Tweet
When the exiled online gets stuff right, it really makes me shiver with pure glee.
But then, they also do low-quality “hit pieces” on people like Jane and Glenn Greenwald and take potshots at people like Chris Hedges, which makes me never want to look at their site ever again, much less donate or volunteer.
The hit piece on Jane was just…nonsense. Hateful, evil, misogynistic nonsense, at that. For real. The “expose” on Glenn Greenwald was also incredibly weak. The newest potshot at Hedges is still more of the same.
If they were untalented, actually stupid idiots this wouldn’t bother me so much. But they are really brilliant journalists and writers a lot of the time! They can be wickedly insightful and funny. But the mindless woman-hate against Jane, etc is just intolerable. And they keep doing that sort of stuff, trying to “expose” people who are for real good guys, using lameness and failing miserably, repeatedly.
I should probably put this in their comments instead of posting this here. But I’m not sure my comment won’t be edited down to “bla bla bla whiney botox liberal menstrual time bullshit bla bla bla”" over there.
Really, Marc and Yasha, you are so brilliant. Just please, please keep to exposing for real bad guys, not flawed but normal and good folks like Jane and Glenn.
I know I’m less than a nobody, but you’re alienating a lot of your readership. Jane has called for every single member of the congressional progressive caucus to be challenged by the left, by independents. She’s really really not part of the neoliberal plot. Swear to god. And “botox liberal” is just beyond the pale. Really. That’s some libertardian horseshit right there.
10 Comments
I’m not sure what it is with them — I think it’s their misogyny, which I notice isn’t shared by John “Gary Brecher” Dolan, aka The War Nerd. He, too, likes to say provocative and often offensive things, particularly when he’s being War Nerd as it’s the guise he uses to reach otherwise-unreachable gamer/war geeks who pride themselves on being rude, crude and socially unacceptable, but he’s not going to go out and look for underage hookers to screw, much less write about it the way Ames did.
The only other thing I can think of is that they are afraid that the efforts of Jane, Glennzilla et al to hold people accountable will let Romney win, when in fact what Jane, Glennzilla et al are doing is merely what Obama said he wanted the people who voted for him to do: make him do things.
Exactly.
I just looked over there, and assume it is this Mike Elk article — http://exiledonline.com/jane-hamsher-unplugged-and-unhinged-dare-to-criticize-hamshers-appalling-labor-record-and-this-is-what-youll-get/ — you’re upset about. I agree it is a lame and sad attack on Jane, in part because I like what Mike Elk has written about in the past, and enjoy his appearances on Russia Today television. Also, let’s be clear that, although the article is incoherent in many ways and places, your implication that Elk called Jane a ‘botox liberal’ is definitely wrong.
Just as an aside, I hate it when people call themselves “less than nobody.” You’re my fellow awesome myfdl blogger and that’s somebody.
“There ain
t no good guys
There ain’t no bad guys
There’s only you and me
And we just disagree.”
Nice Jane Hamsher ass-kissing piece.
Doesn’t seem to contain any intellectual value whatsoever.
And you know this how?
I know it by reading it. There is zero substantiation for any of the writer’s claims to refute anything written on Exiledonline, which is an excellent, bi-partisan site not afraid to be more than a cheerleader.
This is cheerleading. Rah-rah-rah Go Jane Lets beat the BAd Guys, We are the Good Guys.
Exactly the same drivel one reads at right wing sites.
Jane Hamsher isnt a good guy or a bad guy.
She’s just a guy. One who makes untold amounts of money off people just like you.
I actually referred to Ames et al as FELLOW good guys. I don’t expect perfection from allies, and can forgive a limited amount of anything, including even sexism.
Regarding refuting the exiled article…that article speaks for itself if you read the exchange carefully. I could go into a tedious point by point takedown, but suffice to say, advertising the exchange as an expose of Jane is false advertising.
Really, I’m just wondering what’s up with those guys attacking fellow lefties. It might be as innocent as having one’s radar set to paranoid generally being useful, but these are some cases of serious misjudgments from over-paranoia? Or is it just attention-mongering, or what?
I read the article twice, it made very specific criticisms of Jane Hamsher in relation to some of her labour views with respect to making large bling off the work of unpaid bloggers, noted by the author to be similar to notable fake leftist Ariana Huffington.
I found the exchange intriguing and the topic interesting. I’m currently writing a series of diaries on the Brett Kimberlin versus Andrew Breitbart saga. I see that affair largely as a marketing and self-promotion scheme, a way to shake the donor tree.
Money of course is just as close to the root of all big league blogging as it is to the concept of evil.
I think that may have something to do with whats up with this guy attacking Jane Hamsher. He’s a labour guy. She’s a yuppie entrepreneur.
I don’t think anyone owes her loyalty simply because she’s a “fellow lefty.” That smacks of loyalty oaths, which are , er, a rightwing specialty not generally or historically associated with the left.
Your opinion that the writer is making misjudgments is based on what, exactly, beyond your opinion? Are you in a position to make a point by point takedown of the exchange? If so I wouldnt find that tedious. I find pure cheerleading tedious.
I have to agree with donkeytale, and not only because he’s my handler. This diary contains absolutely nothing to back up its arguments. I’m skimming through the link provided by failreft which Athena didn’t even post and am seeing there is much more juiciness to this specific blog war than she attributed. I don’t understand what the point of Athena’s entry is, since its nothing more than a hey let’s support Jane without even considering what he conflict is about. So if this entry was certainly mailed in, why am I supposed to feel even a tinge of gumption to come up with some of my usual brilliant socratisation? Hmmph!
I’d write more but it would probably be censored. The truth is out there. The internet left is as very much a scam as their right wing counterpart.