LaShawn told me to check out Casey's blog entry Dirty Attacks., so I did.
Having said that: I took a second look at the nasty attacks on Malkin and Margaret Cho, and the response from someone named EBrown.
EBrown, who seems to be the editor or a regular poster on a site called Vision Circle, had a callous, ignorant and "everyone does it, deal with it" type of response:
Actually, it wasn't callous. Nor was it ignorant when what I wrote is true. But I continue...
It is pretty clear from Malkin's column that she is writing that she expects the attacks to get worse, in light of the controversy with Armstrong Williams. As she wrote in her column
If it gets worse, who is to really say it gets worse because of Armstrong Williams' error?
Malkin writes about immigration issues. If she writes something supporting the House GOP's desire to tighten immigration and she recieves hate mail about it, is it her stance on the issue of immigration that generates hate mail? Suppose they mention Armstrong Williams in it. Is it her stance on immigration the issue or is it Armstrong Williams?
Malkin writes about affirmative action. If she writes something on the Mich. situation and she gets hate mail that mentions Armstrong Williams, is it her stance on affirmative action or is it Armstrong Williams?
My point? She's going to get hateful mail, no matter what she does. If she gets more hateful mail, it could be because of the topic she chose to go after, it could be because of sexism, or it could be because of racism, ORRRRRR...... it could be because Mrs. Malkin is getting a wider distribution which would likely cause more hate mail to be sent to her.
What does Armstrong Williams' errors have to do with anything? What does Armstrong Williams have to do with more hate mail being generated?
It comes with the territory when you write on hot button issues of the day.
Casey continues:
He mentioned those Washington Post columnists receiving e-mail that "wasn't pretty." I did something EBrown didn't do. I actually looked up what the Post columnists have written about their hate mail. I'm not the least bit surprised that columnists and journalists get crank, angry, and hate mail.
I added the emphasis to point something out.
Earth to Casey! THAT WAS MY POINT DUDE!!!!!!. I'm also not surprised that they get crank, angry, and hate mail.
Next, I didn't "look up" the columnists columns, I have read them over time.
Casey continues:
But those Posts columnists haven't presented in print anything nearly as dirty as the e-mail Malkin has received. And even if people called them knucklehead and other names, they haven't presented ANYTHING that has been of the nasty sexual nature aimed at Malkin.
Here, what is presented by Casey is a straw man.
1. I never said they presented hate mail, be it voice, e, or postal that equals or exceeds what Malkin presented. I wrote What they presented wasn't pretty. And it wasn't.
2. If they had something equal to, or worse than, those presented by Malkin, I would suspect that the editors would not allow those comments to make it into print media. Malkin presesnted excerpts on the internet. There are no "decency" rules that she has to live by.
Casey continues:
It is pretty clear from Malkin's column that she is writing that she expects the attacks to get worse, in light of the controversy with Armstrong Williams.
I've addressed this already. I find the argument specious.
Casey wrote:
Again, attention, EBrown. She wrote: "Over the past few months."
Malkin ended her blog entry by writing this:
You think it's going to get any better now?
I'm sorry, but that's putting some blame on Williams' action. Again, suppose the hate mail gets worse? Is it because of what she wrote, wider distribution, or the combination of the two?
Casey continues:
EBrown goes on to write: "She's whining. She's playing victocrat/victim/victimology."
Yep. I sure did.
Casey continues:
At this point I will speculate that EBrown is attempting to give Malkin, as the saying goes, "some of her own medicine."
Nope.
Casey continues:
Conservatives are constantly trying to catch liberals being racist and liberals are constantly trying to catch (minority) conservatives complaining about being discriminated against.
At last he write something to which I can agree and to which I find wasteful of time. But like I've written numerous times, I want consistancy.
Casey continues:
Unfortunately, there are people like EBrown with the poor reasoning skills he has just demonstrated who have trouble distinguishing among degrees.
Sorry, but Casey set up a straw man and is now arguing the straw man. In fact, I'll say Casey's reasoning is suspect when he argues something I never stated.
Casey continues:
In this case, Malkin is saying, look at what these idiots have been writing to me, and EBrown attempts to lump her in with anyone making up or exaggerating stories about racism.
I never mentioned racism. In fact, I included Richard Cohen so that no one would think I was just pointing out Black commentators. Cohen has written that he has received nasty mail based on some positions he's taken against Israel's actions. He has referenced being called a "self-hating Jew."
Casey continues:
Upon being challenged by one of his readers, EBrown somewhat revised his comments, saying:
"The comments are foul. But she's not the only one. So what if Armstrong Williams' actions cause a spike in commentary directed towards her?
Others deal with it."
Ummm....
Casey can't read.
Here's the full blog entry.
Here's what you need to see from it.
The email is foul, but still...
That was the original blog entry. So, in other words, I didn't restate anything. I wrote it was foul from the start.
Now, if you read the full entry, you will note that I put the blog entry up on January 12, 2005 11:10 PM.
The comment entry to which Casey refers was on January 14, 2005 10:11 PM. All comments on that blog entry start on January 14.
So, now, who has to apologize?
Gee... I feel like I'm back on USENET. ;-)