Nice to meet you too. Here is what I think about your points.

Marcus, you somehow managed to read those words and skip right by the whole purpose of the post.
…she meant to insult certain people on your side.

So I am stupid enough to not understand that Amanda insulted conservatives here, despite the fact that she used words like know shit-all, ignorant etc? This is based on…
At least I “somehow managed” to read it, thanks for that.
-That’s just what it looks like you are saying. Never mind in any case.

The assertion that I missed the main point:
1) Again. There can be several points in writing, especially in a long article by skillfull writer.
2) Again. I was not making any claims about main point of the post.

Anyway, I did think that the main point of the post was what the post “mainly” did, and what the title referred to. And what was argued afterwards in the comment thread.
Insulting conservatives is what her blog does, and fortunately for her readers she is able to write about many things while insulting people simultaneously.
She needed all those words in the original post just to say one thing: some conservatives are stupid?
Hardly.
Perhaps we just disagree about the main point, but it’s not relevant here.

Remember, my post was specifically aimed at countering Ampersands claims about the accuracy of Robert’s summaries. That’s why it said so.
The question was what she claimed about “traditional canon”, and whether she said or implied that it supports white supremacy at all. I wont quote her anymore, but essentially:
1) Mentioning how Alexander Pope is included, Toni Morrison is not. There are people who are not white males, yet their writing is eligible to be taught in schools.
2) Referring to it as “writings of dead white males”.

Reasonable doubt remains, but I still don’t think it is stupid or far-fetched to get the impression that she is referring to the fact that literary canon is known to be “Eurocentric”.

Eurocentrism = supports white supramacism, at least to an extent.

NASCAR
First of all, unless “emblem” can not be used synonymously with symbol, Roberts original summary was accurate. According to dictionary, it can.

Robert: “I think she does believe NASCAR = white supremacy. I think she does believe that the traditional canon is a big ole’ supremacist lovefest.”

HF: Then I suggest you read the words you quoted, because they plainly say no such thing.
….
HF: This clearly blames Republican marketers for racist use of cultural signals.

Roberts summary was somewhat sarcastic. Your summary is somewhat simplistic and vague since the text clearly says more than that.
Namely, marketers have been succesful, thats why Nascar is a “weird symbol of Southern white male supremacy” whose fans feel like they are somehow obliged to vote Republicans. (=Racists)
Roberts statement is not that different from what Amanda is claiming.

-How about real world? I don’t know, but I bet that Nascar is a symbol of white supremacy to some liberal intellectuals.
However, I’ll be damned if real southern racists do not prefer a burning cross to something that is supposed to be a symbol of “Southern white supremacy” because:
Nascar represents a demographic who according to political analytists overwhelmingly vote Rebublicans who in turn have historically in their “southern strategy” solicited a vote from … et cetera et cetera…

CHRISTIAN ZIONISTS

Robert: I think she does believe that Christian supporters of Israel do so to hasten the End Times…
Hf: Add the word “some”, and you have an obvious truth.

This is a common problem, “some” does not equal “all” like Ampersand previously explained. There is also the problem that the statement is only true in the real world if you “Add the word “some””.

Apparently both Robert and Amanda tend speak of “all”, when they should have said “some”.
It’s either 1) Wrong because it is untrue 2)OK because political writers tend to dramatize things and readers know that.

You are not even trying with the “Thelemite religion”.
Two words: Free speech.
That’s how he “dares to criticize it”, that’s why you are free to call sperm the Holy Spirit etc.
People are also free to be offended.
No-one here is asking for an abolition of free speech, let alone “special treatment”. So while it was intresting, I think that your last chapter has little relevance to anything said in this discussion.

There’s an old saying in politics, sometimes attributed to Daley I: “Say what you like about me, just don’t spell my name wrong.” Marcotte’s opinions are interesting. Edwards is…not particularly. A conspiracy minded person might wonder if he hired Marcotte just to generate this sort of controversy–and publicity. Now, instead of being some bland white guy, Edwards is the guy who stuck up for his politically incorrect staff member, against opposition. Hmm…

Marcus, you somehow managed to read those words and skip right by the whole purpose of the post.

Whose post, hf? How? Just in case, comment 60. was supposed to be an apology for fact that my first comment was a bit overlong rant, not concise expression.
Not directed to you in any way, I only noticed your post afterwards.

Anyway, most likely you are referring to Amanda’s post.
In that case: Is it possible that were more than one point in that long post? What it mainly does is not relevant in that case, since that´s not what this discussion is about. It also does talk about conservatives who admire traditional canon (etc.), doesn’t it?

Could you please explain again what you say in 62. What did Amanda mainly mean by her post? Don’t be so subtle and elusive.

“That tiny little nation will find itself all alone in the world. Then according to the Bible, the Jews will cry out to the one they have so long rejected,” says Pat Robertson in his book The New Millenium: 10 trends that will impact you and your family by the year 2000.

Then I suggest you read the words you quoted, because they plainly say no such thing. Amanda frequently claims that the GOP has misappropriated Southern culture to serve racist ends (and that liberals can find a progressive strain in that very culture):

Luckily we have a model for how to do it–the Republicans. No, I don’t mean the way that Republicans exploit reactionary sentiment to get votes, though they certainly do that. But the other thing the Republicans did was use old-fashioned missionary tactics of finding the cultural myths of various parts of America and adapt the campaign tactics to fit into the pre-existing culture.

If you’re unaware of what I’m talking about, to summarize quickly–Christian missionaries from time immemorial have found it’s a lot easier to convert a population to Christianity if you tailor it to the myths they already have. You build the church where their temple was before. You take their holiday customs and attach them to your holidays. Easter was a day to celebrate the fertility goddess before it was the day of Jesus’ resurrection, for instance.
Republicans are doing this with Southern culture. There’s no real reason that NASCAR has to have a political edge to it, much less be some weird symbol of Southern male white supremacy and yet through careful Republican marketing, it has become just that. As such, its fans are probably feeling like they’re somehow obliged to vote Republican.

This clearly blames Republican marketers for racist use of cultural signals. (If you don’t believe the GOP has sought out racist and homophobic votes, and thereby associated their party with racism and homophobia, then you must live under a rock.)

You accuse Amanda of attacking the canon and dismiss the obvious interpretation — that she meant to insult certain people on your side. But you must know that she makes a habit of insulting conservative pundits by painting them as intellecutal poseurs who, for example, mistake Lolita for a how-to book. In the post you quote, she goes on to say, “Therefore, they assume wrongly that the Dead White Men that are the only ones whose writing is eligible to be taught in school in their view must have roughly the same political opinions that their sorry asses have, and they don’t actually need to read, say, Alexander Pope, to know that he must be better than Toni Morrison.” (Emphasis mine.)

I think she does believe that Christian supporters of Israel do so to hasten the End Times, and so they can be a part of the exciting new world of torturing Muslims for fun.

Add the word “some”, and you have an obvious truth. Of course some “Christians” do this. Don’t make me go to Free Republic or WorldNetDaily.

As for the joke about the Holy Spirit, how dare you criticize the tenets of my Thelemite religion? Aleister Crowley teaches us that semen is indeed the Holy Spirit. Much as Christianity teaches people to mock the Passover supper with ritual cannibalism, calls the Gate of God a whore and portrays ancient mystery religions as prostitution. (Except that of course you think your religion deserves special treatment because it has brute force on its side, and is just obviously true.) More seriously, what happened to your noble decision to focus on Amanda’s politics?

Does she think that traditional canon supports white supremacy or not? The part that Robert
quotes is ambivalent, but obviously the “enjoyment” has to come from somewhere. So why not seek clarification from the next sentence:

Therefore, they assume wrongly that the Dead White Men that are the only ones whose writing is eligible to be taught in school… (insults removed) …and they don’t actually need to read, say, Alexander Pope, to know that he must be better than Toni Morrison.

Would this be a wildly illogical interpretation:
-Because the traditional canon consists almost exclusively of dead white men while excluding other talented people, it can be said to support the idea of white supremacy by giving the wrong impression that white males are the only ones able to create important works of art.

The article does not say that traditional canon contains nothing but white supremacist
propaganda, but it very clearly implies that it upholds the image of white supremacy because it is written by “dead white males”.
A valid idea, in my opinion (and to my surprise).
If that is not what Amanda meant or thinks, it’s not Robert’s fault.

-About the update. Very good pedantry and I definitely agree that Robert’s use of “universal you” was an exaggeration, even hyperbolic.
But doesn’t the proof for your sweeping accusation get a little small? Can you for example claim that merely adding the world “likely” to Robert’s sentence does not turn it into reasonably accurate description?
What you claimed was that Robert’s summaries (notice the plural) are distorted,

maliciously dishonest, and enormously different from what Amanda has said.When you also talk about how it is Robert’s responsibility to not misrepresent anything that Amanda has written (fair enough), you ignore that Robert included the exact original statements, not just links in the post so that everyone can see whether his “summaries” are accurate. (Not to mention that he says that the summaries are his interpretations while recommending people to look at Pandagon themselves)

-This is not something many political bloggers, yourself and Amanda included, often do. Especially when talking about political opposition. Yet still this post completely fails the moral standards of casual political blogging?
Amanda doesn’t quote Robert at all when she accuses him of slander in the thread where he is banned. She does not quote conservative pundits whe she claims that their praise for traditional canon somehow evokes enjoyment for “white supremacist reasons”.
You too IMO fail the absurdly high standards of logic and accuracy you apparently set for others.

Just this thread:
“It’s a good step that even an Amanda-hater can see that Robert’s reading isn’t accurate.”

You call Anon an Amanda-hater when he or she very clearly just criticized Amanda’s writing style. Unless you can prove that your claim is correct because of something that poster has previously said, then that was absolutely not only a lie but also uncalled for. I think you own Anon an apology here.

I may believe that George Bush hates Jews, but that doesn’t make it right for me to go around saying that Bush hates Jews if I can’t back it up with facts.

What a silly example. Maybe you missed it when Amanda told us that [the Rebublicans} “are a racist, misogynist, homophobic party”.
So, as obviously president Bush is an essential part of that party and represents what it stands for, and since anti-semitism is a form of racism, it already has been proven that he does hate Jews. By the facts.

And speaking of dishonesty:

Nearly all the items on your list are similarly twisted in a dishonest way, aimed less at discussing or clarifying Amanda’s meanings than they are at sensationalizing for purely partisan ends.

-Isn’t that statement a little hyperbolic? Even if we admit that Robert was wrong in previous case, there are at least 3-4 similar pedantic games for you to perform until that accusation is justified.
Othervise: Why make accusations you are not going to back up?

Furthermore: if one uses cheap debating tactic like “I will disprove one of your many points and pretend that therefore everything you wrote was incorrect”, then it is questionable to simultaneusly claim moral high ground by lamenting all that “dishonesty”.

And you think Robert owes Amanda an apology after he allegedly mispresents Amanda’s opinions?
In the comment thread of the post we are talking about Amanda calls Robert amoral lying troll who does not care about truth and considers women and foreigners subhuman etc. Not just in my opinion, but directly and in plain English.
-It’s quite a long thread but want to bet whether those “views” attributed to Robert are justified by what he actually wrote?

What’s wrong is when you’re so partisan that you’re unable or unwilling to give a fair and honest reading of what folks from the other party have said.

Aren’t we all. Anyway I don’t think that anyone has such an obvious moral high ground in this discussion, so why not just debate without all that posturing.
Such as Amanda “criticizes with strong language”, Robert “attacks”. Come on.

As an atheist (though I prefer the term secular humanist) this is why I hate other atheists with a passion. It wasn’t witty, nor bright, nor funny. It was block-headed and clumsy. Not only that but it was ignorant of the direct teachings of that Yeshua guy. It’d be great if people actually studied the things they’re going to discuss before firing off juvenile “witticisms.”

I agree that the remark wasn’t really witty, bright, or funny. It was heavy-handed tweaking of the one asking the question. But unlike Shawn, I don’t in turn hate with a passion. I don’t care for evangelical Christians or evangelical atheists, and there are indeed both. Just today at the library the security guard said to me rather earnestly, “God bless you.” I didn’t care for the remark, but who am I to shit all over her faith? OTOH, if I were to wander around announcing to the world that god is dead (as some evangelical atheists are doing now), I wouldn’t expect people to treat me very kindly. Sure, it’s a double standard. But either way, I’d rather not raise my low-grade misanthropy to the level of hatred. The thing I’ve gotten from both sides of this debate is a lot of vengefulness, and Amanda Marcotte’s various quoted writing is full of it.

OK, now everyone is unbanned. I am nothing if not benevolent and forgiving.

This capricious exercise of the imperial power of a blogger brought to you by the letter M, and the number 7.

I was using an old blog format called UBlog reload that didn’t have comment moderation, so I had to move all of the old posts by hand. Somewhere in the process of that, I lost several posts when the server for the new blog was corrupted. When I figured out that I could retrieve some of the posts from the way back machine, I reposted the substantive posts (which was basically anything with original content–not link farms or American Idol reviews).

Wayne is mad because one of the sites I linked to (not my site) posted pictures and hometowns of some of the lacrosse players. I never posted these, and if I remember correctly the man who I linked to did not post addresses he posted home towns.

Anyways, I promise this really is my last comment before I get banned. LOL!!

Archive link here. And if I blogged about American Idol, I’d sure as hell want to hide it from view for as long as possible.

The above link is from Rachel’s missing archives.

Please go away.