When I first read this piece, I thought, "Caitlin's endorsing Hitler!" Later, upon rereading, it appears that she isn't exactly endorsing Hitler, but of course she's endorsing those other socialists, the communists, with sentences like: "[Rightist] thought shapers just changed the definition of "communism" to mean having a government and sometimes seeing a Pride flag." False.
I like Caitlin's writing because she is good for teaching people about propaganda. And she is incredibly vivid, which is what you get when you employ sweeping over-generalizations the way communists employed gulags, purges, propaganda, and nuclear tests. Her takedown of Western Philosophy is Exhibit A: in a few sentences, she dismisses Plato, Aristotle, Epictetus, and everyone else. If she got any more sweeping, she'd take out carbon and oxygen as worthless atoms.
I'll keep reading her, though. She's vivid. I learn from her. She's taught me a lot. But I think her flirtation with history's mass murderers is really just some kind of a test to see which of her readers will stick with her, no matter what.
(P.S. I am trying to disagree respectfully. Responses that engage in sheer raw hatred will get ignored.)
When I first read this piece, I thought, "Caitlin's endorsing Hitler!" Later, upon rereading, it appears that she isn't exactly endorsing Hitler, but of course she's endorsing those other socialists, the communists, with sentences like: "[Rightist] thought shapers just changed the definition of "communism" to mean having a government and sometimes seeing a Pride flag." False.
I like Caitlin's writing because she is good for teaching people about propaganda. And she is incredibly vivid, which is what you get when you employ sweeping over-generalizations the way communists employed gulags, purges, propaganda, and nuclear tests. Her takedown of Western Philosophy is Exhibit A: in a few sentences, she dismisses Plato, Aristotle, Epictetus, and everyone else. If she got any more sweeping, she'd take out carbon and oxygen as worthless atoms.
I'll keep reading her, though. She's vivid. I learn from her. She's taught me a lot. But I think her flirtation with history's mass murderers is really just some kind of a test to see which of her readers will stick with her, no matter what.
(P.S. I am trying to disagree respectfully. Responses that engage in sheer raw hatred will get ignored.)
"Responses that engage in sheer raw hatred will get ignored." Thankfully, your ignorance will lead to the hate you promote being much ignored.