Saturday, December 06, 2014

Amanda Marcotte Is A Hack

6 Comments:

Blogger Dark Avenger said...

This is from the woman who went after a family over the SCHIP issue tooth and nail.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2007/10/10/nyt-schip-controversy-conservative-bloggers-attacking-family-injured-ch

I think you shouldn't use one nut to try to discredit another.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/06/07/10-of-the-worst-examples-of-michelle-malkins-in/186230

Oh, and when are you going to do an update on Gamergate?

1:13 PM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Oh DA...you *really* hate criticism of Marcotte, don't you?

1:17 PM  
Blogger Dark Avenger said...

Nope, if you read her latest column at Raw Story, she has some reasonable things to say about this. Taking some Twitter comments and making a mountain out of a molehill is Malkin's specialty.

What I hate is criticism using a nut like Malkin to make your point.

That you swallowed it, contents, cork, and bottle, as H.L. Mencken said in another context, is pretty sad, Winston.

Also, this.


8:23 AM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Name of DA's fallacy: tu quoque

8:28 AM  
Blogger Dark Avenger said...

Nope, it's just that your criticism always seems to be using some nutty conservative to make your point.

I've seen the same Amanda- hate in others, Winston, and it's never pretty.

Unfortunately, you seem to be using the UVA controversy as an excuse to attack her, not to examine the incident or talk about what it means in general.

Don't be a hack, Winston. Is that too much to add?

Oh, BTW, the problem seems to be mostly with the reporting, not with Jackie's account. At least one of her friends quoted in the original piece said that the reporter didn't quote them accurately.

This didn't stop a conservative from doxxing Jackie, which, of course, you have yet to expound upon.

8:40 AM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

"Nope, it's just that your criticism always seems to be using some nutty conservative to make your point."

False, and not even close to being true. Rather, you can't take criticisms of liberalism, and deploy fallacious tu quoques on the rare occasion I dare to cite some conservative of whom you don't approve.

"I've seen the same Amanda- hate in others, Winston, and it's never pretty."

Ah, and there we go--rational criticism of an irrational hack pundit is "hate"...and "not pretty"... I criticize Marcotte just as I criticize other dogmatic hacks...but somehow that's not allowable in her case...

Remember when I ran into you on Marcotte's site (or some similar place) once, DA, and you valiantly defended her utterly incoherent point? That was funny...

"Don't be a hack, Winston. Is that too much to add?"

Offer up valid criticisms and not textbook fallacies. Is that too much to ask, DA?

"Oh, BTW, the problem seems to be mostly with the reporting, not with Jackie's account. At least one of her friends quoted in the original piece said that the reporter didn't quote them accurately."

Oh, BTW, no it doesn't. You're just circling the wagons. We've got lots of evidence that she made it up--even some of her friends say that they don't believe her. Yet you pick out the one person who gave some very weak reasons for believing her...and that's the only one you point to.

Textbook political hackery, DA. Textbook!

"This didn't stop a conservative from doxxing Jackie, which, of course, you have yet to expound upon."

Fallacy name: guilt by association.

Also: I posted on that asshole several hours ago.

Seriously, DA. You're capable of rationality. But you're choosing dogmatism instead.

9:04 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home