Stupid Interweb tricks

By -
Here is what I occasionally get from a troll in the comments section: "Callahan, you're so obsessed with Rothbard. You must stay up all night searching for things you can pull out of context to make him look bad."

What's funny is I hardly give any thought at all to Murray Rothbard, and usually do so only when he is forced upon my attention by someone else's post. (Such As David Gordon going after Dan McCarthy at The American Conservative.) Don't believe me? I just did a Google search which you can easily duplicate. It appears that in the last year, out of about 1000 posts at this blog, just three of them mention Rothbard. I am so "obsessed" that I mention him in .3% of my writing!

The reality is, dear troller, that it is you who are obsessed with Rothbard, and so you only notice posts in which he is mentioned.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more