Folding, spindeling, and mutilating lauguage for fun since Aug, 2004
Saturday, 19 May 2007

It’s the answer!  All we have to do is wait until the “right” smears, defames, harasses, and sets their troll posse out with threats against the children of all the conservatives in the country.  The answer is so obvious.  Unleash Bill O’Reilly  and Bill Donohue, and let them do their damage.  One by one, people will wake up when their little liberal child is the one standing in the crosshairs of a fallafel-weilding maniac. I just don’t know if the country has time to let them completely discredit themselves.

The Daily Kos has more about the strange case of Amanda Marcotte.

Her parents didn’t know what to do, either. "It was interesting to see, because they’re Fox News-watchers; they buy into the whole thing," Amanda says. "So I don’t think it ever occurred to them, the human face of someone Bill O’Reilly will slander for political gain. They didn’t stop to consider how much he slants things, and lies, until it happened to someone they knew."

 

Plus, if they keep this up, they are going to do real number on the state of morality in this country by forcing them out of their jobs:

Today, Marcotte is unemployed and—since she gave up her apartment for the abortive move to North Carolina—without her own place. But she’s doing alright. She recently signed a contract to write a book for Seal Press, called Not Your Darling (due out in Spring 2008) and has moved in with her boyfriend — who agreed to support her for a year while she writes. (The catch: she has to do the same for him next year). In the meantime, you can find her on Pandagon.net.

Saturday, 19 May 2007 22:41:25 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [7] |  |  | #
Monday, 21 May 2007 06:51:31 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
That's quite a story! The biggest problem I have with the "right" is their tight connection with organized religion.

Organized religion and the mafia are heads and tails on the same coin, if you ask me.
Mark
Tuesday, 22 May 2007 07:44:03 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
They can be. Religious extremeism and organized crime certainly flourish under similar conditions, and the more power religious extremeism gains in a government, the more things that are prohibited. The more things that are prohibited, the greater the opportunity for profitable law-breaking.
Teresa
Tuesday, 22 May 2007 18:11:29 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Um, that Daily Kos piece is about as ridiculous and biased as it could be. It completely ignores the fact that Miss Marcotte is a foul-mouthed pro-abortionist. She had said, inter alia, "Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it?" That was well after the Duke players were found to be innocent and Nifong was brought up on charges. She stated that adoption does not "reflect self-determination" and is exploitive of women. Her blog contained some fairly vile things, including talking about how conservatives wouldn't get between "these nubile thighs." She told this blogger that she is a man or in need of psychiatric help.

That doesn't even begin to go into her anti-Catholic and anti-Christian bigotry. She trashed people in North Carolina as being backwards and ignorant.

The fact that people think she's a raving, irrational psychopath has nothing to do with anti-woman, anti-blogger, or anti-feminist bigotry and everything to do with the fact that, objectively, she's a raving, irrational psychopath. Edwards screwed up in not properly vetting his bloggers, because no one who is familiar with Marcotte's work would want her on a campaign. That all said, her life wasn't "ruined" by the MSM: she did it to herself.

I know that there is anti-woman and anti-blogger bias out there, and I know that people are chased off jobs or campaigns because of bigotry and not merit, but Amanda isn't an example of that. Rallying behind her is ridiculous. She deserved everything thrown at her.
Tuesday, 22 May 2007 23:35:19 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
theobromophile,

Woah. She deserved having people threaten to rape and kill her?
Teresa
Wednesday, 23 May 2007 21:18:59 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Teresa,

You're more intellectually honest than that, so knock it off.

My remarks were directed solely at the idea that she did not deserve the "anti-Catholic" labels (or any others) thrown at her. Fact is, she's foul-mouthed, crude, unintellectual, near-rabid, and generally unacceptable company.

The few psychos who threatened to rape and kill her were just that: outside of the norm and psychos. Their existence does not negate the fact that Marcotte deserved and earned legitmate criticism.
Wednesday, 23 May 2007 23:16:30 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
theobromophile,

I appreciate your estimation of my intellectual honesty, and your clarification.

However, I do think that the rhetoric of Donohue and Bill O'Reilly encouraged the people who threatened Amanda. The pattern of behavior that followed their speech about her is common enough now that they should have been able to predict the results. Much like Ann Coulter is not directly responsible for the actions of students who follow her (obviously) hyperbolic urging to terrorize and harass their professors in college...it's clear she's not completely guiltless either.

As for your opinions about her, worse has been said of me, and I've certainly let fly with hyperbole, heroically foul language, and near-rabid rants and the occasional unintellectual screed.

So maybe my threshhold is a little lower than yours, or maybe I haven't read Pandagon enough to encoutered the behavior you describe...but often enough to come to a completely different conclusion.

She may be foul-mouthed and crude, even near-rabid, but from where I'm sitting, that is about the only way to respond to some of the crap being foisted on the American people under the false guise of "moral values" and "family". Politeness and niceness is my preferred method of operation. I'm more comfortable with them, but sometimes they just don't do the job, and sometimes comfortable just isn't what's in the cards.

Also, from what I've observed, Ex-Catholics who attended parochial school get a special pass in the "criticising Catholisism" department. I've heard mild manners Ex-Catholics who wouldn't hurt a hair on a head issue forth the most bitter and bilous invectives. I usually just assume they are reacting to the suffering their religious upbringing caused them rather than taking a philosophical and political stand for the destruction of the church.

If Bill Donohue and Bill O'Reilly were not conducting a politically motivated hit-job, and were really concerned for the "anti-Catholic" sentiments on Pandagon, they would have their work cut out for them tracking down every person who ever said the things about the Catholic church that Amanda said. It's not as if people don't know that the Catholic church opposes gay marriage and officially forbids their members to use birth control, insists on women having second-class citizenship within their organization, and has a history of protecting pedophiles in their ranks.

These are matters of records, not opinions. They aren't things she made up out of her head to hurt the church with.
Teresa
Thursday, 24 May 2007 13:01:26 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Teresa,

Even though I often disagree with you, you're logical and don't try to foist disingenuous arguments on people.

I generally believe that people are responsible for themselves and themselves alone. Hypothetically, if a person does something appalling, and another person criticises it, knowing that a third person will attack the first, does that mean that the second person should not speak out in opposition? Should we not, for example, discuss the Holocaust because it will cause some people to vilify Germans?

I'm a recovering Catholic. I have ZERO problem with criticism of the Church. Nevertheless, Amanda doesn't criticise it, saying, for example, "This policy is bad because of x, y, and z, and here's the studies." She just goes on a trash-fest, basically saying that all Catholics are sexist, misogynistic, and basically gives playground-level insults. That isn't a critical look at Catholicism; it's a hatchet job. She got called out on that (understandably).

I think what best typifies the Marcotte response to everything is her recent comment about the Duke lacrosse boys. Long after DNA tests exonerated them, long after the stripper changed her story, and long after everyone knew that they were innocent, she asked why people can't rape a black woman anymore without everyone getting offended. Those boys didn't rape anyone. A prosecutor didn't just say that he lacks evidence to go forward; he publicly apologised, declared their innocence (factual and moral, not just legal), and Nifong will probably lose his bar license. Yet that rabid woman accused three innocent men of rape.

Criticism of her is entirely valid. She also wiped offending posts off Pandagon once the scandal broke, but, unfortunately, enterprising bloggers used Google cache and brought them up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021201632.html'

Language warning:

"I can’t wait until Nigger Jenkins and The Flying Kike-Boy fight over the Cruiserweight Championship next week! Oh, you’re offended? It’s just a discussion about racial tensions between blacks and jews, and the ending will promote racial reconciliation, at least until the Zionist Conspiracy gets involved.

Don’t believe the hype

While the media runs around jerking Bush off about Zarqawi’s reported death, it’s important to remember that BushCo and Zarqawi had a symbiotic relationship to play up his “membership” in al Qaeda.

Today’s “Jesus cries when women fuck” update by Amanda Marcotte

Well, the Texas House of Representatives got Republican Jesus and he reminded them that out of of all the things he hates, which are multitude, nothing incurs his wrath more than women’s sexuality.

Don’t relegate yourself to the used cunt lot

Of course, if you’re a perverted religious nut, the blood and the pain of “cherry”-breaking is probably a de riguer part of a woman’s life, both to give the man a cheap thrill of actual blood while enacting the sex-as-violent-possession construction that is part of virginity fetishization and to remind the woman of her religious teaching that womanhood is suffering (see: Genesis)."
Comments are closed.
Search
Archive
Links
Categories
Admin Login
Sign In
Blogroll
Themes
Pick a theme: