Ms. Marcotte

Forgive me if I find a certain amount of amusement in this triviality.

A quick recap, I have a gentle snark at Amanda Marcotte because she calls The Independent (just in the interests of disclosure, it's a newspaper I've written for, once) a "right wing rag". Something slightly (even if trivially) amusing to those of us who actually read the UK press.

She then blogs back that I'm taking the entire right wing blogosphere another step towards irrelevance. Which of course I am, on a regular basis. That's the instructions I get from Patriarchy Central and who am I to argue?

But what elevates this for me from mere triviality to real amusement is her comments following on from her own blog post. (Those who play close attention will see that this blog post itself is taking us dangerously close to the meta-meta-meta-blogging horizon.)

Viz:

I think he was continuing to play the right wing game of “Look! Amanda’s politics are to the left of John Edwards!” It’s a fascinating game, because it’s another example of right wingers assuming that their one malfunctions can be used as “rules” they get to hold liberals to. In this case, their lockstep, unthinking adherence to the ideology dictated to them by the right wing is assumed to be a value that the left can be held to. The democratic ideal where our President is a citizen and people can work together despite differences is inconceivable to them. Apparently, by not heiling my chosen leader, I’m failing somehow.

Now I did indeed mention John Edwards, but not as a reference to her short-lived job but as a reference to a politician I would assume she had some idea of where to place on the ideological spectrum. As to describing me as someone who marches in ideological lock-step, well, she obviously doesn't read much around here but then of course there's no reason she should.

Then this:

Or maybe I’m reading too much into it and my first interpretation—that the wingnuts are desperately clutching at straws and don’t have anything of value to say outside of throwing gotchas wildly around in hopes one will stick and ruin someone else needlessly—is correct.

Me? Ruin? Good Grief. Pointing out a mild factual error is trying to ruin someone?

Could I just suggest, however gently, that Ms. Marcotte is a touch overwrought here?

Update! and there's more!

Mr Eugenides adds (what I think in my patriarchal manner to be) a very reasonable comment. Then:

If this thread wasn’t evidence that right wing blogging types are basement dwellers that literally have nothing better to do than try to create non-controversies, I don’t know what is.

AMANDA MISTOOK ONE BRITISH PAPER FOR ANOTHER! WE FINALLY HAVE THE PROOF WE NEED THAT LIBERALS HATE AMERICA. TO YOUR KERNING STATIONS, WINGNUTS!

Well, yes, Amanda did. If Amanda had said "Yup" then this would all be over by know, wouldn't it?

This sort of relentless dwelling over a minor, inconsequential mistake is a personality trait that domestic violence counselors warn women to be on the lookout for, for what it’s worth. Wives of wingnuts, take note: You’re married to men that have a tendency to troll for tiny flaws so they are “justified” in the upcoming beatdown.

Relentless? Err, a "yup" would have solved it, would it not?

Observer, you are disingenous in the extreme. I never said that Tim’s bizarre fascination with making hay over my mistaking the Independent for the Mail (which is what I did, not that you care, since you’re more interested in scoring points than getting at the truth) had anything to do with sexism. Just that he’s a bored, basement-dweller who flings shit randomly to see what sticks. Like, for instance, you, with your making up rules about how I’m supposed to run my comment section so that anti-feminists can run it on my dime, rules I don’t agree to.

Err, now we hear it's the Mail? And I'm a bored basement dweller? Wow, someone is going to have to run this argument by me again. I'll agree that I probably blog too much but then, err, I'm not sure that I'm the only person in this discussion who does that.