Atlas Shrugged: The Mocking

Thursday, December 20, 2012

Double Down

A typical kindergarten class, as pictured by Megan McArdle.

Awesome art by Mike Mignola of Hellboy fame, found here.

As my helpful commenters and emailers noted, when confronted with an incredulous and mocking response on her latest stupidity, Megan McArdle inevitably doubles down with more stupidity.

Let's start with comments she made on her original post.
Peyton 1 day ago "encourage people to gang rush shooters," Yep. Those six year olds certainly fell down on the job by not rushing the grown man with the assault weapon. You are one sick bitca.
I always enjoy a Joss Whedon shout-out.
Man-who-asks-inconvenient-questions 1 day ago @Peyton 
It takes a village, don't you know?
Gorbud 1 day ago @Peyton Thanks keep pushing that lie. It helps you avoid any reasonable response to the story. She NEVER stated that these kids could have or should have rushed anyone. People like you usually pick out something and twist it into a lie just to discredit another person. Really what is wrong with you can't you read. Or does the reality of the government's and your own impotence in the face of evil you can't wish away cause some kind of breakdown in a logical thought process? Obama's magic wand won't work on this problem. The government can't in-fact solve everyone of the world's problems. Big news for the Liberal world. Impossible to accept.
Wishful thinking becomes reality to this poor self-deluded person. McArdle is a master at giving her audience just enough wiggle room to claim that she is not as stupid or venal as she appears. McArdle did not say kindergartners should have rushed the gunmen. She said "young people" should rush gunmen. Now she can claim she meant older kids, which is still indefensible but a little less laughable. Normal human beings would not want any "young people" rushing gunmen ever. They would want their kids and their kids' friends and classmates to run and hide and survive. But Megan McArdle is no longer a normal person. She sold her soul to the devil in exchange for a sous vide machine.
PeterBuka 1 day ago @Gorbud @Peyton ''I'd also like us to encourage people to gang rush shooters, rather than following their instincts to hide; if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly, because even a guy with a very powerful weapon can be brought down by 8-12 unarmed bodies piling on him at once.''What part of that is it you do not understand? If a sane person writes a sane article and finishes it off with complete insanity, that tends to reflect poorly on the sane portions of the article. Similar to Churchill being a savior and a racist at the same time. The racist part tends to smudge his good standing.
McArdle's own words condemn her.
MeganJ.McArdle 1 day ago @PeterBuka @Gorbud @Peyton You should read the rest of the article, in which I made fun of the idea that primary schoolers could have rushed Lanza.
Here is her usual claim that her critics did not read what she wrote. It's a pathetic response but less pathetic than her other typical response, that the critic did not understand what she wrote. And it sets up the lie in the rest of the sentence.

Do you want to know why Megan McArdle is rich and you aren't? Because Megan McArdle is a liar and you aren't. McArdle routinely lies, giant, honking, bald-faced lies, for a wide variety of reasons. Money, of course. Heh! Naturally she lies for money, because she can. There is nothing to stop her. She's not afraid of losing jobs or income; she knows she can always find someone who needs liars to peddle propaganda for them. She's not afraid of social ostracism; her friends, colleagues, and relatives obviously do not find her actions to be morally repellent either. If they did they kept quiet about it, for reasons of their own. So McArdle lies for money when she finds it furthers her ideological goals.

But there is much more to McArdle than greed, of course. There is also vanity, and McArdle lies to save face. This unusually wide-spread public humiliation threatens McArdle's carefully crafted and cultivated high opinion of herself. Prep school scarred her life, evidently. She went to very high prestige schools that most people worked extremely hard to enter. McArdle went to school with lot of very intelligent people over the years (as well as many idle upper class kids like herself). And let's face it, the poor dear just isn't very bright. It had to have been humiliating to be surrounded by people who could actually understand what the professor was saying and could say something intelligent in response. McArdle must be wise, witty, intellectual at all times and the only way she can achieve that goal is by lying, so she lies.
raskolnikovx9 1 day ago 
@MeganJ.McArdle @PeterBuka @Gorbud @Peyton No, but Megan you wrote the above statement and you did it in earnest. Care to retract and apologize? Because, beyond being so very stupid, its very, very offensive. Merl Lino 1 day ago @MeganJ.McArdle @PeterBuka @Gorbud @Peyton You didn't make fun of it you said you didn't know if it would work. You you say that about everything. Please explain what the words, "I would like to see." mean. You don't say that about everything else proposed. Don't wriggle. Admit you proposed something that is terribly wrong and for some unaccountable reason didn't realize that the instant your wrote it.  
Icewaterchrist 1 day ago 
@MeganJ.McArdle @PeterBuka @Gorbud @Peyton please quote that then, because I can't find it anywhere in your article.
She did not, because she could not.

People are very tempted to ignore lies because we all lie at times. We do not, however, make a career out of it. McArdle followed her first post with a couple more. In her next post on the shooting McArdle helpfully pointed out that "I was talking about teenagers, not first graders," not knowing that any parent would be just as appalled at the thought of their 14-year-old daughter rushing a man with an assault rifle.  McArdle explained that it's possible for adults to rush a gunman under some circumstances, although she did not explain why she gave that option as a response to yet another mass shooting of small children.

What often happens in these sorts of attacks is that people run and hide. Split up into ones and twos, they are easy targets for the shooters, who find it easy to pick off cowering people one by one. Unless the shooter's weapon is temporarily disabled--as seems to have happened with Loughner--one or two people are unlikely to be a match for a rifle or a handgun. But it seems to me that 8-12 people could be. Not an automatic weapon, of course, but automatic weapons are not usually used in these attacks, because it's been illegal to manufacture or sell more of these guns for civilian use since 1986. A semi-automatic weapon takes time to aim and fire, and hitting a moving target with a fatal shot is harder than hitting someone who is hiding under a desk.
Please remember that Megan McArdle is hair-splitting the death of children to prevent anyone from passing gun control laws. She has several other reasons why nobody can do anything ever, but let's skip to the end.
Obviously, it is beyond horrible to suggest that even a small number of attacks are largely unavoidable. I don't like saying it. Unfortunately, I think it's true. Which means that it's worth thinking about whether there is something--anything--that people in that situation could do to make them less fatal.
We can't stop random murders so we should not try to control gun sales, but we should try anything up to and including forcing all our teenagers to take SWAT training so they can run towards a man firing a semi-automatic weapon at them. But is McArdle really a liar if she was careful to avoid saying that small children should rush a gunman? Maybe her critics are being unfair by accusing her of wanting to put kids in mortal danger. Fortunately McArdle clears up this dilemma by lying once more about her response.
Merl Lino 1 day ago 
"But I was talking about teenagers, not first graders." You said in a reply to a comment that you meant it as a (very bad) joke. Now your make a different excuse, possibly because you also said you wanted to encourage it unlike other proposals you deem ineffective. Those you wanted to discourage and not recommend. You new response doesn't hold water. The human shield response is not a good one, and training teenagers to do it is absurd. You just reinforce the fact that you are totally without common sense.  
MeganJ.McArdle 20 hours ago 
@Merl Lino I didn't say that. You misread me.
Merl Lino 14 hours ago 
|I covered this, wyour wrote "MeganJ.McArdle 2 hours ago@PeterBuka @Gorbud @Peyton You should read the rest of the article, in which I made fun of the idea that primary schoolers could have rushed Lanza." I replied: "But she wrote, "I'd also like us to encourage people to gang rush shooters, rather than following their instincts to hide; if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly,.." In the rest of the article she expressed doubt that regulations would be effective, but didn't say she would "like to see them encouraged." She just can't seem to admit that her proposal is terribly wrong or explain why she did not realize that instantly as she wrote it." ----- Can you explain the fact that in the part I quoted you said you'd like to encourage human shield tactics even though you had doubts it would work, but you try to discourage regulations of guns which you also think might not work? set of proposals but discourage the other though you have doubts either of them will work? Then in your first response to that idea you said you were "making fun" of that suggestion? Now you say you were trying to encourage young people, not little kids? So then it was not you making fun, it was you trying to encourage teenagers--you now say--you wanted to gang up .Instead of retracting the suggestion you now elaborate it into a training program for teenagers to learn to react as human shields. You should just admit that it is a preposterous suggestion that you would like to retract.
She can't. She's trapped, by her ego and her lies. She deserves every bit of her humiliation.


Mr. Wonderful said...

We've seen this sort of thing before with MM: the conceit that, since she has a public forum on one subject, she has credibility posting about many subjects. Cooking, mass murder--if you can throw some MBA lingo at readers and be paid for it, shouldn't they also find your insights into other topics equally of interest?

In this case, classically, the cover-up is worse than the crime. Well, no, not worse; but so openly, egregiously dishonest, it becomes a new crime in itself.

Susan of Texas said...

Just look at the range of topics she picked the past few days. Legal rulings and Spanish politics as well as economics. She's quite the little Renaissance woman in her own mind.

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

You can have my gun...

Adam Eli Clem said...

Another winner, Susan.

Those of us who are blighted by a deep knowledge of McArdle's canon (or is it cannon?) aren't surprised by any of these fresh contortions. After her initial post on Newtown, I sent a letter to her bosses and posted it in her comments section. (No idea if it's still there, because I don't want to boost her hits count, which must already be in the stratosphere.) I noted that her modest proposal was clearly not made in jest, but that she might try to claim it was if her job was in jeopardy. Some friends of mine sent similar letters. And yet, I doubted she'd actually resort to such an obvious excuse, because running at full-speed away from the obvious is part of her brief as a crank.

I've read a lot of comments despairing of Tina Brown doing the obvious thing: firing McArdle. If worthy fame isn't on the rack, Brown will settle for wearing infamy, the thinking goes, and the almighty click will win the day. But Brown is a businessperson, presiding over a fragile enterprise, mulling whether or not to adopt a pay-for-play model for publishing content. If Cerberus could be persuaded that Bushmaster, a hot brand enjoying booming sales after Newtown, was simply too risky a holding for the long term, Tina Brown can be persuaded that McArdle isn't worth keeping. So, if you haven't already done so, I hope you'll send your comprehensive takedowns to

Downpuppy said...

I am Downpuppy. Downpuppy is a name that means who I am. I am not Megan McArdle. If I were Megan McArdle I would be foolish. I am not foolish. I am Downpuppy. Downpuppy is not Megan McArdle, who is a person I am not.

Kathy said...

Arglebargles' backtracking and lame-o lies are as usual as unbearable as her original "comments".

So- right smack in the middle of a blog about the horrific mass-murder of 5 year olds, she advocated that teenagers "rush" a killer, even tho it probably wouldn't work, since nothing really works does it?

Say what?

She's incapable of feeling humiliation, unless maybe she finds out her kitchen gadget is a fake/knockoff. Now that would be mortifying for her.

Anonymous said...

I suspect we'd have fewer suicide deaths if we taught young people to get Megan fired.

fish said...

If so many people are misreading her, perhaps she is not actually a very good writer.

A possibility she may not have considered.

Batocchio said...

Tellingly but not surprisingly, she wanted to buy a gun out of spite, and now she's pretending she was kidding when she wasn't. Yes, she's an awful writer, but this wasn't an artistic failure; it but was a lack of intellect and humanity.

It's also important to look at her imbecilic and monstrous comment in context. Some folks have argued, 'hey, in some situations rushing the shooter is your best option, even if it also sucks.' Fine. But McMegan proposed this, and did so in earnest, after dismissing a host of completely reasonable, practical and effective methods for reducing gun violence. As a few people have noted, this is classic libertarianism: attacking the practical and effective (and democratic) on the grounds of ideology (and personal privilege), while arguing instead for something completely impractical, ineffective, and contrary to human nature.

Dan Coyle said...

McArdle responds to her comments?

I have to lie down now.

Anonymous said...

Sullivan nominated her for a Malkin for that one.
I hope she wins.

Kathy said...

After the college shooting, gunnuts blamed students & teachers for not "charging" and overpowering the shooter. Then it was discovered several persons DID, and were killed for their efforts.

Now Arglebargle suggests the little children should have charged the killer. The school's president did so, and was shot dead.

She doesn't live in a bubble, she's living in a waking coma. Someone should harvest her organs.

Kathy said...

eh- schools Principal, not president.