Brawling with Blair – winding up the dribblejaws

Ah, I love the blogosphere, even if it doesn’t always love me.

In a recent post I commented on an Australian newspaper columnist’s piece about the arrest in Singapore of ABC journalist Peter Lloyd on serious drug charges.

[Tim Blair: ABC has right to defend jailed journalist]
[EM’s response: Peter Lloyd – new charges and dog whistling]

The columnist came across my post, which criticised him for dog whistling to the tune of Australian racism about Asia, Asians and non-Western cultural values.

As can happen, the columnist responded on his blog site, which is hosted at the Daily Telegraph in Sydney.

[Blair’s response: Sick cultures condemned]

Now the hounds have been loosed on my scent. Which, incidentally, neatly makes my point about dog whistling.

But that’s OK, I’ve dealt with dribblejaws before. Their drivel is worse than their bite.

15 Responses to Brawling with Blair – winding up the dribblejaws

  1. Nic says:

    I still don’t see your point. You say that caning people is bad. But Blair is bad for point that out because in criticising people for caning other people he is assuming that human rights are somehow universal. But if human rights are only a western construct, then you are wrong for also criticising singapore for caning people.

  2. Bemused says:

    Which, incidentally, neatly makes my point about dog whistling.

    You’re not really very big on that whole “logic” thing, are you?

    Let’s break it down. Blair was engaging in “racist dog-whistling”, and we are the “hounds” that have come here to let you have it. However, for your point to have been made, we would have to be racist, no? However, I cannot see one racist comment posted by your so-called “hounds”. In fact, many have accused YOU of being racist – a charge you haven’t adequately dealt with.

    But yes, go ahead and keep posting these glib, empty, ad-hominem responses. They speak volumes about your credibility, journalistic or otherwise.

  3. daddy dave says:

    hounds? scent? No, just reading and responding to something you wrote. If you don’t want readers, don’t write.

  4. daddy dave says:

    I’d like to point out that your language is much more abusive than those of Blair and his readers and commenters. the use of teh word “dribblejaws” in this post for instance.

    Also, you should admit that engaging in a blog war with Blair is for many left-wing bloggers a badge of honour. Admit that you’re enjoying this a little.

  5. daddy, yes, just a little. Of course I like readers, but I also think the language issue is interesting. I responded to the accusatory tone in some of the responses to my post and I think if you go back and read the comments posted by readers on Tim’s blog you’ll notice that the tone there is often quite aggressive too.

    I do it with tongue firmly in cheek; I think others take themselves far too seriously. They’re only interested in reinforcing their own jaundiced views, not actually discussing issues in a calm, but frank manner.

  6. Leo says:

    “not actually discussing issues in a calm, but frank manner.”

    That might be because you’re calling them “dribllejaws” and “racists”.

  7. Bemused says:

    I think others take themselves far too seriously. They’re only interested in reinforcing their own jaundiced views, not actually discussing issues in a calm, but frank manner.

    But of course you’re above all that.

    Seriously, take a look in the mirror some time.

  8. This guy attacks others for “not actually discussing issues in a calm, but frank manner.”

    Yet he doesn’t even respond to a single criticism Blair has made. Instead, all he can do is call others racists, and dogs.

    Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

  9. mick says:


    I am perplexed how people commenting on blog – though you do like the extra readers – proves your point about dog whistling. It might go some way to demonstrating that, as martini’s go, you’re neither ethical nor particularly well-mixed.

    Unless there’s something you care to add by way of explanation, it seems fairly clear that you have personally indulged in the racial vilification of Caucasians, & mooted further ethnic & racial hatred against all Asians through a conflation of the Singaporean criminal justice codes – a “sick outcrop of a sick culture” – with biological race. And all as a tawdry pretext to voice an objection to an offhand call for the privatisation of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I’d hate to see you in full swing, Martini, when you’re shaken, not just stirred…

  10. Mick, I can’t see how you can conflate my comments about “sick outcrop of a sick culture” with biological raxe.

    In the post I was talking about caning criminals and stoning adulterers – actions, not countries and not people.
    By the way most scientists and ethicists would actually argue that race is not a product of biology anyway, but a social construct.

    I’m also amused at the effort you go to to insinuate I’m a drunk. That’s laugh-aloud hilarious.

  11. […] Brawling with Blair – winding up the dribblejaws Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)quickie midday […]

  12. Bemused says:

    The appearance of Mr Martini’s approach in the eyes of those opposing him has clearly never crossed his decidedly one-dimensional mind. Calm, rational discussion is his stock-in-trade. He is incapable of ad hominem, dodging arguments or red herrings. These tactics are exclusively deployed by those who don’t agree with him.

    As I said above, time to take a long look in the mirror, ethics man.

  13. jafapete says:

    Great stuff EM. Did you see the latest update on Blair’s blog:

    “Here’s a shock: Martin is a former radio and television journalist and has worked for the ABC and the SBS … ”

    One can only laugh. Good on you for calling the guy out. Cheers, jp

  14. soapboxproject says:

    In the end it all comes back to name calling and taking pop-shots at people where you can.

    Doesn’t matter if it’s the playground or professional media sites.

    Look at who comments, the phrases the draw on and the history they all hang it on. These back’and’forth threads certainly aren’t about the story on the page(s).

  15. mick says:

    But, Martini, I didn’t conflate your comments. I didn’t even make them. You did. The wording is clear.

    As far as it goes, you first conflated Singapore’s criminal justice system with Asian culture, then proceeded to conflate Asian culture with race. And having done so, then nipped back to the Singaporean criminal justice system & gave your eloquent pronouncement of it being a sick outcrop of a sick culture. And now you’re still trying to argue that race somehow is culture. But it’s not.

    Race is purely a biological classification. It is not a culture, a religion, a calling or a profession – or a shoe size or collection of washing machines for that matter. Most scientists would not argue that race is culture. It is not a difficult concept. We have two different, useful words to describe the two very different things. “Race”, and “Culture”. Words mean things, specific things.

    Eg If you go into a bar and ask for a Martini, you expect to receive a Martini. Not an Apple. You’re entitled to consider the bar assistant’s grip on reality to be highly suspect if they serve you the latter with a shrug & the rejoinder that “most scientists & ethicists would argue they are the same”.

    Well, I don’t know whether you’re a drunk or not & as far as I’m concerned, it makes no matter to me. Y’know, the possibility of you being a lush didn’t even cross my mind until you mentioned it. So now we’ve both had a laugh over that –

Leave a reply and try to be polite

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: