Or at least a few of them. Since Ms. Marcotte’s accession to the position of chief blogger for the John Edwards presidential campaign, speculation has been rife about the often caustic opinions she has expressed, and whether or not Senator Edwards is in agreement with an important media player in his campaign on issues such as the nature of Republicans and conservatives in general, the role of Southern culture, religion, and so forth. Here are some of the quotes which I have found from Ms. Marcotte’s blog, Pandagon. (Update: Please note that the bolded headlines are my own distillations of the quotes; I believe them to be accurate summations, but they are not Ms. Marcotte’s. Only the material in actual quote marks is Ms. Marcotte’s.)
The Republicans are a Misogynistic, Homophobic, Racist Party
[In discussing wooing conservative voters away from the Republicans and to the Democrats] “Voters who are motivated by misogyny, homophobia, and racism aren’t going to leave a racist, misogynist, homophobic party for one that is all those things but just less so.”
NASCAR is an Emblem of Southern White Supremacism (same link)
“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.”
If You Value The Traditional Canon, It’s Because It Upholds White Supremacism
“The main issue is that many wingnuts both don’t know shit-all about history or literature, but they are also fed a steady stream of conservative opinion pieces about the value of the traditional canon, which they enjoy for patriarchal white surpremacist reasons.”
Christian Supporters of Israel Hate Muslims, Seek the End of the World…
“Religious wingnuts, under the leadership of a San Antonio minister who’s close to Tom DeLay and pulls himself quite a bit of cash in the business of feeding right wing politics and fairy tales to the sheep, have formed a political organization called Christians United for Israel. CUFI has had multiple meetings with the White House to offer foreign policy advice. From the article, it appears that on top of the usual motivations behind Christian Zionism—hatred for Muslims, a desire to bring the end of the world, political opportunism and a chance for ministers to make their congregations feel like they are a part of something dramatic and important so their pocketbooks fall open—is seems to bug John Hagee, the founder of CUFI, that he most powerful lobby is D.C. is a Jewish organization, not a Christian one”
…But Are Still Eager to Kill Off Some Jews, As Well
“The truth of the matter is that this disdain and disregard for actual Israelis infects the Christian Zionist worldview and makes them very eager to sacrifice Israeli lives to fulfill their two missions of ushering in Armageddon and killing off Muslims.”
The Crucifixion of Christ Makes Fundamentalists Yearn To Torture Muslims
“The paradox was this—how can anybody look at the figure of Christ on the cross and think that’s anything but a condemnation of torture? For the thinking person, it clearly is. But for the fundamentalist, that image creates anxiety about death and makes them cling to their hierarchical values even more, and those values include the belief that Muslims are inferior, not-saved, and eligible for torture. They’re going to hell anyway, by the fundie logic, and why should god get all the fun of punishing them and making them suffer?”
Religion Is Bad For Society, and Charity is an Excuse To Harm the Weak
“The favorite defense of religion, even the more odious Bible-thumping kinds, is that it’s a great source of charity and has a positive overall impact on society. I’m skeptical, particularly for reasons like the above where the actual behavior of religious people, particularly the hardcore ones, demonstrates a pattern of using religious charity as a way to bolster tribalism, create damaging hierarchies, and leave the neediest members of society out in the cold.”
There are literally hundreds of other posts with opinion content that most Americans would find an interesting display of Ms. Marcotte’s views, if perhaps not a compellingly persuasive one.
A legitimate criticism can be made that I am simply listing out-of-context quotes; guilty. Obviously, I cannot reproduce Amanda’s entire blog. And in fairness, Amanda tends to write long and involved posts. Readers curious to understand Ms. Marcotte’s comprehensive worldview should, by all means, not limit themselves to my quotes, and should read her extensive body of work. I’ve made sure to include links in the subheads to the relevant stories on Pandagon, so that the reader can put the statements in context. Assuming, of course, that the posts remain in the Pandagon archive, and don’t disappear as have other problematic statements.(Update: the disappearing post issue seems to have been a migration problem, not a scrub.)
Cross-posted at the Blogger News Network.
Creative Destruction 
You might want to take a look at this:
http://pandagon.net/2007/02/04/and-here-i-thought-i-was-done-malkinswatching/
I have no idea which side is telling the truth. And, honestly, I don’t really care because it seems like a whole lot of meaningless drivel. What you have posted here is a lot more relevant than Beltway Blogroll’s screed. But, Pandagon is claiming that BB is making shit up.
Then, of course, if you want to talk about the strategic value of hiring Amanda as blogmistress, we should consider who frequents political blogs. Seems to me that it is far left and far right. Blogverse does not seem to attract all that many folks from the middle. If that is true, who do you think Edwards is trying to attract to his campaign? My guess would be those on the left, not those on the right. Amanda is a well-respected writer by those who fall into the lefty camp.
So, to sum up, I’m going to guess that this comes to nothing and that it works out to be a good move by the Edwards campaign. If it turns out that BB isn’t making shit up, of course, I’ll be entirely wrong.
Comment by Jake Squid — February 4, 2007 @ 1:24 pm |
Well, I have no reason to trust Amanda (or to distrust her), but I do trust Lauren, so I’m perfectly willing to take her at her word that the missing posts were lost to a database problem Back in the Day. That’s happened to me; it happens to most bloggers who stick around long enough.
Comment by Robert — February 4, 2007 @ 1:44 pm |
Do you really think your “distillations” are accurate and fair? I mean, it’s not like you’d ever try to put words in somebody’s mouth…
Comment by The Liberal Avenger — February 4, 2007 @ 3:02 pm |
Yes, I think they’re accurate and fair. Pithier and shorter, obviously, and so they’re not going to get every nuance.
If you believe my distillations are inaccurate, then I (again) urge you, or any other reader, to read what Amanda has written and get the full story for yourself.
Comment by Robert — February 4, 2007 @ 3:08 pm |
Well, I have no reason to trust Amanda (or to distrust her), but I do trust Lauren, so I’m perfectly willing to take her at her word that the missing posts were lost to a database problem Back in the Day. That’s happened to me; it happens to most bloggers who stick around long enough.
WP (a few versions back) and MT are notoriously irritating to merge and lost content is one of those things that just happens. Same thing happened when I upgraded Feministe and lost four months in 2004 (I was a bit more experienced by the time I got to Pandagon). When you export from MT you get one gigantic document that the new server usually won’t upload in one bunch, so you have to chop, paste, and upload in smaller batches. In doing so, I lost a couple of months of Pandagon posts, same as I had done with Feministe. As I also mentioned in the comments at Pandagon, several of the posts were formatted as comments in other posts’ comments, as well as mere comments formatted into full posts. More is missing than just what Auguste mentions and what our journalist sleuths have “uncovered.” We knew about it at the time — I tried to fix what I could and we abandoned or deleted the rest purely because it was a huge job, we were all too busy to freak out about it, and Amanda and Jesse didn’t really care.
So in other words, the real scandal is that an amateur blogger hired another amateur blogger to do some amateur blog work and she did an amateur job.
Comment by Lauren — February 4, 2007 @ 3:10 pm |
But see, Robert, it’s still cherrypicking even when you dive into an ocean-sized bowl of cherries.
Comment by Jim Treacher — February 4, 2007 @ 3:28 pm |
Amanda is a far leftie so these statements don’t actually surprise me. Let’s so how soon Edwards starts trying to move himself to the right.
Comment by Jamila Akil — February 4, 2007 @ 3:49 pm |
Jake, the server problem may explain the missing-Jesse difficulty, but I can’t think of anything that explains the complete and utter replacement of a lunatic post within days of it coming into a wider audience.
That’s the one that chaps my hide. Pardon me while I imitate Duncan Black for a moment, but it’s time to convene yet another blogger ethics panel.
Comment by Off Colfax — February 4, 2007 @ 4:17 pm |
Well, I take Amanda at her word when she says that she rewrote the post in an attempt to more more clear – at the request of a number of folks.
Comment by Jake Squid — February 4, 2007 @ 6:30 pm |
Or, as they say in English, “to be more clear.”
Comment by Jake Squid — February 4, 2007 @ 6:32 pm |
The effect of Amanda’s comments will likely be felt if Edwards survives past the primaries and Amanda is still his blogmaster. At that point Edwards will have to shift from trying to placate the far left and somehow convince the middle and a significant number of the right that he is the choice for president. Amanda’s far left/radical comments could severely hurt Edwards’ efforts. At some point he will have to address her comments. No matter how editing Amanda does, she cannot prevent others from keeping a record of her more insidious comments.
Comment by toysoldier — February 4, 2007 @ 6:35 pm |
Yes, I accept that as her intent. I’ve withdrawn the one sentence of my post that I no longer stand by; that’s why it’s struck out but still legible on the post. It’s not exactly a “web standard”, but it is kind of a blogging one. “I DID say this, but now it’s not an accurate representation of what I mean, so I’m taking responsibility for it but also striking it out.”
It’s not a rule or anything. Just a useful convention.
Comment by Robert — February 4, 2007 @ 6:37 pm |
Oh no! We’ve fallen into their trap. Marcotte will ride the publicity wave of this story, the Edwards campaign will get huge blogosphere press, then fire her to move right!
Clever bastards…
Comment by Robert — February 4, 2007 @ 6:38 pm |
Off Colfax:
Jake Squid:
Here’s what the post said originally according to Michelle Malkin
Assuming that’s really what Marcotte wrote (and it would be extraordinarily stupid of Malkin to fabricate it), then it’s quite clear as it was. Marcotte was calling them rapists.
Here’s what the post says now:
No apology. No retraction. And the problem isn’t that she just libelled several men against whom charges have been dismissed, and who have been looking increasingly actually innocent with each new revelation. Oh, no. The problem is that people have been “determined to make hay”. Poor victimised Amanda!
Comment by Daran — February 4, 2007 @ 7:52 pm |
[…] is a repost of a comment I made over at Creative […]
Pingback by Feminist Critics — February 4, 2007 @ 8:09 pm |
NASCAR is an Emblem of Southern White Supremacism (same link)
“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.”
NASCAR has a political edge because it has become a sport where working-class whites congregate to be mostly among their own kind. Perhaps white people like to have an opportunity to get together and to celebrate white culture. Certainly every other ethnic group in America is allowed this. Why white people celebrating their own culture is in any way a denigration of other cultures I cannot see.
Comment by Glaivester — February 4, 2007 @ 8:41 pm |
Is this why you’ve been commenting so much on the feminist blogosphere lately? I’d wondered what had happened for us to deserve the “honor” of your attention.
Comment by Mandolin — February 4, 2007 @ 10:34 pm |
Not quite following you, Mandolin. I needed to post extensively at Pandagon in order to find Amanda quotes?
Not that it’ll be an issue, as she’s now banned me for ruining her career by posting “misinformation”. DAMN Microsoft, for making the cut-and-paste function insert wicked lies.
Comment by Robert — February 5, 2007 @ 12:13 am |
[…] post is cross-posted at Creative Destruction. Let Others Know About This PostThese icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can […]
Pingback by Blogger News Network » The Interesting Opinions of Amanda Marcotte — February 5, 2007 @ 12:29 am |
The light of truth driving back the shadow of lies. That’s our Robert. (You’ve reached Kiss-Ass Level 10! Hit points increased by 17! Free beer raised by 1!) (Yes. I’ve been playing WoW too much.)
Amanda is pretty much among the bottom (Or top, depending on your viewpoint.) of the progressive gutter-fighters and gutter-feeders. She knows no rules except one: win at all costs, starting with the immediate dismissal of all criticism as being either beneath her notice or scathing insults. (Fortunately, this thread is from Ezra’s post regarding his friend’s departure, so no strange 404 errors pop up.) (It’s also when I started reading Fiat Lux on a daily basis, as she pretty much was saying what I wanted to say immediately before I said it. I like people like that.)
Comment by Off Colfax — February 5, 2007 @ 7:09 am |
My spidey sense tells me mainstream politicians are going to make many awkward mistakes trying to figure out how to capitalize on the blogosphere. I would have thought, however, that a good basic starting point would be avoiding hiring someone so enamored of the f-bomb in the past.
Comment by S. Weasel — February 5, 2007 @ 10:30 am |
I hope you meant Kick-Ass Level 10, OC, but I’ll take more hit points however I get ’em.
Comment by Robert — February 5, 2007 @ 1:50 pm |
Off Coulfax, can you site a Pandagon URL with a 404 error that isn’t plausibly the result of database loss issues? Because right now, it looks like you’re making up attacks about Amanda that you can’t back up.
Speaking of which, Robert, your post is astoundingly dishonest. I’m not going to take the time to respond to all of it, because it frankly doesn’t deserve that much attention, and because Sydney needs baby-sitting in a few minutes. But to give just one example:
So many things wrong…
1) It’s not clear that Amanda was talking about people who themselves value, or who have even read, the traditional canon. I read the sentence like this: “many wingnuts … are fed… a steady stream of conservative opinion pieces… which they enjoy for patriarchal white surpremacist reasons.” It’s the opinion pieces these people are enjoying for patriarchal, white supremacist reasons; since Amanda specified that she was talking about people who don’t know shit-all about literature, it’s a dishonest reading for you to pretend that she was talking about people who themselves read and value the classics.
But I guess if you stretch it, you can pretend that the passage is talking about people who don’t know shit-all about literature but who nonetheless read (or value without reading) the classics. Even so, your summary of what she wrote would still be wildly illogical.
2) If I say “people who like tofu only enjoy watching “Columbo” because they think Peter Falk is hot,” it’s obviously dishonest to claim “Barry says that if you watch Columbo, you do so because Falk is hot.”
The set of “people who value the traditional cannon” and the set of “wingnuts who don’t know shit-all about literature” may have some crossover, but they are not identical sets. But your claim about what Amanda said is only logical, or honest, if you imagine that the two sets are identical.
3) Amanda never claimed that the traditional canon upholds white supremicism. At all.
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. I think you owe Amanda an apology.
Comment by Ampersand — February 5, 2007 @ 5:00 pm |
Close parsing of Amanda’s text is rarely productive, in my experience. But if Amanda feels that the traditional canon doesn’t uphold white supremacism, then I am sure that she can say so on her own behalf; she’s’ aware that this thread exists. Since this post is specifically targeted to what Amanda has said, I think I’d rather get any clarifications from her, rather than get into arguments about interpretation with third parties.
My post is not intended to discuss or clarify Amanda’s meanings, and statements along the lines of “why should god get all the fun of punishing them and making them suffer?” doesn’t need any help from me be sensationalized. If you think my headings are unfair or twisted, then by all means ignore them, as they are merely my own editorial content. As far as partisan ends go, yes, of course. I am a partisan. Amanda is a partisan. Amanda is working for a political campaign. You can pretty much take it as a working assumption that anything said by or about Amanda from now until November 2008 is going to be in the service of a partisan end.
Comment by Robert — February 5, 2007 @ 5:17 pm |
This sort of thinking is why Republicans are known as the party of no ethics, Robert.Just because Amanda isn’t bothering to respond to you doesn’t mean that it’s acceptable to attribute views Amanda hasn’t stated to Amanda; nor is Amanda obligated to correct every lie or misstatement said about her.Robert, why should I ignore your headings? You wrote them in a public forum, and they are fair game for criticism. If you didn’t want your headings commented on, then you could have skipped including them at all.
Most of what I posted wasn’t “clarifications”; it was pointing out that the views you attributed to Amanda are often not stated in the text you quote and link to. For example, you were either mistaken or lying you when attributed the belief “If You Value The Traditional Canon, It’s Because It Upholds White Supremacism” to Amanda; that belief is simply not in what Amanda wrote.
You’re right that there’s nothing wrong with being partisan, in and of itself. 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.
[Edited to de-snark a bit ; sorry about that, Bob. –Amp]
Comment by Ampersand — February 5, 2007 @ 10:52 pm |
Amanda has responded to me, in her own forum, with essentially a raspberry. That’s fine; she’s under no obligation to.
As for the headings: I believe they are accurate summations of Amanda’s actual views. You may think that one of the direct Pandagon quotes doesn’t in and of itself justify the heading; your privilege, sir. If Amanda’s actual views are not what I have interpreted them to be, from these and other writings of hers, then she remains free to say what her actual views are.
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.
But I have. I’ve read Pandagon for months now. I believe I am scrupulously and to the degree humanly and personally possible, objectively reporting what I believe Amanda to be saying/thinking. I think she does believe NASCAR = white supremacy. I think she does believe that the traditional canon is a big ole’ supremacist lovefest. 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. I think she does believe that religion is a terrible blight on society.
I think she believes all of these things. And she has an absolute right to believe them – a right I’ll defend to the death.
And, as a general rule, I think that people have a right to know what political candidates, and their paid communicators, actually believe, on matters that are likely to be questions of public policy. You will notice that I have not posted Amanda’s views on her own sexual life. I have not posted quotations from her personality-clash based infighting with other bloggers. I have not posted her discussions of television programs. Everything I have written about is plainly political.
If I am wrong about my interpretations of her views, and Amanda wishes to clarify them, then I shall humbly apologize for the misinterpretation and remove the item that is in error. I don’t think she wishes to clarify them; I think she actually believes them.
Comment by Robert — February 5, 2007 @ 11:27 pm |
Parse all you want, Ampersand, but it’s quite plain from the rest of the Pandagon post that Amanda was accusing people of 1) ignorantly supporting the canon, because 2) they believed it to support white supremacism. So yeah, Robert’s summation of it wasn’t quite right. Instead of “If You Value The Traditional Canon, It’s Because It Upholds White Supremacism,” it should have been, “If You Value the Traditional Canon, It’s Because You’re Ignorant Enough to Believe it Upholds White Supremacism.” Either way, it’s still a very prototypical Marcotte post — needlessly antagonistic, insulting, derisive, self-righteous, and foul-mouthed.
Comment by Anono — February 5, 2007 @ 11:35 pm |
Reading what you has to say in each of the quotes, I can’t say that she’s deeply wrong in any, although a bit brazen in how she says it.
Malkin herself is far more offensive in her own writing.
Comment by ohwilleke — February 6, 2007 @ 1:59 am |
As I said earlier that the server problems were enough explanation for me regarding 404 problems (And Ezra’s pretty much confirmed it. And I bloody well trust his judgment about Pandagon’s internal workings.), I suppose I should have used quotation marks around the “strange” part of my previous comment, Amp. Only they would have looked like scare-quotes rather than signifying a debunked, and apologized for, rumor. And scare-quotes get people more riled up than any non-scare-quoted snark.
My statements about gutter-fighting and insults being her stock-in-trade, however… Those you can continue to take at face-value.
Comment by Off Colfax — February 6, 2007 @ 7:43 am |
Well, you’ve got to admit,
has got to be the most unintentionally funny thing the lovely Miss Marcotte has ever written. 🙂
Comment by Dana — February 6, 2007 @ 1:58 pm |
[…] A lot more is being said – see ProteinWisdom, K-Lo, Creative Destruction, Patterico, Riehl World View, Beltway, and Instapundit. A note to all bloggers, whether Right or […]
Pingback by RedBlueChristian » Blog Archive » JOHN EDWARDS, BLOGMASTERS, AND THE UNHINGED LEFT — February 6, 2007 @ 4:01 pm |
On the issue of the Duke rape case, which seems to be a big part of the attack on Amanda–I don’t see that as a terribly politically relevant view. The fact of the matter is that anyone who speaks out in support of the victim gets hell from people. I get it all the time, so I have empathy with Amanda on that issue. The supporters of the men accused in the Duke case genuninely believe their can be no other opinion than their own.
I have my issues with Pandagon, especially the very snarky style of the site, but people need to chill out.
Nevertheless, nobody would be voting for Amanda; she ain’t running. Edwards is, and I’m confident that the campaign read through her posts and the chose her. I feel confident that they also talked with her about the style of writing they want on the Edwards site–I doubt she’ll be calling Christian wingnuts.
I think this is just one more example of people exploiting the information age to try to tarnish reputations and distort images, but I certainly lean toward Amanda’s political orientation. LOL!!
Comment by Rachel — February 6, 2007 @ 10:59 pm |
“Amanda specified that she was talking about people who don’t know shit-all about literature”
In other words, she was tilting at Babbitts. Philistines. Rehashing the whole D’Souza/Berube/Lynne Cheney/Robert Hughes/Victor Davis Hanson early 90s cage match. (Is Dana Carvey back on SNL again? Somebody pinch me!)
How cutting edge! How insightful!
It’s not, for me, that she’s some dangerously subversive mother – it’s that she’s a walking cliche mill.
This is yer A list?
Comment by Knemon — February 6, 2007 @ 11:31 pm |
Knemon, it would be surprising if an A lister wrote a lot about obscure subjects. By definition, “A listers” write a significant amount of material about subjects a lot of people are interested in.
(Other traits “A listers” usually have include good writing skills, smarts, and exceptional productivity. Extremely combative attitudes are also pretty common.)
Off Coufax, I’m really sorry I misunderstood you. I agree that Amanda has an extremely combative style (when writing on Pandagon); I admit, I probably wouldn’t enjoy her nearly so much if I didn’t agree with a lot of her views.
Robert:
That’s not the issue. That you think she believes something doesn’t justify you claiming she believes something as if it were a fact, unless you can back it up with Amanda herself saying such a thing. And it’s obvious that you can’t, in the case of some of the claims you’ve made 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.)
In effect, you’re saying that it’s morally acceptable for you to make any claim about Amanda, however unproven, so long as you’re willing to apologize if Amanda takes the time, while being in the center of a blogstorm, while adjusting to moving to a new state, and while starting a new and extremely time-absorbing job, to dialog with someone who is publishing a series of malicious posts about her. Can you really not see how unreasonable you’re being; and how your standards in this case have the effect of giving you a license to distort?
It’s not Amanda’s responsibility to make sure that Robert’s statements comport with the truth; it’s Robert’s responsibility. And claiming “It doesn’t count when Amp points out my statements aren’t true, it only counts if Amanda does it” is a weak dodge of your responsibilities in this case.
Anono wrote:
It’s a good step that even an Amanda-hater can see that Robert’s reading isn’t accurate.
But you’re being inaccurate, too. Because the “you” in the statement “If You Value the Traditional Canon, It’s Because You’re Ignorant Enough to Believe it Upholds White Supremacism” is generic and universal, the statement implicitly assumes that there is no other possible reason one could value the traditional canon.
But that’s not what Amanda wrote. Amanda wrote that some people – Right-wingersWhoKnowNothingAboutLiterature – value the traditional canon for that reason. Logically, you can’t claim that Amanda’s statement applied to all people; it just applied to Right-wingersWhoKnowNothingAboutLiterature. But there are many people who are not Right-wingersWhoKnowNothingAboutLiterature, who presumably could value the traditional canon for many other reasons.
So a more accurate summary of Amanda’s statement might be “If You’re A Right-Winger Who Knows Shit-All About Literature Who Nonetheless Values the Traditional Canon, It’s Because You’re Ignorant Enough to Believe it Upholds White Supremacism.” Which is enormously different from what Robert claimed she said.
Comment by Ampersand — February 7, 2007 @ 6:11 am |
That you think she believes something doesn’t justify you claiming she believes something as if it were a fact, unless you can back it up with Amanda herself saying such a thing. And it’s obvious that you can’t, in the case of some of the claims you’ve made here.
Name them and show wherein, then. And by that I mean, “show me that YOUR gloss of Amanda’s beliefs is more accurate than MY gloss”, not demonstrate that I haven’t proved my gloss to be 100% literal fact. If you insist on debating whether Amanda really believes these things – in the face of other leftists coming along and saying “yeah, I believe that too” – and in the face of the obvious fact that, buddy, she really does believe these things – fine. Let’s have a debate. Put together your case, and when I find the time, I’ll work up rebuttals. Which will mostly involve finding more quotes of Amanda saying things akin to what she’s said above.
Part of the reason Amanda is in a “blogstorm”, by the way, is that she ACTUALLY SAYS THESE THINGS. The NY Times is now shocked to find gambling at Rick’s, in the form of the absolutely contemptible things Amanda has said about Catholicism. I’m kind of thinking that Robert daring to snarkily summarize Amanda’s opinions has become the least of her troubles. You might want to switch your efforts in defending her to focus on the the thirty million Catholic Democrats now asking hurt questions about the John Edwards campaign.
Comment by Robert — February 7, 2007 @ 1:39 pm |
I hope people who read this thread note that while Robert leaves the conversation open he is banned from Pandagon. Amanda deletes comments she doesn’t agree with and bans commentators regularly.
To Rachel; you have to have a victim to defend and in this case a street level hustler doesn’t qualify. I would encourage every one to do a google blog search for April and May 2006 to see how many times Rachel’s name pops up. I would also note that her Duke archives where she linked to the players pictures and home addresses are no longer available. Was this a technical problem too?
Comment by wayne fontes — February 7, 2007 @ 1:52 pm |
I would also note that her Duke archives where she linked to the players pictures and home addresses are no longer available. Was this a technical problem too?
Yeah, ain’t that convenient?
Comment by Fred Jones — February 7, 2007 @ 2:09 pm |
Already done for one example, in my comment #23, and again in #34.; you’ve yet to respond to my specific arguments at all.
She’s used strong language to criticize the political positions of the Catholic Church (And also to criticize right-wing Christians), but what’s wrong with that?[*] By choosing to enter the political arena, Catholicism’s leaders have made Catholicism fair game. And her criticisms of Catholicism are legitimate political criticisms.
[*] I’m ignoring the whole “civility” issue for now. Obviously, I wouldn’t choose to put things the way Amanda does, because I think it’s better to be civil. But although I disagree with the language choice, that doesn’t mean that I think bloggers who use strong, rude language are being “absolutely contemptible.”
Comment by Ampersand — February 7, 2007 @ 3:23 pm |
Listen Wayne and Fred–I never posted links to pictures or addresses, so you can stop lying.
Comment by Rachel — February 7, 2007 @ 3:58 pm |
Rachel:
The wording is unclear I agree, but I understood Wayne’s allegation to have been that Marcotte did these things, not that you did these things.
Perhaps Wayne could clarify (and substantiate) what he meant.
Comment by Daran — February 7, 2007 @ 4:15 pm |
Daran,
Here’s the quote:
Comment by Rachel — February 7, 2007 @ 4:45 pm |
Plus, he said this same thing in some forum called lie stoppers, and he put a link to my place of employment.
Unfortunately, this is typical behavior when the Duke case comes up, a bunch of people like wayne come out of the woodwork, and try to launch unfounded personal attacks.
Comment by Rachel — February 7, 2007 @ 4:47 pm |
Ampersand,
You’re free, of course, to comment or refrain from commenting on whatever you like, but I notice that while defending Marcotte from Robert’s critique, you’ve ignored mine. I’d appreciate your thoughts. In particular, I’d like to know your answers to the following questions:
1. Would you describe it as “absolutely contemptible” for someone to say that the Duke suspects “held someone down and fucked her against her will”, when it’s not absolutely clear that they did this, and even you acknowledge that “it does appear likely that the three accused men are innocent of the rape they’ve been accused of”. If not, how would you describe this?
2. Would you describe it as “absolutely contemptible” for someone who accused the Duke complainant of making a false accusation, using similar language. If not, how would you describe this?
3. Same question as 2, if, hypothetically, your view of the likelihood of the suspects’ guilt were reversed, but with the same lack of certaintly.
4. If your answers to the above are different, can you explain on what basis you distinguish between them?
Edited to add: You are welcome to reply here if you would prefer not to do so in this thread.
Comment by Daran — February 7, 2007 @ 4:48 pm |
She’s used strong language to criticize the political positions of the Catholic Church…
I’m not talking about her political argument. I’m talking about childish crap like this (the one that got the NYT’s attention):
That’s contemptible. It’s contemptible directed at any religion, not just mine. It’s the way a six-year-old gets attention; “I’m going to say that Jesus is poopy!” Then Daddy will have to pay attention to me.
You’ve critiqued my headlines, but your critique doesn’t make a plausible claim to being a better gloss on Amanda’s words than mine. It’s your interpretation of her syntactically ambiguous statement versus mine. But the case you have to make is that Amanda doesn’t think the Republican Party is the party of homophobes and racists, that she doesn’t think fundamentalist Christians want to torture Muslims, etc. And you cannot make that case, and you know you cannot make the case. In a post that’s 80% direct quotes from Amanda, you’re trying to make it about me. That’s not going to work.
However, if it’ll make you feel better, in the series of posts on Amanda’s views that I’m going to launch, I’ll refrain from snarky editorializing and simply present pure Marcottey goodness. I don’t think you’ll find it any more palatable, but you’ll have to address the fact that the discomfort is coming from the fact that one of your allies is flinging dung and calling it argument, and not from the mean right-wingers misrepresenting poor Amanda.
Rachel, Fred, Daran, etc. – this thread isn’t about the Duke case, it’s about Amanda’s views. Take it somewhere else, please, or discuss that case only as it applies to the context of Amanda Marcotte’s opinions about it.
Comment by Robert — February 7, 2007 @ 5:13 pm |
My questions to Amp are about Marcotte’s opinion. I want to know what his view is of her utterance, and if it differs from his view of similar utterances by other people which, to my mind, are no more contemptible.
I don’t wish to discuss the Duke case per se. In fact, I’ve never been particularly interested in it. What interests me is how feminists react to it and to similar cases.
Comment by Daran — February 7, 2007 @ 5:31 pm |
I love the Amanda quote in 44. It is witty and hangs a whole abhorant world view on its petard with a minimal number of words. Hardly childish, few children are that sophisticated.
Also, there is nothing particularly anti-Catholic about it. With the exception of Unitarian Christians, Mormons, and a few others, it is a hit on all mainstream Christianity.
Comment by ohwilleke — February 7, 2007 @ 5:34 pm |
Rachel posted a link to a site that posted links to the pictures. You had to click a mouse twice to get there.
Comment by wayne fontes — February 7, 2007 @ 6:28 pm |
Robert,
I just leave one final comment. The reason Duke is relevant is because that is one of the areas where Amanda is being attacked, and having taken a lead role in publicizing the case, I can assure you than many of the attacks against Amanda are being lead by people who have no interest in the truth or diversity of opinion or real debate on the subject (as the above comment distorting my own role in the case illustrates).
I can understand people not loving her word choice, but there are plenty of respectable people who do not support many of the defense team’s assertions in the case. People like Amanda and myself are allowed to disagree with these people.
Comment by Rachel — February 7, 2007 @ 6:35 pm |
http://web.archive.org/web/20060406182435/http://www.rachelstavern.com/
The above link is from Rachel’s missing archives.
Comment by wayne fontes — February 7, 2007 @ 7:33 pm |
“I love the Amanda quote in 44. It is witty and hangs a whole abhorant world view on its petard with a minimal number of words. Hardly childish, few children are that sophisticated.”
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”.
The problem with humanity is that we ruin great ideas. Skepticism, secularism, feminism, etc are all great and rational ideas – but most humans are irrational. Religions aren’t inherently bad – people make them bad, just like practically all ideologies throughout history. Communism had no religion attached to it and it has tens of millions of dead bodies to its name. A fundamentalist Christian (or Islamist) is the same as a militant atheist – they’re just intolerant, illogical, irrational, and close-minded in a totally different way.
Comment by Shawn — February 7, 2007 @ 9:39 pm |
Heh.
Comment by Off Colfax — February 7, 2007 @ 9:46 pm |
Please go away.
Comment by Daran — February 7, 2007 @ 9:50 pm |
Fact check for wayne: There only seems to be missing a rash of American Idol posts.
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.
Comment by Off Colfax — February 7, 2007 @ 9:58 pm |
LOL! Yeah, I proudly blogged about American Idol every week. 🙂
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!!
Comment by Rachel S. — February 7, 2007 @ 11:26 pm |
I lied–Thanks guys for backing me up.
Comment by Rachel S. — February 7, 2007 @ 11:27 pm |
You’re all banned for thread drift. Everyone! Banned!
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.
Comment by Robert — February 8, 2007 @ 12:07 am |
Shawn wrote:
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.
Comment by Brutus — February 8, 2007 @ 1:31 am |
Ampersand:
Well, I was about to post something along the same lines as Anono. I am especially not impressed how quickly you started to use terms like “dishonesty”, “lying” and “insult” after a relatively unconvincing game of sophistry.
Let’s waste some more time by continuing it.
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:
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.
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:
-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?
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.
Comment by Marcus — February 8, 2007 @ 4:24 am |
I think she does believe NASCAR = white supremacy. I think she does believe that the traditional canon is a big ole’ supremacist lovefest.
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):
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?
Comment by hf — February 8, 2007 @ 4:41 am |
Damn! Sorry, I though I was just making a couple of points but something must have happened with my browser….
Comment by Marcus — February 8, 2007 @ 4:42 am |
Hmm, I should probably check for typos in phrases like “intellectual poseur”. Marcus, you somehow managed to read those words and skip right by the whole purpose of the post.
Comment by hf — February 8, 2007 @ 4:46 am |
Oh, and the real title of the post allegedly attacking the canon or all of its supporters? “Wait, you mean Jonathan Swift didn’t want to eat Irish children?” It mainly attacks conservatives invoking Swift’s name to justify their “jokes” about killing liberals or Arab children or whoever they decide to hate.
Comment by hf — February 8, 2007 @ 4:49 am |
I should go go bed, but just in case anyone thinks no mainstream “Christian” backer of Israel looks forward to the end times:
“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.
Comment by hf — February 8, 2007 @ 5:11 am |
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.
Comment by Marcus — February 8, 2007 @ 5:49 am |
[…] from sources here and here, as well as various Pandagon […]
Pingback by Common Sense Political Thought » Archives » Six Myths about Amandagate — February 8, 2007 @ 11:06 am |
I don’t know how much clearer I can get than “You accuse Amanda of attacking the canon and dismiss the obvious interpretation — that she meant to insult certain people on your side.”
Comment by hf — February 8, 2007 @ 1:42 pm |
This comment is not in relation to anything in the thread, but I’m putting it here because it goes with the title:
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…
Comment by Dianne — February 8, 2007 @ 4:12 pm |
Hf:
By the fact that very first thing you address to me is basically an accusation of stupidity, you must be coming from Pandagon?
Nice to meet you too. Here is what I think about your points.
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.
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
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.
Comment by Marcus — February 8, 2007 @ 7:57 pm |
[…] He’s closed the Overton Window. He’s silenced them. We won’t be hearing any more interesting opinions from either of them, at least until the campaign is over. All we’ll hear are the same […]
Pingback by Feminist Critics — February 10, 2007 @ 8:45 pm |
[…] February 7: Ampersand, […]
Pingback by Feminist Critics — April 16, 2007 @ 8:20 pm |
Amanda Marcotte is a shrill,angry,misandric nutjob…That says it best..She stands in the hall screaming: Racist, misogynist, homophobe! This sort of “advocacy” makes me and many average people want to be ALL 3 of those things. Note to Amanda: The White straight Man invented and built virtually everything YOU OWN, including the computer you write on the “Pandagon” blog. Without their building and inventing of things, you would be living in a grass hut in the middle of nowhere. So, without men, enjoy your grass hut. You just aren’t that OPPRESSED. Best 2nd response: Get lost.
Comment by Steve — March 24, 2008 @ 2:49 am |