Amanda Marcottism of the Day

Quite excellent this. Amanda Marcotte rips off a rant:

Eric can’t understand why Susie Bright is on the left, and his reasoning seems to be that a) all he knows about Susie is she seems to know her way around a cock as do a lot of liberal chicks b) which is really unfair and nice wingnut guys like him deserve a little of the cock-touching action but all the sluts are on the left. Is it really too much to ask to have a girl and a couple of her bisexual friends tag team you before heading to the polls to vote for a ban on abortion and an end to comprehensive sex education and legal discrimination against those of them who might be leaning on the lesbian side of bisexual? Why on earth do the sex-loving ladies seem to think these things are at odds with each other?

Doubt that would excite Eric much actually.

Of course, the real world debate over women’s sexual freedom doesn’t even enter into Eric’s radar.

Well, not really his thing I agree.

He does extend his defense to prostitution and gay sex, but not gay people—he doesn’t rouse himself to defend gay marriage or fight against discrimination, leaving room for horrible laws affecting gay people while allowing straight-identified people to enjoy same sex couplings, a la Larry Craig or the imaginary bisexual free spirits who hate legal abortion.

Err, Eric is in fact a defender of gay people, although it\’s true he\’s against gay marriage.

Because the “leave people alone” philosophy, aka “libertarianism”, is a lie told to sucker stupid people into believing there’s something progressive about a neo-feudalist society. That has been Simple Answers To Stupid Questions You Should Have Asked.

What makes this all so amusing is that Eric, the one being shouted at here, is in fact gay. Possibly a Stupid Question that Should Have Been Asked?


8 thoughts on “Amanda Marcottism of the Day”

  1. It was a happier world when I believed that Amanda Marcotte was a flavour of ice cream. Curse you, Worstall, for disillusioning me.

  2. Maybe I’m misunderstanding something here – are you really praising this appalling harpie, Tim? She is everything which is wrong with blogging – gutter blogging.

    The commenter above uses choice language too but he has a brain.

    Tim adds: No James, I’m making fun of her.

  3. Amanda’s apparently tenuous grip on reality has yet to prevent one of her infamously convoluted diatribes, so it comes as no great surprise that she would ignore the obvious question. It would only detract from her preplanned screed of the day. Fomenting outrage is her schtick.

    Kudos on your new digs, BTW.

  4. I like it.

    Amanda accuses him (for no particular reason) of wanting to return to Victorian Values.


    So I then follow the link to Eric and he starts off by saying he’d happily legalise all drugs, which were all legal in Victorian times of course.

  5. Mark, you know that drugs *were* pretty much all legal in Victorian times, right?

    Tim adds: I’ve seen somewhere that the average annual consumption of opium in the UK in the 1870s/80s was 260 or so doses per capita (man , woman and child): usually in the form of laudanum.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *