From time to time, I notice that one of the search terms that brings visitors to this dusty little corner of the internet is "Lydia McGrew", which fact is slightly interesting to me (if not to Gentle Reader).
Those who end up here due to a search on "Lydia McGrew" may, if you wish, add this little fact to your on-going opinion of her -- back in October of 2015, I strongly criticized a particular act of bitchiness (*) on her part toward a regular poster at What's Wrong With The World. As I knew she would, she deleted (**) the posts I'd made at WWWtW ... and at some time after that, added my user-name to their list of banned commenters (**).
(*) and let me be clear that I used the word 'bitchy' to describe her behavior, used in deliberately, and stand by it.
(**) women *hate* to have their behavior, no matter what it is or how outrageous, criticized by a mere man; there is *nothing* that enrages the average woman more than for a mere man to dispassionately criticize what she has done.
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hilarious, and timely as she's currently having another tiff with one of her readers who has clearly had enough (Crude). Crude makes very strong critiques of her vapid and hysterical overreaction to the Russian government's policies on religious missionaries and foreign influences, but nothing seems to get through her thick and proud head. Much like she did with MikeT in the example you linked, she is deliberately misrepresenting her opponent and then using this straw man to act like he is the one arguing in bad faith (when in fact she is the one doing so). Other highlights include self-congratulatory posturing about her anti-reactionary stance and gloating about how she has the power to easily ban people who dare to disagree with her.
She is becoming a caricature of the unpleasant church lady the atheist conceives of when rationalizing his disbelief. She gives off the strong sense that because she is miserable she wants everyone else to be so as well.
Mike, welcome to my dusty corner of the innertubes.
Yeah, what you're describing is exactly the behavior I had criticized last October (and at least one other time before that).
It's sad, really.
Ha, I'm not actually Mike, but I do normally like his comments when I read them. To update the situation, she just closed comments after giving herself the last word, while patting herself on the back after completely misrepresenting her opponent's position and then feigning ignorance of how her opponent's points could be relevant to the discussion. And then she had the gall to criticize the tone of her opponent's disagreement, as if she weren't equally antagonistic in the whole ordeal. At no point did she address his point with any charity or level-headedness. Frankly amazing from someone with a PHD in Philosophy really, until you realize she's a bitter old cat lady.
Either way, I enjoy the blog, keep at it. Feel free to continue longer entries as well, I enjoy reading what you have to say.
I'm so sorry! I don't know why I called you 'Mike'; your handle is clearly 'Greg'.
I think what happened is that I initially had written your name at the end of the sentence, but then decided to move it to the start, and I doing so I accidentally wrote 'Mike' rather than 'Greg'.
... or, maybe Dawkins's "Weasel" program intercepted my post and randomly changed some letters.
Post a Comment