Confidence games

Advice Goddess has some rather scathing words for Rebecca Solnit's piece on being silenced by men who patronize her.

I have to say, I actually recognize the phenomenon that Solnit is talking about. About once a month, some liberal blogger links to a piece I have written, declaring that I am an idiot who doesn't know what I'm talking about. The subject is almost always economics. Often the liberal blogger himself doesn't know anything about the topic, but having heard other people assure him that I am a complete idiot who doesn't know what she's talking about, he feels on relatively safe grounds. Frequently, he also links to a criticism of what I have written that does not, in fact, prove that I am a complete idiot who does not know what she is talking about.

The fun begins when the readers begin emailing and commenting to the effect that I am a complete idiot who does not know what she is talking about. For they all have two things in common:

1) They are men

2) They really, really have no idea what they are talking about. When I write back pointing out the elementary errors they have made, providing an elementary explanation, and a question as to, say, which model of minimum wage employment they are endorsing, they "softly and silently vanish away".

I'm pretty sure that if I were a man, most of them would not agressively accuse me of knowing nothing about the topic I write on solely based on the assurance of someone else who knows nothing about the topic I write on. Perhaps I am wrong, having never been a man, but based on watching public interactions between same, I surmise that the attacker would credit the notion that the man might have done something--other than being cute and possessing ovaries--to get his job, and therefore leave room for himself to back down. He would not start on the assumption that the man would be unable to respond to the overwhelming power of "you're an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about."

But complaining that they push me into silence would be shameful. First of all, it misses the most important point about these people, which is that they are completely hilarious. These stories are completely hilarious even when the person involved is not a pompous jerk--I laughed for about an hour at a story told by a scientist that involved explaining some major physics theorem to the airline passenger next to him, only to find that he was explaining it to the guy who had discovered it. But when you add cocksure misogyny to the picture, you've got comedy gold. I like to circulate the funnier emails to friends in the economics profession--it's hours of fun for the entire family.

But beyond that, really, who cares? Are you seriously going to outsource the design of your social persona to some guy who thinks that women who disagree with him are definitionally stupid? The behavior is sociologically interesting and socially annoying, but on the list of things that has radically impaired my life, this ranks well below the TSA. Honestly, the hardest part of these encounters is that awkward moment when he realizes that you know what you're talking about and he, alas, does not. Everyone pauses in silent embarassment. But I have learned that you can ride out your empathetic shame by fumbling in your pocketbook for a mint.

I don't mean to excuse their behavior; they're sexist jerks. But the correct response to sexist jerks is to ignore them and speak the hell up anyway. Eventually, the declining returns to being a sexist jerk will drive the species into extinction.

Comments

Hey - I'm a trained Misogynist and you are a complete idiot who doesn't know the first thing about misogyny.

Posted by Sexist Jerk | April 20, 2008 2:50 PM

So your response to legitimate criticism is to focus on the gender of the critic and use that as the lens by which to dismiss their points?
Sexism doesn't defuse sexism, Megan.
Oh, and we're still waiting for you to show a single comment that called you a lesbian and/or skinny. Maybe one has shown up by now.

Posted by brad | April 20, 2008 3:01 PM

Now we have to explain why Kathy G. came to the same conclusion as all those mysogynists. It just doesn't make sense.

Posted by Russell L. Carter | April 20, 2008 3:17 PM

"1) They are men"

If we're talking about Email, how could you possibly know this?

"I'm pretty sure that if I were a man, most of them would not agressively accuse me of knowing nothing about the topic I write on solely based on the assurance of someone else who knows nothing about the topic I write on"

I'm not a male blogger, but I have considerable difficulty believing male (and female) bloggers don't get this treatment all the time. In fact, this sounds pretty standard for the blogosphere.

Posted by J | April 20, 2008 3:22 PM

Are you saying that critic Kathy G over a The G Spot is a man?

Posted by Frank Rizzoo (a woman) | April 20, 2008 3:23 PM

Ma'am, intellectual contempt is a signature vice of a particular sort of political discourse. (My own likely has other signature vices, but when you are inside, it is harder to see than when you are outside). That you are female may influence its mode and probability of expression, but it will often appear quite apart from that.

I have had occasion over the last couple of years to encounter sites whose purpose was refuting the utterances of particular persons (Mark Shea and Rod Dreher). These were rather more substantive and less verbose than the stalker crew that is hounding you, so you may have a point, but those chaps are not worth your attention.

Please note that there is a rhetorical aspect to political argument, and this has both a verbal and non-verbal component. You benefit from your femininity as well as being injured by it.

Posted by Art Deco | April 20, 2008 3:24 PM

I'm pretty sure that if I were a man, most of them would not agressively accuse me of knowing nothing about the topic

C'mon, this is just the nature of "man-fight." Often, the opening salvo is an accusation that your opponent is the biggest moron in the world.

While, maybe, women don't attack you in this fashion, ask other male bloggers if men attack them in this way.

While certainly an idiotic tactic, if anything, it shows they're not treating under special "girl rules."

Posted by Ray Midge | April 20, 2008 3:43 PM

I read your work, precisely because you seem to know what you are talking about - which puts you head and shoulders above many (most) bloggers out there. I would imagine that any blogger that didn't tow standard 'liberal' lines on economic issues would be similarly flamed, whether it is worse for you because of your gender, I obviously cannot say. But sound economics has always taken a beating in the liberal blogosphere. One need look no further than the bashing that The Economist gets at sites like MyDD and DailyKos to see what I mean.

Posted by Male Liberal/Progressive | April 20, 2008 3:46 PM

"2) They really, really have no idea what they are talking about. When I write back pointing out the elementary errors they have made, providing an elementary explanation, and a question as to, say, which model of minimum wage employment they are endorsing, they "softly and silently vanish away'."

I don't think I've ever read any of these exchanges where you point out your critics' "elementary errors." I've read your rants about how stupid your critics are and how they don't understand what you've written. But I've never seen any exchange where you conclusively show that your critics are wrong about some ascertainable fact. Usually you just tell them that their opinions are wrong.

Are these exchanges secret and off the record? Why don't you post them on your blog?

Posted by Blake | April 20, 2008 3:53 PM

Seems to me flaming is SOP for economics discussions in blogs, because everyone fancies himself an amateur economist (probably because the rival ideologies have rather fixed (or at least slowly-changing) ideas about the role of the government in economies.

My favorite argument from the left is that the original writer is obviously an idiot who never took any Econ courses beyond 101 and 102, whereas the commenter has taken 201 and 202, which revealed that the assumptions behind classical economics don't (or rarely) hold, therefore it follows that classical economics is nonsense and the government should control everything.

Posted by Don K | April 20, 2008 4:04 PM

One need look no further than the bashing that The Economist gets at sites like MyDD and DailyKos

Kevin Drum's comment section is impressively hostile to even the most banal economic truisms -- I think because he tends to conclude his posts with "ergo, government=good."

Posted by Creamy Goodness | April 20, 2008 4:28 PM

I can't speak for the whole male sex, but, being male (most days), I've certainly made blog comments stating that the author had no idea what he was talking about on Yglesias's site (often) and on Kevin Drum's (less often, because he's less of twerp). I try to say nice things on this site, because I like girls.

Posted by y81 | April 20, 2008 4:33 PM

I'm inclined to think that the attacks are ones of opportunity and not primarily misoginist in nature. They are looking for somebody to dominate, bully. A percentage of these men might not be capable of displaying agression in person, so doing it on the web may provide an outlet.

Their object is not to prove that you're stupid, the idea is to show that they can intimidate you. Of course, it's pretty sad when a man has to prove how tough and alpha he is by intimidating women instead of other men, but you do what you gotta do.

The reason guys are willing to do this to women more than other men, is that men tend to respond to empty headed aggression with agression, whether they are right or wrong. Many women who are in the right, will hesitate to engage an unreasoning agressive man.

So, when a publicly respected woman does not answer him, it proves that he is the bigger man. He doesn't pick on women because he thinks they can't answer him, he does it because he hopes they wont.

Posted by quoth | April 20, 2008 4:33 PM

yes, aggression has 2 Gs thank you. I'm not ashamed of mispelling misogynist though.

Posted by quoth | April 20, 2008 4:36 PM

I'm inclined to say that we (intelligent, thoughtful women of a certain era) tend to see this type of chest bumping by men as something they wouldn't do to other men. I don't know if that is normally the case.

When I find men making condicending comments to me in the office (and it happens) I usually call them on it pretty overtly ("Wow, was that supposed to come out that condicendingly?") and generally they blanch and apologize. I think often it's not concious.

Posted by Kate | April 20, 2008 4:46 PM

The only flaw in your logic is that you are, in fact, an idiot.

The fact that you can't cite a single example of an inaccurate criticism proves the fact.

The fact that you think anyone would believe you circulate these fictitious e-mails to people in the "economics profession" confirms it.

Posted by Gender Neutral Commenter | April 20, 2008 4:50 PM

1) They are men"

If we're talking about Email, how could you possibly know this?

Because, when someone with a pair fires off a flaming e-mail, the testosterone oozes from the pores of his fingers, through the keyboard, into the computer, and attaches itself to the e-mail. It's detectable on the other end, particularly to the chromosomally-challenged.

Blog comments are the same, BTW. Admit it, you can feel it right now. :)

(Also, I know this is true, cuz I read it on teh intarw3bz, there are linguistic/stylistic cues which point to gender. Often, first names are a dead giveaway.)

When I write back pointing out the elementary errors they have made, providing an elementary explanation ...

You really write back? So, if I want an economics tutor, I could whip up a quick e-mail on, say, government theft via the hidden tax of seniorage on fiat currency, and advocating a return to the gold standard, and you'd attempt to set me straight? What's your e-mail address?

Posted by jed | April 20, 2008 5:08 PM

MM,

come up with the examples you are alluding to, or be quiet. impugning yourself, thusly, should not be done in mixed company..

im·pugn (m-pyn)
tr.v. im·pugned, im·pugn·ing, im·pugns
To attack as false or questionable; challenge in argument: impugn a political opponent's record.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Middle English impugnen, from Old French impugner, from Latin impugnre : in-, against; see in-2 + pugnre, to fight; see peuk- in Indo-European roots.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

im·pugna·ble adj.
im·pugner n.

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words AntonymsVerb 1. impugn - attack as false or wrong
challenge - issue a challenge to; "Fischer challenged Spassky to a match"

Posted by MEH | April 20, 2008 5:33 PM

Megan,

I preface this comment with the fact that (other than the ridiculous way you spell your name -- my wife assures me it requires an H after the G) I really enjoy your blog and, perhaps admittedly because you confirm some (but not all) of my economic biases, consider your material interesting and informative. I think you are entirely mistaken in this matter however.

As a previous commenter mentioned briefly, this is essentially how men argue when they are NOT taking the opponent's gender into account AND they are not particularly knowledgeable in the subject but disagree anyway IMO. Men will often construct an argument like this: "A is wrong because you're an idiot. B is right and here's why (insert reasons, correct or not here). And if you can't see that, you're an idiot." To my observation women will go out of their way to separate the argument from the individual unless they have decided that the opponent is disagreeing because they are a "bad" person. Then the argument tends to proceed as "A is wrong because it is hurtful. And if you believe it you're a bad person."

I don't know if it helps or not but basically I think you're just being exposed to men whom the internet has released from the socially imposed notion that "you don't hit girls."

Posted by BladeDoc | April 20, 2008 5:35 PM

For what it's worth, I'm a man, and I don't think you're an idiot. I don't think you care much about, or even understand, the bottom 3/4 of society, but I don't think you're an idiot.

Posted by mad6798j | April 20, 2008 5:37 PM

Like the others I wonder how much of this is sexism: I will bet there is some, but it will be difficult to isolate, to know when a particular case is sexist (perhaps a bit like it is difficult to know if this storm is a result of global warming). Like you say, ignoring it is definitely the way to go.

Posted by Chris Dornan | April 20, 2008 5:49 PM

I'm inclined to say that we (intelligent, thoughtful women of a certain era) tend to see this type of chest bumping by men as something they wouldn't do to other men. I don't know if that is normally the case.

It's been my experience that blowhards are that way to everyone. In male company they tend to get called on it, and come to view that accusatory tone of conversation as normal interaction. I suspect many don't realize that many women view this as offensively condescending or patronizing.

As an aside, wtf is with all the trolls, like Gender Neutral Commentator?

Posted by Justin JJ | April 20, 2008 5:59 PM

Eh, I've seen epithets hurled at nearly every blogger. I don't think you're receiving any particular attention Megan. You do seem to have the right attitude towards sexists, anyways. However, I think it would be more enjoyable for all if you were to post these witty emails and your accompanying banter.

Posted by LnGrrrR | April 20, 2008 6:00 PM

Post the damn emails so we can decide who's right.

I'm not just going to take your word for it that all of your critics are wrong and that you're always right about everything you've ever written--and can prove it with your secret emails to them.

And if a critic posted about one of your many spelling errors, would that be because of misogyny?

Posted by Mortimer Madler | April 20, 2008 6:10 PM

It's pretty lame to complain about male blowhard bloggers who use hyperbole, only to then offer up nothing but hardblown hyperbole yourself.

'They're always men who really, really don't know what they're talking about.' (Surely some of them are not men, and surely some of them are right some of the time, just as you are sometimes wrong.*)

I laughed for an hour... (No, you didn't. And even if you did, why would you admit to anyone that such a lame fucking story made you laugh for AN HOUR?)

Everyone pauses in silent embarrassment... (Who's "everyone"? How many people? Who are they?)

*Are you just too lazy to offer up any evidence of these clashes and smackdowns, wherein Misogynist Blogger gets put in his place by Megan Who's Never Wrong? It would seem to serve your purpose to do so. Glenn Greenwald does this all the time, and it works well because one can actually read what words were exchanged and decide for oneself if Glenn was right. Instead of offering evidence, you're just saying, "No, THEY'RE the idiots. Trust me."

It's like Hannity holding up a chubby fist full of papers to connote that he's saying something that is based on truth or evidence. It's a sham.

Posted by tinisoli | April 20, 2008 6:32 PM

I've been called names, too, in comments on your blog. I'm not sure that the attacks are driven by sexism, though maybe in a way. I wouldn't be surprised if some of it is related to the way young boys will pull on the pigtails of girls they like while pretending they are "yucky."

I'm glad that you don't take the comments personally. Unfortunately, that's hard for some people. Those people probably should not blog or should turn off blog comments and not read their critics...

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | April 20, 2008 6:33 PM

I'd have to agree that there are plenty of sullen passive-aggressive critics hanging around here, certainly more than would seem warranted. And they come back for more too. Perhaps you're being too reasonable.

Much of the opposition seems to be on the level "nope, you're obviously wrong; you're an idiot". Impressive arguments from anonymous authority, no less. Or just daycare level contradiction, of course.

Posted by Tom | April 20, 2008 6:48 PM

In general, I doubt that women are more targets of poo-pooing than men are. I am a man, and I have had plenty of poo-pooing myself.

I even must confess to BEING patronizing on rare occasions. My karaoke DJ once showed up to our dance studio (we were having an open house for new students). I asked her to dance, only to be rejected - she said she only came to watch! That was pretty devastating, since at our studio asking was generally a formally that was always answered with yes.

Some months later we met again at a bar where she was bartending, and she took a break to dance with me. She followed smoothly, gracefully. Surprised, I commented "You know, you are really rather good at this!" "Oh," she replied, "I danced professionally in New York City for three years." Ummm, my face might very well have been red. Her name was Meghan, by the way, and when she left town the event made the cover of our local free newspaper.

Anyway, while I still doubt the phenonemon that Megan is reporting is all that sex-based, I HAVE noticed that Megan gets WAY more than her share, and that it often easily goes past patronizing to out-and-out trolling. Sorry, no explanation...her OWN style seems humorous, conciliatory, not really a provocation to intellectual mortal combat. Perhaps she is on some kind of special troll hit-list.

Posted by Jens Fiederer | April 20, 2008 7:22 PM

Megan,

The misogyny you point out is real, but it is merely spice. Contempt is the main course.

Someone upthread pointed out Kathy G. as one of your female critics (the implication being, I suppose, that if women buy in, it can't be misogynist). Her attack line, like that of your male critics, is simply that you don't know what you're talking about. The evidence for this is that you disagree with them. Therefore, you must be an idiot, dishonest, or both.

If your stomach is feeling strong today, go back and read that Village Voice piece. Don't bother with the section about you, read the rest of it. It's a 1500 word sneer. It attacked you in misogynist terms because that was convenient. But contempt for anyone of a conservative bent filled the entire piece.

The same attitude can be found in your own personal troglodytes. They don't hate you because you're a woman, they hate you because you're not a liberal. Everything else is just posturing. (Please note, before every liberal on these boards takes offense, I'm referring specifically to Margalis and his ilk, not to the bulk of our liberal commenters. If you've never looked at a Margalis post and thought "Hey, that's pretty clever," then you're probably not one of the people I'm referring to.)

Posted by heedless | April 20, 2008 7:41 PM

To my observation women will go out of their way to separate the argument from the individual

I can see your domestic life and work life have been different from mine.

Posted by Art Deco | April 20, 2008 7:51 PM

Interestingly, I am finishing the response I started to Kathy G. two weeks ago right now. Also interestingly, her commenters were among the worst offenders.

Mortimer, I'm not claiming that all of my critics are wrong; I also get a lot of interesting critical emails and comments. I'm responding to a certain style of email, in which males (they pretty much always include their names, though of course there could be a lot of females on the internet with names like "steve" and "tom" bizarrely throw down in an area where I clearly have at least some domain knowledge, and they just at clearly have none.

I'm happy to start a tinfoil hat brigade award; I'll pick out the best email and comment tonight.

Posted by Megan McArdle | April 20, 2008 8:11 PM

Everyone else addressed reason #1 that Megan gets the hate, that she's not a liberal (and she writes for the Atlantic, which has a relentlessly partisan audience).

There's a reason #2 that she gets dismissed because she is female: it's rational (as a first guess). Any given economics / politics blogger will attain more fame and eyeballs if it is know that she's female. Look at libertarian girl: some blogger who got no traffic put a pic of a woman from a mail order bride site up as the "about me" pic and made occasional posts about dating and attracted a huge numbers of readers and got 100+ comments per post. Basically being female pushes you way up the food chain in the policy / econ blog world so it's a good assumption that any given female blogger isn't going to be that knowledgeable and her arguments aren't going to be that well reasoned. In Megan's case, this isn't true as she is very well grounded in econ and writes well reasoned, balanced posts but she gets tagged with the assumption anyway; it's the downside of the free fame that goes to female econ bloggers. Sure, it'll get you a noticed and the notice will get you a job with the economist but there's a downside.

Posted by Steve Johnson | April 20, 2008 8:30 PM

Are these people as hilarious as you stamping your feet and writing six different posts on the same topic when you get called out for being a moron?

The problem isn't that you are a woman, it's that you are an ego-centric clown incapable of either learning or admitting error.

"But beyond that, really, who cares?"

Based on the fact that you wrote a long post about it, the answer appears to be "Megan McArdle." Was that a trick question?

What happened to your newfound humility? Keep telling yourself that everyone who disagrees with you is an ignorant sexist pig. No doubt when they are right they are "right for the wrong reasons" anyway.

I don't think I've ever seen you win a public argument, though I've seen you get destroyed time after time. Must be because logic and reality are horribly sexist. (Even when your opponent is a women - hmm...)

The reason Megan gets so many negative comments is obvious. She has a very unique mix of shallowness, ideological inconsistency and petulant self-justification. She also seems like maybe she should be kindof sortof smart, but for whatever reason she just isn't. At all.

It seems that she's learned that she can vomit out whatever she wants then spend her mental energy creating elaborate justifications for her inanity, including this "don't hate me because I'm a girl" idiocy. It never occurs to her that she should instead focus her energy on not being a nitwit to begin with.

Low-rent Camille Paglia without the prose stylings. At least Paglia can turn a phrase.

Posted by Margalis | April 20, 2008 8:37 PM

I should point out another reason Megan gets so many negative comments is that she reacts to them in a spectacularly trainwreck fashion. I can't think of another blogger around who will post not once, not twice, not three time, but five or six times in rapid succession on the same subject because someone said something that got her (unisex) underoos in a bunch, each post being successively more hilariously awful.

It's good entertainment.

I suspect that past her smug superiority she suffers from extreme self-esteem issues. She appears incapable of shrugging things off. Just look at her reaction to "lipstick libertarian." She has a skin like tissue paper.

Posted by Margalis | April 20, 2008 8:45 PM

I laughed for about an hour at a story told by a scientist that involved explaining some major physics theorem to the airline passenger next to him, only to find that he was explaining it to the guy who had discovered it.

I know a story that involves a mathematician going to Japan and giving a lecture on stochastic calculus to a room full of Japanese mathematicians. At one point, someone in the back raised his hand and said, "I think you need to add a term here." The mathematician replied, "Oh, you're referring to Ito's formula," and just as he was starting to explain it, the entire room starting chuckling. Of course, the questioner himself was Kiyoshi Ito.

Posted by John Thacker | April 20, 2008 8:49 PM

Is it just me, or are most of the dissenting comments above telling Megan that...she doesn't know what she's talking about?

I've seen men attack each other pretty bluntly and openly by saying that the other doesn't know what he's talking about, sure. But when that happens, it seems to be more about the particulars of the conversation or topic at hand--I don't usually see it as attacking one's fundamental base of knowledge on the topic. Which is what happens in the phenomenon (actually, it's not a phenomenon; it happens all the time) Solnit is describing.

I also find it hilarious that Advice Goddess says that this doesn't happen to her. She writes on relationships, one area in which women are presumed to be authorities and do much of the heavy lifting. Yeah, I don't hear a lot of men assuming I know jack about hair dye, you know?

Posted by a.w. | April 20, 2008 8:53 PM

But when that happens, it seems to be more about the particulars of the conversation or topic at hand...

At some point it stops being worthwhile because Megan refuses to respond, will not concede anything and will simply no-sell any legitimate complaint. What is it she said in one of the Iraq threads? "The only person here who has made a serious criticism about my thought process is myself" or something to that effect, while blabbering about her newfound humility.

I'm still waiting for her to explain why the US can and should maintain a global hegemony through force and how that jibes with her "libertarian" views. I'm also waiting for her to get around to listening to the people who were "right for the right reasons" about Iraq instead of just spewing out post after post about how we shouldn't be listening to people who are right about stuff because being wrong all the time is where it's at.

But I'm not holding my breath.

I suspect writing "I was wrong" without paragraphs of obfuscation and justification would shatter her ego entirely. It's really quite boring to have a serious discussion with someone so patently non-serious, who is so emotionally invested and so desperate to protect her ego that she can literally never, ever, be wrong about anything without a million deflections and equivocations explaining how she was totally right somehow and if she was wrong it's only because the people who were right were still mystifyingly to blame.

If she stops writing and acting like a small child she'll stop being treated like one. Until then I say let the underoos jokes flourish.

Posted by Margalis | April 20, 2008 9:15 PM

"I'm still waiting for her to explain why the US can and should maintain a global hegemony through force and how that jibes with her "libertarian" views."--Margalis

This, the above, is an effective delamination of the label that she, MM, applies to herself, and the Reality of her core beliefs.

Posted by MEH | April 20, 2008 9:23 PM

explain why the US can and should maintain a global hegemony through force

Because the world will be a better - albeit not perfect - place if we do, comrades.

Posted by Occam's Beard | April 20, 2008 9:46 PM

Sorry anthropomorphic beard, I forgot that coercion at gunpoint for the betterment of greater society is the central tenet of libertarianism.

Posted by Margalis | April 20, 2008 10:05 PM

Who said anything about libertarianism? I'm talking about realism.

Posted by Occam's Beard | April 20, 2008 10:32 PM

"I'm still waiting for her to explain why the US can and should maintain a global hegemony through force and how that jibes with her "libertarian" views."--Margalis

Because not all cultures are equal in either morality OR productivity, and that those with the ability to prevent killing and tyranny have a duty to do so.

Ask the Kurds how they feel, or the Marsh Arabs.

This sort of reasoning comes over that hoary rubric of the left that "violence never solves anything."

As if.

Ask the Carthaginians. They got solved pretty good.

A last question for you, Margalis, or any other interested parties.

If there were one nation, other than the USA, with global hegemony, which would you prefer it be?

Marcus

Posted by Marcus | April 21, 2008 2:34 AM

Ideas, ideas. Your suggestion that the sexist meme is doomed to failure is interesting... yet the empirical evidence seems to contradict the point. How, then, would that play out?

Posted by KIA | April 21, 2008 3:45 AM

Margalis - you've repeated yourself for no particular reason and exhibited precisely the sort of vapid insults Megan complains about.

What's worse, you used the phrase "very unique".

Good lord, if you're so sick of Megan's complaints, why are you here embarassing yourself over them?

Posted by "Mindles H. Dreck" | April 21, 2008 6:03 AM

Two things:

1) Don't cut and paste the fucking dictionary. I suppose it looks smart, but it really isn't.

2) Anybody who reads the comments at this blog has seen many examples of what Megan is talking about--- idiotic nitpicking (hey guys its a blog not a doctoral thesis), insulting and contemptuous non sequiturs, and just general troll like behavior. Citing examples would be redundant since the trolls have already provided many prime examples in this thread.

I'm not even the target and I'm sick of it.

Posted by Toxic | April 21, 2008 10:15 AM

Megster,

I can assure you that male bloggers are attacked with the same vitriol that you are attacked. Just read Yglesia's blog. People tell him that he is full of crap all the time, and I tell male bloggers and posters that they don't know what they are talking about all the time. Your assumption that your attacks come because you are a woman is interesting. It suggests that you, like many women, believe that there is a "boy's club" and that men don't really compete with each other or cut each other's throats. I think you'll find, by reading some male blogs and rifling through comments section, that this is not the case. As my friends are fond of saying, "it's a Snoop Doggy Dogg world".

Posted by freddiemac | April 21, 2008 10:57 AM

P.S., can you imagine the snarking you'd receive if you were fat?

Posted by freddiemac | April 21, 2008 11:02 AM

This shit has got to wear you down sometimes though.

Posted by J. Beaman | April 21, 2008 11:10 AM

Well, I called you an idiot because you made the off hand, unsubstantiated comment that it was your understanding that most international lawyers regard the Nuremberg Trials as nothing more than "show trials." I called you an idiot because, frankly, you had no idea what you were talkng about. Read it here if you are willing:

Link

Posted by Steven D | April 21, 2008 11:51 AM

Well, I called you an idiot because you made the off hand, unsubstantiated comment that it was your understanding that most international lawyers regard the Nuremberg Trials as nothing more than "show trials." I called you an idiot because, frankly, you had no idea what you were talking about. Read it here if you are willing:

Link

Posted by Steven D | April 21, 2008 11:53 AM

@ Steven D - I read your article and it was garbage. A "Show trial" is one at which the outcome is pre-determined, i.e. there is absolutely no chance that the defendant will be acquitted no matter what the merits of the defense might be. Saddam Hussein's trial is an excellent recent example of a show trial. His conduct was fully consistent with that of pretty much all of his peers, meaning other rulers of similar countries, and the testimony against him was weak, uncorroborated by science and would never have been sustained in any western court. Moreover, double-standards were applied with wild abandon since his conduct was essentially no different than other world leaders.

In a western court, using western understandings of international law, principles of national sovereignty and evidentiary rules, he would not have been convicted.

What did we see instead? We saw judges being switched out until they got one who would convict. We saw the defense attorneys being denied legitimate objections. We saw them walk out of court because the offenses were so egregious. It was a sham of a trial - a show trial. There was never any doubt by anybody that he would be convicted and executed no matter what.

Ms. McCardle used the term properly and her comment to the effect that most scholars consider the Nuremburg trials to have been "show trials" was correct. That is how they are considered despite the points you cited. The United Nations' adoption of anything has never carried any substantive weight in the world - for the US routinely ignores them - and the Nuremburg principles you cited certainly were not adopted with respect to Saddam Hussein's trial. In fact, a fair reading of that very resolution you cited would implicate the currrent United States government as war criminals.

On balance, your bile seems gravely misplaced.

Posted by KIA | April 21, 2008 1:12 PM

Just because the Nuremberg trials punished many of the undeniably guilty does not make them fair trials. One example of a conviction that many - even of the Allied officers - found unjust was that of Karl Doenitz.

He was charged with (Wikipedia here) (1) conspiracy to commit crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity; (2) Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression; and (3) crimes against the laws of war.

He was acquitted on the first charge and convicted on the last two - although the last one was not taken that seriously because the orders he gave that made him guilty (not attempting to rescue survivors of submarine strikes) were also given by the allies - since rescue attempts exposed the submarines to attacks.

That left the second charge, to which he commented "One of the ‘accusations' that made me guilty during this trial was that I met and planned the course of the war with Hitler; now I ask them in heaven's name, how could an admiral do otherwise with his country's head of state in a time of war?"

Posted by Jens Fiederer | April 21, 2008 2:10 PM

His conduct was fully consistent with that of pretty much all of his peers, meaning other rulers of similar countries,

It most certainly was not. Freedom House has offered since 1973 assessments of the civil liberties and political rights in countries the world over. The scores of no other Arab country (and few countries in the world generally) were as abysmal as that of Iraq. Authoritarianism is the default in the Arab world; 290,000 disappearances (Human Rights Watch's estimate) is not.

Posted by Art Deco | April 21, 2008 2:38 PM

Jens:

That left the second charge, to which he commented "One of the ‘accusations' that made me guilty during this trial was that I met and planned the course of the war with Hitler; now I ask them in heaven's name, how could an admiral do otherwise with his country's head of state in a time of war?"

He could have said no and/or resigned rather than participate. That's ultimately what it all boils down to with the "just following orders" defense. Sure, military personnel are expected to follow orders. At the same time, they are expected to not follow "illegal" orders; and they must determine for themselves, guided by international law (however that is understood) and their own consciences whether to refuse to obey a particular order that is questionable. It is unfortunately true that the victors will decide whether they made the right (or "moral") choice; but to expect otherwise is unrealistic, and presumes some unique morality that is objectively "true" and can be applied impartially by a court. We may have our own ideas on what that objective morality should be; that doesn't mean that everyone worldwide would agree with our formulation. Heck, we can't even agree on an objective morality within a local community!

At Nuremburg the victorious allies did their best to come up with some kind of relatively objective criteria for what constituted "war crimes." It was an iteration of a philosophical debate that has gone on for as long as there has been conflict between humans: what is "acceptable conduct" in war?

KIA:

In fact, a fair reading of that very resolution you cited would implicate the currrent United States government as war criminals.

No, really?

The Nuremburg trials were show trials to some degree; there was no expectation that there would be acquittals (though in fact there were), and they were explicitly made public to publicize the activities for which the defendants were being tried. On the other hand, that aspect of the trials served the purpose of making clear (or at least trying to make clear) that these were the standards of conduct expected in a civilized society, and that breach of these standards (if your side lost a resulting war) would carry severe consequences.

Posted by liberalrob | April 21, 2008 4:15 PM

> He could have said no and/or resigned rather than
> participate.

Sure, he could have done that. How nice it would have been had ALL Hitler's officers done that!

But if planning or waging a war of aggression is cause for a juicy prison sentence, there are few soldiers - including many of ours - who would escape some years behind bars.

I'm not saying he was an all-around great guy - he was baldly antisemitic, pushed the Nazi agenda enthusiastically, there were plenty of things that should have burdened his conscience....but I don't see much difference regarding CRIMINAL actions between him and quite a few men on our side that we respect and honor.

Posted by Jens Fiederer | April 21, 2008 5:26 PM

KIA and others

"Show Trials" are precisely that -- merely for show. Defendants are not permitted to defend themselves or face their accusers. The result has been predetermined and everyone involved knows this. Indeed, this was one of the principle reasons that so many military lawyers, both prosecutors and defense attorneys, have refused to continue participating in the "trials" being held at Guantanamo Bay.

A "fair trial" is not simply one that everyone agrees was determined correctly. It is, however, one in which the particular offenses for which the defendant is indicted are specific enough that he or she can prepare an adequate defense, in which the defendant is permitted to cross-examine witnesses and contest the evidence against him or her, to present witnesses on his or her behalf, to have an attorney of his or her choice, and to testify in one's own defense if one so chooses. Whether we agree with the result is irrelevant as to whether the defendant received a fair trial. The only issue is whether procedures to ensure due process of law were applied and followed. For example, OJ Simpson received a fair trial even though significant numbers of people believe he is guilty for the crimes for which he was charged. That he may have gotten away with murder is not relevant to that determination.

As for the specific case of Admiral Doenitz, he received a fair trial. Indeed, his attorney at the trial was a terrific advocate for his defense and was allowed to place into evidence even a statement from Admiral Nimitz in support of Doenitz for Germany's use of unrestricted warfare against enemy and neutral shipping in the Atlantic which was a specific violation of international laws regarding submarine warfare which had been passed after Germany's Uboat campaign in WWI. As others have noted Doenitz, while not an architect of war, freely participated in that war which he and other German military officers knew was an illegal aggressive war. He also violated international law regarding submarine warfare.

One can decry the hypocrisy of the allies for not submitting those mad bombers, Harris of Britain and LeMay of the US (responsible for the fire bombings of German and Japanese cities) to the same trial process, or the US naval commanders responsible for the submarine warfare in the Pacific, all of whom also likely violated international laws and protocols regarding the conduct of war, but to say Doenitz and the others did not receive a fair trial simply because you disagree with the outcome is absurd.

In fact, of the total number of defendants tried at Nuremberg by the Allies, 189, 39 were not convicted (38 acquittals and 1 mistrial) or roughly 20%. Since 3 died before the completion of their trials the actual conviction rate was 79%. For comparison sake, the conviction rate in New York City's five boroughs in 2007 for cases actually brought to trial (i.e., cases not involving plea bargains) ranged roughly between 60% to 70%. In the Nuremberg cases there were no plea bargains offered, which likely explains the slightly higher conviction rate.

Now what was the conviction rate of the trials which gave us the term "show trial" in the first place, i.e., the trials in Moscow of Communist Party members who were alleged to be followers of Trotsky, etc? 100%! Amazing isn't it? Not one acquittal. And why? because they all confessed freely in court. And why did they confess to crimes that resulted in their execution or long sentences to Soviet Labor camps where most died anyway? Because they were tortured! In other words, the opposite of what happened at Nuremberg.

The difference between the Nuremberg trials and real show trials could not be more apparent. To label what occurred at Nuremberg as show trials is not merely a gross exaggeration or use of hyperbole, it frankly either a lie or the result of profound ignorance.

Which is why what we are doing at Guantanamo Bay to the detainees is so execrable, and why the media neglect in covering it is so horrific. Because in violation of US and international law we are torturing people we detained, obtaining false confessions through the use of torture and creating tribunals that are real show trials, where no evidence rules apply, where there is no chance to face one's accusers and where the Nuremberg principles that require a fair trial is strikingly absent.

That was my main complaint about Ms. McArdle and her defense of the media's reporting about John Yoo, the same one Glenn Greenwald had. And based on her lack of knowledge of the importance and the history of the Nuremberg trials (and that of her supporters here) I'm not surprised that my argument against her off handed dismissal of Nuremberg as a valid argument for more coverage of the administration's crimes, and of Mr. Yoo's "scholarship" which enabled those crimes, is also dismissed out of hand. For Yoo is just as guilty as those interrogators who are torturing the detainees. And the basis of his criminal responsibility under international law are the principles which were established at Nuremberg.

Ps. Regarding the trial of Saddam Hussein who one commenter mentioned, he was not tried by an international tribunal, nor by one that complied with the Nuremberg principles. His trial was conducted by the Iraqi courts under laws established by the post-Saddam Iraqi government which the Bush administration helped to create and continues to support. I would never argue that he received a fair trial under the principles established at Nuremberg.

Posted by Steven D | April 21, 2008 5:43 PM

But if planning or waging a war of aggression is cause for a juicy prison sentence, there are few soldiers - including many of ours - who would escape some years behind bars.

I think traditionally punishment of "soldiers" for gross violations of perceived standards of conduct has been less severe than punishment of the higher-ups who ordered the activity. The problem we are faced with in our case (Iraq and Guantanamo) is that the activities were ordered at so high a level and in conjunction with our own Department of Justice, which is charged with being the watchdog and instead has been a lapdog. The only punishments we have seen so far have been of the low-level soldiers, while the system has protected the high-level ones. It will take a change of government and significant political will (to do the right thing instead of the expedient thing) to remedy that.

On the specific charge of "war of aggression" you also have to be careful of defining just what that is. Iraq was not specifically invaded for the purpose of conquering territory or confiscating resources, at least not provably so in my opinion. (I'm not a lawyer!) So I think it would be hard to make that particular charge stick. But there are other charges that I do think could be successfully made, not all of them falling under the rubric of "war crimes" yet still deserving of criminal punishment.

Posted by liberalrob | April 21, 2008 6:36 PM

OK, Steven D. You have my conditional surrender. There is no way I can claim that Doenitz's trial was anything like the Soviet show trials - there is little question that he was actually guilty as charged.

What, in my mind, makes this NOT a "fair trial" is not a procedural matter, but the nature of those charges, that there was a trial about them at all - he was being tried for behavior that was considered praiseworthy in our own leaders. His crimes pretty much boiled down to fighting for the wrong side.

Posted by Jens Fiederer | April 22, 2008 10:30 AM

Another thing that really staggers me is how we seem to feel that just about EVERYWHERE is our jurisdiction - trying Noriega for drug crimes, snatching European executives of internet gambling companies, etc.

I'm just WAITING for Americans to be tried in some Muslim country for selling alcohol in Las Vegas, or fornicating on spring break in Florida.

Posted by Jens Fiederer | April 22, 2008 10:39 AM

I'm just WAITING for Americans to be tried in some Muslim country for selling alcohol in Las Vegas, or fornicating on spring break in Florida.

Wrong analogy. Noriega was snatched as a prisoner of war (which he declared on the U.S.) and convicted for being behind drug offenses committed here in the U.S.; as I recall, the internet gambling that was actionable was being done by U.S. citizens on U.S. soil in violation of local laws, and the executives were arrested when they visited the U.S. (I think it's bizarre that domestic laws can apply to overseas actions in this manner, but then I find anti-gambling laws bizarre in general).

Where I agree with you is that we've become very arrogant in our assertion of "national interest" as an excuse to meddle in the internal affairs of foreign nations (or simply barge in and take over). We'll get our house in order eventually (at heart we do mean well) but it's going to take some time to figure out as a nation that our "national interest" isn't always served by military action. This election cycle is a critical checkpoint; will we reject the militarism that has prevailed since 9/11 and return to a more globalist, consensual style of foreign policy, or will we continue to pursue policies of saber-rattling and confrontation? If McCain wins and the U.S. continues down the Bush path, I fear we are in for some very dark days indeed.

Posted by liberalrob | April 22, 2008 12:09 PM