« Corrupting the Law | Main | Neville Duke »

April 15, 2007

Amanda Marcotte

Strictly speaking, this isn't true:

I do believe, but may be mistaken, that the Independent is a right wing rag, which would explain why they spike the story with the fear that women will use our newfound freedoms to commit anti-male genocide.

The Independent is certainly further left wing than, say, John Edwards, possibly even Dennis Kuchinich.

Then again, from where Amanda sits in the ideological spectrum I guess most things look right wing.

April 15, 2007 in Media | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d8341c320a53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Amanda Marcotte:

Comments

This may be the lamest "gotcha" ever written. Yes, yes---it is. You dedicated an entire blog post to the fact that I mixed up which rags in England are which. I don't know the BBC1 from the BBC2, either! Want to write a post about that?

I can see the headlines now:

Right Wing Blogosphere Finds Amanda Marcotte Doesn't Know Everything!
Previously it was thought she did, which is possibly why they hate and fear her so much.

Tim adds: Well, you did base part of your argument on the idea that it is a right wing rag. Seems worth correcting an error of fact, don't you think?

Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | Apr 15, 2007 2:37:46 PM

Where in that article did it say anything about "anti male genocide"?

Posted by: anon | Apr 15, 2007 4:43:16 PM

This may be the lamest "gotcha" ever written. Yes, yes---it is. You dedicated an entire blog post to the fact that I mixed up which rags in England are which.
And St. Amanda, in typical bitter hysterics that are her trademark, dedicates an entire blog post to the fact that someone noticed her Carnack-style of discerning the anti-womyn motives of others may just be wrong.

Jaysus on a Pony, Mandy, get over yourself. Not enough Christians around to insult today? Still ignoring the Duke players complete exoneration and your ethical responsibility to, you know, apologize?

Posted by: Darleen | Apr 15, 2007 6:09:22 PM

Does seem rather trite....that an American would not know the finer points of the British press.
Then again, as a Briton, I do not want to know ANY of the British press!

Must have been a slow day, right?

Posted by: MattUK | Apr 15, 2007 6:31:45 PM

You've apparently hit a raw nerve with Marcotte, and rightly so. Her self-image is one of a crusader for the truth, a journalist, and you have shown her to be a liar or just careless at best. I mean, how hard would it to have been to google these on the internet?

This is just another example of playing fast and loose and irresponsibly with the facts for it's the agenda, and not the truth, that is most important to her.

I still want to know why she cannot apologize for prejudging the Duke team, even when the evidence indicated it was a hoax? (hint: her agenda)

C'mon, apologize, already!!

Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 15, 2007 7:32:03 PM

Darleen, I'm a real Christian and am not offended one bit by what Amanda says. The words of haters like Dobson and Donohue are much more anti-Christian.

Posted by: Nomine Cervus | Apr 15, 2007 8:13:09 PM

Nomine

So you have no problem with Amanda's Easter Sunday post about "Zombie" day, mocking the resurrection? Or the term "godbag"?

While I, too, have problems with certain individuals, the vast majority of Christians are not Dobson or Donahue. But St. Amanda rarely makes that distinction. The only "authentic" Christians for her are the ones that either hew to her political line or stay in the closet.

Posted by: Darleen | Apr 15, 2007 9:55:52 PM

That's definitely not Amanda's first mistake, and it won't be her last.

Posted by: Robert O'Brien | Apr 16, 2007 12:47:03 AM

Obviously, St. Amanda missed the point. The premise was that BECAUSE she assumed The Independent is a "right-wing rag," what they said must be discounted.

The fact that they aren't kind of makes one wonder how much credibility she'd give them now, doesn't it? Not that it'll change anything, but it makes her commentary rather irrelevant. But for her, that's par for the course.

Nomine, obviously you don't know too many Christians if you think we all march in lockstep with Dobson and Donahue. And I find it very hard to believe that a "real Christian" wouldn't find St. Amanda's God-hating rhetoric at least distasteful.

I still want to know why she cannot apologize for prejudging the Duke team, even when the evidence indicated it was a hoax? (hint: her agenda)

Don't hold your breath, Fred. As I said, par for the course.

Posted by: Beth | Apr 16, 2007 12:47:54 AM

Beth,

1.I request that you stop putting words in my mouth. In fact, I do know lots of Christians (I live in the upper Midwest), and my exact point is that most of them don't march in lockstep with D&D. However, from your smug attitude, it may or may not be possible that you do.
2. You aren't God. You can't determine my salvation.
3. Amanda is a fully admitted atheist, thus to say that she hates God (whom she believes not to exist) is non-sensical.

Posted by: Nomine Cervus | Apr 16, 2007 5:58:23 AM

Nomine, I hope you won't think it condescending of me to thank you for seeing through a very common fallacy.

Posted by: John M. Burt | Apr 16, 2007 2:13:44 PM

No problem John.
Which fallacy in particular?

Posted by: Nomine Cervus | Apr 18, 2007 5:58:46 AM