Of @Shoq & @BrooksBayne

I spent the month of June with way too much of my brain filled up for way too much time with two men who are for lack of a better term “Twitter Personalities’ of the political stripe — one is @Shoq and the other is @BrooksBayne.

On June 1st, I published the first of a series of articles about @Shoq on The Trenches, a website published by @BrooksBayne.  It was a story about @Shoq illegally recording a phone call and I’m proud of the work I did on the story; what I think is cunning, compelling, professional journalism. However, I ended up having to quit working with @BrooksBayne less than a week after starting the story, after he made a remark about violence and the Bretty Kimberlin story that I wanted nothing to do with. A series of other clashes developed with Brooks over the coming weeks and then he went into full meltdown mode in the past few days. I know regret even trying to work with him. Meanwhile, @Shoq stonewalled and his circle of friends published conspiratorial pieces that questioned the underlying truth of the story; a weird move since the story is true and they know it.

But there’s an irony about Shoq and Brooks.

Dealing  with the publisher and the subject of the story revealed an interesting truth; they are actually the same person. Not literally, of course. (THAT would be quite a scoop.) I’m sure this will be laughed off by their supporters but for the rest of you, think this through with me…

One way to look at @Shoq and @BrooksBayne is that they are polar opposites. In stratified political world we live in, it’s obvious that Brooks and Shoq have nothing in common. If we were to grab a piece of paper and draw line down the middle with the political left on one side (leftists, liberal, progressives, Democrats) and the political right (conservatives, right wingers, Republican or even the word Brooks throws around constantly ‘Federalists’) on the other, we see a very very clear separation.

Viewed from this perspective, the difference could not be clearer.

However, let’s erase that left / right and draw a new one.

When we do this, something new emerges immediately.

Oh, look at that! Now they are both on the same side of the line!

If this seems like a harsh assessment, I’m sorry but I believe it’s true. Go visit their rancid Twitter timelines for a fuller experience. Both Shoq and Brooks are offensive bullies that attempt to use ideology as cudgel to beat both allies and enemies into line in order to compensate for some deeply seated neurosis. It’s not about policy with them. It’s about a twisted, nasty and immaure sort of testosterone fueled power trip that lets them tie a sense of faux accomplishment to their Twitter-hood.  Neither is ‘out there’ in the real world making a difference. They exist online.

They don’t dare admit see any of this, of course. Neither will their intimidated minions.

But I see it and I reject it. It’s way beyond the politics of left and right; it’s just bad. Very very bad.

Comments

  1. Robert Hersey says:

    I don’t believe that this is a harsh assessment at all . I’ve had many question about BB , I do follow him and have seen the fights he’s picked with “our side” .

  2. Agreed, this is all subjective for you and I to come up with this opinion–but BB is an a**hole!!! Really worse than an asshole. But the thing is–he probably takes that as a compliment. I’m fairly quiet on the twitters, but am starting to get my voice…watching this though, has been nauseating. To see someone from the conservative/”federalist” side do this–makes me ponder what to say, to whom, how, and consider whether I would be attacked by someone “on my side”. I can take namecalling from libruls, but not someone on “my side”…it’s defeatist. I saw him pounding out all these questions to Aaron Walker the other day, as if he was sizing him up to consider him worthy of being called a conservative. Since when is he the arbiter of who is conservative or not?

    BB says he doesn’t attack other conservatives unless he is “attacked” first…ok, whatevs…I don’t care who struck first or what was said by the “Beta, neocon in the “echo chamber”…he goes way below the belt…WAY BELOW…

  3. Department of Partisan Enforcement, Internet Division says:

    NOTICE: This blog is in violation of Section 1(a) and 1(c) of Code 314 of the 1996 Internet Partisan Accords, which states:

    “$a) All persons, living or dead, shall be classed by one of the following acceptable partisan affiliations:
    REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRATIC, CONSERVATIVE, LIBERAL, LIBERTARIAN, PROGRESSIVE, TEA PARTY, GREEN PARTY, FEDERALIST, ANARCHO-SYNDICALIST, RIGHT, LEFT;”

    (…)

    “$c) No person, living or dead, who publicly or privately asserts their partisan affiliation, may be permitted to associate or be associated with those persons, living or dead, who have publicly or privately asserted an opposing partisan affiliation (See: Partisan Social Governance Rules, Sect. 1.5.3), without an official Bi-Partisan Release Form 1011F(a).”
    —-
    In publicly asserting an association between partisans @BrooksBayne and @Shoq, and furthermore classing them in an unrecognized political faction of “Insecure Bullying Assholes Whose Twitter Streams Make The World Uglier”, this blog post clearly violates the letter and spirit of the Code. This post must be immediately revised or its author shall be subject to a penalty from the Department of Paranoia, and may, in accordance with the 2010 Internet Ruling on Accepted Conspiracy Theories, be classed as “a plant” and/or “a traitor”. The author is reminded that those persons so classed as plants and/or traitors are no longer protected by the Internet Global Accords on Basic Human Decency (See: Sect. 591.6.b).

  4. Feminazi Slut says:

    Ha! Genius! I have been thinking this myself (coming from the left.) What’s also similar is their need to dominate women. Good for you for calling out Bayne! I respect that.

  5. Feminazi Slut says:

    And the comment above me – funny. My thoughts exactly.

  6. I unfollowed Brooks Bayne ages ago because he’s not only an obnoxious moron with a weird obsession with “beta males” (I think his obsession says more about him than it does about anyone else), he’s an antisemitic POS, and that’s just what I was able to tell from his twitter feed and blog on the few times I actually paid attention. God knows what I didn’t see that could be worse! He’s a disgrace to our side, and I suspect the only reason he has as many followers as he does is because a whole lot of people follow everyone back or just follow anyone who identifies him/herself as being of the same “tribe.” (See also: the dopes who have 5000 FB “friends” they don’t know at all, many of whom would horrify anyone with a shred of decency.) Brooks Bayne is just one more of the millions of schmucks who are just plain f’ing up the internet with their ugly presence. Ditto Shoq and every other Twitter asshat like them.

  7. What’s also similar is their need to dominate women.

    Kinda goes with that “beta male” obsession, doesn’t it? Like I said, it says more about him than it does anyone else! Methinks he doth project too much. ;)

  8. No love lost between myself and Stranahan… but this assessment is acutely accurate. And not only bashing the opposition, but denying or defending their own affiliation’s shortcomings religiously.

Leave a Reply