CORRECTION: New evidence suggests that the screenshot discussed in this post and elsewhere was not a forgery but the result of a glitch. I offer a correction, and an apology, and a discussion of the implications, here.
So the mighty Paul Elam has acknowledged — in the comments section of Girl Writes What’s blog, at least –that there might just be some sort of problem going on with regard to, you know, that whole fake screenshot thing. You know, the blatant fraud that A Voice for Men mangling — sorry, managing — editor Dean Esmay seems to have engaged in to cover up a mistake.
But, Paul being Paul, he somehow manages to turn his sort-of acknowledgement of the problem into an attack on me, bizarrely blaming me (the person who actually pointed out this fraud) for him not knowing about it before today:
As much as I hate to say it, Futrelle does have a valid point. I am looking in to it today, and unlike Futrelle, I will address the results of my inquiry in public no matter where they end up.
I don’t mind looking into problems, even when they are pointed out by such a bald faced liar. I would have actually been aware of this sooner if his blog were worth reading. I had to become aware of it in your comments to even know there was a problem.
Well, Paul, I would have happily brought my findings to the comments section of A Voice for Men, rather than the comments section of Girl Writes What’s blog, but you may recall I am banned there. And I wonder if anyone there would have had the courage to stand up and say that, gosh, this Futrelle guy has a point, given how quickly people are censored there for deviating from your site’s perverse “conventional wisdom.”
And gosh, Paul, how unfair it is to expect the publisher of a site to be aware of what’s, you know, published on it. Concerns about the story were brought up by your own commenters shortly after it first ran. Esmay referred in an article and an editorial note to my alleged “lies” about the story; it didn’t occur to you to even go look at what I had said? And even aside from the phony screenshot, or anything I’ve written, did you really think that Esmay’s bizarre explanations for the original mistake made any kind of sense?
In other words, are you incompetent, or are you lying about being unaware of the problem until now?
In any case, I await the results of your “investigation.” I am especially eager to see how you will manage to spin things so it becomes someone else’s fault. Will it be some evil conspiracy that “set you up?”
And when exactly have I lied, Paul? Could you offer a citation? When I point out the lies on your site, I fucking back up each claim.
[EDIT: Added some stuff in the “gosh, Paul” paragraph and made a few other changes.]
Poof, you disappear!
katz, that’s adorable! I’ve had to put my babe on wet food (because she can’t ration her dry food and the vet thinks it’s bad for her to just constantly eat), and now she thinks dry food is kitty treats and won’t eat the wet unless it’s garnished with a few pieces of dry. She, truly, will not eat for weeks (I’m assuming, I haven’t actually been able to hold out for more than a few days) if I don’t garnish the food, but a few pieces of dry food makes it THE BEST FOOD SHE’S EVER HAD.
I disagree with the underlying idea that writing something kind of sexist at one point makes that person a misogynist. That’s stupid. Done with the discussion, I think.
Aw now katz, that’s not fair. Jake’s INTENT was not to be an asshole, that’s just how we read it because it affirms our worldview.
FWIW Jake, since you seem to think that tone matters more than content (which, in the written word can be very different than spoken word, which I’m sure you know) your tone was pretty assholish as well.
“I disagree with the concept that just because someone wrote something misogynistic, and refused to ever apologize for it despite there being widespread criticism, makes thm a misogynist.”
Imagine making the same argument about racism.
Words mean things. If you write/say something sexist and double down on it, you’re sexist. What other benchmark would we use?
I also agree. Since we’re not really talking about that guy who that one time wrote something kinda sexist, we’re talking about Hitchens who was very well known for multiple instances of sexism, I stand by my assertion that the collective works of his shows he’s pretty misogynist. Especially since he was called out on it and said jack shit to correct himself or show any sort of understanding. It’s like … hmm… that thing… where people make mistakes and either own up to them or ignore it completely and/or falsify evidence and try to shift blame onto someone else… I could have sworn I’d read something recently about something just like that…
If someone has misogynistic beliefs, especially if they inform a significant part of their worldview, that person is a misogynist.
Katha Pollitt on Hitchens’ misogyny:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/165222/regarding-christopher#axzz2WcH9zb8t
And being done with the discussion, much like authorial intent and being an asshole, is defined by whether you say it’s happening?
Are you noticing a common thread here?
Anyway, since everything isn’t about Jake, on topic, Elam’s whinge reminds me heavily of another Paul. Ron Paul, who first claimed he had no idea that his friend was supposedly publishing all that racist garbage in his paranoia leaflets, then got all pissed at people who kept bringing it up and asking him about it.
At best he looks incompetent. At worst… nope, he just looks really really incompetent.
Katha Pollitt on Hitchens’ misogyny:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/165222/regarding-christopher#axzz2WcH9zb8t
Well, thank you. That’s an interesting article. But my point is that I often see people who seem to have read no Hitchens except the women aren’t funny article and have mentally placed him in the Raging Misogynist category (right next to the only other one, Perfect Feminist). That’s shitty, sloppy, bullshit thinking and I’m seeing more and more of it in these kinds of internet communities.
But Hitchens’s shitty, sloppy, bullshit thinkng (and misogyny, and bullying, and all the rest) is just fine dandy, hmm?
Go fuck yourself.
Umm, probably because it was a douchey, misogynistic thing to say. Guess what, if we only have a small sampling of a person’s behavior to judge by? They’re still getting judged. And frankly, the judgment people tend to come to in this case? It’s pretty damn accurate.
And by the way? Your assumptions on other people’s assumptions? Also judgmental. So shove off, hypocrite 😀
Does Jake sound awfully familiar or what?
Ugh, WordPress is switching my nyms again >:(
Argenti, help me out here. Is there a fallacy for demanding that someone read all of a person’s writings before drawing conclusions about them on the grounds that, if you haven’t read everything, then the bit you didn’t read might totally change everything? It’s a great way to stonewall discussions by not letting anyone talk about anything they aren’t a complete expert in.
In the meantime, Jake wouldn’t possibly characterize our community as the sort that does this based on just one or two threads, would he? Surely he’d be diligent and read through the entire archive first, right?
Yeah, that smug attitude has a familiar feel to it.
>>>my point is that I often see people who seem to have read no Hitchens except the women aren’t funny article and have mentally placed him in the Raging Misogynist category
I haven’t read much Hitchens but it doesn’t take a lot to put him in the Raging Misogynist AND Racist Asshole (who can occasionally say he was dead wrong with regard to water boarding not being torture, which brings him to 0.00001% Decent Human Being level).
for katz: http://aphilosopher.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/42-fallacies.pdf
Maybe a type of ‘burden of proof’? I do find this to be very useful regarding fallacies, even if it’s not complete…
Jake Jones: Honestly, unless I’m being called to court to sit on a jury about someone’s misogyny, one quote, plus assurance from someone I trust that this is typical for them, really is enough for me to write that person off, because I don’t have time to investigate the views of each and every last individual on the planet, or even all of the celebreties.
What really happened is that you came in late to the discussion. The stuff in the linked article, Hitchens’ ongoing dismissal of women in power, his selective views–all that has been known to feminists for years already. And this site isn’t about Hitchens. It’s about misogyny, and the mocking thereof. Hitchens was a misogynist, he wrote an extremely sexist article and then doubled-down when called on it. So, Hitch is eligible for mockery. Is he ‘as bad as’ Paul Elam or one of the other MRA ilk? Not in the overall intensity of his misogyny, perhaps, but arguably much, much worse in terms of his impact–nobody really pays much attention to Mr. Elam, but Hitchens had a serious following, and a lot of cultural impact. Small errors by a giant will still cause much greater calamity than great errors by a flea.
Didn’t he only come to that conclusion after benig (very briefly) waterboarded? If so … what does that say of Mr Genius that he hadn’t even the imagination to grasp what that would be like?
Just to tie the two conversational threads together, if you Google “women and humor,” Hitchens’s essay is the third entry.
The second is an AskMen.com article, “Top 10 Ways to Attract Her With Humor.”
And yet I carry on.
Kittehserf: That he’s got more integrity than Rush Limbaugh (who made a similar claim and offer, but then never backed it up)? Which, admittedly, is setting the bar so low it leaves an indentation in the grass.
@SittieKitty – that’s an interesting file. I’m a bit worried that Bill the Cat is also arguing about smoking, though. 😛
One fallacy surprised me, or rather, this as an example did: “Example #4:
I acknowledge that I have no argument for the existence of God. However, I have a great
desire for God to exist and for there to be an afterlife. Therefore I accept that God exists.”
I wouldn’t have thought that was a fallacy. The speaker has made a conscious choice about their belief, and acknowledged that. I’d have looked on it as a utilitarian sort of thing (I’m using the term very generally) – they go with the belief that works for them. It’s sort of akin to my stance, which is why it caught my eye.
Oh well, fallacy ahoy. 🙂
@freemage – that bar’s subterranean! 😀