Southern Avenger misrepresents my blog on Southern Avenger.

I think I have a classic example of a major tactic of neo-Confederate argumentation.

I recently blogged on Southern Avenger, a neo-Confederate blogger and writer for the "Charleston City Paper." It is the alternative weekly paper for that city, much like the "Dallas Observer" is for Dallas. This is the link to the blog.

http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2008/02/neo-confederate-ranter-columnist-for.html

This is the link to his blog. http://southernavenger.ccpblogs.com/

In my previous blog I was somewhat perplexed as to why the Charleston City Paper had him on their staff. Then it occurred to me that they might had him for amusement of their readers as some colorful character. This has been done by other papers, such as Joe Bob Briggs for the Dallas Observer. The other question is whether Southern Avenger understands this or not, and if he understands it, is he playing to his audience. That is consciously choosing topics and themes and writing his column to play to that audience. I blogged on Southern Avenger Feb. 19, 2008, and yesterday, Feb. 26, 2008, I get an email which just a heading, "Thanks for the Plug" and this link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgwWhPFsz5I

It is a You Tube video, which after describing me, goes on to take umbrage at this sentence in my blog, in fact Southern Avenger has it on screen in his video.

"Southern Avenger recently has had a couple columns on professional wrestling as if it is a serious topic. Perhaps Southern Avenger is trying to be the professionally colorful southerner."

I didn't actually say anything about my opinion about professional wrestling. I am discussing how Southern Avenger portrays it. Obviously saying "as if it is a serious topic" implies that others might write about professional wrestling differently. I want to make it clear how Southern Avenger writes on professional wrestling.

However, for the Southern Avenger, this means I am elitist for an opinion which I didn't express. This is a key tactic used by neo-Confederates.

You argue position A.

The neo-Confederate argues position anti-B, which implies you argued position B, when you did no such thing. Position B usually is some position which is indefensible and if you can lose the argument if you don't realize that the neo-Confederate has misrepresented your position or really fall for it and start defending position B. The best reply is simply to say to his argument, "What does that have to do with the question at hand?"

The other tactic here is to take one sentence and focus all attention on it to exclude attention from the major questions of the blog.

1. Why is the Charleston City Paper having him on the staff. Is it for amusement of its readers?

2. If the Southern Avenger is on the staff of the Charleston City Paper for their readers amusement is Southern Avenger aware of this, and even playing to it?

Inquiring minds want to know, however, I don't think I will get an answer to this. Some other issue will be pulled out of thin air on some rational and SA will go on and on.

There are other minor items. Southern Avenger claims I am angry, which I am not. Perhaps the SA's telepathy is on the blink. Also, claims I am a leftist, which is a surprise to me. Of course, when Thomas Fleming, editor of Chronicles has an issue, with the cover title, "Turn Left at the Renaissance," your realize that you are probably a leftist to someone. I like the Italian Renaissance.

At least the Southern Avenger isn't denying that he is a neo-Confederate like some others.