The Tinfoil Hat Brigade

A number of people have suggested that I should post some of my more . . . interesting emails and comments. You ask, I provide.

This week's tinfoil hat award in the category of email goes to emailer Tish:

Obviously, you think appearances are everything. Gawd, you're ugly! And soooooooo masculine! Are you a dyke? I'm not sure how you're going to fix that. Too bad you think Obama is too skinny and too effete. You drink lattes? Do you do yoga, too? You're just SO special!

This would probably have more punch if I weren't already used to being called "sir" at least a couple of times a month.

And in the comment category, this treasure from commenter "You're not even unintentionally funny" (that does seem a cruel thing for a mother to say to her newborn child):

You're a lanky imbecile. Shut up.

It just gets more fun all the time, doesn't it?

Apparently, this commenter felt that the gravity of the post--on Cindy McCain's recipegate--required the deployment of the big guns: my height and weight. My secret shame stands exposed.

I'll try to do a more thorough job of finding the crazies next week.

Comments

No one disputes that people have called you names. What people want to see is these secret emails you alluded to where a critic says you're wrong about an economic issue, and then you send a reply with an "elementary explanation" for why the critic is wrong and you are most certainly right.

Try to be honest and back up and provide proof about the accusations that you made in your original post.

Posted by Blake | April 20, 2008 8:43 PM

"Try to be honest and back up and provide proof about the accusations that you made in your original post."--Blake

seems to be the crux of the issue.

crux (krks, krks)
n. pl. crux·es or cru·ces (krsz)
1. The basic, central, or critical point or feature: the crux of the matter; the crux of an argument.
2. A puzzling or apparently insoluble problem.

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

[Probably short for Medieval Latin crux (interpretum), torment (of interpreters), from Latin crux, cross.]

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words AntonymsNoun 1. Crux - a small conspicuous constellation in the southern hemisphere in the Milky Way near Centaurus
Crux Australis, Southern Cross
Alpha Crucis - the brightest star in the Southern Cross
Beta Crucis - the second brightest star in the Southern Cross
Milky Way, Milky Way Galaxy, Milky Way System - the galaxy containing the solar system; consists of millions of stars that can be seen as a diffuse band of light stretching across the night sky
2. crux - the most important point
crux of the matter
alpha and omega - the basic meaning of something; the crucial part
point - a brief version of the essential meaning of something; "get to the point"; "he missed the point of the joke"; "life has lost its point"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Crux

Posted by MEH | April 20, 2008 8:48 PM

You should make this a regular thing, like Sullivan and his array of awards.

Posted by jeet | April 20, 2008 8:54 PM

While not addressing the issue Blake brought up, I think you need to cultivate a better class of enemy. The ones you cited were pitiful. (Reminds me a bit of the abuse directed towards Cyrano de Bergerac and his nose, and his response.)

Posted by Acad Ronin | April 20, 2008 9:45 PM

Megan finds it appropriate to complain that Obama is too skinny and feminine; how then does she complain when people call her lanky and masculine?

Turnabout is fair play no?

Posted by Margalis | April 20, 2008 9:59 PM

Margalis,

To be fair, I think Megan was bringing it up as a matter of something the media would focus on. (Of course, she could've cleared up all confusion is she mentioned she thought this argument was petty and puerile.)

Good on you for sharing Megan, but agreed, I would like to see someone post a facile economic issue/email that relies on ad hominem attacks.

Posted by LnGrrrR | April 20, 2008 10:25 PM

Oh, also, forgot to mention. The first email seems like it was from a female, not a mail. Not many males extend the word "soooooo", or provide emphasis on it. Also "Tish" sounds rather feminine.

Posted by LnGrrrR | April 20, 2008 10:27 PM

If you're trying to elicit sympathy, it's working. I feel so sorry for you and what you have to put up with right now.

Posted by Vermando | April 20, 2008 10:30 PM

Your willingness to validate these people by posting their inane comments says more about you than it does about them.

Posted by Rickm | April 20, 2008 10:33 PM

You should make this a weekly feature, and for the most egregiously offensive emails, include the email address of the sender.

Posted by TW Andrews | April 20, 2008 10:34 PM

I've only ever seen the one picture of you, but I think you look perfectly nice. Why do people who want to hurt a woman always go after her looks, anyway?

Posted by Technomad | April 20, 2008 10:36 PM

IMO, those email aren't really "crazy", they're just puerile insults pretending to a rebuttal. Real tinfoil hat stuff includes secret conspiracies and the like.

Posted by Jon Biggar | April 20, 2008 10:37 PM

LnGrrrR:

So because the media focuses on Obama's appearance, Megan, who is totally not part of the "the media", has to then weigh in herself, not only to say that it's stupid but to give her specific opinion on his appearance?

I can play that game too. Here we go:

I don't know that I agree with Myster Poster X that Megan McArdle's femininity won't be an issue in evaluating her popularity with readers. On the one hand she's got nice legs, but she's kind of, well, masculine and homely looking. But also, the blogging space I think she's trying to occupy--building understanding of economics--is generally seen as a man's role.
---

Her appearance might become an issue so I should blabber about her appearance. Makes sense to me.

Or maybe I could play this game: there will be talk that Megan got her job because she is a somewhat attractive female, so I should weigh in on just how attractive she may be.

You can wrap this sort of thin veneer of respectability around the most tawdry subjects.

(Disclaimer: I don't actually know or care what Megan looks like)

Posted by Margalis | April 20, 2008 10:52 PM

Frankly, I don't quite understand why such ludicrous insults should serve as the basis for any annoyance. Those whose comments or opinions are beneath any response or concern should rightfully be ignored. Those who choose such tactics would like you to change your opinion so that you can win their acceptance. Even responding to them gives them hope that they can at least elicit a reply.

The Advice Goddess in your last post has the most mature view of matters, as far as I'm concerned. I don't see why gender should make a difference to you if it's not the basis on which you're building your argument.

I'm a relative newcomer to the Jane Galt/Megan McCardle brand, and I have to say I find your macroeconomic and political economic arguments impressive. I disagree with just about anything else you write either in part or entirely. Why should your gender or appearance get in the way of that in a text-based discussion?

Posted by MarkG | April 20, 2008 11:27 PM

Margalis,

Yes, essentially like that. (I noted that she could've distanced herself by saying something like, "I wonder if the media will comment on how effeminate Obama seems to be, even if the argument is inane and yet another example of how pointless our political coverage has become.")

Posted by LnGrrrR | April 20, 2008 11:33 PM

A public figure gets hate mail? Shocking. Your earlier post referred to males ignorantly attacking your credibility on economic issues. Post those.

Also, as a previous commenter has noted, that first quote you posted is almost certainly from a woman. "Gawd" "sooo" and the name "Tish" don't exactly smack of joe sixpack.

Posted by mad6798j | April 20, 2008 11:35 PM

In your original post about the hate mail you get from male liberal bloggers and their readers, you stated that you have had email correspondences with them in which you showed them how wrong they are, causing them to slither off in defeat. Now, to serve as evidence of what you've characterized as a regular phenomenon, you've offered up a few nasty comments and emails of unknown origin that, for all we know, could've been triggered by one of your infamous posts on vegan breakfast foods, the innocence of the media, or how homeless people are never over 50 years old. Whoever is calling you a lanky dyke could've been doing so for any number of reasons in any number of contexts. You've yet to show that any of this has anything to do with economics, or male liberal bloggers, or anything to do with someone being right or wrong about something.

Posted by tinisoli | April 20, 2008 11:54 PM

Both comments are rude and offensive. Neither one is sexist. The first is homophobic. The second says nothing about gender. I've seen more hostile comments aimed at male *and* female bloggers.

But I agree this is a good feature. Could you run it at least twice a week? Maybe a prize, too, for the best e-mail of the month. I bet The Atlantic would spring for a free subscription, or some merchandise.

Posted by A.D.D. | April 20, 2008 11:56 PM

I think we'll call this one a draw. You said there were a large number of commenters attacking you on these lines, go ahead and reread it, but you didn't make it up out of whole cloth. Not much evidence for you being victimized, tho.

Oh, and Kathy G, Mona, and especially Susan of Texas, who you linked to less than two weeks ago, want to know why you called them men.

Posted by brad | April 21, 2008 3:43 AM

Meh. Either I messed up the html or something else is off. Not that anyone cares, but those links are
1-http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/mans_men.php
2-http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/what_i_found_on_google_blog_se.php

Posted by brad | April 21, 2008 3:48 AM

Tinisoli does it really matter? You can read certain posts on economics here, where any number of responding commenters begin on a horse so high that if they fell off they would shortly splatter into thousands of pieces as they broke up re-entering the atmosphere.

Megan will say, "I disagree with Prof. Frou Frou's analysis because of a, b, and c, and believe he neglected to factor in the blah, and the blah"....

The typical response back is "Well, how you manage to come to such a conclusion only begs the question of why the Atlantic lets a hack like you post in the first place. The correct analysis, as everyone knows, is to exclude element c due to deflation. But then we can't expect someone who talks of rainbows and boyfriends and their mother to have the attention span to address the true issues, do we."

And after some debate about the usage of "begs the question," a bunch of others will join in to share their opinions on the economic issue at hand, with liberal use of side insults to make it all more "what the F."

Now whether she actually rebuts that or not, or whether they slither away on rebuttal or not, really matters little. The people who express themselves in such a manner are asses.

Provide proof? The Pope stopped by Tinisoli's house and annointed him sidekick and chief inquisitor?

The non-tinfoil comments are annoying enough.

Posted by Finn | April 21, 2008 4:04 AM

An ugly Sidhe? Never happened, never will.

Posted by vegas guy | April 21, 2008 4:43 AM

So you don't know what "tinfoil hat" means, do you? If the Atlantic is going to pay you to insult people, it should expect better results.

Posted by milt's chapeau | April 21, 2008 9:44 AM

You want to know the biggest conspiracy ever? It's the disappearance of tin foil once it's protective capacity (in hat form) became widely known. Aluminum foil (or aluminium for you Britishers - and don't get me started on THAT conspiracy) just doesn't work as well.

Oh, and some interpretations of beansidhe and much of the unseelie court were ugly sidhe.

Posted by Njorl | April 21, 2008 12:52 PM

I wouldn't bother repeating this "feature", unless you can find some attacks that are actually witty. Those were just tiresome and not worth sharing.

Posted by Jens Fiederer | April 21, 2008 1:19 PM