Although I am not personally a practitioner of the form of civility it would take to stop this, I do think that some of the reactions to Marcotte and McEwan are over the edge, judging by the emails that they post, and that it is disgusting that anyone would threaten them. But today in the Huff, Lane Hudson urges readers to contact Donohue to retract what he’s said, as it is apparently he who has caused all of this grief and hatred to fall on the heads of the blogresses.
Some of the emails, apparently, resemble the kind that Michelle Malkin receives on a daily basis.
Donohue is a bit of a clenched-sphincter grievance-monger, in my view, but that doesn’t mean that he’s responsible for the outrage that’s greeting the two ex-Edwards bloggers. He has a perfect right to say that he finds some of the invective directed against Christians reprehensible, as do I. Personally, I would rather have seen Marcotte, at least, out on her butt for the stuff she said about the Duke “rape” issue.
To say that Donohue doesn’t have the right to characterize these comments is as absurd as the claims of these womyn that they’ve been smeared by the practice of having their own writings reported. So, must people who feel compelled not speak out against abortion because some lunatic might grab a rifle and shoot an abortion provider? The speech is protected; there is no right, on the other hand, to protection from the fall-out that such speech might provoke. You are free to criticize someone’s beliefs or behavior, but you are not protected from having your own criticized in return. And as Jeff points out, these womyn seem to have learned nothing through this episode that may cause them to rethink their own behavior. They simply believe that others who hew to religious belief ought therefore to evince more forebearance than they themselves do, or they’re hypocrites, just as those whose religious precepts may sometimes appear to condone violence are therefore exempt from such proscriptions.
I can guarangoldarntee you, if Marcotte’s writings on the subject of religion or the Duke “rape” were as temperate in their language as her self-pity post, she wouldn’t have this problem today, although it would be more accurate to produce a parable in which Jesus says, “Go forth and pitch stones at others no more.”
The response of others is apparently “pseudo-outrage,” whereas one’s own is genuine. Identity politics lament: it wasn’t supposed to work this way!
Bottom Story of the Day: Ray Nagin held in contempt
Oh, I see. She means legally.
Darleen’s on the Martyrcotte story, with her take and links.
The Gold-Plated Witch on Wheels has thoughts on local favorite Chris Bowers’ handwringing over abortion clinic violence that are related to this post. For the record, I’m against abortion clinic violence of any kind.
OTOH, Liberal American has a longish, tendentious post presenting the blogresses as heroic defenders of free speech.
She’s been chopped down a bit, but I wouldn’t call her a stump: Candidates Find A New Stump In the Blogosphere
Typical mamby pamby libs. Dish all day long, but cant take it in return.
I’m sorry that St. Amanda and McEwan have received anonymous hate email. No one should have to open such vile spewings while wondering just who or what the writer has in intentions beyond the initial email.
Almost every blogger I know who engages any political subject has gotten them from time to time, including me. So I’m sure the two womyn have gotten them before.
If these particular ones seem more threatening then they need to turn them over to the police immediately. Most police departments have a unit dealing with computer crime. Get in touch with the detectives in the unit, learn their names and follow up.
Unfortunately, these hate emails give St. Amanda and McEwan and excuse to ignore their both their own responsibility of what they wrote in the past and what their role was to be in the Edwards campaign.
St. Amanda, like an unrecovered alcoholic, couldn’t help but continue to engage in exactly the same offensive anti-Christian bigotry that Edwards publicly told her he would not tolerate; but no where in her embraced martyerdom does she acknowlege that.
The MSM has a tendency to look for “colorful” figures to showcase. Donahue was a relative latecomer to the show, but he was the face they latched onto. Now the We-are-NEVER-wrong-Left brigade is out pumping the meme that anyone critical or mocking of Amanda’s “critical responses to the anti-choice crowd” is “carrying Donahue’s water.”
NO ONE should receive hate email. But it exists at the fringe of either wing… along with Mobys.
Take the emails to the police and/or publish them along with IP addresses.
I’m assuming that Hudson also urged Marcotte to retract all her writings that were no doubt partly responsible for Jeff’s recent troubles with an unnamed radial feminist.
I mean, if he wants to be consistent and all…
Reiterating what Dan said and adding to it- this is classic left wing claptrap- they “believe” in freedom of speech (honestly, I really think they only believe in speech they agree with) but they don’t believe that there should be consequences for utilizing that freedom. Leftists hate consequences and think freedom is something maintained by the government for their use.
The dixie chicks are a prime example of this- nobody said they couldn’t go overseas and shoot off their mouths, which they did. They live in a world where freedom of speech means freedom from consequences. Its why liberals are so anti-capitalism- because capitalism is about direct rewards or consequences based on your actions- market factors were at work with the Dixie Chicks- when you alienate your core audience, you lose money, lots of it. Giving grammy awards to the dixie chicks was absurd.
Giving Grammy awards to anybody is absurd.
Dan,
Per Amanda, when a person mocks they encourage the opposite behavior.
Link
I forget, was Amanda ‘mocking’ Christian values, Christians themselves, or illustrating the effects of the social policies of religious organizations through satire?
Personally, I think teh intertrons need more mordant sardony. There’s a dearth of that, I’m afraid.
–
Yes, BS, but you can’t expect to do it all yourself.
Some anti-religion types found out that Jesusland(tm) will not be mocked. And they’re shocked, shocked…
And as for waaaahmanda’s anal-ysis of the value of mockery, I guess she missed that “as ye reap, so shall ye sow” advice. It’s just the Universe getting all Biblical on her ass…
And, again, I have to wonder why it’s acceptable for them to mock Christianity (and Christians), but if someone mocks Islam…
Great post. I said something similar on my blog. I, too, have gotten hate mail. In fact, Amanda herself said I must not like sex because of my views. I guess she’s just another woman-hater.
Sharon, when I click on your name, blogger won’t open your place. Can you give us a working link?
Found it.
Lie down with dogs, etc. Which is not to say that either of them should be threatened, via e-mail or otherwise.
I’m not familiar with the other blogger, but Marcotte’s writings come across like Karl Marx with the Redneck Rampage cuss pack installed. I don’t give a crap about the cuss pack part, but WTF is a candidate for POTUS doing hiring someone with the political opinions of a communist party apparatchik?
It’s like history never happened, or something.
but WTF is a candidate for POTUS doing hiring someone with the political opinions of a communist party apparatchik?
Jim, I think Silky Pony is banging his head against a wall somewhere on that one because Amanda turned on him
as just another vile penis-person of the womyn-oppressing Patriarchy out to SUPRESS HER FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS!
Dan, you seem to be missing that this call for retractions from Donohue come in response to the calls for retractions from Marcottte. And to suggest that Donohue was not the primary reason for this controversy is disingenuous.
Please try to remember that Donohue called what Amanda wrote, “hate speech.” Upthread, someone commented about what happens when Islam is criticized; and yet the threats levelled against Marcotte are at the heart of the HuffPo piece. One might take this as a tacit acceptance of anti-Marcotte threats since Muslims threaten people when they portray Muhammad. If we are at a point when people who criticize the social implications of religious practices cannot do so without this kind of reaction, we are in trouble. Is anyone here suggesting that criticizing the Catholic church shouldn’t be done because it would be hate speech? What these two bloggers have written is inflammatory, but hate speech? Only if you believe that the status of the religion makes it above criticism.
I think it was perfect (for Marcotte) that the one leading the spear-charge against her (at least in the MSM) was a “Godbag” like Donohue. That way, she is able to lump all those (especially those vile Catholics) who said anything against her with him. He was the de-facto leader, canceling out all the rational statements made by those who didn’t necessarily “oppose” her being hired by Edwards (FOR THE HILARITY), but were otherwise critical of Marcotte.
jmack–
Donohue has the right (even though he’d be wrong) to call what Marcotte and McEwan wrote “hate speech.” If you’ll read again, you’ll see that I criticize the guy for being a whiner. But if the generalized Catholic were a minority member on a campus somewhere, it very likely would be considered “hate speech,” and the offending student very likely would be brought to an academic tribunal.
Certainly, what Donohue says about Marcotte is less offensive and violent than what she says about the Catholic Church?
There was recently a movie about the assassination of George Bush. I thought that it was BDS pornography, and I said so. And I won’t go to the local theater that aired it anymore. But if some nutbag decided on the basis of that to take a shot at the President, would you be arguing that it was the fault of the filmmakers?
You cannot turn around and claim that Donohue himself is guilty of some kind of proscribed speech unless you are arguing that some people must not be allowed to criticize some other people’s speech. I’d like to hear you come up with a definition of those who are protected, and those who must be muzzled. The people at fault here are the morons who are writing threatening emails.
jamck, the girlz were canned not because of “hate speech”, but because the speech they did engage in would have been used against Edwards and cost him votes.
Note bene: it was free speech that got the girls in trouble in the first place. The excercised their first amendment rights, and so did everybody else. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from speech.
Or the freedom from criticism.
TW: expected67. They should have expected no less.
Close, but no cigar (rolled out on the supple thighs of the women of the revolution Viva Fidel)!
Leftists hate consequences and think freedom is something maintained by the government for their exclusive use to bring down said government.
Is it just me, or is there some suggestion here that I’m every bit as bad as Marcotte in terms of my discourse? (See the “roundup” at the bottom of the post).
Seriously. Has Joyner been reading SN!?
I don’t see it, Jeff. I think that he’s just pointing out that there are people on the left who just don’t feel . . . warmly about you.
The “Dude” comment to your comment is interesting, though.
That’s the part I’m curious about.
Oh. And enjoy!
So, to clarify, Mr Collins, you are against the violence being done to unborn babies?
I do not see why doing violence to people who perpetrate evil is wrong. Everybody sticks up for doing in the butcher Saddam, but the guy in the white coat with a stethoscope around his neck gets a pass?
Preposterous.
Thanks, Jeff. Not worth responding to. Quoting in contex=smearing. Criticizing=threatening. Not a whole lot of outrage from over there about nutty imams endorsing violence from the pulpit in Detroit, though.
Bane, yes, you would be right. I’d decry it, but that would be tantamount to inviting the murder of abortionists.
Well, I contacted James Joyner and he confirmed that my “method of discourse” has been “edgy”—though not so much recently.
I responded that I hardly think there is any equivalence between my output and Marcotte’s. But then, I’m biased, so who knows? Maybe I am, per James’ intimation, simply the ideological flipside of Marcotte—albeit with far greater range.
You think? I don’t.
But then again, I don’t regard the world as one giant psycholinguistic conspiracy.
Anyway, I’m offline tonight. I’ve got to get my butt to the closest motel that’s got a room, due to this blizzard. See you tomorrow. Probably.
For what it’s worth, I responded over at Tbogg’s place.
I’m sure my decorum will be met with respectful responses.
Yup.
Mr Collins, killing murderers can hardly be murder, can it?
If there is a death penalty for being en utero, where’s the problem with a late term abortion of the perpetrator?
Perhaps it’s just the method you quibble with. Okay, instead of shooting them, what say we just vacuum out their brains? Quid pro quo.
If an infant can never know the taste and feel of a warm nipple on their lips, it’s only fair to deny that pleasure to its murderer.
Bane, are you serious, or just being a moby?
I’m sure my decorum will be met with respectful responses.
You shouldn’t have bothered with your legendary decorum. You should have just cock-slapped them.
…you know, slapped them. Across their faces. With your cock!
Out There, why are you so obsessed with another man’s genitalia?
Out There, why are you so obsessed with another man’s genitalia?
I just am – Darth Goldberg’s phallic light-sabre of doom is awesome!
…How’s your vagina, by the way?
Of course I’m being serious. And this is the issue where Conservatism meets the Liberal road, I think.
I’ve taken up arms to serve my country before, how is this any different?
Be careful with your answer…
Unless you are a Civil War veteran, I should think that answer was obvious.
Just for background: T. Lane Hudson, the HuffPo blogger referred to, is the guy who set up the phony blog to out Mark Foley.
I wonder if Mark Foley received any death threats? If so, has Hudson taken responsibility for them?
Also, how fascinating that got Hudson a HuffPo gig.
But, Up There, I mentioned the COCKSLAP in my reply. Acknowledged it. Did penance. Said a few Hail Marys (which,in retrospect, I suppose that’s almost as bad as cockslapping to you people, huh?).
Now. Tell me more about Amanda’s wet, inviting TWAT!
And all those dried out skanks who let Republicans sex them up with their tiny dicks.
And iodine! TELL ME AGAIN ABOUT THE IODINE!
Sorry, Jeff, for pissing in your catbox, here. I find your jesters unbearable. If only they had the courage of Dear Amanda, and would just resign.
You’ve anticipated my next move, Bane!
You know, you can take out the trash, don’t make you a garbage man,
change the oil in your car, don’t make you a mechanic,
mow the yard, don’t make you a landscaper,
but threaten to slap one fucking douchebag with your cock, and you are a cock-slapper for life.
That’s not even fucking funny, Jeff. Quit dicking around with this ‘quitting blogging’ thing.
You are needed now, more than ever.
Fucking FedEx lost it in transit.
A man gotta eat, Bane, and Pajamas ain’t happy that I lost traffic when I was off fighting legal battles.
Not into working my way down the corporate ladder. Would rather find another gig than become a Styx reunion tour.
Darleen, I know you corrected your error on this over at your blog, but it would be nice to have it on the record here as well that this quote you’ve supplied here is where Amanda is referring to Donohue, not to Edwards, and that you misread it.
Fuck.
I’ve never really gotten the point of death threats anyway. I mean, if you’re gonna whack somebody, why warn them? And why leave a paper trail?
Stupid. Even if you’re full of it (and 99.99% are), if the target of your wrath gets messily dead, you’re gonna be on the list of suspects.
Death threats are the ammunition of cowards who would rather try to frighten someone from behind a screen of anonymity, in hopes the target of their threats is no braver than they are.
Basically, the rule is, if someone’s threatening to hurt you, yell in his face and he’ll run leaving a stream of yellow drops behind him.
If someone really means to kill you, he’ll use the distraction of you yelling at the cowardly threat-maker, to get in close behind you and take you down before you what’s hit you.
…or so I’m told.
That’s the way it happened to me, McGehee.
VERY SORRY
Kevin Edwards
James Thomas
Jason Parker
Lisa Moore
Thomas White
Linda Parker
Deborah Jackson
Helen Lopez
Margaret Perez
Christopher Gonzalez
Steven Baker
Jennifer Williams
George Phillips
Laura Green
Daniel Williams
Charles Martinez
VERY SORRY