Terrorism

Amanda Marcotte Is Confused

On Ismaaiyl Brinsley and Scott Roeder

|

Amanda Marcotte has a history of misrepresenting the views of the people she criticizes. Today her strawman shares a name with me:

Every post deserves a soundtrack.
Arista

It was entirely predictable that those in the "police can do no wrong" camp would blame the tragic murder of NYPD officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, at the hands of Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley, on the recent protests against police violence. But it was just as predictable that other, more clever rightwing sorts would use liberals denying that linkage as cover to excuse any and all rightwing terrorism, past or present, by blurring the distinctions between what Brinsley did and what other, more clearly ideological killers do.

The award for that move goes to Jesse Walker at Reason, who draws a false equivalence between Brinsley's actions and those of rightwing terrorist Scott Roeder, who killed abortion provider George Tiller in 2009. "Responsibility for a crime lies with the criminal," he says, suggesting that people who point to incendiary rhetoric that precedes a bout of violence will create a situation where "we aren't supposed to criticize anyone at all."

Here's the passage she's quoting:

Responsibility for a crime lies with the criminal. It was Ismaaiyl Brinsley who decided to pull that trigger two days ago, not anyone else. If Mayor de Blasio had gone on TV Friday night and urged the world to "go cop-hunting tomorrow," I could understand why someone would assign him partial blame for Liu and Ramos' deaths. But of course he did nothing of the sort, and neither did any of the other politicians being accused of inciting the crime, from Holder to Obama to Rand Paul.

When Scott Roeder killed the Kansas abortionist George Tiller in 2009, several commentators tried to blame the assassination on Tiller's many critics in the media and the anti-abortion movement. The maverick Marxist Brendan O'Neill then pointed out what this criticism implied: that "public debate should be watered down to the level of polite tea-party disagreements, lest any borderline cranks be agitated or inflamed by it." The same objection applies in Brinsley's case, except that this time most of the alleged inciters are already speaking in watered-down terms. (De Blasio's great crime, in his opponents' eyes, are some public remarks about telling his biracial son "to take special care" around "the police officers who are there to protect him." Not exactly fighting words.) By this standard, we aren't supposed to criticize anyone at all.

There is a lot more to her argument, and there is a lot more to mine. Curious readers can click through to our respective posts and decide how much they agree with her or with me. I just want to note that her core claim here—that I drew a "false equivalence" between Brinsley and Roeder—isn't accurate. For one thing, I wasn't actually comparing Brinsley and Roeder; I was comparing the rhetoric that supposedly inspired them. (Later in the post, I expressed doubt about whether the rhetoric in question inspired Brinsley at all.) More importantly, I didn't say they were equivalent. I explicitly said that the rhetoric coming from de Blasio, Holder, Obama, and Paul is watered-down in a way that the rhetoric of Tiller's critics was not.

The point is that if you don't think we should blame the anti-abortion movement writ large for Roeder's crime (and unlike Marcotte, I don't think we should), then it's even harder to make that kind of argument about Brinsley. Or as I put it in the post, "The same objection applies in Brinsley's case, except that this time most of the alleged inciters are already speaking in watered-down terms." The words are all there, Ms. Marcotte; you just have to pay attention to what they mean.

While I'm at it, I don't consider myself "rightwing." And no, the secret agenda of my post was not to "excuse any and all rightwing terrorism." It was nice of her to say I'm clever, though.

NEXT: Thanks from me, and from Ferris Bueller, for help with the SEIU v. Professional Janitorial Service case

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Amanda Marcotte Is Confused

    Water Is Wet

    1. She is also a moron…and Water is still Wet.

      1. Not to mention a mendacious little twat.

        -jcr

    2. …perpetually so.

    3. Amanda Marcotte is a walking logical fallacy. Treating her as anything but political version of America’s Funniest Home Videos is like putting a valet parker in a fighter jet.

      1. Exactly. Her using ‘false equivalency’ was amusing given she engages in logical fallacies unlike most I reckon.

    4. Headline might be understatement of the year

    5. Responding to Amanda Marcotte is just giving up on life. She’s the real life Britta Perry–the worst.

  2. The words are all there, Ms. Marcotte; you just have to pay attention to what they mean.

    That’s a bridge too far, Jesse.

    1. Based on her previous commentary, especially with regards to the innocent Duke lacrosse players, Amanduh is a very prejudiced woman.

      In the 1930’s, she’d be joyfully and vocally participating in the lynching of uppity niggers who raped white woman with their eyes.

      Now that racism is passe and in her social circle black males have been replaced with white ones, she has modified her prejudices accordingly.

      She is too much of a coward to do anything against the grain. She squats in the middle of her vile little mob cheering them on against whichever victim the mob chooses next.

      1. Amanda would have certainly been a hardcore advocate of the eugenics movement. After all, eugenics was science. You don’t want to be anti-science AND anti-woman, do you?

      2. Thread winner.

  3. While I’m at it, I don’t consider myself “rightwing.”

    If you’re not hardcore left then you’re rightwing.

  4. There is a lot more to her argument

    There’s no need to be polite, Jesse. Amanda Marcotte is a paranoid schizophrenic whose writings attract the same audience that, 150 years ago, would have walked through the hallways of Bedlam while giggling at the howling insane.

    1. No, the scary thing is that there are people who actually believe that Marcottes opinions are both sane and meritorious.

        1. OK, I get it now. Sorry for underestimating you.

    2. 150 years ago, Amanduh would be demanding that the black kid who smiled at her be hung from a tree limb.

    3. I think Amanda would have fit perfectly into the moral puritanism of early feminism, especially temperance era feminism. She would have happily been advocating for laws that restricted the hours that women could work because their children needed them and the grit and grime of industrial society corrupted them.

      1. Amanda is nothing but “retro”.

  5. Of course it’s unfair to compare the incendiary rhetoric around the Brown and Garner cases with the incendiary rhetoric around Tiller.

    Michael Brown’s stepfather shouted “burn this bitch down”

    Demonstrators chanted “what do we want – dead cops; when do we want them – now”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj4ARsxrZh8

    Of course these people don’t represent everyone who cares about police abuse, but there sure seem to be more of them than prolifers calling for assassination. You couldn’t gather a group of prolifers to chant that they wanted dead abortionists.

    1. And you don’t find cadres of prolifers looting and burning convenience stores, etc.

      1. Nor is it clear that those looters were indeed protesters as opposed to opportunists.

        1. Of course they were opportunists…who latched onto these particular causes. Of course they don’t represent the mainstream of protesters.

        2. My contention, Eddie, is that a significant portion* of the looters didn’t care about the protest but were professional criminals looking for an opportunity and for the cover which the protests provided. Other looters may have been actual protesters who chose to also do a bit of looting when the opportunity presented itself.

          (*)I don’t know how many but I’m guessing 40-60%.

          1. Your point was obvious to anyone who wasn’t just trying to score points for their team (Eddie and Amanda )

          2. Bullshit.

            The looters were overwhelmingly black and overwhelmingly believed that police are trained specifically to target and kill black people.

            Sure, they wouldn’t have come out for a peaceful protest. They only cared enough for protesting when it was known they would be able to pillage the local shopkeeps, but make no mistake, they agreed with the protesters contentions of police being racist whites who go out with bloodlust for black kids. And I’d go so far as to say that they don’t think white people have anything to fear from cops.

            1. The looters were overwhelmingly black and overwhelmingly believed that police are trained specifically to target and kill black people.

              Sure, they wouldn’t have come out for a peaceful protest. They only cared enough for protesting when it was known they would be able to pillage the local shopkeeps, but make no mistake, they agreed with the protesters contentions of police being racist whites who go out with bloodlust for black kids. And I’d go so far as to say that they don’t think white people have anything to fear from cops.

              Shit, we got ourselves a mind reader here! Quick, what are this week’s winning lottery numbers?

              1. Forget the lottery, whose going to win the Chargers Chiefs and Steelers Bengals?

                1. As Goddell. He’s the one fixing it.

              2. If they’re looting, they’ve likely had their fair share of criminality and the resultant run-ins with police in the past. And I’d bet dollars to donuts that they’ve developed as much of an “us-vs-them” mentality as the police have.

            2. The government of Missouri announced, a week in advance, that there would be some riots coming.

              So that gave anyone interested in looting lots and lots of time to drive to Fergeson specifically with the intent of looting.

              So I think his estimate that 40-60% of the looters simply being opportunistic criminals is an understatement.

              Announcing the riots in advance GUARENTEED that looters would show up and loot.

    2. You couldn’t gather a group of prolifers to chant that they wanted dead abortionists.

      So hard to prove a negative.

      1. No – just look through the choicers’ press releases – they will highlight any example they can find and focus on it for years. If they can’t do it, it means it didn’t happen.

        1. So you trust the group you denounce as liars to be the measure of this?

          1. Suppose you had a client (God help him) and you’re investigating whether the client engaged in certain misbehavior. The other side couldn’t find examples of your client engaging in the misbehavior, even though they have rigorously checked your client’s background in search of dirt.

            What would you infer from that?

            1. If I didn’t do my own checking but instead relied on their findings is be negligent.

              Besides, your claim is false. Ever heard of the Army of God, Lambs of Christ, etc?

          2. Although I disagree with his wider argument, I do think Chesterton has point here. If there were were additional examples, you don’t think they’d be highlighted?

            1. Of course not. Why would you think pro choice activists would know of any gathering of anti choice activists? It’s not like they’re on each other’s contact list.

              1. So, then I take it all those links you give with regards to the socons must mean you agree with them.

                Never knew you were a fundie, Bo.

                1. There’s some tortured analogy in there somewhere…

                  1. Well, Bo, if you aren’t “on each other’s contact list”, how else would you find out?

                    1. Some of the public things Socon groups do makes the news and I posted some of that I came across. I certainly don’t think I came across everything every Socon group did that’s out there, and I don’t think everything Socon groups do ever gets in the news.

                    2. And you think your research skills are so overwhelmingly superior to all of the opponents of the anti-abortion side out there? You don’t think they’d find comments or actions?

                    3. I’m sure they could find some or more but not all, and that’s Tonio’s point about proving a negative Bill.

      2. Noto G. probably didn’t use the best language.

        But I can pretty easily find a group chanting for the death of cops…It exists it has been reported and you can probably find a youtube video of it.

        http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…..chant.html

        The pro-life chant of death to abortion doctors cannot be found.

        1. You can find such groups easily, google Army of God, Lambs of Christ, etc + abortion.

          Of course that’s not the mainstream of pro life people or even groups, but it wasn’t most protestors chanting death to cops, either.

          1. They have video’s of them chanting in the streets?

            Also Lambs of god is a band. Give me a fucking break. I can find a song about anything….or do you think Cash really “shot a man down”? Or Marley “Shot the Sheriff”?

            1. Lambs of Christ, not God.

      3. So hard to prove a negative.

        Actually, its easy.

    3. Let me see, what is it called when you have to work your issue into every discussion? Ob-something?

      1. Marcotting?

      2. It’s called “observations” on sentences like this in the original post:

        “The point is that if you don’t think we should blame the anti-abortion movement writ large for Roeder’s crime (and unlike Marcotte, I don’t think we should), then it’s even harder to make that kind of argument about Brinsley.”

        Which I was disagreeing with. It’s not *harder* to make that case about Brinsley, it’s easier. Though in the end neither accusation has much to back it up.

        1. “Obsession,” Eddie, that word is obsession. You’re like Mr. Dick in David Copperfield. No matter what he writes he always manages to work-in the severed head of King Charles.

          1. In this particular case, Jesse brought it up. I agree he is obsessed, but this is a poor example of it.

              1. I think this is a better example of your obsession with him.

      3. You talking to Walker? He’s the one who brought up abortion.

    4. Eddie, way to miss the point while being Marcotte’s mirror image.

        1. If Marcotting is ignoring bourgeois, male standards of evidence and logic, the two of you are excellent examples.

          1. male standards of evidence and logic

            Oh, look, Eddie called me a girly-man.

        2. Walker: responsibility lies with the actor, not indirect rhetoric from either side

          Marcotte: my sides rhetoric isn’t responsible for this mad mans actions, but the other side, yes they are responsible for other madmen.

          Eddie: no, it’s my sides rhetoric which is pure, but the other side which is irresponsible!

          1. Marcotting: taking a comment like this

            https://reason.com/blog/2014/12…..nt_4984236

            and and turning it into some imaginary stuff in your head.

            1. Forget it, Eddie, it’s Botown.

              Bo, do tell us when you are scheduled for your first appearance in court. We promise we will sit quietly and non-disruptively while the judge exasperatedly curb-stomps you for wasting his time learns from your sharp wit.

              1. I doubt Bo will ever practice law. He’s too stupid for that. He’ll wind up as a judge.

                1. I doubt Bo will ever practice law. He’s too stupid for that. He’ll wind up as a judge.

                  I’m laughing. Not because it’s funny, but because it’s true.

                  1. The future is true?

                    1. It was a a wry observation about how the Peter Principle even applies to the Judicial branch of government.

                      But you keep on pouting, because I realize that you, Bo, as a narcissist autist, you are incapable of understanding that others possess inner mental lives different than yours. Thus, you perceive every statement, every utterance, to be about you.

                      In truth, your future is to sit on a couch in your mother’s basement while collecting disability. And I can only feel pity towards you.

                    2. I remember HM’s sad too. He wanted to defend aid to Israel by arguing that it’s not a direct transfer of aid but rather we taxpayers get to pay for building weapons here which are then given to Israel at no price to them. Of course I wondered, how does that matter I. Libertarian terms? HM hemmed, hawed and of course cursed me at length. Some people hate it when someone breaks up the mutual admiration cliques that spring up on the internet by posing a logical point.

                    3. You are a fabulist with a persecution complex and a very selective memory. I fucking crushed you in that debate by exposing you had no clue about the differences between military and economic foreign aid. And you whined and whimpered in your obnoxious, effeminate, nasally drawl. That you are too dumb to grasp a nuanced concept has no bearing on the merits of my argument. If you wish to mischaracterize how the argument went down, go right ahead. I have no interest in a “he said, she said” argument. Those who are interested can look up the thread and judge themselves.

                      Point is Bo, in addition to your intense narcissism (your ego must have been soooo wounded for you to hold that so close to your bosom, just waiting for the opportunity to try to “win”), you never argue in good faith. Never. That is why so many here despise you. You want to play pigeon chess (knock the pieces over, shit on the board, and then strut around like you accomplished something)? Be my guest. I will be blissfully unaware as I’m fascr-nuking your handle.

                    4. But HM! Bo’s mommy says he’s so likeable!

                    5. Your fantastic, going on about how you crushed and won an internet debate and then criticizing me for being narcissistic and egoistic.you don’t take disagreement well, when your mutual admiration society gets interrupted with a question like ‘sure we might do our aid to Israel in a more indirect manner, but what difference does that make in terms of libertarian values?’ You panic, misunderstand the nature of the comment (you’re still harping on ‘it’s done differently! When I acknowledged that from the start and repeated myself, who cares from a libertarian perspective?), curse me, and go into this word salad of pop psychology insults. Now you’re going to run away and hide from my meanie refusal to stroke your ego and libertarian cred, all the while flinging a charge of ‘persecution complex’ at me. Wow.

                    6. you don’t take disagreement well

                      That’s funny. You still don’t get it, Bo. And you never will.

              2. Awesome, our resident anarchist is pro life too.

                1. Anti-abortion, Bo. They are only selectively pro-life and use that term most disingenously.

                  Which is not to defend the term pro-choice, for any of you lurkers or n00bs out there.

                  1. Oh look, douchebag Tonyo lying about people’s positions to side with Bo-Bo the Dissembler.

                  2. Try ‘forced gestationalist’. It’s more .. Accurate

                2. Awesome, our resident anarchist is pro life too.

                  Oh Bo, is there no end to your ignorance? (Don’t answer; it’s a rhetorical question).

                3. our resident anarchist

                  Ummm…we have at least a dozen.

                  If I had to pick one, I would have gone with epi.

          2. Forget it, Bo, it’s Socontown. (Sic, Tarran, sic).

            1. Tarran is rather delightful. The burr in his saddle is that he got upset when I told him as a libertarian foriegn policy that leads to more government intervention is wrong and that trumps any obligations of international law. He literally trotted out his ‘I’m an anarchist but’ line and then went on to say for him the international law he learned in the Navy was his guide. That’s some anarchist!

              1. Think about that for a minute. Anarchist eschew government institutions and the ideology upon which they rest on a weird scaffolding of social contract theory and such. International law is like a few more stories of scaffolding on top of that, as it’s composed of the formal agreements and customary actions of a bunch of governments. An anarchist going on about how that trumps wanting smaller government is, well, laughable.

                1. Think about that for a minute. Anarchist eschew government institutions and the ideology upon which they rest on a weird scaffolding of social contract theory and such. International law is like a few more stories of scaffolding on top of that, as it’s composed of the formal agreements and customary actions of a bunch of governments. An anarchist going on about how that trumps wanting smaller government is, well, laughable.

                  OK I thought about it.

                  And nope, you are still wrong. You are wrong about how anarchists think about the institutions that are part of the state, their roles in society, what institutions are legitimate etc.

                  And for a lawyer in training to claim that rule of law doesn’t matter… I think HM is right, you would make a good government judge; you’d fit right in with the rest of that crowd.

                  1. “And for a lawyer in training to claim that rule of law doesn’t matter..”
                    Hilarious. If you had some legal training beyond your Navy mandated session there you might know that among legal scholars international law is seen as the most ephemeral body of law out there.

              2. BWA HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

                Firs, I am *not* a socon. In fact these threads are rife with my needling Eddie about the socons fixation with abortion.

                The burr in his saddle is that he got upset when I told him as a libertarian foriegn policy that leads to more government intervention is wrong and that trumps any obligations of international law. He literally trotted out his ‘I’m an anarchist but’ line and then went on to say for him the international law he learned in the Navy was his guide. That’s some anarchist!

                Nope. John propounded the requirements imposed upon a conqueror by Internation Law.. You accused him of being fond of nation building. And I properly called you out as a mendacious cunt.

                I encourage everyone to read that thread, because Bo was reduced to making an argument towards popularity to back up his case that only a vile interventionist would argue in favor of rule of law.

                1. 1. John has said he supported the nation building Iraq effort numerous times, he says we were obligated to do it. So how I’m a mendacious c&nt; for pointing that out I don’t see.

                  2. This idea of an obligation to nation build if you intervene is one that necessarily means that interventions involving more government treasure and blood are better than ones involving less. If you want to walk that route, go ahead. You want to place a rule derived from government diplomats agreeing g and governments customary actions, be my guest. But when you prioritize aa rule based on international governments formal agreements over one opting for the preference for less government, and then call yourself an anarchist, that’s laughable

                  1. But when you prioritize aa rule based on international governments formal agreements over one opting for the preference for less government, and then call yourself an anarchist, that’s laughable

                    Well, if I ever find myself doing that Bo, I’ll be sure to remember your judgement and laugh at myself! 😉

                    1. You plainly opted for a ‘rule of law’ even when that rule of law leads to larger government action.

              3. “Tarran is rather delightful. The burr in his saddle is that he got upset when I told him…”

                Has anyone else noticed that Bo has this habit of perpetual narrating his own silly drama?

                Like he’s playing to a crowd.

                He seems to think there’s some other, imaginary audience that that doesn’t already think he’s an insufferable idiot and regularly tells him so.

                1. This from the guy delighting in getting his name mentioned by the writers here?

                2. Maybe his mommy reads the comments.

                  1. Your mommy reads them to me, though to be frank she’s gasping most of the time, sarc.

                    1. Gasping at my wit no doubt.

                    2. Bo, I think you’re mistaking laughter for gasping.

                    3. Just wanted to helicopter in here to offer this profound observation: Bo is the fucking the worst.

                      Bu I know even that bit of catharsis is self-defeating as it will only reinforce the fantasy in Bo’s head that he is the rogue truth teller amidst a gaggle of hopelessly conformist LINO conservatives.

                      I remember well that hour or two in my twenties when I thought I had all the answers and could right the wrong-headed on the sheer force of my moral authority, but those hours passed. Bo will have the realization that he is an arrogant twat one day, but nothing on the horizon suggests we’re anywhere near that glorious day.

  6. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they debate you then you win. We’re firmly in “debate” territory here.

  7. Amanda Marcotte Is Confused

    That’s a surprise.

  8. How did this woman get to write for anything other than a personal blog?

    1. Future shut-ins with massive numbers of cats need someone to speak for them.

      1. Other than wrong she’s just so pedestrian. We’ve had socks here that put her positions better.

        1. Shrill screaming is considered superior argumentation in some circles. Your argument need not be rigorous as long as it is adversarial and condescending.

        2. Again, future shut-ins, Bo.

          Do you think Crazy Cat Lady is interested in logic?

          http://feminspire.com/wp-conte…..atLady.jpg

          http://newsbusters.org/s3/file…..k=AHIfqNHX

          1. Cats have objective value.

          2. I read there is a disease that cats can give you that make you crazy.

            1. My guess is that Marcotte is in advanced stages.

              And Bo definitely needs to be tested.

    2. Because our civilization is teetering on the brink?

    3. It’s especially amazing when you consider just how BAD of a writer she is. I made it through part of her book It’s a Jungle out there. No wonder the woman supports legal abortion- her writing is the literary equivalent of one.

      1. No wonder the woman supports legal abortion- her writing is the literary equivalent of one.

        Game, set, and match to AuH20

  9. From the alt-text: Every post deserves a soundtrack

    I’d suggest an additional rule. Every post referencing Amanda Marcotte deserves a laugh-track.

    1. Every post deserves a soundtrack

      I’ve been thinking….

      How about Yakety Sax?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnHmskwqCCQ

      1. Yeah, that would work for pretty much anything Marcotte.

  10. And no, the secret agenda of my post was not to “excuse any and all rightwing terrorism.”

    Of course you’d say that.

  11. The award for that move goes to Jesse Walker at Reason, who draws a false equivalence between Brinsley’s actions and those of rightwing terrorist Scott Roeder, who killed abortion provider George Tiller in 2009.

    How can someone draw a false equivalence between two guys who are actually equivalent?

    BTW, Notorious G.K.C., you might not be able to find crowds chanting that abortion doctors should be killed, but you could definitely find a long-standing theoretical debate in pro-life circles about the ethics of using violence to stop abortion doctors.

    When you openly debate a topic, some people are going to decide to vote aye.

    It’s meaningless, of course, because the central item of discussion in any and all political philosophy is determining what circumstances justify violence. You can’t discuss the subject at all without addressing that point.

    1. Eddie can see whatever he wants to.

    2. BTW, Notorious G.K.C., you might not be able to find crowds chanting that abortion doctors should be killed, but you could definitely find a long-standing theoretical debate in pro-life circles about the ethics of using violence to stop abortion doctors.

      A bioethics symposium on the morality of using force to combat something agreed upon by all attendees as the moral equivalent of slavery or the holocaust is not a call to arms and is not meant to be incitement.

      Mobs of SJW wannabe pseudo-anarchists marching down the street like little brownshirts chanting in support of piling corpses of some collectivist identification group is far closer to incitement.

      1. Actually, the symposium is about 100 times more serious.

        Paul Revere shouting “The British are coming!” led to a handful of redcoats getting shot.

        The Continental Congress holding sober meetings to debate the ethics of revolution led to thousands of redcoat and Hessian casualties.

        Incitement on-the-spot is fairly petty compared to what gets done by measured deliberation.

    3. A dozen or two protestors walking through the streets chanting for the death of cops is a singular thing that deserves pause and is distinguishable from a discussion about the use of violence to protect what the debaters think is an innocent life.

  12. Damn it, we’re wasting our time on yet another Bo vs. Eddie catfight when we should be filling this comments thread with hilarious material to troll Marcotte’s readers with when she inevitably links them to this article!

    What’s the over/under on Marcotte describing Walker and/or his opinions as “vile”?

    1. “Vile” has been trademarked by Salon.com

    2. Wait, only Walker gets to be vile?!

      What are the rest of us, chopped liver?!

      1. Walker gets published and read….we are just asshole commentors.

        If you actually got heard she would sick her army on you and dox you then strangers would call your work and your family and your wife saying the most horrid things about you.

        1. Well, I’m a widower.

          Thanks for reminding me.

          /runs off crying…

          1. Great, now Bill is triggered. His human agency won’t return to him for another 8 hours.

    3. Okay, let me get started: How do you get a woman to stop crying?

      Send her to Warty’s basement for a week.

      …Okay, it’s not great, but at least I’m trying, damnit!

      1. Well, if we’re just trolling SJWs then

        Q: What do you tell a woman with two black eyes?

        A: Nothing. You already told her twice.

  13. ” Instead, to understand the relationship between rhetoric and violence, we have to look at, ugh, context.”

    I keep seeing this = lefty writers have this increasing habit of injecting teenage “vocal patterns” and onomatopoeia in pieces

    Because, ‘like, “HELLO?”‘.. is an argument to them?

    Its a conscious and willful injection of ‘pathetic appeal’ to statements. Because what does, “Ugh!” say other than, “I am so frustrated with your stubborn insistence on rationality“!

    Like, don’t you GET IT? Duh?!

    1. There needs to be some onomatopoeian device for the facepalm. I would post that comment first on every Marcuntte article foist into existence from here to eternity.

      1. I thought the *SLAP* business in the morning links was preparatory purgative facepalming before beginning another day’s round of nutpunchy reason articles.

    2. The worst offender is using “I just can’t even…” as a rebuttal to an argument.

      Example-

      Person A: Universal healthcare is a human right!
      Person B: Well, positive rights are liberty constraining and uneforcable because they assume always having the resources to provide them. Furthermore, given our already debt-loaded system, adding another block to the jenga tower will likely lead to a currency collapse… *insert table with charts and evidence backing up these points*
      Person A: …Ugh, I just can’t even….!

    3. Another point: Shit like this is how their hive-mind like consensus is reinforced.

      In their minds, they don’t need an argument beyond, “like, ‘HELLO?'” because the veracity and morality of their argument is so self-evident that the only reason to disagree with them is due to either idiocy or malice. This leads them to treat arguments to the contrary as so unworthy of debate that when actually called to do so, their points are only logical to the trained seals in their intended audience (which is sadly quite numerous due to the social power they have gained, mostly by employing fallacious us against them, all or nothing ideological sorting)

      1. If one’s argument is primarily emotional and not based on reason, then emotional signals like a ‘Duh!’ become meaningful parts of your argument rather than a distraction.

        And, like an electrical charge producing a mirror charge in a nearby conductor, the argument drives away those that are repelled my appeals to emotion and attracts those who are … er … attracted to them.

        I think this process is what makes emotionally overwrought websites really echo-chambery.

        1. *Rand Paul statement on Garner*

          “What the fuck are you talking about?”

          *Cue clapping seals because Paul OBVIOUSLY doesn’t get it like us brilliant people*

      2. In their minds, they don’t need an argument beyond, “like, ‘HELLO?'” because the veracity and morality of their argument is so self-evident that the only reason to disagree with them is due to either idiocy or malice.

        Indeed. Pat Condell speaks truth to power on this very point.

      3. It’s preening. It makes sure all the “feathers” know which direction to point, and it exposes the difficult ones.

    4. “Instead, to understand the relationship between rhetoric and violence, we have to look at, ugh, context.”

      The funny thing is that the factoids Marcotte would consider contextual would always be pretty much irrelevant, and everything she would refuse to consider as context would pretty much be guaranteed to be determinative.

    5. It’s a pretty common debating tactic among the proggies. The idea is to discredit the idea without refuting it, to attack you personally for posing it.

      For the SJWs, the only real tactic is ostracization. This is the rhetorical attempt at utilizing that methodology. Consider, where did the spread of “HELLO” into the parlance come from? Wasn’t it the bully in Back to the Future hitting the main character’s father in the head saying “HELLO, MCFLY, ANYBODY IN THERE?!”. The implication is that the person making the argument should be ashamed or embarrassed for making the argument. “Ugh”, “Duh”, or “I can’t even” are similar. The implication is that you’ll back off or risk ostracization.

      For the SJWs, as someone here has pointed out, words aren’t a means of communicating ideas, but group signaling mechanisms.

      1. If you dissect her article, you’ll find 3 or 4 premises, a handful of conclusions and a bunch of emotional flags guiding her readers to rightthink. As you said, it’s social signalling. There is no depth, the ideas are not rigorously debated, and the logic is flimsy. The thousands of emotional flags just serve to conceal her poorly thought out ideas.

    6. My feminist mother-in-law has been doing this for a while now, and she’s nearly sixty years old. Her usage of “um” is particularly obnoxious. “Um, because maybe women are people, too?” It’s this sort of simpering girlish affectation, and conveys the exact opposite of what she and her (mostly online) sisters think it does. It gives me the same feeling I get whenever I see the latest WOMEN ROCK autobiography or self-help or leadership book in the window of Barnes & Noble–a sort of irritated bemusement. Can you imagine a man–any man, but especially one in a position of power–cheerleading his own sex like that? Can you imagine Steve Jobs penning a tome chirpily entitled “Boys Will Be Boys: 10 Reasons Why Men are Rocking the Workplace and Kicking Ass”?

      Third-wave feminism is a clown show from top to bottom. It mistakes snark for irony, sarcasm for wit, and hordes of tweets for strength. When you have to constantly remind yourself of how awesome you are, and emotionally attack anyone who doubts you the least little bit, you aren’t winning.

      1. *enthusiastic applause*

        It mistakes snark for irony, sarcasm for wit

        Spot on.

      2. “Uhm?”

        The vocal gesture of ‘pretend-thinking’

        Similar to “Duh?!” the vocal gesture of ‘obvious-conclusion’, “Uhm, I *don’t know*, maybe… [insert RACIST/SEXIST/CLASSIST accusation], Duh?!””

        Both actually are childish pantomimes of the other person’s ostensible stupidity rather than suggesting that any ‘actual thought’ is required to reach the stated conclusion. The whole idea of, “uhm?” seems to be: ‘this is a no-brainer

        In usage =
        “Because, ‘Uhm, like, you obviously don’t read the NYT because there was an editorial there? and you’re totally wrong so like shut up already Ok? We had this discussion already and its over

  14. “other, more clearly ideological killers do”

    Sorry, but how were the cop killing any less ideologically motivated?

  15. She refers to Jesse Walker as “anti-choice.” Well, is he against abortion or is she just imagining this?

    1. Oddly enough, there are a bunch of prochoicers who imagine when someone disagrees with them that they must be anti-choice.

      This reaction is a great way to identify lazy thinkers.

      1. bunch of prochoicers who imagine when someone disagrees with them that they must be anti-choice.

        Is one of them named Bo?

    2. It’s so amusing that Marcotte calls people who oppose her anti-choice, given how much she opposes choice in economics, speech, etc.

      1. It’s almost like the abortion debate is full of propaganda terms that try to force you to accept the premises of whatever side before you can even debate.

        1. Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

      2. Abortion is the only choice. Everything else is to be decided for you by the government.

      3. I don’t think it’s amazing.

        It has to do with different conceptions of freedom.

        For a libertarian, freedom is being allowed to make a choice on some matter regardless of the consequences.

        For people like Amanduh, freedom is being allowed to make a choice on some matter with no harmful consequences.

        The idea is if you are harmed by a poor choice, than you aren’t really free to chose, since the negative consequence is just like punishing someone, and so reality is coercing you into one approved path. So a negative consequence of studying underwater basket-weaving guaranteeing a life of poverty is exactly the same as if the govt outlawed underwater basket-weaving as a major.

        1. Bingo… Rights are freedom from consequences in their eyes.

  16. Why is it so hard to admit that Roeder was inspired by rhetoric that exists within the pro-life movement? Or that Brinsley was inspired by rhetoric present in the current protests–as well as numerous other places in his community?

    No one should have a problem with that.

    What people should have a problem with is that action being extrapolated outward to everyone else involved.

    Now, to be fair, SJWs see ‘social justice’ as something real, so blaming all for the actions of one comes naturally to them, it should be expected.

    Where people get confused is the other side–and this is because they don’t grasp that the religious side of the progressive movement(the ACTUAL religious side, not those who were using religion to lull suspicions) now resides in the ‘socon’ movement.

    So, in the end, they, too, are quick to blame all for the actions of one.

    Sane people can see how rhetoric can inspire, but responsibility lies within the hand that holds the knife.

    1. ^this. The progressive party infested both modern parties. Everything makes better sense when viewed through that lens.

    2. Now, to be fair, SJWs see ‘social justice’ as something real, so blaming all for the actions of one comes naturally to them, it should be expected.

      So true.
      So much of the social justice movement is really just a rationalization for humans to indulge in the vile instinct to engage in tribal retribution.

      It’s all just a vast, elaborate, excuse to penalize people for belonging to the wrong race or class.

  17. That dude doesnt have a clue man. Wow.

    http://www.AnonWayz.tk

  18. What I find hilarious about Marcotte and other uber-feminists is that in their fanaticism they perfectly manifest the old stereotype about women being emotional and illogical.

    1. Hysterical, aren’t they?

      I mean that literally.

      -jcr

  19. Jesse, why the fuck is anyone still paying attention to the head cheerleader of the Duke lynch mob?

    -jcr

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.