Start over at Susan's, I'll wait.
Back?
Ok, so zosima replied and Megan responded. I can't figure out how to find the link for that comment, but you just need to scroll down a lil for it, or you can read it now;
Ooooooh, snap!Queen Megan hath spoken. Thou shalt dote upon her Ladyship's feelings, or thou shalt be exiled from her lands.
More-in-sorrow-than-in-anger requires making some point I find at least tangentially interesting.
On a serious note, don't worry that you hurt my feelings. Mosquitos don't need to hurt my feelings to piss me off. I don't like nasty internet invective. And not because I'm not good at it. Invective is fun, but entirely counterproductive, which is why I deploy it only with people who a) use it liberally themselves and b) have ignored myriad previous warning shots across the bow.
Contempt is only a good arguing tool if the person you're arguing with wants your respect. And, respectfully, you haven't earned mine, so I don't really care about yours. Only the very young, the very stupid, or the very insecure are impressed by the condescension of random others, and alas, I am no longer any of those things.
Had you attempted straight argument, stripped of the attempt to project a superiority you didn't work for, you might have won that respect; there are a lot of liberals whose opinions I do care for. You are very welcome to attempt to be one of those liberals; or you can go away. But the very next time you express the merest sliver of contempt for me, or anyone else on this thread, I'll ban you.
Note to others, ideologically sympatico or not: this is one of my periodic housecleanings. Be nice to one another. Both liberals and conservatives have fallen prey to my axe before, and I'm ready to start swinging again. You know I love each and every one of you, but that doesn't mean we can all live in the same house.
Posts
7 comments:
oh, the tantrums. I do miss the tantrums.
You've got to love Megan lecturing others about being condescending and wielding "unearned" superiority. What a clueless dolt.
And as usual, Nobody can know anything ever, because stuff is hard.
This one is a classic of the genre.
Crap, she's doing an attack piece on Elizabeth Warren, whom she hates for being insufficently subservient to banks. It'll take forever to refute.
Its all retreads. Even the kiddie book title thefts.
http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf
to save you a minute looking up the Warren report.
I remember that very well, because I couldn't believe McArdle conflated number of bankruptcies and percentage of bankruptcies. I think we can conjecture that she did it deliberately, since she is still using it as proof for her argument.
I read that Bradley pays his writers very well, as much as $300,000/yr. Of course McArdle won't make that much; the Atlantic is dependent on the reputation of Fallows and the popularity of Sullivan, as well as the occassional good pieces that they publish. But they're the window dressing and selling access to journalists to corporations is the real product, as you guys know.
There's nothing we can do about it, since lying is just another rhetorical technique for these people. Exposing the lies makes no difference since the media at large doesn't care about accuracy, only money. It makes our efforts seem pretty foolish. Yet we can't be true to ourselves if we agree to live under lies-to live with lies you have to constantly find excuses for your behavior, and that usually entails blaming someone else so you don't have to admit that you're a dishonest person. I'd rather be angry and frustrated than be a sell-out or coward. Our human dignity and honor comes from believing that we are a good person, and living up to that belief.
surely its a coincidence that Clive Crook, their other economics writer, is as bad as Megan
http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/21/clive-crook-the-atlantic-michael-mann/
& pushes the same line of "Yes warming is real but it's more important to puch hippies" rubbish.
Post a Comment