hai guyz, did you know we're only doing what Alinsky told us to?
Earnest Iconoclast (Replying to: ethan salto) September 4, 2009 9:59 AMPreemptive victimization, fun. I don't think David Bradley is listening to our criticisms. I'd expect he couldn't care less.
I am amazed at how much some people hate you, Megan. It's bizarre. It's like some people on the Left look for people to hate and then seek to destroy them. This whole page is full of vicious attacks that pose as logical argument. They may have a point buried in there, but it's so mixed in with vitriol and condescension that it's hard to find.
movertyperguy (Replying to: Earnest Iconoclast) September 4, 2009 11:34 AM
"It's like some people on the Left look for people to hate and then seek to destroy them."
It's not "like" that. It is in fact their stated strategy.
Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals #12: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)"
They want to hurt Megan. They're cutting off her support network of other liberals. They're isolating her. Excommunicating her. They want to get her fired from the Atlantic to hurt her financially.
It's the Barack Obama playbook ... written down in easy rule form. Nothing surprising about what they're doing. They've announced ahead of time how they'll govern.
If you disagree with them, they'll hurt you.
Also, apparently we have influence over the likes of Ezra and Matty Y, because we all listen carefully to people who idly mock us without really knowing us and our work.
Not that these two are talking specifically, or only, about us here, of course. And movertyperguy is so over the top at times I'm wondering if he's a subtle parody.
Anyway, remember rule #17; have a beer. It's Labor Day, thanks unions.
Posts
20 comments:
The thought occurs to me that I don't know what I'd do if I were to find myself in Megan's position vis-a-vis her commentors.
I wouldn't mind having a platform from which to spew my little tropes, but if it were to be infested with ultra-left wing loons spouting off shit and calling GWB a Fascist or whatever, I'd get quite upset. Yet, would I have the balls to tell them to STFU? Would any writer ever succeed if he marginalized his own base?
I wonder. Would it be worth hurting my own career and setting back my own agenda just to let insane people know taht they are insane? It's not like they'd listen. What could one do?
They're cutting off her support network of other liberals.
What does that mean?
I think it means we, the anti Megan mafia, are making other liberals fake hate her via peer pressure and bullying.
Or we're purging self declared lefties who associate with her via targeted killings which have yet to actually happen but we're totally capable of paying union thugs to do it so we really should be stopped.
Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals #12: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)"
Funny, one of the locals who obsessively demonizes Ald. Helen Shiller of the 46th Ward in Chicago over at Uptown Update accused me of being some sort of Alinskyite when that's exactly what they do! I used to get more of the Soros angle.
Will somebody please point me to any of these so-called "vicious attacks" everyone is always complaining about? Most of the criticism I've seen towards Megan has been in regards to her writing and arguments, not her personally.
They're cutting off her support network of other liberals.
How? Are one of you guys forcing Ezra at gunpoint to be a meanie to Megan? Has someone threatened to hurt them if they still go to lunch with her?
They're isolating her. Excommunicating her.
Actually, she's doing this all by her onesome with her shitty writing and shallow, ill-thought out arguments. And it's not giving Megan the credit she deserves. It is saying that, in the end, if she loses her writing gig, it won't be because she was terrible at it. It will be because the Boys Club drove her out by exploiting her weaknesses as a female.
They want to get her fired from the Atlantic to hurt her financially.
I want Megan fired from the Atlantic because she sucks at writing. That is it. If it ever does come to that, I honestly hope she finds work doing something she enjoys. I don't hate her. I don't want her to starve. I just think she's in over her head writing as a professional. God knows she's reminded us how talented and educated and smart she is often enough. I'm sure she'd land on her feet.
Not only that, but it's not like this woman spent her whole life in pursuit of this career. She didn't grow up with ink-stained hands and the nickname "Scoop." She didn't go to j-school or work exhausting hours at high school and college newspapers to prepare. She fell into it quite easily and by accident, so it's not as if that career avenue being closed to her would be the crushing of years of hard work and dreams.
Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals #12: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)"
That must be why McArdle starts half of her posts calling liberals names, warns them that nobody will like them if they support liberal policy, and pushes lies to covnvince the unthinking middle that she is right and they are wrong.
The problem here is that a huge portion of the American public prefers propaganda, which simply tweaks emotion, over information, which takes brain effort.
Yes, CP, they seem to think that if you're a bad, dishonest jounalist that's fine, but if someone points out you're a bad journalist, in a way that doesn't permit you to ignore them as you always have, the pointer-outer is the bad person, not the one shoveling out wrong information intended to harm other people.
(Of course correcting their work is not an option because they aren't paid to give out correct information--their job is to spin and lie.)
And one last thing--I pointed out to her over and over and over that she was harming herself as well, that sooner or later she would get nailed in public, and she might easily be fired if she continued on this path. McArdle is very good at calculating how far she can go; if she miscalculated, well, she's had a very good run as the Corner's go-to gal for bad information to support their stupidity and craziness.
What Susan said, with this addendum: When the columnist (e.g., MM) posts, it's ostensibly professional and objective. When you critique her, her defenders call it "personal." The very act of taking issue with her is, to them, an "attack" on her.
From which standpoint many of them then say, Why don't you deal with her ideas instead of attacking her personally?
I've replied to two trolls on Tom Levenson's blog (where he dismantles MM as with a crow-bar), and the more they accuse him (and us) of "ad hominem" arguments and of ignoring her ideas, the more they ignore her ideas and subject us to ad hominem arguments.
It would be amusing if--hey, wait! It IS amusing.
cp,
Will somebody please point me to any of these so-called "vicious attacks"
May I quote from the Dictionary of Punditspeak (OUP, 2009)?
"attack", n. Any form of criticism levelled against the pundit. Often qualified by an adjective, such as "personal attack" which, contrary to common usage, refers to criticism levelled against the pundit's work, especially when the accuracy of information presented by the pundit is successfully questioned using generally accessible sources of information or pundit's own words.
"Vicious attack" refers to repeated and/or persistent legitimate criticism of the pundit despite attempts by the pundit to downplay and/or ignore that part of their work which is under criticism. See also McArdle, Megan.
I love our commentors sometimes.
bulbul,
What is says under "ad hominem," since that seems to be something those morons don't grasp as well.
"ad hominem," adj. criticizing an opponent in an argument by making personal attacks on their character or appearance rather than appealing to reason or critical thinking in direct response to their points of debate. For instance, in responding to Megan McArdle's thoughts on health care, an "ad hominem" attack would be to call her a "gap-toothed beanpole who dresses funny" rather than responding to her specific points.
Common usage: It should be noted that, on the occasion that persons, especially pundits, who have their perfection and perpetually correct arguments questioned with said tools of logic and reason that in no way impugns them as an individual, "ad hominem" may also apply.
Though, in Megan's case, wouldn't the proper phrase be "ad feminam"?
(Origin: Latin, meaning "to the man.")
I was really wondering what the phrase "support network of other liberals" meant, as in, is McArdle a "liberal," according to this person?
cp,
same page:
"ad hominem" < "argumentum ad hominem" (Lat. "argument against the man"), obsol. A logical and debating fallacy, where opponent's qualities or features, usually negative ones, are used to invalidate their argument, without addressing the substance of the argument. Example: "Michael Moore is fat, therefore his views/movies are stupid."
In current usage, "ad hominem" or "ad hominem attack" is used interchangeably with "personal attack"↑, especially when legitimate criticism is levelled against any aspect of the pundit's professional public life such as their education or previous employment. Example:
"- Megan McArdle is just an MBA, what makes her think she is qualified to comment on the work of real economists like Paul Krugman?
- Stop with the ad hominem attacks!"
M. Bouffant,
apparently yes, movertyperguy really thinks Our Lady of Teh Cognitive Error is a liberal. And I think I know where this come, so let me try the mental gymnastics required - step back, folks, this might get ugly:
1. Megan works for the Atlantic.
2. Some people who are generally considered liberal (Yglesias, Klein) sometimes link to her approvingly.
3. Megan said she regretted voting for Bush (and we all know conservatives don't have any regrets)
4. ...
5. PROFIT!!!!
6. Megan is a liberal. And Yglesias, Sulli and Klein are the liberal support network.
If McMe-again were ever to get fired from the Atlantic, she'd land at some other wingnut welfare project like the NR or Reason or the Ayn Rand FUIGM Institute or something, where she could spout her illogical, ill-informed tripe to her heart's content, and her fan-boy readers would go right along with her.
I have to disagree with you, Bulbul. I think the crazy man was saying we, the impolite critics, are the 'original' liberals in the set, the "other liberals" being those we find ways to force to agree with our preposterous notion that Megan McArdle is horrible at her job, particularly the liberals in the DC blogging clique who we somehow have influence with.
Also, Joe Klein.
(That's a non sequitur, I just feel he needs mention in this context.)
It still looks to me like she is being called a liberal.
Remember, she's got a long way to go before she can be considered a True Conservative. Even the apron-wearing was, I fear, just a joke.
brad,
the "other liberals" being those we find ways to force to agree with our preposterous notion
Ain't that what I said, even giving some of their names?
Also, Joe Klein.
Yeah, fuck him too.
I'm pretty sure movertypeguy is Basic Fact. I registered his username to deter him and also annoy him by posting liberal comments.
he's got the same derangement which is actually borderline genuine mental illness.
Post a Comment