"The main good news is that I don’t have a conflict of interest issue anymore that was preventing me from defending myself against these baseless accusations. So it’s on. The other good news is that the blogosphere has risen as one and protested, loudly, the influence a handful of well-financed right wing shills have on the public discourse."
So now she's free and pissed.
I favor independent blogging, and I like to see things get interesting. Interesting... hot... sticky... whatever! Just not boring.
१२ फेब्रुवारी, २००७
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६१ टिप्पण्या:
Agreed.
It'll be tough for future campaigns to hire experienced bloggers, because the best bloggers feature unfettered content.
It's a bit late for her to get self-righteous now. She had her chance: when her words were being hurled against the Edwards campaign, she could have defended them; she could have demanded that Edwards stand by them. But no: what Marcotte said instead was this:
"My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics."
Weak. Very, very weak - and many of her commenters agreed it was weak.
The other problem that Edward's still will have unless he does a Sister Soldja number on her is now she says she is going to both work to elect Edward's and get ugly with her opponents. So she is going to up the invective and the press is now going to run back to Edward's looking for endorsements or a disavowal.
In view of her quasi-apology, let's remind ourselves of Marcotte's thought for the day when the late Chief Justice passed away:
"I’m a hot, moist, inviting tw*t. Warm, wet, inviting. But not to you or your friends. Even if I were single, these nubile thighs do not wrap around the hips of Republicans. You can fuck yourselves or the dry tw*ts of the self-hating misogynists who will allow you tiny penis to penetrate them. Have fun! Um, the wounds you get from rubbing you un-lubricated dick repeatedly into your heartless, soulless woman–iodine is your best friend, my be-scarred friend."
I'm sure we can all agree that it clearly wasn't Marcotte's intention to insult or insult anyone personally with that devastatingly concise "criticism[] of public politics." So not only was she forced into a humiliating apology by the Edwards campaign, it wasn't even a credible one.
If her hot, white, sticky comment was a criticism of public politics then she is a hack who cannot write. I would have at least respected her for consistency and having large ovaries if she had stood behind that statement as one designed to offend Christians. But the non-appology leaves her looking like a weasel.
Trey
Working on the self-parody angle, is she?
"Right wing shills"? "Financed"? "Handful"? Nope, just a whole lot of people with an ounce of common sense who read her disgusting little outbursts. They'd react the same way to August Kreis, darling, if Edwards'd hired him instead.
What "baseless accusations"? That she wrote the stuff she posted under her own name on her own blog?
"Public discourse"? Is she under the impression that public discourse among literate, mentally stable people consists of pornographic shrieking fits about the BVM?
She's a pathological liar and/or an idiot. I got a good laugh out of her pretending to be a mentally competent adult, but she's got no talent for it and it's the kind of stunt that's fun to hear about, but boring to watch. So it's good to see she's back on the street corner yelling at the voices in her head.
I'm a WHITE MALE, Amanda! BOO!
Heh heh heh. Lunatic...
Until she's actually critical of a policy stand that John Edwards takes, I'll have my doubts that she doesn't continue to work *unofficially* for the Edwards campaign.
If she found Edwards the candidate attractive enough to accept a position, and the Edwards campaign found her attractive enough as a blogger to hire her, then what's to stop them from continuing that relationship on the sly.
There are plenty of ways for her to be paid off the books to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and as a newly *independent* blogger her continued support of Edwards will seem as if it's solely based on the merits of his message.
I think this sets the precedent that if you're a mainstream candidate, choose your publicly hired bloggers carefully, and if you want to buy access to the visitors of a blog with a checkered posting history, do so secretively.
I think the moral of the whole sordid affair is that candidates' official blogs are incompatible with the blogosphere. Writing just for yourself is one skill, but writing on behalf of a campaign is quite another, and a candidate who hires an established blogger as a blogger is going to be tarred with their record.
Played her hot, moist, sticky self out.
Meade (and Ann) - can we not use terms like "hot" and "sticky" in relation to Marcotte? I just ate, and it'd be a shame for good cannelloni to go to waste.
In this instance: baseless accusations = accurate quotes
The other good news is that the blogosphere has risen as one and protested, loudly, the influence a handful of well-financed right wing shills have on the public discourse
Take a moment to appreciate the irony of a multimillionaire's paid spokeswoman bitching about "well-financed shills".
"...risen as one."
Sounds like Invasion of the Pod People from the Hot, White, Sticky Swamp or something. But she was never one for subdued comment, was she?
PatCA - sounds like invasion of the podcasters. ;)
Speaking of which, Ann... ;)
What happened to her four-letter vocabulary? Did she leave it in her other pair of pants?
But if Edwards does win, does she get to be press secretary?
The essential thing is this: John Edwards is a cowardly weasel.
NL - which Presidential candidate has hired Malkin and Donohue, again?
Whoa!
I posted an (OT) Heads up to all on Althouse, that O'Reilly finally got hold of the Marcotte hot stickyness at 7:08 PM CMT.
Moments later, Marcotte resigned/edged out/force to resign/decided it was not worth it, who'll ever really know.
(Her post doesn't bear a timestamp, but her first commenter is at 7:23PM, followed by a comment almost every minute thereafter, so I'm guessing they caught it shortly after she posted her resignation)
I ended my heads up post by saying that Mr. Edwards was on the clock, to see if he would then do something about the no-doubt ensuing blaze of bad publicity for his campaign.
But even for a weak-willed politician's standards, 20 minutes ain't much. Sheesh.
Even if this sacking was in the offing for some time, since it was Marcotte's hot sticky remark that was highlighted on the Factor, and the other blogger hasn't resigned yet, I'm guessing she was targetted and leaned upon to leave by Senator Edwards' advisors.
Note, her post includes these words:
Regardless, it was creating a situation where I felt that every time I coughed, I was risking the Edwards campaign. No matter what you think about the campaign, I signed on to be a supporter and a tireless employee for them, and if I can’t do the job I was hired to do because Bill Donohue doesn’t have anything better to do with his time than harass me, then I won’t do it. I resigned my position today and they accepted.
Guess what, Ms. Marcotte.
Your words tell me you are still reacting not as a paid professional, who understands the rules of the game in politics like those who attend J-School certainly do, but still as an amateur sometime blogger, who just got her ass handed to her.
They threw your own words and attitudes back into your face. Words that a professional writer could not get away with, in serious media.
This is (1) why journalists don't print outrageous things like you do, and (2) why blogging has yet not made the leap into the bigtime of politics, despite Joe Trippi's Blog With America, and Daily Kos' Ned Lamont cheerleadership.
If you think this was a nasty, unfounded witchhunt, then you should realise you're not in Salem anymore.
Winston-Salem, that is.
Cheers,
Victoria
Did I say cowardly weasel? I take that back.
He was a coward when he failed to fire her the first time. He was a weasel when he spun that "fair shake" bull.
Now he's just a worm.
2. Michelle Malkin does not hang out with white supermacists.
Well fudge, she even denounces them, like Michael Crook.
Of course, for certain people saying a person hangs around Republicans, or gasp! horrors! actully is one, is tantamount to inferring that they ARE white supremacists.
I'll leave you to ponder the guilt-by-association ironies about our trolls on Althouse, on your own.
Cheers,
Victoria
It seems to me that the hot, moist inviting irony is that the moment Marcotte became a paid shill for a political campaign the blogisphere rose as one and... treated her like every other campaign spinner.
FFS, Marcy, it's basic, old school opposition research - shake a spinners' clipping file and see what falls out - and if you don't know what that is, Edwards would have fired you for incompetence before long anyway.
And what kind of blogger doesn't realise every dumb thing you've ever said on-line will come back to use your arse as a chew-toy?
I just checked Marcotte's site before it went down (must be swamped by links to that announcement), and the last post was listed under the labels, "Legal Issues, Taxes, Censure the F*ckers, Assholes".
(BTW, don't you love the New Blogger labels? Anyway)
It was a .pdf of a template application to censure Bill Donahue's organisation with the IRS, pre-filled so that your average Pentadon reader didn't have to tax himself unduly (no pun intended, but still pretty damn good).
It listed Donahue's address in the form.
Oh, and the request was couched in terms as if to send out these forms of censure weren't something they were suggesting to be done.
You know, it's just on her blog there for craps and giggles.
No harm done.
And certainly not retributory, no! She's a blogger of intellectual weight, nay, girth!
As with the Anna Nicole Smith situation, you have a sense this could get ugly(-ier).
UPDATE: Site is back up, and this is how the suggestion is put:
One thing I would certainly NOT expect is that anyone would go here[PDF], using the above as a template (or not), and stick that f*cker in the mail. I certainly would be shocked if anyone were to alert all their friends and loved ones to behave similarly.
You'll forgive my bowdlerisation of the post, but I am aware Ann's kids are reading this, and I wouldn't want to contribute to their delinquincy.
Cheers,
Victoria
Apparently she was forced to resign because a rival Democrat campaign took a shot at Edwards and was threatening to keep the issue going. Hmmm, I wonder who that could be? *cough* Hillary *cough* *cough*
*Popped some popcorn and am heading to DailyKos*
I love the way these internet dramas just keep going and going and going. :)
P.S. In other nutroots bloggers trying to move on up news, Glenn Greenwald has stuck his blog behind Salon's advertising wall, but at least got rid of the poop brown template.
I don't know if this link will work well for long, but the first ad wall is a Greenwald ad and it's kinda funny (to me, anyway):
Glenn Greenwald Lawyer/Blogger/Sock-Puppeteer New York - Brazil
Complete editorial freedom - and the same award-winning coverage of the law, politics and policy
They don't mean those Weblog Awards do they?
Sorry if that's too off topic.
Hey, I am well financed. Who knew? Where is that check anyway?
Marcotte's resignation is not a surprise. Edwards does polling and the numbers were probably devastating once those being polled were acquainted with the facts alone (her prior statements on her blog). There was no need to add comments from the Catholic League or anyone else.
I can well imagine that Edwards campaign had hoped that the controversy had blown over, that other employment could be arranged with one of their donors, and that a quiet exit could be arranged at a suitable time. Such things have been done before. O'Reilly's mention of the exact words used rendered such a plan obsolete.
Marcotte's problem was and is finding another job. Anyone thinking about hiring her today has to consider the effects her employment, however obscure a position she is given, will have on their business (if a private enterprise) or their contributions (if a non-profit organization).
Almost everyone who blogs or comments on the internet has said intemperant things that they would rather forget. Fortunately for most of them, few will ever read those comments or care about them. Marcotte's problem in this regard is two-fold:
She attained a position of influence and importance in a national campaign and became an object of widespread interest.
She has an extensive record of deliberately vitriolic writing that the vast majority of Americans would consider both vulgar and obscene.
Marcotte chose her own path. IMO, she has every right to say whatever she wants. To pretend that she is not personally responsible for her predicament is the height of sophistry. She is.
To be sure, others, many with base motives, drew attention to her writing. But, as anyone who has read Marcotte's actual writings can attest, they did not have to invent anything, or stretch the truth to call her character into question. Amanda Marcotte did that all by herself.
"Live by the sword. Die by the sword."
Naked Lunch said...
Little touchy on this subject Victoria? That didn't take long, did I strike a nerve? Oh my. But do go on defending her, she's all yours.
No, you lied and she corrected your lie.
And you post alot. Just sayin!
She corrects your lie and you troll her with personal attacks. Someone pee in your cornflakes this morning?
P.S. Malkin has a pretty good blog, but it does make me wary of her that she wrote the internment camp book (though I haven't actually read it).
What Michelle Malkin does is irrelevant to Marcotte's problem.
I don't care for Michelle Malkin's style, or much of her supposed substance (such as her screed supporting the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII). Malkin writes things that strike me as fomenting fear and hate rather than encouraging reason a bit too often for my taste, so I tend to avoid her. Still, Malkin's methodology is far from being as base as Marcotte's.
And Malkin didn't take a major position in a national political campaign. Marcotte did.
She corrects your lie and you troll her with personal attacks. Someone pee in your cornflakes this morning?
Shhhhhhh! I had almost gotten away with it too.
Cheers,
Victoria
Hey, Seven Machos, I suggest you pay a visit to vdare.com, where Malkin regularly posts, so you can see the company she chooses to keep. If you think vdare.com is anything other than a white supremacist (oh, I'm sorry, white nationalist) webpage, we'll know all we need to know about your credibility on such issues.
And "no one of any significance knows or cares who this Donahue guy is"? If that's the case, why is he regularly on cable shows whenever issues that tangentially relate to Catholicism come up, and why does he get regular face time as a leader at major social conservative confabs like Justice Sunday, together with people like James Dobson, Tom DeLay and Robert Bork? (Never heard of Justice Sunday? Add that to the list of things you should look up.) Just because you are insignificant and don't know anything about him (or a whole host of other topics, from what I've seen) doesn't mean that Donahue is insignificant or that no one of any significance pays attention to him.
Seven Machos' willful ignorance aside, this is the best thing for Edwards at this point. Like I said before, a low-level staffer shouldn't be a major issue of discussion that overshadows the candidate, but Edwards couldn't fire her without getting a big part of his online base riled up. The matter is closed, time to move along.
Buy Conservative Advertsing!!! Right here on Althouse!!!
To be sure, others, many with base motives, drew attention to her writing. But, as anyone who has read Marcotte's actual writings can attest, they did not have to invent anything, or stretch the truth to call her character into question. Amanda Marcotte did that all by herself.
"Live by the sword. Die by the sword."
Cut. Print. Frame.
Cheers,
Victoria
Just a reminder to almost everyone here: it would not take a rocket scientist, or much time, to figure out exactly who just about everyone who posts comments here is, myself included.
If anyone is deluding themselves that their comments are now and forever anonymous, you'd best disabuse yourself of that notion.
(Google, for example, knows everything about what you've done on the internet - places, searches, purchases, converstions. Once you sign in to blogger, Google keeps track of you forever. Unless you remember to sign out. Every time. So it is wise to never piss off a Google employee)
Machos
Ronin is right, this isn't worth it. All the info is readily available about Malkin's ties. I deleted the comments so I didn't start a shitstorm on Ann's blog.
Almost everyone who blogs or comments on the internet has said intemperant things that they would rather forget. Fortunately for most of them, few will ever read those comments or care about them.
That's about the worst advice I've ever read. True, most people don't make enough of a dent in the world to warrant that kind of search and destroy mission, but if you ever seek a leadership position or stake out a controversial position, you better know everything that's out there that you've ever said, because if you have an adversary, they will find it and batter you with it.
I think Ms. Marcotte is a blogger forever. Her rhetoric is so bizarre and twisted, and her name now so prevalent on the Web that anyone considering hiring her would have every reason to think she's got major psychological problems, anger issues and/or an inability to respect reasonable limits. So for her sake I hope she finds an advertising base, a publisher, a foundation or a sugar-daddy who will let Marcotte be Marcotte. Because no one's going to let her be anything else.
I hope all the kids who post crazy rants on MySpace think about what has happened to Marcotte. All the wild and crazy shit I said when I was 16 fortunately is lost to history. That's not true about kids today.
Almost everyone who blogs or comments on the internet has said intemperant things that they would rather forget. Fortunately for most of them, few will ever read those comments or care about them.
That's about the worst advice I've ever read. True, most people don't make enough of a dent in the world to warrant that kind of search and destroy mission, but if you ever seek a leadership position or stake out a controversial position, you better know everything that's out there that you've ever said, because if you have an adversary, they will find it and batter you with it.
I think Ms. Marcotte is a blogger forever. Her rhetoric is so bizarre and twisted, and her name now so prevalent on the Web that anyone considering hiring her would have every reason to think she's got major psychological problems, anger issues and/or an inability to respect reasonable limits. So for her sake I hope she finds an advertising base, a publisher, a foundation or a sugar-daddy who will let Marcotte be Marcotte. Because no one's going to let her be anything else.
I hope all the kids who post crazy rants on MySpace think about what has happened to Marcotte. All the wild and crazy shit I said when I was 16 fortunately is lost to history. That's not true about kids today.
Too late . . . showing again the deaf ear and lack of judgment an Edwards Administration would be full of. Hey, if you on the left think Bush is bad, imagine Edwards as a more judgment-stunted Bush.
Marcotte is the Dixie Chick of the blogosphere - brags about puttin' up, then cries to Mommy when she faces real world consequences she doesn't like. Followed of course, by the self-pat on the back for "standin' up" to (insert name). Her popularity is completely due to the fact that she is a woman that makes profuse use of profane adjectives and pornographic illustrations for shock value. She's a carnival amazement - "look at the woman that can swear like a man, pa!" If she were a man she would have, what, 3 readers?
Actually, I must apologize to the Dixie Chicks, whom I despise because of their whining; at least they are talented in their field.
Marcotte is more like Britney Spears without the talent.
Just because you are insignificant and don't know anything about him...doesn't mean that Donahue is insignificant or that no one of any significance pays attention to him.
I saw Donahue on TV a couple times during the Passion of the Christ controversy, and he did say some stupid things. But I'm not a Catholic conservative or involved with the religious right, and he's not on my radar. He didn't strike me as all that important (they seemed to have him on because they knew he'd take a strong position on TV), but if he is so important maybe I should put him on my radar? *shrug*
But let's say McCain hired the Atlas Shrugs blogger, causing a spokesman for CAIR to attack McCain. And as a result the major newspapers printed quotes by Atlas Shrugs that some view as extremely vulgar bigotry against Muslims, and the left blogosphere posted about it. Would CAIR's even more questionable track-record than Danahue's matter much if the quotes from the blog were both accurate and representative of the blog? I don't think so.
I'm not offended by Marcotte's rants about Catholicism or Atlas Shrugs' style of attacking Islamism, because I'm not a fan of either religion. Catholicism and Islamism are legit targets for criticism and mockery as they're both political.
But it nevertheless does seem like poor judgment (and an inevtiable controversy) for a candidate to hire such bloggers. And Edwards did offend a segment of voters he might wanna win over, and said he himself found the posts of Marcotte offensive.
Anyway, the left blogosphere did, in fact, follow CAIR's lead when they attacked John Bolton for merely granting an interview to Atlas Shrugs last year. Some of the very same blogs upset that Edwards is under fire because of Marcotte tried to demonize Bolton for giving that interview to Atlas Shrugs (as opposed to hiring her).
So who are the phonies?
You know, it's Valentines Day, and I hope you are going to acknowledge the Holiday, and skip the politics.
I hope you'll do something appropriate honoring the spirit of the season, and not invoking mass suicide the way you did last year?
Wasn't that last year's Valentines post...all about how to commit mass suicide.
Lovely.
Also, while we're taking care of business----where is the Podcast?
Don't think nobody noticed that there, not only was no Sunday Podcast, but you didn't even blog the Grammys.
You're slipping.
The Blogosphere is running wild with speculation about where Ann Althouse was Sunday night?
And, with my imagination...
1. Passed out ??
2. Secret Assignation ??
3. Family Emergency??
I hope you'll account for your Sunday night whereabouts and just why you've got nothing on the Grammys, and no podcast.
You were noticeably missing in Action on Sunday, and the whole Blogosphere is buzzing.
Peace, Maxine
If anyone is deluding themselves that their comments are now and forever anonymous, you'd best disabuse yourself of that notion.
Well, it's easy to be anonymous if you wanna be. I'm anonymous. :)
John - What you quoted was not advice. It was an observation.
As far as I can tell, in fact, we agree 100% on this subject, so I am somewhat mystified by your response ;-)
1. Passed out ??
2. Secret Assignation ??
3. Family Emergency??
4. Alien Abduction
5. Locked out of her house
6. Diarrhoea
Your go.
Cheers,
Victoria
Ronin,
I apologize for the disputatious tone of my response. By the time I wrote my post, I didn't remember who had said it. I will admit, however, I was taken aback by your comment. I think most of us who blog and/or comment are likely to be of interest to someone else for myriad reasons, and in those many circumstances, our words on the Web will be considered fair game.
What's to stop a potential future employer from declining to hire you because you insulted something he or she holds dear 10 years ago on a blog? Nothing. It's not illegal. You'd never even know that those words did you in. Marcotte's experience is probably repeated quietly around the world thousands of times per day.
I think Andrea Marcotte was fooled by the freedom of the web into expressing herself in extreme ways that will continue to haunt her. Maybe it's because I'm older, but I always try to be cautious in how I express myself on my blog and commenting on others. I'm not shy about having strong opinions, but I would never express them the way she did, not even anonymously.
To some people, the Web is a giant wall for mental grafitti, the kind you can leave at 2 am and no one will know you did it. But I think the more accurate view is that it is a "social media," a community. You are being observed and judged by what you say. What you might say in a private diary you shouldn't necessarily post. This is all public and for the record.
So if I called it the "worst advice," it's because I don't want anyone to get the idea that Marcotte's situation is unique because she happened to be hired by a presidential candidate. It's not unique at all.
Just for the record: Malkin does not "regularly post" to vdare.com. The site runs her syndicated column. I'm a jerk, and I read this blog; does that make the good professor a jerk? Sure, she doesn't choose to associate with me, but she hasn't taken pains to keep me away!
I wonder what kind of severance package Ms. Marcotte got for walking away.
I am disappointed in your reaction.
"It'll be tough for future campaigns to hire experienced bloggers, because the best bloggers feature unfettered content."
I honestly think there is something wrong with people who take this view. The problem is not with unfettered content. The problem is how far over the line her content was.
Somewhere, a David Duke wannabe is blogging. His content is unfettered. It does not harm bloggers if a campaign avoids him like the plague. Nor does it harm the level of quality of the blogosphere if he has to change his style.
Besides, your point is demonstrably false. Some of the best bloggers include Ann, Glenn Reynolds, and Matthew Yglesias. None of them write anything like what Marcotte writes. As such, either their writings are unfettered, or we are talking significantly different degrees here, and you are conflating the two.
Even if I were single, these nubile thighs do not wrap around the hips of Republicans. etc., etc.
I love the notion that there's a fidelity angle to the invective: "Well gee honey, I'd really love not to you know, but I'm already spoken for."
Perfect example of why 'sexual politics' is outlawed in England. An unconstitutional restraint of the free trade imperative.
If a gal's to be a whore, she must be allowed to pull any punter no matter their political affiliation. It's in the rules.
Loafing Oaf, I like you. You seem reasonable and smart. So can I please try to get you to see something?
"I'm not offended by Marcotte's rants about Catholicism or Atlas Shrugs' style of attacking Islamism, because I'm not a fan of either religion."
What would you say about someone who would say "I am not offended by David Duke's rants about blacks or Jews because I am not a fan of either group." Wouldn't you say that that person is a bigot? A racist and an anti-semite? How is your comment any different, unless you think it is absolutely fair to base hate (and all that flows from it) on a person's religious beliefs?
Or how about something like "I'm not bothered by rants from the right that liberals hate America, because I am not a fan of Democrats. Or "I'm not bothered by liberal rants that Republicans are theocrat brownshit nazis, because I am not a fan of that party anyway." Not quite as extreme as the example with blacks from above, but is it healthy?
Remember the poem, First They Came.... I think we would all do well to not condone the unacceptable, even when it is aimed at a group we do not particularly like.
Here's what Marcotte had to say about her vagina in 2005:
"I’m not an idiot. I’m a twat. Get it straight.
I’m a hot, moist, inviting twat. Warm, wet, inviting. But not to you or your friends. Even if I were single, these nubile thighs do not wrap around the hips of Republicans. You can fuck yourselves or the dry twats of the self-hating misogynists who will allow you tiny penis to penetrate them. Have fun! Um, the wounds you get from rubbing you un-lubricated dick repeatedly into your heartless, soulless woman–iodine is your best friend, my be-scarred friend."
via ProteinWisdom.
Did Edwards' staff do no research before hiring her? Some President he'll make.
seven: Opposition research on the part of Democratic contenders for the presidency were behind this.
True. And every right-wing blogger I read re the Marcotte bigotry wanted her to stay with Edwards, perhaps to damage his campaign.
Of more interest to me was:
1) Edwards revealed unsound judgement in hiring her. Will he pick another Albright for SecState?
2) Edwards revealed spinelessness - firing Marcotte, then caving to temper tantrums of the nutroots and reversing himself. If he can't stand up to Kos, why should we trust him to confront Radical Islam?
3) The Left played the fallacy of "tu quoque": OReilly/Malkin/LGF is just as bad, so we excuse Marcotte's bigotry
4) Kos/Du action groups posing as lurking moderates, defending Marcotte with the same cut-n-paste talking points across the net. "Clutching their pearls at profanity" was my favorite line. But the astro-turfing was transparent.
She's a pathological liar and/or an idiot.
And Edwards made the right call in asking[?] her to resign [I'm wondering if she was forced to...]
I've worked a few campaigns, and his "Two America's" meme is dangerous for him - its divisive. Somewhere down the road, Edwards or one of his staff will extend it too far, maybe bash whites/christians/southerners by accident [or even be misquoted as doing so, doesn't matter] and all this Marcotte drama would resurface. But Edwards wouldn't get a pass, because it would then be seen as a pattern.
Its the same reason Kerry got so much flak for his "botched joke". He didn't deserve the benefit of doubt, because he already has a history and pattern of bashing the troops.
Hey, Seven Machos, I suggest you pay a visit to vdare.com, where Malkin regularly posts, so you can see the company she chooses to keep. If you think vdare.com is anything other than a white supremacist (oh, I'm sorry, white nationalist) webpage, we'll know all we need to know about your credibility on such issues.
I would not be surprised if there were white supremacists who posted a VDare, but the fact that they let an Asian woman post there is sufficient to show that it isn't a white supremacist site.
VDare is stridently nativist, but doesn't seem to have any problem with people of other races who, as Malkin has, enthusiastically adopt American culture. My impression is that they are cultural supremacists, not racial supremacists.
How is your comment any different, unless you think it is absolutely fair to base hate (and all that flows from it) on a person's religious beliefs?
Um, a person's beliefs are one of the few things it DOES make sense to hate them for. I, for example, hate people who think atheists should be killed (a group which includes almost all fundamentalist Muslims). Why should I not hate people who believe I deserve to die? With the exception of people who are actually actively trying to kill me there is nobody more deserving of my hate.
Hating someone for their race, ethnicity, gender, hair color, parentage, etc, does not make sense because people can't control being black or white, male or female. Hating them for choosing a belief system you find hateful, on the other hand, makes PERFECT sense.
EnigmatiCore:
I was typing a long-winded reply when I noticed than Revenant said things much more concisely. So I'll just second him since this is an old thread.
Except I wanna stress that I do NOT hate people simply because they are Catholic, Muslim, Mormon, or any other religion. As long as they're not doing anything to me or my rights, I live and let live, and I only go after those within a religion who I feel are going after me and my rights.
Revenant, your argument fails because it is not sufficient to say "hey, she finds a particular belief to be hateful, so that's good enough. Her hatred makes sense!"
For example, a bigot could find that a person who marries someone of another race is displaying hatred for their own kind-- and therefore decide that his own bigotry makes sense.
Your point about fundamentalist Muslims is a good one. I agree-- they deserve to be hated. But to extend that to say that, therefore, it follows that it is OK to hate Catholics because someone else might find their religion to be hateful is an absurd leap.
But then, I find that those who have adopted a belief system where they are so free to hate their fellow Americans are very worthy of loathing. I do hate the anti-religious bigots. They have chosen their hate. No matter how they try to justify it.
For example, a bigot could find that a person who marries someone of another race is displaying hatred for their own kind-- and therefore decide that his own bigotry makes sense.
There's nothing wrong with a white person hating people who hate white people. The hatred of your bigot is wrong only because he himself is wrong about what the person getting married believes. If the person in question really WAS marrying a black woman only because he hated white people it would make perfect sense for a white person to hate him.
You could argue that Marcotte is wrong about what Catholics believe -- and maybe she is, as I've better things to do that read the dippy bitch's opinions about religion -- but you can't argue that she's wrong for hating people because of their beliefs.
Your point about fundamentalist Muslims is a good one. I agree-- they deserve to be hated.
So your original argument that hating someone for their religious beliefs is wrong has now been reduced to nothing more than "hating SOME people for their religious beliefs is wrong but other people deserve to be hated for theirs". Color me unimpressed.
But to extend that to say that, therefore, it follows that it is OK to hate Catholics because someone else might find their religion to be hateful is an absurd leap.
It is ok to hate Catholics if you find Catholic beliefs to be hateful. For example, the Catholic Church opposes condom distribution in AIDS-ridden parts of Africa because they believe that artificial birth control is immoral. That is a profoundly evil belief and those who hold it (such as, for example, the Pope) are richly deserving of hatred by people who care more about human life and the prevention of suffering than they do about the personal opinions of a couple of Popes. That's just one example; there are countless others. The Church has either been on the wrong side, or has been a late convert to the right side, of most of the big moral issues of the last thousand years. There's plenty there to hate.
I do hate the anti-religious bigots.
But you said you think its fine for me to hate fundamentalist Muslims. It seems clear that your position is nothing more than this: hatred of your beliefs is bigotry, but hatred of things *you* hate is fine and normal.
There's nothing wrong with a white person hating people who hate white people.
But there is something wrong with a white person hating people who they think hate white people, when there is not a rational basis for them thinking that. I do not believe in giving to each person the ability to say "I find them hateful, therefore my hate is justified." What you end up with in such an instance is a morality without constraints on hate.
Give me, instead, a society endorsed moral code that says that it is better not to hate, but hate is ok when societal norms suggest the object of hate merits loathing.
You could argue that Marcotte is wrong about what Catholics believe -- and maybe she is, as I've better things to do that read the dippy bitch's opinions about religion -- but you can't argue that she's wrong for hating people because of their beliefs.
My argument is that it is insufficient to say "it is a belief, therefore it is ok to hate over it."
So your original argument that hating someone for their religious beliefs is wrong has now been reduced to nothing more than "hating SOME people for their religious beliefs is wrong but other people deserve to be hated for theirs". Color me unimpressed.
Color me unimpressed that you did not understand my original point. Hopefully you understand it now.
The reason I agreed with you over Muslim fundamentalists was the reason you gave in your original point-- you hate people who want to kill atheists (and others) as a core part of their beliefs. Our culture's norms are that violating someone's Constitutional rights is a no-no; society has sanctioned loathing those who want to destroy our societal norms. It is not my judgment that says it is OK, but that of society. It is not a perfect system, but it avoids putting the onus on one person, who could always justify their own hatred simply by conveniently deciding that the object of their hate started the hating first.
It is ok to hate Catholics if you find Catholic beliefs to be hateful.
I think if you find Catholics, as a whole, hateful, then you are deluded. Certain Catholics, certainly. But as a whole? I think that would qualify as a perfect example of the very situation I am describing above-- hatred against a group without a rational basis made simply by deciding to call them hateful. The equivalent of a toddler justifying hitting another because "he started it", when probably the other kid just looked at him.
It seems clear that your position is nothing more than this: hatred of your beliefs is bigotry, but hatred of things *you* hate is fine and normal.
It may have seemed clear to you, but only because you were not understanding my point. However, it seems clear to you that hatred of any belief is not bigotry, so long as you claim that you find the object of your hate to be hateful.
Come to think of it, I believe that most (if not all) of the Jihadists believe America to be an evil, hateful country. Their hate is OK by your formulation.
But there is something wrong with a white person hating people who they think hate white people, when there is not a rational basis for them thinking that
I already made that point in the very post you're responding to.
I do not believe in giving to each person the ability to say "I find them hateful, therefore my hate is justified."
I did not say that, so I don't care if you believe it or not.
My argument is that it is insufficient to say "it is a belief, therefore it is ok to hate over it."
Duh. But it is ok to hate people for holding hateful beliefs, and Catholicism has many beliefs associated with it that could legitimately be considered hateful. You condemned Marcotte for hating people for their beliefs without bothering to address what beliefs it was that she hated and whether or not hating them was legitimate. You played the "its (my) religion and you aren't allowed to criticize it" card.
The reason I agreed with you over Muslim fundamentalists was the reason you gave in your original point-- you hate people who want to kill atheists (and others) as a core part of their beliefs.
Similarly, the fact that the Catholic Church is actively working to see to it that people die of AIDS instead of using condoms is adequate reason to hate them and those who support them.
I think if you find Catholics, as a whole, hateful, then you are deluded. Certain Catholics, certainly. But as a whole?
Depends on what you consider a Catholic. Andrew Sullivan, for example, considers himself a Catholic but completely ignores most of the Church's hateful teachings about homosexuality, birth control, and feminism. Is he a real Catholic or not?
Simply put, your point is valid only to the extend that Catholics don't really hold the beliefs the Church says they should. To the extent that they do, hating them is a reasonable thing for decent and moral people to do.
Come to think of it, I believe that most (if not all) of the Jihadists believe America to be an evil, hateful country. Their hate is OK by your formulation.
Let me summarize the discussion so far, since you've obviously been unable to keep up:
You claimed that it was wrong to hate people for their religious beliefs. I pointed out that it is fine to hate people for their beliefs if those beliefs are hateful. You then attempted to weasel out of your original statement by conceding that it is ok to hate people for their religious beliefs if those religious beliefs deserve it.
The only point of contention is that you don't see anything hateful or evil about Catholicism. Your opinion on that subject is of no more interest to me than the opinion of a fundamentalist Muslim is on the subject of whether there's anything hateful or evil about Islam. So you don't think its evil -- so what?
You think I haven't been able to keep up, and I feel the same about you. This probably means we have come close to exhausting rational debate. I'll respond to one part of your last reply, and you can have as many last words as you want.
"You claimed that it was wrong to hate people for their religious beliefs."
No. I am saying that if a person's religious beliefs are worthy of hatred, not by your own estimation but by the consensus of civilized society, then it is ok to hate that person. The position you have seemed to have taken is that, so long as you justify your hate by saying you find the object of your disdain hateful, all is well.
You are right that I do not see anything hateful about Catholicism. This, despite the fact that I am not a Catholic. I will go much further, though. Not only do I not find there anything hateful about Catholicism, I do not think it is rational to find anything hateful within Catholicism. I think that anyone who does feel that way suffers from some combination of ignorance and bigotry.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा