The other night Marie, in comments, left this turd.
Zealots of the variety that is combative, jargon-spewing and orthopolitical [Ed: think orthodoxy in terms of political action (‘PC’) instead of in the realm of beliefs, particularly religious], seem to have one thing in common: they have really, really bad reading comprehension.
Like some of the commenters above who blithely ‘missed’ your distinction between Melissas – or just chose to misinterpret you so as to conveniently ignore the association you were making as well.
As an example of the reading comprehension problem among the ‘zealously politically correct’, see this rank nonsense that’s erupted last couple of days about Sam Harris.
It was about 6:30PM when I began reading it, followed trails to the article by the very piviledged Murtaza Hussain: Scientific racism, militarism, and the new atheists (he gets to write what he wants in the Islamic world, so long as his gram scale is functioning properly). Glen Greenwald lapped it up like a cheap street-corner whore and the typical activist, dishonest liberal. He only occasionally comes up with something prescient, like a tweet that went something like this: “It’s funny listening to Rush Limbaugh bemoan the demise of traditional marriage while sitting next to his fourth wife” (fucking funny!).
Then there’s the Salon piece.
…Turd, because by 7:30PM, reading it for an hour, I just wanted to go to bed and sleep it off. It’s all complete BULLSHIT! if you have a real look at the foregoing; and if you do have that look and don’t think so, you’re just a dismissible fucking moron. Go away, eat shit, die. Thank you.
I was prepared to just leave it alone. But then Sam Harris just published a new bit: On “Islamophobia” and Other Libels. I’m quoting the first few paragraphs below. Note: I am FAR less interested in the subject of the smears (he’s no racist, “Islamophobe,” nor does he want us to preemptively Nuke’em) than I am in how very easy it is to promote extremist neologisms, get people to buy into them, and then use them as a basis of attack & smear against people you simply don’t like, rather than just saying “I don’t like this person” (but that carries zero weight, right, so fake & smear is on, because you must be heard). So, the subject of the attacks, though utter bullshit for people who ought to be eating shit and dying instead, are somewhat prescient for me personally.
A few of the subjects I explore in my work have inspired an unusual amount of controversy. Some of this results from real differences of opinion or honest confusion, but much of it is due to the fact that certain of my detractors deliberately misrepresent my views. The purpose of this article is to address the most consequential of these distortions.
A general point about the mechanics of defamation: It is impossible to effectively defend oneself against unethical critics. If nothing else, the law of entropy is on their side, because it will always be easier to make a mess than to clean it up. It is, for instance, easier to call a person a “racist,” a “bigot,” a “misogynist,” etc. than it is for one’s target to prove that he isn’t any of these things. In fact, the very act of defending himself against such accusations quickly becomes debasing. Whether or not the original charges can be made to stick, the victim immediately seems thin-skinned and overly concerned about his reputation. And, rebutted or not, the original charges will be repeated in blogs and comment threads, and many readers will assume that where there’s smoke, there must be fire.
Such defamation is made all the easier if one writes and speaks on extremely controversial topics and with a philosopher’s penchant for describing the corner cases—the ticking time bomb, the perfect weapon, the magic wand, the mind-reading machine, etc.—in search of conceptual clarity. It literally becomes child’s play to find quotations that make the author look morally suspect, even depraved.
Whenever I respond to unscrupulous attacks on my work, I inevitably hear from hundreds of smart, supportive readers who say that I needn’t have bothered. In fact, many write to say that any response is counterproductive, because it only draws more attention to the original attack and sullies me by association. These readers think that I should be above caring about, or even noticing, treatment of this kind. Perhaps. I actually do take this line, sometimes for months or years, if for no other reason than that it allows me to get on with more interesting work. But there are now whole websites—Salon, The Guardian, Alternet, etc.—that seem to have made it a policy to maliciously distort my views. I have commented before on the general futility of responding to attacks of this kind. Nevertheless, the purpose of this article is to address the most important misunderstandings of my work. (Parts of these responses have been previously published.) I encourage readers to direct people to this page whenever these issues surface in blog posts and comment threads. And if you come across any charge that you think I really must answer, feel free to let me know through the contact form on this website.
Make the best of it. Comments are open.