Posted by Amanda Marcotte April 17, 2008 in Uncategorized, Asides
18 Responses to “Roy Edroso, you rule”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
For all of their evil, I think Little Green Footballs should get at least a little credit for launching Zombietime, the greatest website ever, into internet super stardom.
He had me at the “what to expect” from Lileks:
I mean, that is some fine writin’ from wry Roy right there. I’m not convinced that his Stupid/Evil calibrator was in perfect working order when he trained it on Malkin, though.
I dunno - considering Malkin is usually much more stupid rather than evil, but Ace has her beat hands-down, I’d say the calibration was at least in the ballpark.
Malkin continued to say that the Boston Mooninite Bomb Threat thing (remember that?) was a terrorist threat WAAAAAAAAY after it was acceptable to continue to believe it.
Like, a year after the fact.
She’s not stupid, she’s stupevilid
My only problem with the “Stupid/Evil” category is that it ignores the magnitude of Stpueviity.
So while Michelle Malkin bay have a 97/3 ratio of stupid to evil compared to Glenn Reynold’s 5/95: Her level of evil is far greater than that of ol’ Glennocidal tendancies.
Which means her stupidity level would have Vegeta crushing his scanner in frustration.
(waits to see if anyone actually gets that reference…)
What, 9000? There’s no way that can be right… CAN IT?
Amanda - I am curious about something related to this. Linked in my name is Megan McArdle’s reaction to being called by Roy, in this article, a “lipstick libertarian.” While I almost always disagree with her, I do think her rant does have some points, particularly with respect to sexism in the liberal blogosphere, although absolutely disagree with her 95/5 ratio about the left. Still, it is true that people including men that see themselves as liberal probably do use the “35 and unmarried” as an insult.
OTOH, I think she, by, using the word “feminine” in her title was trying to directly challenge the word “feminist,” when her post clearly shows the need for feminism in the first place. However, maybe Roy should have chosen his language more carefully.
Thanks, Amanda.
However, maybe Roy should have chosen his language more carefully.
I assure you I choose words with extreme care.
The provenance and meaning of “lipstick libertarian” should be clear to disinterested readers. It has nothing to do with McArdle’s age or marital status. As for its relevance to her gender, that is not sexism so much as serendipity.
Indeed, I’m as uninteresting a reader as they come, and I… What? Oh.Regardless, “lipstick libertarian” is not a way to call Ms. McArdle a lesbian. It is a more elegant formulation of how we use “schmibertarian” to label superficial libertarianism, as opposed to Jim Henley, or (on their good days) Radley Balko and Jacob Sullum. Much of the time, there’s no “there” there to McArdle’s libertarianism; hence she, and most other self-declared libertarians on the intertubes, are lipstick libertarians, regardless of gender.
Or perhaps Mr. Edroso was secretly referring to applying cosmetics to swine. That would have worked for me, but then I’m not a world-famous newspaper columnist.
I am very concerned about Roy’s choice of words. He seems to be implying that McArdle is just another mouth in the lipstick vogue.
James, I’d read mds. I had a whole explanation, but that’s better. The point of the explanation was that the phrase “lipstick libertarian” is a beautiful way of describing McArdle’s schtick. She is a cold, cruel, thoughtless person who still manages to charm liberal dudes by wearing her femininity in a garish manner. You could probably accuse me of doing the same thing for radical feminism, and I’d have to laugh, though I’d argue with you on whether or not the evil strategy is working.
McArdle and Althouse are gambling wrong. I think their formulation goes like this:
1) I don’t find this funny.
2) I hear feminists don’t have a sense of humor.
3) Therefore I’ll turn to feminism as an excuse to be humorless.
The problem with that formulation is that #2 is simply wrong. I mean, I’ve tripped across humorless feminists, but there are humorless people of all stripes, and in my experience, feminists are funnier on average than most people.
I get mocked and parodied every other day by some wingnut, and I have some advice to those who are touchy about this: The best strategy is to evaluate the piece indifferent to the fact that it’s about you. Is it funny? (99% of the time, wingnuts are too dumb to really be funny.) If not, pity the person. If it is—and I’ve seen a couple instances of mockery of me that was actually funny, on the theory that even morons occasionally luck out—then laugh at it.
I did take issue with Roy characterizing Jessica at Feministing as a blogger notable for her breast size. That is only compounding Althouse’s idiocy; Jessica is perfectly average*, but more importantly, Althouse is batshit insane. And so characterizing Jessica that way still makes it sound like her body is somehow the issue. Althouse’s insane fear of women in public spaces is the issue.
*and whether she is or not is SO not the issue, which is why Roy’s description bothered me. Did he miss the point?
I landed in NYC this morning (well, having taken a red-eye bus, I don’t know whether “landed” is the proper verb) and grabbed a Village Voice as I strolled through the Bowery and past the Voice’s building at 6 AM. I had to give Ms. Kate a wake-up call to tell her about this awesome guide, only to find out Amanda found it first and Kate had read it last night. You find all the cool stuff first. Not fair.
Amanda, you may be many things, but I doubt the adjective ‘cold’ would ever be applied to you in good faith.
Except, y’know, if one were talking about the weather.
“(99% of the time, wingnuts are too dumb to really be funny.)”
I was discussing the other day w/an acquaintace the almost surrealistic LACK of humor in conservative comic strips, e.g. “Mallard Fillmore” and “Prickly City”. WTFisUWT?
Maybe it’s difficult to be funny when you’re kicking the downtrodden or something. Or maybe suck-uppitude is just not humorous. I dunno.
(and: put me down as another confused by “lipstick libertarian”.)
Mr. Edroso has a bit of an ego problem, and like many urban dwellers is also a bit out of touch with the essential activities that make his life and that of many others like him possible on a day to day basis. Six months working in a coal mine, or on a dairy farm, etc. with no internet access during that time period would do wonders for his ability to perceive what really has value in life, and might even help him along the road to adulthood.
Mark Jerabek,
It’s certainly helped the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity. Jonah Goldberg was a coal miner’s daughter.
How many ways can you spell “jerk” using the letters in that?