Monday, July 08, 2013

He hates conspiracy theories ...

Like this one:

From a reader: "Please leave my name out of any post you might make. Rare (for its honesty) July 3 NY Times article below makes clear that Egypt's military is a virtual extension of the US military.  Based on this article one might think that if the US tells Egypt's. generals/colonels "let's roll," they roll.
Generally I hate conspiracy theories, but interesting that while Obama was in deep trouble over the NSA spy scandal suddenly a revolution in Egypt bursts out (Morsi was only given an impossible 48 hours to make things right), wiping out or at least putting lower on the front page news about the NSA spy scandal."

but he still cannot resist the temptation of making his website available for this conspiracy theory, knowing full well, I daresay, that his readership, steeped in superstition and paranoia, will relish inhaling it deeply without so much as a filter...

How do we know he knows he is on very shaky grounds for an academic? Because he pretends to cast a doubt on the veracity of the post by putting the title in question form. Thus he can safely serve the iffy "news" item as is,  while he immunizes  himself* from possible and totally justifiable raised brows. But note the absence of sarcastic framing to the post (from him who drips with malevolent sarcasm over many lesser offenses). That shows he really really wishes to believe it.

* Update: Case in point (Poor, demonized Angry Bird)


At 9:57 AM EDT, Blogger SnoopyTheGoon said...

I have some trouble with "drips with malevolent sarcasm" definition. He drips, that's true, and he is malevolent. But sarcasm is a bit too tough for his brain. He tries and he tries, but... oh well.

At 11:52 AM EDT, Blogger The Contentious Centrist said...

I make a distinction between irony and sarcasm. AA fancies himself ironic when he is merely being sarcastic. Sarcasm is mostly anger and no intellect. And anger makes you stupid. Thus when AA makes sarcastic comments, which is most of the time, he has very little chance of being anything but stupid. So you see we do not at all disagree, you and I, about substance :)


Post a Comment

<< Home