"Finally, I’ll point out that our favorite fiction writer says that to highlight the errors made by advocates of Confederate heritage is to ridicule their intelligence, and that must mean that I ridicule people who struggle with various forms of impairment. I don’t think she’s thought that comparison through in terms of its implications for advocates of Confederate heritage, but it would be useless to point out that it’s a cruel and stupid comment demonstrating just how pathetic she is (especially since she rants about ethics all the time, as if she has any). After all, it doesn’t really matter what I say or believe, because our favorite fiction writer claims she knows better, and don’t waste your time telling her otherwise. Just remember how utterly incapable she is of defending her fellow Confederate heritage advocates. ~ Brooks D. Simpson, Crossroads Blog
Who is your favorite fiction writer? You write lots of fiction on your blog, so are you your own favorite fiction writer? Or maybe it would be more accurate to call you a fabrication writer...
In any case, if that phrase refers to me, you've proven once again that you can't post about me without lying. I've never said, "...to highlight the errors made by advocates of Confederate heritage is to ridicule their intelligence, and that must mean that Brooks D. Simpson ridicules people who struggle with various forms of impairment..."
What I've said, to paraphrase, is that highlighting historical error and calling somebody an idiot, in so many words, are two different things. You're a freakin' college professor -- you have the ability to distinguish between them; that you do not do so is not a function of intelligence, though, but a function of ethics -- or lack thereof. Knowingly conflating them to attribute meaning to my comments that they do not have is unethical.
Read what I actually said, here: http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2012/08/intelligenceor-ethics.html
It is supremely possible to highlight historical error without even mentioning anyone who is making the error. But you aren't motivated by highlighting the errors made by advocates of Confederate heritage for any sort of corrective or educational purposes but for stroking your own overblown and apparently insatiably needy academic ego, which is pleased the most, apparently, by putting other folks down.
Besides, who's to say it's errors? YOU? LOL!!!! What a scream! You are a proven liar, Simpson. There are post on my blog that document some of your lies. (You've told way too many for me to document them all.) Some of the "errors" are just disagreements. Since neither you nor Confederate heritage folks were alive back then to witness history being made, you both have to rely on what somebody back then (or later) wrote down. And even people living during the events didn't personally experience all the events, so their writings are subjective and it's really just a matter of who you decide to believe...
"I don’t think she’s thought that comparison through in terms of its implications for advocates of Confederate heritage..."Oh, yes, I've thought it out. There ARE no implications for advocates of Confederate heritage in my comparison. I'm not the one saying they lack intelligence, YOU are.
While the debate continues about whether heredity or environment -- nature vs. nurture -- controls the level of human intelligence, the fact remains that with ordinary ways of living, people can't do much to choose their level of intelligence, the way they can choose to gain or lose weight, or acquire knowledge.
Knowledge is not intelligence. Wisdom is not intelligence. Intelligence is a prerequisite for them both. So, yes, you have mischaracterized people's views of history, their level of acquisition of knowledge about history, the paths by which they acquired it, their interpretation of it, as a lack of intelligence -- a mental impairment.
IF -- and this is a huge if -- IF you truly believe it is a lack of intelligence, you are ridiculing a mental impairment. If you KNOW it's not an mental impairment, but you're mischaracterizing it that way just to be insulting and feed your academic ego -- you are demonstrating a breathtaking level of ethical impairment. And ethical impairments are purposefully chosen.