The Jane Hamsher Effect
Regular readers know I keep things pretty clean around here. It’s a personal preference and a bid for some modicum of professionalism. Readers of most (not all) big sites on the left know that there are more four-letter words than a Richard Pryor routine in half the posts. The venom that spews from many of these sites, with quite large audiences, is something to behold.
Thus, it amazes me that someone will associate themselves with a Jane Hamsher-type vulgarian without even checking that blogger’s history. John Edwards is the latest to find out the folly in this lack of due diligence:
Two bloggers hired by John Edwards to reach out to liberals in the online world have landed his presidential campaign in hot water for doing what bloggers do — expressing their opinions in provocative and often crude language.
The Catholic League, a conservative religious group, is demanding that Mr. Edwards dismiss the two, Amanda Marcotte of the Pandagon blog site and Melissa McEwan, who writes on her blog, Shakespeare’s Sister, for expressing anti-Catholic opinions.
…Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said in a statement on Tuesday, “John Edwards is a decent man who has had his campaign tarnished by two anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots.”
Mr. Edwards’s spokeswoman, Jennifer Palmieri, said Tuesday night that the campaign was weighing the fate of the two bloggers.
The two women brought to the Edwards campaign long cyber trails in the incendiary language of the blogosphere. Other campaigns are likely to face similar controversies as they try to court voters using the latest techniques of online communication.
Ms. Marcotte wrote in December that the Roman Catholic Church’s opposition to the use of contraception forced women “to bear more tithing Catholics.” In another posting last year, she used vulgar language to describe the church doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
…Ms. Marcotte joined the Edwards campaign at the end of January in the new post of blogmaster. She has lived in Austin, Tex., for the past 11 years and wrote on her blog that she was planning to move to Chapel Hill, N.C., in February to work full-time on the campaign.
Ms. McEwan referred in her blog to President Bush’s “wingnut Christofascist base” and repeatedly used profanity in demanding that religious conservatives stop meddling with women’s reproductive and sexual rights. Multiple postings use explicit and inflammatory language on a variety of issues.
Ah, abortion…this really IS like Jane Hamsher all over again…
UPDATE 9:16 a.m.: Glenn Greenwald is kind enough to preview the Left-Wing Noise Machine’s response. Expect many, many of these attempts at deflection to follow from most of the left’s leading lights…
To be fair, Bill Donohue is a frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic.
Maybe, but the pair in question are, without doubt, anti-Catholic bigots, just as Donohue points out.
Abortion supporters have got to get it through their skulls that the Catholic religion, one of the world’s largest institutions of faith, is opposed to abortion on moral and religious grounds. That doesn’t mean pro-choice people have to be happy about that, but they need to respect the stance of the Church and debate the issue with dignity instead of going around the bend with useless bile-spewing…
I still maintain that using that sort of language and attacking people personally is not only offensive but counter-productive to the argument, such as it exists, being offered.
John Edwards is a decent man, even if I cannot and will not support him for President. I will be surprised if he doesn’t do the right thing by letting these folks go.
And the Catholic religion needs to get it through their skulls that many people don’t give a flying f*** what their religion thinks and will fight tooth and nail to keep religious dogma out of the legal code. Oh, no, I said the f-word. Big f***ing deal.
They’re not anti-catholic bigots; they oppose catholicism on the merits. It’s not like they’re afraid of dark I-tals invading the country club or something.
Why is it so impossible to expect people to be civil? If you favor abortion rights, is it impossible to make an argument for them, and against the Catholic Church’s position, without insulting a doctrine such as Immaculate Conception? Is it impossible to discuss the Duke case, as Amanda Marcotte did, without referring to CNN of all things as “f—ing evil” and proceeding to treat the whole thing as an open-and-shut case and blame any objections on racism?
It’s just childish, look-at-me antics. No one’s saying that we most be a bunch of Victorian prudes. But if you can’t discuss the topics of the day without flying off the handle, spewing profanities everywhere you go and impugning the motives of those who disagree with you, then there’s not much point in talking with you. And if campaigns are hiring bloggers as communicators, it doesn’t help them to hire people who have proved unable to communicate with anyone who isn’t already marching in lock step.
If no one impugned the motives of others, the poliblogosphere would be 90% shut down. That’s not a justification, but it does go to what we can reasonably expect based on the norms of the community.
[...] Blogger and MSM Roundup: MemeOrandum (another great roundup); NY Times; QandO; Hugh Hewitt; All Spin Zone; MyDD; The Carpetbagger Report; The Heretik; Decision ‘08; Beltway Blogroll; Terry Moran (ABC News blog); Washington Post; Captain’s Quarters; Blue Crab Boulevard; Glenn Greenwald Technorati Tags: 2008 Presidential Election, American Politics, American Religion, biggotry, Bloggosphere, Christian Right, Current Events, Democrats Fight Back, Evanglicals, Gay Issues, hate politics, Hipocrisy, John+Edwards, Mud slinging, Pro Choice, Separation of Church and State, United States [...]
And you know what, mike? All you’ve done is discredit yourself. Go ahead and swear all you want if you really feel such a need to prove to everyone that you lack the vocabulary to express your thoughts in an intelligent, respectful manner.
mike, you know my rules, you’ve been here enough. If you want to get banned and play the martyr, you’re about to get your wish.
I’ve never understood how vulgarity or even ad hominem rates above content on the civility scale. Seems a bit, ahem, holier than thou. William Donahue never uses naughty language, but he uses extremely offensive generalized smears as a matter of course. Jonah Goldberg’s written things that would provoke violence had he said them anywhere outside NRO HQ, and he’s given a platform in the LA Times. Even David Brooks cites Steve Sailer’s racist claptrap on occasion.
Ironically, this kind of double-standard is what sent Marcotte over the feminazi edge to begin with.
but they need to respect the stance of the Church and debate the issue with dignity instead of going around the bend with useless bile-spewing
And who appointed you the authority to determine what anybody needs to respect? The posts in question may be bad politics, but the fact that they offend your sensibilites is quite irrelevant to anything.
Andy hit it on the head. If you look at the content, and not its trappings, it’s nothing terribly revolutionary. Especially when compared with Donohue’s accusations that the Jews are out to get everyone (or, for instance, his “anti-Catholic” stance on the death penalty).
Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.
Fargus, Andy, and Paul, that’s one of the quotes in question. Nothing offensive there, eh?…
Paul, of course, my sensibilities don’t matter as an individual – but they matter to the tens of millions of Americans of faith, collectively. The Democratic Party has a reputation of being hostile to religion – I’m sure Edwards doesn’t want to reinforce that.
They’ll be fired today or tomorrow, and rightly so…
Again, you’re arguing that they should be fired because they’re being uncivil. But what if I decided to take offense at every reference you made to the “Nutroots”? I don’t believe in any religion, so what obligates me to show them some special respect that isn’t due any other group?
Nothing, that’s what. I can completely respect somebody’s right to their opinion while simultaneously having no respect for the opinion itself. There’s a difference, and that’s what people don’t see.
I’m not trying to say that Catholics or Christians wouldn’t find that quote offensive, Mark. But as Andy pointed out, you’re making an argument against the way she voiced her opinion, not against the opinion itself. If you’re going to say “and rightly so” if they’re fired, then every right-wing bomb-thrower that ever was, including the Swift Boat Vets who did all that work for your side in ’04, deserve to be drummed out of the business of expressing an opinion.
To be clear, I don’t think the right has cornered the market on hypocrisy. Yet. But it’s pretty ironic the chattering class has suddenly decided to draw a “civil” line in the sand and pretend slime hasn’t been coursing through the internets all along, given that this is precisely the sort of arbitrariness Marcotte has railed about with her filthy mouth for years.
But I’m biased. I find arguments favoring standards for “civil” discourse generally ridiculous. As HST outlined so well in The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved, gentility is the cheap cosmetic we apply to the grotesque, 800-pound gorillas lurking about at Broderella’s Ball.
Fargus, the statement I quoted is not uncivil to a person of faith – it’s blasphemous. Does she have the right to say it? Of course, and I have the right to condemn it for the mean-spirited drivel it is…
And comparing “nutroots” to that statement? Give me a break…
Aaron,
What if I were to say to you “you discredit yourself because you’re a Christian”? Would this make any sense? Certainly not. One discredits themself by making poor arguments, not by dropping an f-bomb. Profanity is used by people for a few purposes, one of which can be “hey, look at me”, but mostly I use it because I think it’s funny. I had older friends when I was a young kid, sue me. Oh, yeah, you are not DUE any respect. You have to earn it. To me, taking offense because someone curses in your presence shows a lack of respect for the way that person communicates. How’s that for a two-edged sword?
Mark,
If you ban me for cursing you’re one lame dude. I’d much rather be banned for calling you a drama queen.
Dennis,
Please define the word “civil” for all us discredited peoples…oh how I wish to be enlightened. An argument is an argument is an argument. If you make it while cursing a bit, it is very easy to skip over such to find the argument (if it’s a good one). If not, it’s discredited on the merits. Y’all take this “civil” thing way too seriously. I still am reminded of Neil McCracken claiming the game is a serious game as all his goons wail on the Charlestown Chiefs…Slapshot is going in the DVD player when I get home.
F*** yeah!
Mike B. (mike b dot)
And drama queen is supposed to just shatter me? Mike, I’m just asking you to play by my rules at my house. You want to curse to your heart’s content, start your own blog. It’s not that difficult.
But since you’re not paying my hosting fees, I’m the boss of this here house.
I think my rules are quite easy to live by: keep it clean, and you can say just about anything…you can even call the host a drama queen repeatedly, if it makes you happy…
Re: #14 – That’s just plain old funny to me…if you can’t giggle at your way of life, you’re screwed on this planet man. It’s all relative, oh, but wait, you think that way of thinking is moral depravity…I forgot.
I’m a secular humanist. Go ahead poke fun. I will giggle too.
Mike, replace “curses” with “uses a racial slur” and I think you’ll see how ridiculous this statement is. Unless, of course, you think you should just stand by and nod your head sagely when some racist uses vile language in your presence.
The problem with people like Amanda Marcotte is she’s not especially interested in making an argument. She’s interested in shocking people and showing how crass she can be. Whoop-dee-do; most of us leave sophomoric humor behind when we cease to be sophomores. It’s not even a question of humor; it’s a question of a severe lack of imagination.
Mike,
What doesn’t make any sense at all is your completely irrational equating of a belief with a method of arguing. I don’t even know if your initial post could be classified as an “argument” per se. From here it just looks like angry screaming.
My point still stands: if you cannot express a point without profanity, your vocabulary is severely limited; hence you lack education.
Would you go into a job interview speaking in such a manner? Would a politician or press secretary (which, a professional blogger working for a political campaign essentially is) use profanity when addressing the public?
Dennis: Cursing and racial slurs are not equal in my eyes…but to you they might be (I allow for that possibility with something called moral relativism…)
Aaron: I never equated belief with a method of arguing. Using curse words or just plain disgusting[ly funny, IMO] quotes to make a point isn’t a method of arguing. It’s a method of stating your beliefs in a way your readers will enjoy and keep coming back to. The arguement is buried within the curse words and other items. If racial slurs enter the picture, then the argument doesn’t disappear, it just lets someone know “wow, this person is a racist”.
“If you cannot make a point without cursing”…that’s not the point at all. The point is that they sometimes used cursing or hyperbole or “vile” statements while making their argument and now they are being fired for it? You know, they have other posts where they don’t curse or use absurd statements like the hilighted one that are actually cogent points…but you wouldn’t know anything about that.
No, I would not use profanity in a job interview, but their personal blogs are not their interviews.
If you say “yes, yes it is, their blog space in total is their personal interview”. I disagree. What if a photographer was really good at his craft. However, he decides to take some pornographic pictures as well. He then shows his clothed pictures to Vogue or whatever magazine he’s trying to get a gig with…how is this any different a scenario?
I just love how everyone ignores Congressman Ron Paul running for the Republican nomination….he has ideas that even the Democrats would love….he’s consistently been against the war in Iraq and is battling the Bushites against the impending war in Iran…he wants to balance the budget and is against the Patriot Act. Now he’s number 3 in the Republican poll on http://www.pajamasmedia.com straw poll. The media ignores him…this site ignores him….but the grassroots is rallying behind him.