Thursday, February 4, 2010

"Before you pop off at me, would you please try to read all the words in the post? In order?"


Note to My Angry Liberal Interlocutors

I do too address your angry concerns!
I have spent a paragraph or so discussing exactly the problem that they are angrily demanding that I address.
Or so!


Clever Pseudonym said...

Megan doesn't seem to understand that typing "I have flaws" and actually possessing the self-reflection and desire to improve upon them are not the same thing. For years, she's been making the same mistakes, writing the same nearly fact-free content, and refusing to address those who criticize her outside of claiming they are too dumb to understand what she wrote to begin with. And in all the time she's been doing it - and it has been pointed out to her many, many times - she's not made the slightest effort to improve as a journalist.

She doesn't think she has flaws, she's just barely smart enough to know that humility is a virtue she should feign for show while feeling none of it herself.

Susan of Texas said...

She really seems to believe that her arguments are devastating, and anyone who disagrees with her is just a hater.

Bill Rutherford, Princeton Admissions said...

Yes. Unfortunately, so do her mouth-breathing commentariat.

NutellaonToast said...

It's a good thing she doesn't have angry conservative interlocutors to put in their place, or else she'd be riding around on her high horse all damn day.

Downpuppy said...

Ahh, but she does now.

They're quite upset that she said O'Keefe was arrested for bugging instead of whatever nearly identical charges were filed.

M. Bouffant said...

They're quite upset that she said O'Keefe was arrested for bugging instead of whatever nearly identical charges were filed.

That's the entire defense. "Initial news reports from 'The MSM' were not totally accurate. Oooh, gotcha!!"

RW said...

I suppose that I should comment on this, being that I helped to inspire the original thread.

Her technique is sort of amusing, I must admit. She begins by "quoting" me with words that I didn't use to knock down a straw man of her own creation. When confronted with the fact that she made the whole thing up, she then plays defense by claiming that she was "paraphrasing" me, when anyone with two brain cells to rub together should see that her interpretative skills were more than a tad off the mark.

She seems to earnestly believe that by making half-assed passing references to opposing points of view that she has scored some sort of preemptive victory and ended all debate on the subject. The fact that her argument may have been poorly constructed, far from complete or factually inaccurate will not deter her, her throwaway comment or two is apparently enough.

Better still, if all of her efforts are for naught, she then responds by posting new threads that are meant to draw attention away from the previous posts. This was particularly bad several months ago when she misquoted the Elizabeth Warren medical bankruptcy report; she faced so much opposition that she proceeded to spam her own blog with numerous posts on the same topic, obviously to push the old posts down the page and into archive oblivion.

She also did the same thing here. When I illustrated that her "quote" was in fact entirely fictional, she almost immediately posted the follow-up "civility" thread in order to shift the focus away from the first failed rant.

Unlike you folks, I actually sort of like Ms. McArdle. But this little passive-aggressive outburst was a bit much, even for me.