At EPJ, where “V-Day For Vagina-Centric Libertarians? Not So Fast” is now published, Lila Rajiva and myself exchange opinions about whether I was right or wrong to avoid naming the individuals discussed in the column.
Lila Rajiva March 28, 2014 at 12:37 PM
I think we should be truthful. She and Tucker ARE widely published so what’s the point of saying they are non-entities?
They are not. It just makes you sound as over-emotional as they are.
That was one thing with which I disagreed in this otherwise excellent piece.
Dispassion and professional standards entail that when you read someone, you should cite them. Leave “vanishing” people to the state and to propagandists and hypesters.
ILANA MERCER March 28, 2014 at 2:18 PM
Respectfully, you’re wrong. You are looking at this storm in a C-Cup from the insular world of the libertarian. My piece was written for a wider audience. Good or bad, the bigger picture is that the two alluded to are insignificant, the one more so than the other. The one has the run of a publishing house, and, unethically in my opinion (as it involves a conflict of interest), uses the imprint to publish some of his own books. Yet these books have hardly any buyers (Amazon rank #649,120). My contention that in the bigger picture these people are unknown entities is correct. The female of the duo is certainly a non-entity. Given her aptitude, no matter how well promoted she is, and no matter how much she suctions face to camera, she will never muster an opinion or an analysis that isn’t second-hander material. She’s not working with much. To properly gauge the significance of these two one has to exit the libertarian orbit. Thus, addressing non-entities by name is unnecessary in a piece meant for popular consumption. On this topic, my dear friend and mentor, the influential and talented Walter Block, demeans himself and his stature by constantly addressing nobody bloggers by name, rather than just dealing with their arguments, to the extent these sorts make these.
Lila Rajiva March 28, 2014 at 2:40 PM
I agree with you in the wider world. But, in the wider world, since they are unknown, they don’t need to be rebutted at all.
However, in terms of libertarian in-fighting, everyone knows who Tucker is…
Still, it was an excellent piece. I am sick of this waving of the V. I actually thinks it’s some kind of propaganda offensive that began in 2012 with Naomi Wolf’s book.
Get us to talk, one way or other, about genitals all the time. Mainstreams the stuff, like the Lewinsky trial did.
ILANA MERCER March 28, 2014 at 3:16 PM
I see what you’re saying, Lila. As expected, we both make valid points. “Respec,” as Ali G. would say.
Ms. Rajiva is funny in the comment below. A woman with a sense of humor. Wicked (or “brutal”). Lila has to admit, though, apropos our exchange above, that the “brutal” wordplay (or swordplay) on this and other libertarian sites is an example of “inside baseball.” Everyone on here knows what is being mocked. But few outside our orbit will understand. This goes to my point about not needing to name names when addressing a wider audience.
Lila Rajiva March 28, 2014 at 10:15 AM
I think it’s grossly BRUTALIST and a violation of the civil rights of Tucker, Reisenwitz & the rest
to pit one whole Mercer in full throttle against them.
It’s downright violent and violence will not be tolerated… unless we’re for it.
I call for UN sanctions, economic sanctions (no more blintzers for you, Ms. Mercer), and carpet-bombing…..
Let the humanitarianism begin…..
UPDATE: VIA FACEBOOK:
David Colpo writes:
If the names of writers obscure to the general population aren’t worth publishing, then why bother refuting their equally obscure arguments to that same audience?
59 minutes ago · Like
Ilana Mercer replies:
David Colpo, b/c I care about truth and reality. And as a libertarian I care about Mises. I care about libertarianism. I don’t care for–or about—the people who are trying to make libertarianism appealing to throngs of bimbos by lying about white, old men in order to make them palatable and politically correct. As if, there was anything wrong with Mises the way he was.