I see the termites have again munched on Amanda Marcotte, who, as a writer for Salon, holds down one of the most reprehensible jobs in journalism. She’s perhaps best known for her erroneous rush to judgment on the Duke lacrosse team rape case as well as her firing as John Edwards’s social media maven, incidents described in her Wikipedia profile:
In January 2007, Marcotte made several controversial statements about the Duke lacrosse case including calling people who defended the accused “rape-loving scum”[6][7][8][9] and writing on her blog “Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.” The post, which Marcotte later deleted, attracted criticism, was mentioned in The New York Times.[10][11] The Duke lacrosse players were eventually found to have been falsely accused. Their accuser, Crystal Mangum, was later convicted of an unrelated murder, and the prosecuting attorney, Mike Nifong, was disbarred.
On January 30, 2007, the John Edwards 2008 presidential campaign hired Marcotte to act as the campaign’s blogmaster despite the criticism,[12][13][14][15][16] responding that while Edwards was “personally offended” by some of Marcotte’s remarks, her job as their blogmaster was secure.[17]
Further controversy resulted on February 12, 2007, when the Catholic League criticized Marcotte’s review of the film Children of Men as “anti-Christian.”[18] Following the criticism Marcotte announced her resignation from the Edwards campaign. In an article for Salon a few days later, she said the reaction to her comments on the Duke lacrosse case was the first in a series of “shitstorms” that prompted her resignation.[19]
At Real Clear Politics, Cathy Young writes this in her piece “A Feminist Flare Up“:
Marcotte sarcastically asserts that one of the major “victories” of “independent feminism” was “maintaining a cultural and legal framework that made it difficult to prosecute rape.” What does this mean? Her previous writings on the subject provide some context. In 2006-2007, Marcotte emerged as a leader of the cyber-lynch mob in the Duke University rape hoax. On her blog, anyone questioning the guilt of the three lacrosse players charged with sexually assaulting an exotic dancer at a team party was branded a “rape apologist.” In a particularly vicious broadside, she sneered at syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker for arguing that “unless the victim is 9 years old and a virgin and white and blonde … rape isn’t so much a crime as a feminist plot to put all men in jail.” This wasn’t so much hyperbole as outright distortion: while Parker had deplored the “rush to judgment” in the Duke case, she had explicitly condemned the notion that the alleged victim was less deserving of sympathy because she was a stripper. (Parker is one of the “independent feminists” on Marcotte’s Slate blacklist.)
The true extent of Marcotte’s hate-filled zealotry is evident in a profanity-laced rant she posted about a CNN special report on the Duke case aired after the rape charges were dismissed. (She later deleted the post when it became an issue in the controversy over her short-lived appointment as blog coordinator for the John Edwards presidential campaign.) Slamming CNN as “pure evil,” Marcotte vented her outrage at having to “listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and f***ed her against her will,” and concluded sarcastically, “Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.”
It seems that, in Marcotte’s eyes, the real crime of the “independent feminists'” is helping preserve the idea that the presumption of innocence applies even in cases of rape and sexual assault. If so, that is indeed a victory. Depriving men of their civil rights is no victory for women — both as a matter of principle and because most women have men in their lives whom they would not want to see face a false charge of rape under Marcotte-style standards of justice.
Note that several of the Wikipedia links go nowhere; but the last one, “Why I had to quit the John Edwards campaign”, can be found at this site. I’ve looked for a while for any admission by Marcotte that she was wrong or acted precipitately in the Duke matter, but nothing can found. The closest she got for whipping up false judgment was accusing prosecutor Nifong of “fumbling the ball.” For Marcotte is an Authoritarian Leftist, and one of their dictums is “Never apologize or admit you were wrong.” What she did is simply delete her tweets and gung-ho coverage of the rape case. I don’t think it’s unique to the Left to admit when they made a mistake, though: that’s just human nature. But to the targets of Authoritarian Leftists, admitting a mistake does not soothe their rage; as in the case of Matt Damon, they simply double down with the invective.
Don’t get me wrong, as a Leftist, I’ve often agreed with Marcotte’s published criticism of Trump and Republicans. But I don’t consider myself her “ally” in the sense that gender feminists use that word. Her tendency to get unhinged makes me wary.
This is all a long prelude to her having jumped the rails once again, so that she’s starting to become the equivalent of a female Dan Arel. Here you go:
https://twitter.com/AmandaMarcotte/status/980928683438432257
No, Ms. Marcotte, “Free speech” is not even primarily, much less “exclusively” used as a right wing code for white nationalism. The very idea is absurd. Yes, white nationalists may use the mantra of free speech to assert a right to promulgate their odious views, but they’re right: even white supremacy is protected under the First Amendment. And her expansion of the term “free speech” as a synonym for “racism” is another Authoritarian tactic: the stretching of words like “violence” or “safety” to encompass mental attitudes rather than physical situations. I’d love to see her lecture the American Civil Liberties Union on the new meaning of “free speech”!
What do we do when Authoritarian Leftists start denigrating free speech because it’s a code word for racism? We push back. And so, like defense attorney Scott Greenfield (who write the website “Simple Justice“), I once again call out Marcotte for her stupidity in defense of extremism. And do I need to remind her that, as a journalist, Marcotte depends on freedom speech to promulgate her palaver?
This sounds really serious. What other constitutional rights are now code for white nationalism? pic.twitter.com/BA89gvbxlx
— Scott Greenfield (@ScottGreenfield) April 3, 2018
h/t: Grania
So Amanda’s right to express herself is primarily a code for white nationalism?
Perhaps that should be rectified. 😉
It would be interesting to see how quickly she’d demand Freeze Peach if publication of her wretched nonsense were at stake.
Glen Davidson
She jumped the shark a while ago.
Her problem is that she is basically a one-trick pony; she sees EVERYTHING through the assumption that we live in an oppressive white patriarchy. That’s how you get articles like this:
https://www.salon.com/2017/05/29/against-sgt-pepper-the-beatles-classic-made-pop-seem-male-nerdy-and-important-and-that-wasnt-a-good-thing/
Oh dear Ceiling Cat, I hadn’t seen that article. And now I can’t UNSEE it.
Of course it’s in Salon.
Yes, and if you look at the comments, you will see a lot of push back from women who are Beatles fans and enjoyed their later, post teeny-bop output. Amanda is not only tone deaf when it comes to music, she was also inadvertently sexist.
Oh that article!
The comments page is a delight! Rarely have I seen a bad article so richly excoriated, especially by the very crowd the author seeks to speak for!
That article is one of the most absurd concoctions of BS I’ve seen in a long while.
The comments almost made up for it, though.
cr
This is a treasure. Four white men from Liverpool held down Rock ‘n Roll and ****** it up!
The article doesn’t say much other than she resents SPs success and popularity among men.
One of the best comments is
“This is a stupid, one-dimensional, immature thesis and as a woman, and one that was actually THERE for all phases of the Beatles phenomenon and the music that followed up to today, I’m insulted. Girls can only react to and participate in rock music to dance or perhaps swoon at their teen idols? All other facets of music creation are the province of men?”
Great comment!
Ha! when I tried to go to the Salon article, Chrome blocked it with a malware warning! How appropriate.
Strange. Salon is clean. Was it Chrome or a Chrome extension that gave the warning? What was the message exactly? Did it name the malware?
Sometimes a scam program already on your computer can make your browser give out these messages – so it is worth finding out what’s going on.
Also some extensions use crowd-sourcing to rate sites & ‘political’ sites often get downvoted dishonestly by people who oppose a particular ideology.
The kindest interpretation I have of on her Beatles piece is that she was trying to adopt the narrative that white musicians (and a largely white music industry) stole rock from black blues musicians, but instead of something about power relations played into old tropes about women not being serious music fans. And yes, I am one of those women who likes later Beatles, among other “challenging” kinds of music, so it was a bit of a slap in the face. An unsurprising one, but a slap nonetheless.
The issue I have with not only Amanada Marcotte, but other women (Jessica Valenti comes to mind) who got their start in feminist blog world and moved on to larger platforms is that because of their success in their smaller world they’re presumed experts about everything as long as you can apply a feminist narrative to it.
I’m starting to see the link here.
Postmodernists aren’t against reason and objective fact. After all, they try to give reasons why their take on things is true, and they at least attempt to use facts of the world to buttress their opinions. The alternative, that their ideas are reason-free and fact-free, is obviously self-refuting.
Da Pinkah is correct – reason really is nonnegotiable.
Pomos are only against reason and facts when these things contradict their pet narratives about the world.
Ditto for this new wave of leftists. I have heard “civility” being condemned as a tool of the oppressors. But whenever a leftist is speaking, surely she or he wants to be able to be heard without being shouted down or beaten up.
Once again, they only have a problem with civility when it forces them to have to listen to a viewpoint they don’t like.
And now we see the same thing with free speech. Astute commentators have immediately pointed out that Ms. Marcotte is exercising free speech in these tweets and articles – is she against her own right to express her opinion? Since she’s not insane, of course not!
Once again, free speech is fine, as long as it is exercised by me or people that I agree with.
So it’s not that these folks don’t like the concepts of reason, objective fact, civility, and free speech full stop. It’s just that they view them as their own possessions, to be used when and where they wish.
The unifying characteristic of this mentality is that their social development got derailed somewhere between the ages of two and four. They really and truly can’t seem to understand that the cookies aren’t just for them.
Where would Emmeline Pankhurst have got without free speech, when the establishment would have preferred her to shut up?
Where would MLK have got without free speech, when the establishment would have preferred him to shut up?
Where would Stonewall gave got without free speech, when the establishment would have preferred them to shut up?
All three of those individuals (well, two individuals and an event) had to resort to militant civil disobedience on behalf of their causes. To maintain unpopular free expression is always a struggle.
MLK used “militant civil disobedience”?
Uncompromising is a better word for it.
Non-violent, but militant. That’s why his famous Alabama missive was postmarked “Birmingham Jail.” If you don’t think Martin had a militant side, read the letter.
In its way, his call for “direct action,” and his remonstrations with the white clergy calling for moderation, was as defiant as Churchill’s call to fight them on the beaches.
I know Ken, but given who MLK was (and the date) it just seemed an odd way to phrase it.
Mebbe so, Mike.
But I think it an apt occasion to recall some of Martin’s sharper edges — to remember why he scared white America so. The MLK of the popular imagination is too often a neutered version. Rightwingers in particular like to quote his “content of their character” phrase without acknowledging the first 15 minutes of his “Dream” speech in which he railed against the nation’s ugly history of racial injustice.
We are in violent agreement 😉
Apropos, I was asked (elsewhere) what I remember about the day he was murdered in ’68. I was seven so I don’t recall much at all except that all my teachers were crying.
“Exclusively” (???) as a code word???
Actually many of the broken links in the Wikipedia article are archived, and the WP article has second links to the archived copy.
Sorry, which “WP article” has the links to archived material?
“For Marcotte is an Authoritarian Leftist, and one of their dictums is “Never apologize or admit you were wrong.” I would call this a bit of an understatement.
Rather, I submit that the refusal to admit an error is THE cardinal principle of authoritarian Leftism. The “New” Left of the 1960s, rather than admit what was wrong with the USSR, simply shifted its adoring gaze to Chairman Mao. Today, the subtext of everything in Counterpunch is a refusal to accept that the Soviet motherland of the workers collapsed because of its utter fraudulence. Earlier, it is likely that Stalin’s Great Terror of 1936-38 was launched precisely to avoid admitting how the forced farm collectivization had really turned out.
The latter example illustrates the way this tendency deals with unwelcome facts: suppress any mention of them (and, if possible, people who know about them). Milder attempts at suppression are not exactly unknown today.
I found out recently from a marxist professor, I generally respect, that communist China is/was right-wing. Denial seems to be supremely seductive.
To a Marxist China IS right wing [not that right & left are useful terms when the primary characteristic is State Authoritarianism]
** Little to no protection for the poor or vulnerable
** Vast & widening gap between rich & poor
** CCP ‘Party Schools’: A special, exclusive educational path from an early age for those being groomed for high governmental & military positions [rather like Eton or Harrow except females are welcome]
** An explosively growing middle class – rate of growth exceeding the British Industrial Revolution
** Consumerism rampant
Never apologize or admit you’re wrong has worked well for the right, for bush and tRump, so why wouldn’t their opposites on the spectrum use the same tactics!
Because they claim to have a very different audience.
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow
That’s the anti-war Left I recall. Sure, there were some asshole outliers carrying NVA banners, or waiving Little Red Books, or, Christ, even burning American flags on occasion. But the vast majority on the anti-war Left (and on the Civil-Rights Left, and the Free Speech Left, and the Feminist Left, and the Gay Rights Left — which, collectively, are what most people mean when they refer to the “New Left” of the Sixties) were patriotic Americans doing their damnedest to unwind an unjust war.
Be interested to know our host’s take, since he got to the action three or four years ahead of me.
As you know, those of us who were there in the 60’s can’t remember it, but I’d say your description’s right on. Don’t forget the Environmental Left (in which Zero Population Growth was roundly supported, unlike today when it’s considered the third rail). Also, the boycotts on behalf of the United Farm Workers.
Just no end of good, decent, classic liberal values coming to the fore. What an uplifting, inspirational time. Spoiled me for everything since.
Of course you’ll also not remember it was when we realized how very ugly the right could be–the Chicago riots, Kent State, violence against desegregationists, David Duke, the assassinations…
Right on, sister!
It’s like some extreme form of contamination OCD. The bath water has touched the baby. Best to get rid of them both.
And to continue the metaphor, people like Marcotte are competing with each other to show how pristine and empty their washtubs are.
I like it.
Brilliant!
I like Scott Greenfield’s reply, but I think it would have been better (since people like Marcotte are unlikely to be impressed by the U.S. Constitution) if he had said “fundamental human rights.” It’s not just an American thing anymore.
Marcotte is a clickbait monger, and basically the Woke version of Ann Coulter.
+ 1
Good analogy.
I’m so old I can remember, during the OJ trial, when Coulter was actually shrewd and even sane. Then when that gig ended she needed a new schtick to keep on the air, and what we have seen these past 20 years appeared.
She does know who is in control of the White House, the House of Representatives, Senate, the Supreme Court, 33 governors (most since 1922 BTW), 68 percent of the state legislative chambers. Does she really not get that it is left wing speech that would be stomped out?
+ 1
Some commentators have the gift of stating contrary views that are thought-provoking and which advance our understanding. Amanda Marcotte is not one of them. To be fair, she’s not always wrong. Occasionally, she is not even wrong.
It’s true that the woke crusade against freedom of expression has made this an American partisan issue. The Red Tribe of course happily endorsed it as long as it costs nothing, and allows them to craft a narrative of the “constitution defenders” by coupling it with the defense of the 2nd Amendment. But Marcotte and the reality-challenged woke are very wrong to allow that to happen. It shows how kneejerk they are to not challenge it.
I’ve found (as a non-American observer in a blue bubble) that Republicans are far more visible and have the initiative, and prerogative of interpretation. The Democrats are merely reacting and whining. Their own aims and goals barely play a role. The Red Tribe plays them like a fiddle and people like Marcotte are the first to dance to their tune.
As usual, several comments:
Without Freedom of Speech, Black Lives Matter, Antifa and other such organizations would not be free to speak.
My guess is that all our Saints and leaders have had feet of clay. Being human should not prevent them from speaking, acting and trying to lead. If we must wait for perfection, it will never happen.
Most of us know that MLK, JFK, RFK, LBJ, the FBI and CIA, et al were not as perfect as they were presented as being.
Steve Berry has a new fictional work out titled The Bishop’s Pawn that deals with the assassination of MLK and the involvement of the FBI. Berry is very concerned about historical accuracy and he makes certain the truth vs. fictional elements are clearly delineated.
“Rightwingers in particular like to quote his “content of their character” phrase without acknowledging the first 15 minutes of his “Dream” speech in which he railed against the nation’s ugly history of racial injustice.”
See information on the National Lynching Memorial for evidence of “the nation’s ugly history of racial injustice.”
https://eji.org/national-lynching-memorial
http://www.newsweek.com/slavery-lynching-and-racism-america-will-be-inescapable-ejis-memorial-and-709624
Our Historian can probably point us toward other useful historical sources identifying other aspects of “the nation’s ugly history of racial injustice.”
If you’re interested in fictional treatments of that time and topic, Rowena, you might wanna give James Ellroy’s “Underworld USA” trilogy a try — American Tabloid, The Cold Six Thousand, and Blood’s a Rover.
Ellroy’s not so much interested in historical accuracy, but he nails verisimilitude. This trilogy does for the Sixties and early Seventies what Ellroy’s earlier “L.A. Quartet” did for the Forties and Fifties. And his writing is so hard-boiled, it bounces.
Ellroy is very good – weird guy. Great writer. Not George V. Higgins & not the sainted Elmore Leonard, but up there at the front of the pack chasing the Gods [of which there’s more than the two I mentioned who’re the kings of dialogue along with Chandler & Highsmith]
When it comes to hard-boiled noir fiction, my favorites are James M. Cain and Jim Thompson. Ellroy and Elmore Leonard are the modern masters. Leonard, I think, for a pulp writer, has been hugely influential, even on belle-lettres writing, for his economy of expression, especially as to rapid-fire dialogue.
Leonard also did a refreshingly brief guide to writing well. I agree with them all.
If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it. was his 11th tip.
Thank you so much to all of you for suggesting authors for me to read. With the exception of Jim Thompson, I have read one or more books by each of the other authors, but I have not read all their works. I will have to order the James Ellroy books suggested by Ken to read immediately. The rest will go on my list of books to be read ASAP.
My favorite Marcotte story is her spin on the incident where the little girl in Twin Falls was assaulted by three boys.
What happened was that the oldest of the boys, a 14 year old Eritrean, directed two younger boys ( 10 and 7,from Eritrea and Iraq) to assault a 5 year old girl at their apartment complex laundry room while he filmed the attack. The boys forcibly stripped her naked, and one of the boys urinated in her mouth, then on her clothes and body. One of the boys attempted to penetrate her anally, while forcing her against a wall, but she got away and ran to a corner of the room. A nurse who lives at the complex heard the girl’s screams, and stopped the assault. The girl later told her father that during the attack, the boys told her that if she tried to leave, they would kill her.
The right wing spin was that the boys were Syrian, had gang raped her, and had used a knife. They were not Syrian, and it is uncertain whether a knife was used. The girl apparently claimed that they did.
Considering how broadly she normally defines rape, Ms. Marcotte’s article-
https://www.salon.com/2016/06/22/no_syrian_refugees_didnt_rape_a_child_in_idaho_right_wing_urban_legend_shows_how_ugly_anti_refugee_movement_has_become/
Is a parade of absurdity.
Imagine her take if the little girl had been a minority, and the boys White.
FYI- the boys later pled guilty, and the details I provided were confirmed. The video of the event was part of the evidence.
Marcotte is truly one of the most vile human beings around. To be someone like Marcotte and live with yourself, you have to either be in a constant state of self-loathing, or so utterly delusional that you think you’re one of the world’s most righteous people and viewing everything through the lens of what your ideology dictates must be true is the only way to be a warrior against [insert litany of causes here]. Marcotte almost certainly falls into the latter category.
Great response by Greenfield. Though with authoritarians, the reply (stated or not) is “any and all of them, when they prevent me from getting my way.”
Her opinion is even more extreme than just opposing presumption of innocence, IMO. She’s accusing the boys of rape after the case is over, the evidence is in, and the evidence shows they didn’t do it. Even under a system that didn’t presume innocence to start with, a reasonable person would now say they are innocent.
You know what this is most like? Trump claiming the four boys in the central park jogger case should be locked up/executed…even 15 years after the guilty party had confessed, been shown to have done it via DNA testing, and the boys had been exonerated.
Good point. Absolutely.
The common denom’ between Trump & Marcotte is their ability to dishonestly employ ‘denialism’ tactics i.e…
Deleting comms evidence & other history
Misrepresenting the opposition’s position
Blocking opposition from discourse
Purposefully misconstruing questions
Rage quitting
Goalpost shifting
Never admitting error
Claiming that gaps in the opposition’s position [not knowing the answer] is evidence for your own position
Same as committed theists everywhere & everywhen.
I invited Marcotte to a Camp Quest event [reasonable expenses paid] near where she lived in Texas & she wrote back inquiring if there was a per diem on top! That was when ‘atheism’ was useful to her trajectory – she hung her hat on ‘atheism’ back then in the same way as Rebecca Watson did [but with less alcohol].
Us ‘real’ atheists took in too many camp followers who were using it as a flag of convenience. There’s a horrible 25min? video out there of Watson & Marcotte chatting & playing video games sat on a bed – in the era when they were trying to be ‘in’ with the gaming world. Embarrassed themselves – the shallowness & ego just shines out.
+1.
Amanda Marcotte to speak at the NECSS
https://necss.org/amanda-marcotte/
They must have high opinions of her, for she’s so far only listed for a panel.
July 15, 11:40pm—12:40pm
Panel: Researching Gun Violence: Past, Present and Future /Steve Novella, Judith Danovitch, Amanda Marcotte, Shaughnessy Naughton / Haft Auditorium
Hey, don’t forget her brutal attack on Scott Aaronson.
When I was in my early teens, “Free Speech” was considered by right-wing pundits to be code for “Communism”. Those pundits were wrong. Marcotte is just as wrong for the same reasons. The ctrl-left seems intent on throwing away the biggest public relations advantage the left had: a reputation for being more truthful than the right wing of the political spectrum.