Wednesday, April 13, 2005

Someone noticed me

Someone noticed me, thanks to this.

I was rather surprised, given that I'm such an itty-bitty blogger.

However, as an itty-bitty blogger, I have to offer my thanks to Vox for pumping up the hit count of my blog yesterday. I'm actually rather surprised that such a "big-time" Worldnet personality actually noticed my humble little blog, much less deigned to take a few minutes from writing his rants for Worldnet to trash a post of mine. Such are the rewards and perils for calling 'em like I see 'em, I guess. In any case, I hope that some of his readers might actually like what they see here, his negative "recommendation" of me notwithstanding. Maybe some of them read Vox for the same reason some liberals listen to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. (Of course, as regular readers know, I'm not liberal, but more center-right, but for some reason I seem to annoy far right-wingers more than left-wingers. Maybe I need to write a bit advocating a flat tax.)

And thanks to PZ for pointing Vox out to me.

I think.

Given some of the scary comments (see the one with the timestamp of 10:54 PM--the direct permalinks to individual comments don't always work right on Blogger), I'm not entirely sure I should be thanking PZ. Read that comment, contemplate Vox's calling women "fascists at heart" (without presenting a shred of evidence to support that contention other than a questionable historical reference to Mussolini), and then wonder at how the anonymous commenters drawn here by Vox's response to my original post accuse me of using emotion and demagoguery over reason! Sheesh.

Ah, well. Glutton for punishment that I am, I can't resist making one last (I hope) comment on the matter. Unlike what was said in one of the comments to my post, it is not I who misunderstand libertarianism. It is Vox. No libertarian principle that I'm aware of justifies denying the right to vote to a whole segment of the population on the basis of gender (or, for that matter, race) alone. If Vox really believes women should not vote on the basis of some defect ("fascism" I guess) he attributes to them because of their gender, then he's a sorry excuse for a libertarian and a Christian. I also can't help but wonder why on earth he totally undermined what could have been a potentially valid point about government interference in private enterprise and private life in Norway and Spain with an utterly idiotic assertion that women are "fascists at heart," which he fails to back up but then uses as a basis for his "argument" (if you can call it that) that women should not vote.

Vox seems to think I'm a woman, too. I can only guess that he can't imagine why a man like myself or PZ would disagree with his apparent advocacy of disenfranchising women simply because of some vague "fascistic" tendencies he seems to perceive in them. Either that, or maybe he thinks that calling me woman is an insult, given that he seems to consider women "fascists at heart," as he so quaintly put it. If the latter is the case, then his calling me a woman as a form of insult says far more about him than it would about me. And this quote, cut and pasted without change from an anonymous commenter, says a lot about the mindset of some of Vox's supporters: "Orac, yes, I am very judgemental. I just didn't want to have to see the contempt I have for you now that I know you're a man. It's understandable that a woman would use emotion and demegoguery to make her points. That a man would is astonishing. Vis a vis."

I'm sure the complete irony of that statement totally escapes the man who posted it.

14 example(s) of insolence returned:


At 4/13/2005 12:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The funny thing is that most of the women I am close to would agree with Vox's statement. Most women have very controlling natures and that spills over into politics. Their record on civil liberties tends to not be much better. I have met many a girl at my college who didn't like the 2nd amendment because "guns are icky and scary" and who think that the 1st amendment goes too far because people say mean stuff.

For most women, political liberty means something more along the lines of being able to vote and abort their children rather than freedom of speech, gun rights, jury rights and the like. Women, in my experience at least, tend to be much faster to surrender everyone's rights so that they can be safe.

 

At 4/13/2005 7:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A greater percent of women are opposed to abortion than men, since you bring that up. Women were very active in the anti-slavery movement (surely that's a freedom and rights issue, huh) and men are far more likely than women to break the law to violate others' rights.

Orac,

I'm glad I got introduced to your site, even if through this. I'm center-right too, and it's disturbing there are people out there on the right who are like that. I guess they could be called the hysterical right-wing male.
Why most of that bunch has issues with women I'll leave to those who have the misfortune of knowing them. Perhaps VD will get over his complexes, perhaps Christ will help him (good grief, that right there would become a strong advertisement for Christianity), but I rather doubt it.

 

At 4/13/2005 9:02 PM, Blogger Orac said...

The problem is, VD claims to be a "Christian" right now.

 

At 4/13/2005 10:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, I know. Which makes his postings even more vile--he is smearing all the rest.

 

At 4/13/2005 11:26 PM, Blogger Socialist Swine said...

Orac,

I actually most of us lefties not only not dislike you (ugh, that was terrible use of excessive negation) but actually find your 'blog quite refreshing. Personally, I'm not opposed to the idea that people disagree with me. I think that for the serious discourse necessary for democracy there must be some degree of debate. Moreover, you tend to be amenable to discussion, you don't get all up in arms if someone disagrees with you.

However, I do think that your views are more moderate than those of the extreme right and I would further speculate that the extreme right is less tolerant of dissent and disagreement than us lefties. Now, I must admit that I don't have much tolerance for the far right but that's less to do with their views than the means in which they choose to advocate them.

That said, if I were you I wouldn't be too concerned about what Vox says, he seems to be a bit of a nut and you can't really expect them to be reasonable. Indeed, sometimes I find it surprising that people like that are even as coherent as they are. I almost expect them to start spewing gibberish at any moment.

-Socialist Swine

 

At 4/14/2005 3:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah... It must be interesting to be noticed by Wing Nut Daily! That has got to be one of the silliest online publications online that takes itself seriously. Seriously.

As a post-menopausal woman, I think the idea of a "Menstrual Hut" amusing. I am way past that... and it is time for Vox and his ilk to stay in the wood shed where they belong. I also have a feeling that either Vox has never dealt with real women... or the ones he has dealt with have a LONG list of "honey-do's" that he is just avoiding. So, Vox... do you ever think you are going to fix that broken step (or broken fence, or whatever)?

 

At 4/14/2005 3:25 AM, Anonymous Jamie R said...

"given that he seems to consider women 'fascists at heart,'"

Actually, he said far too many women are 'fascists at heart'. Just thought I'd point that out, since you are so prone to pointing out the fallacies of other people to make your points...

 

At 4/14/2005 8:29 AM, Blogger Orac said...

In the spirit of intellectual honesty (something Vox appears to lack), I will stand corrected. Vox only thinks "too many" women are "fascists" at heart. Of course, he still doesn't provide a single shred of evidence that more women than men are "fascists" at heart, other than some vague mention about how women-dominated groups are supposedly so rigidly controlled.

However, my use of the word "all" instead of "too many" doesn't change the fact that Vox is a reactionary wingnut who doesn't think women should have the right to vote. It doesn't change the fact that he uses post hoc arguments to claim that giving women the right to vote leads to socialism and decreasing freedom. He ignores the equally plausible possibility that women's suffrage could be a consequence, not a cause, of increasing liberalization. He does not show causation.

 

At 4/14/2005 12:06 PM, Anonymous Jamie R said...

"However, my use of the word "all" instead of "too many" doesn't change the fact that Vox is a reactionary wingnut who doesn't think women should have the right to vote."

Continue to focus in on universal suffrage then. How about the Federal Reserve? How about the right of a state to secede being abolished in the 19th Century? How about the IRS? How about public schools? There has been much more discussed than just this suffrage issue for America's very noticeable decline. But it appears that this is the one where those trying to leverage contempt for Vox play their cards.

I'm sure you would think twice about coming down on Vox for his views on the IRS and its role in the decline of the USA, but then, the IRS isn't around like women are, and so will be stared down by those 'courageous' enough to tackle said issue.

Sorry, you're the one being very myopic and reactionary here. Have you studied Switzerland's suffrage issues?

 

At 4/14/2005 1:00 PM, Anonymous Jamie R said...

By the way Orac, about this:

"What's wrong? Don't you think Vox can handle himself?"

That's funny, seeing that Vox disowns me too. I reflect badly on the guy, if you can't tell. I'm not as patient with people who can't see the forest for the trees. It seems everybody is caught up in the drama of a 24 hour news cycle kind of mentality. They can't see the overall trend (like, for instance, how universal suffrage has been used to increase centralisation of power for the State), and for this, they never really understand when everything falls apart, because too many things have happened by that time - just like how traders who don't sit and commit don't make money playing stocks on the market.

 

At 4/14/2005 5:17 PM, Anonymous Kristjan Wager said...

"Sorry, you're the one being very myopic and reactionary here. Have you studied Switzerland's suffrage issues?"

What issues are you refering to? The fact that it took seven referendums before women got the right to vote?

I must admit I can't really make a lot of sense out of your question, especially not in the context it was asked.

 

At 4/14/2005 6:40 PM, Blogger Orac said...

Don't worry, Jamie R. I don't think it's possible for you (or anyone else, for that matter) to "reflect badly on Vox." He reflects so badly on himself that I highly doubt your contribution is even detectable.

Also, nice try changing the topic. We aren't talking about the Federal Reserve, the IRS, or states no longer having the right to secede. We were talking about Vox's reactionary assertion about women's suffrage, his use of a post hoc fallacy, and his inability to back that reactionary assertion with facts and a demonstration of causation.

 

At 4/15/2005 2:24 AM, Anonymous Jamie R said...

"What issues are you refering to?"

The fact that for 100 years, when continental Europe saw massive upheavals, revolutions, and wars, Switzerland remained the most stable and free country in the region - while most everyone else went nuts - and they just happened to do it without the woman's vote. So how do you square such a phenomenon? Isn't not having universal suffrage always an element of totalitarianism or something? Personally, if I could get citizenship there, which is EXTREMELY hard to get, I'd move there, and I wouldn't give two shits about voting, as long as I could share in the economic freedom of the country. You wouldn't ever hear me talk about the injustice of not voting.

"Also, nice try changing the topic."

Wasn't changing the topic at all, those issues FILE DIRECTLY ALONGSIDE universal suffrage as the reasons for America's decline. And your move to dismiss that makes me speculate that you don't want to have those issues mess up your myopic focus on Vox's opposition to universal suffrage as a reason for that NOTICEABLE decline. That would severely hurt your case. As an example, America right now is essentially bankrupt and the bleeding is only getting worse, the US government cannot and will not be able to roll back its spending orgies. It wasn't always the case you see...

"and his inability to back that reactionary assertion with facts and a demonstration of causation."

So you're telling me that you DON'T think America is in political and economic decline?

 

At 4/19/2005 4:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Noticeable decline?

Yea... largest economy, strongest military, as of 2003 42% of all Nobel Prize winners, great tasting and less filling lite beer all wrapped up in one semi-delicious bottle of brew yada yada yada ..... and you say noticeable decline - no decline in my book. Now get back in the kitchen and make me a chicken pot pie!

 

Links to this insolence:

Create a Link

<< Home