Someone noticed me
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.
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women "fascists at heart" (without presenting a shred of evidence to support that contention other than a questionable historical reference to Mussolini), and then wonder at how the anonymous commenters drawn here by Vox's response to my original post accuse me of using emotion and demagoguery over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.