretty fucked-up thinking. But unfortunately, so many people — including Trotskyist, Marxists, Communists and Socialists — today need a “saviour” or “messiah” figure even in a writer for a website. Loco. I didn’t know that “socialists” or whatever they choose to call themselves are so hateful and feel the need to resort to scapegoating people. Loco. Here in The Cesspool/the US, we are a nation of immigrants. The words on the Statue of Liberty apparently mean nothing to these people. We might as well ship the thing back to France. Those words are:
“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
If one is not a direct descendant of the native peoples who were here to begin with, one is technically an undocumented immigrant no matter how one got here. Chau.—el barrio rosa