Anyway, I thought I would respond to Jeff Goldstein's challenge through my response to somebody in the group. Unlike Goldstein (who often gets tied up in his own cleverness), "Zelda" provided something that I could respond to.
To Quote from Zelda:
“I don’t approve of killing people for their skin color, preventing anyone from getting married, shunning children for their parents’ race, segregation, Jim Crow laws, job discrimination, and using naughty words to insult someone’s ethnicity.”You’ve nicely summed up the substance of American conservatism in your disavowals here. Let me get to the heart of the matter in relation to race. Conservatives went from “Killing people for their skin color” in order to enforce segregation to using the rhetoric of “color-blindness” to justify generalized racial hostility, “job discrimination,” consumer discriminations of all kinds, police targeting of young black men, racial profiling, and other kinds of discriminatory behaviors. In “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Martin Luther King characterized whites as an “oppressor group” be ause of white support for segregation. Given the wide range of discriminatory and oppressive behaviors toward blacks in contemporary America, whites are still an oppressor group and the rhetoric of color-blindness is used both to justify the oppression and to cut off any kind of remedies for the oppression (like affirmative action).
What makes Goldstein and Protein Wisdom a particular evil is that he’s making the justification of oppression into something “cute,” “fun,” and “hip” while providing a haze of pop culture references to cover their practical alliance with the hard core bigots.
The same is the case with gay marriage. Zelda writes that she doesn’t approve of “preventing anyone from getting married.” In case she hasn’t noticed though, preventing gay people from getting married has been one of the top political priorities of the American right for several years. Why is this the case? As Karl Rove would say, campaigning against gay marriage was a way to ensure that people who hate and fear gays, homophobic people in other words, voted Republican.
In fact, marriage is one of the fundamental acts, sacraments, or relations of our society. For someone to advocate the exclusion of any group of people from marriage is to tell people in that group that they are not full citizens, really not full human beings. When Goldstein opposes gay marriage (I haven't seen him say why yet), he is telling gay people that they are not worthy of the fundamental and good things of our society. That’s pretty much exactly the same thing that the more overtly bigoted right-wingers are saying.
At the same time, Goldstein is providing a slick cultural cover for the hard-core homophobes. Once again, that makes him worse than the bigots.
Posts
28 comments:
"The Protein Wisdom gang is such a lockstep group that I thought of referring to them as the Protein Wisdom "'Soviet," but I was able to resist temptation.
Anyway, I thought I would respond to Jeff Goldstein's challenge through my response to somebody in the group. Unlike Goldstein (who often gets tied up in his own cleverness), "Zelda" provided something that I could respond to."
You got that so far?
"
The same is the case with gay marriage. Zelda writes that she doesn’t approve of “preventing anyone from getting married.” In case she hasn’t noticed though, preventing gay people from getting married has been one of the top political priorities of the American right for several years."
That doesn't sound very lockstep to me, Perfessor. Doesn't sound very conservative either. Which pretty much blows your little theory right the fuck out of the water, doesn't it? You would think that if a PHD would have enough sense to pick a target that fit the stereotype if that were the basis of his entire argument.
Spare me. Go through the nearly 200 replies to that post. I'm sure you'd have found less lockstep in the Soviet Army invading Poland and Germany at the end of WWII.
I picked Zelda's comment out because it was a good place for launching my argument. It was also a relatively substantive comment.
Interesting in that despite all of the almost 200 comments, you chose the one that does not prove your point. I also like how you assert that the community at PW, and by extension, the right is racist, sexist, homophobic, etc ... without offering one iota of proof. It is a given to you. Yet, you offer to proof or even observation of this, except that many oppose affirmative action. Is that what passes for rational thought in your classes ?
Your diatribes, name-calling, and all around moral pretentiousness is what started this, and when called out to state, much less defend your positions, this is the best you've got?
JD
In order to truly understand Goldstein, you must first understand that he is primarily driven by a erratic mixture of narcissism and martyrdom, and not necessarily in equal parts.
The reason Jeff has posted three separate posts about you stemming from your casual comment on his blog is because he craves the attention. Few pay attention to him anymore unless he is involving himself in some sort of juvenile blog battle, and even then it's just to gawk. He quits and un-quits blogging just about once a month both to drive up traffic, and fluff his massive ego.
He's not interested in debate, he's interested in playing victim. By responding to him, you're giving him to two things he wants - to be considered important enough to be on a level playing field with actual academics, and to play the victim when he's called out on his casual racism.
I would put it to you that he's not worth your time, and his audience is far smaller than you seem to think it is.
I would put it to you that he's not worth your time, and his audience is far smaller than you seem to think it is.
Uh huh. Whereas Caric's blog is breaking blogger what with all the traffic.
Uh huh. Whereas Caric's blog is breaking blogger what with all the traffic.
Be that as it may, Jeff is still a whiny narcissist who loves nothing more than to play victim in front of an audience. I wouldn't give him the reaction he's looking for.
Goldstein loves being a victim? Just when I thought the cluelessness couldn't get any deeper! LMFAO!
The second anonymous and his/her view of Goldstein is perhaps the finest distillation I have ever read regarding him. I generally avoid engaging him, unless I can help it, because his sensitivity and victimdom knows few boundaries.
Watch his commenters rush to his defense. Hell, check out the comments section at this "newspaper" to see the PW folks bash a woman who wrote something Jeff didn't like http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/18667.php
It's amazing how they rush to defend him. Yes, what that lady did was horrible. Yes, she's despicable, but they go out of the way to take this reporter for task for getting off-point. Wow
Dear Lord, "michael", he did multiple posts about how he couldn't post anymore...and, well, he's doing a fine job of posting. I'm not saying he lied; I think sometimes the whole blogging thing gets him down and he throws his hands up. You guys rush in with pleas and gifts and he decides it's worth it. It's either he's a cynic or he's a diva. You choose,
"In fact, marriage is one of the fundamental acts, sacraments, or relations of our society."
Why do you say this, prof? Back in the 70s, when I was a rabid little leftist, marriage was a tool of the establishment, all us cool kids just shacked up. Free love was important, commitment was too heavy, man. Commitment to a wife and a family was for squares, not revolutionaries. You see, that is what marriage meant then, commitment to a wife, to a family and job, to the status quo. Some folks still define it that way.
"For someone to advocate the exclusion of any group of people from marriage is to tell people in that group that they are not full citizens, really not full human beings."
Nope, it is merely a statement that you are not a member of the status quo, which people who live alternative lifestyles aren't, hence the usage of the word alternative.
Personally, I think the principle problem is the legal entanglements the concept of marriage has come to be burdened with in the modern world. I think an easy solution would be separate legal and social constructs: a civil union would be performed by the government that would be all inclusive, and cover all inheritance, insurance, and legal guardian type stuff equally among all, and the church or whatever social organization you choose could perform the social marriage according to their own value system.
Not very bigoted or conservative of me, I know, sorry to let you down.
"Dear Lord, "michael", he did multiple posts about how he couldn't post anymore...
He took a couple of indefinite breaks to take care of personal shit, most of which revolved around not being a victim.
"...and, well, he's doing a fine job of posting."
I'll pass along the compliment, I am sure he will appreciate it.
Prof
Maybe because JeffG is not a one-trick pony, but can post fiction, humor, satire, and offer up university level discourse on all manner of semantics, signifiers, etc, has got you writing reams of unsupported assertions. Even your opinions bear little relation to reality.
For instance... Jeff and his readers are "Women haters?" How? What is your evidence?
Source it, Prof. And square it with the numerous women readers AND guest posters (like me)
I sourced a couple of the references in another post. Maybe I'll look it up another time.
I've never denied that Jeff is good at the fluff stuff. His academic-style writings are another question. I'm not an English professor. So, I'm not that fully qualified to evaluate his lit crit style efforts. But Jeff's work with academic concepts doesn't look that good to me. He's very stilted and so painfully self-important that it's hard to read.
Of course, a lot of academics start with that kind of self-importance, but most of the ones who survive grow out of it. That doesn't seem to be the case with Jeff though.
I concur with "second anonymous's" view of Mr. Goldstein as well and I think perhaps it applies to our friend Michael. Still no hooker mike?? Seriously, go get a hooker. You'll burn your eyes out.
hello. anon?
bash a woman who wrote something Jeff didn't like
I did more than defend Jeff. I was there the first time the deranged stalker started threatening Jeff and moved on to threatening his child. I advised him to go to the police and the district attorney. Her remarks were, IMO based on my own experience in the judicial field, were criminally actionable.
Either you are ignorant of the incident OR you are willfully mischaracterizing for your own agenda.
Is this where you want to defend a harasser that is, even now, defying legitimate court orders? Someone who has no business around children?
Maybe because JeffG is not a one-trick pony, but can post fiction, humor, satire, and offer up university level discourse on all manner of semantics, signifiers, etc, has got you writing reams of unsupported assertions
Hahahah... Maybe if you never went to college you'd think that. Maybe if you equate the haphazard use of big words with intellect you'd think that as well.
God, Darleen, you're fucking precious.
Prof
For someone to advocate the exclusion of any group of people from marriage
Any? Really?
So, you have no problem with polygamy? child brides? brother/sister marriage?
Or is the "bigot" line where YOU draw it, not someone else?
See, that's the problem. You somehow believe your own position is the only legitimate one, and anyone who disagrees is not merely mistaken, or has a reasonable good faith disagreement... the disagreer is "evil".
That, Prof, is very illiberal of you. That is why the classical liberals of the past...say JFK style liberals ... are now found on the "conservative" side of the aisle. Liberalism, which used to be anti-Left, has been subsumed by The Left ... an ideology steeped in collectivism, groupism, identity politics and totalitarianism.
No wonder the Left has an emotional affinity for radical Islamists and either downplays jihadist "excesses" or apologies for them.
God, Darleen, you're fucking precious.
Do you need a cigarette?
And yes, I have a college degree. BSIT specializing in Database Management and Web Development.
See, programming and database design demand a level of logical and economical thinking coupled with creativity and solutions-oriented brainstorming.
I understand Jeff's posts. I pity you don't.
This is ridiculous.
Martin Luther King characterized whites as an “oppressor group” [because] of white support for segregation.
No, he didn't. King referred to whites as "members of the oppressor race" -- as opposed to the oppressed race -- in order to explain that even those who aren't would-be oppressors often don't stand up to oppression, because they don't know what it feels like to be oppressed. His point was that whites weren't black and couldn't know black pain, not that whites are inherent oppressors. King was being thoughtful and understanding; the ludicrous "whites are oppressors" accusation he left to the likes of Caric.
Never mind that only a few years later, whites did come around to King's way of thinking -- certainly the majority did, which is why racial equality is conventional wisdom amongst American whites today.
Given the wide range of discriminatory and oppressive behaviors toward blacks in contemporary America, whites are still an oppressor group and the rhetoric of color-blindness is used both to justify the oppression and to cut off any kind of remedies for the oppression (like affirmative action).
Or perhaps the rhetoric of color-blindness is used to justify... color-blindness. The argument that a truly just society would be one that completely disregarded each of its' members racial background strikes me as being pretty compelling. It's fine to debate it, but if the good professor has any evidence that opponents of affirmative action are motivated by some more sinister goal, I'd like to see it, and not in the form of his usual method: claiming that "it's obvious."
As Karl Rove would say, campaigning against gay marriage was a way to ensure that people who hate and fear gays, homophobic people in other words, voted Republican.
Let's take note that Karl Rove only "said" this in the space between professor Caric's ears. In any case, this strategy seems to have failed in 2004, as even the solidly blue states all voted against their pro-gay-marriage amendments. (Meaning that quite a few people voted against those referenda right after voting for a Democrat candidate. Also, how devious of Rove to get gay groups to push those referenda to a vote.)
The first post I read at Caric's blog, and it's an illogical claim that flies in the face of widely available evidence, bolstered by a stunningly wrongheaded interpretation of a misquoted letter. Not a promising start.
He took a couple of indefinite breaks to take care of personal shit, most of which revolved around not being a victim.
Hahahahah... Wow. What, are you blowing him or something?
Ok, so let's say I have this crazy lady saying all this shit about me and my kids. She's obviously crazy, probably a bit lonely and looking for attention. I'm going to give you two potential outcomes, and you'll tell me which one you think is playing the victim.
1) Crazy lady says something, I say something else. Crazy lady says something worse, I ignore her. Crazy lady continues to say things, I continue to ignore her. So on and so on.... Years pass.
2) Crazy lady says something, I say something else. Crazy lady says something worse, I say something equally as nuts. Crazy lady starts talking about my kids, I make self-serving posts on my blog talking about the crazy lady talking about my kids. Crazy lady goes batshit, I contact media. Crazy lady continues to talk about my kids and go batshit, I bring in lawyers and encourage my minions to poke her cage with a stick.
Time passes. Years pass. Crazy lady still talks crazy a whole bunch, I still post to my blog a whole bunch about how there is this "thing" that is draining my attention, and woe is me, and oh by the way, my tip jar's over there.
Oh, I also post bi-monthly that I'm quitting blogging, 'cause that "thing" is taking up all my time. I might be back, but I'm just so drained - tip jar's over there...
So which is playing victim?
Darleen - He used me calling him a "pussy" as evidence, despite my having developed a scientific definition of that term in the same manner in which he created weenie-boys. He also used thor's reference to St. Amanda's genitalia as evidence, despite the fact that she throws those terms around freely, see her usage of the word cunt, for example.
"God, Darleen, you're fucking precious." Could you be more arrogant or condescending, sexist, or even genderist?
I'm a huge fan of Ric Caric. I also hate women and feel moved to beat up gays as often as the opportunities present themselves.
Generally I only publicly cuss people because of their skin color if that skin color is brown, but Ric is expanding my horizons almost daily, so who knows about tomorrow.
Again, I love Ric and pity those who don't, meaning all you fuckin' bearded cunt-licking bitches.
Darleen at 9:11, you'll note by reading the post which offended you that I was referring to the reporter. Goldstein and minions attacked the reporter, because her story did not reflect the exact interpretation required by Mr. Goldstein (I guess we'll conclude he failed to speak with "intentionalism"). 127 comments on a small Arizona paper about an incident running on page 11 under the ad for cars?
His ego is a bit excessive.
What the hell is wrong with you people? If you all have personal issues,there's email, text messages, telephone, instant messages, bars and restaurants where you can work out your issues with each other face-to-face. Why do you insist on using an issue-blog to excercise your demons? Ridiculous.
This is an issue blog? Good Gawd.
Caric scampers around using scientific words like weenie-boys and cancer to describe those that disagree with him, and devotes several posts to each idea.
When someone calls him on the drivel that so easily flows from his fingers, you have the audacity to complain that this should be about the issues? Caric has had every opportunity to engage in the debate which he began, yet chooses not to.
"Why do you insist on using an issue-blog to excercise your demons?
I hate fat demons.
You people have a habit of trying to debate things that are not up for debate. Ric supplied facts. You chose to interpret them as opinions. You were mistaken. It's no different than if he had said "the earth is not flat", and you folks decided to cast it as unreasonable and an opinion subject to debate then proceeded to prove something that no one ever could. How could one debate whether a fact is a fact unless it were some sort of philosophical excercise? There is a time and place for debating what constitutes a fact but this really isn't it. Why do you persist? Do you think someone is going to read all this stuff and suddenly do a 180 from progressive to conservative? You don't like what you read here. You don't like those of us who disagree with you. You are clearly very agitated (and I refer to all the Conservatives who post here), when you see our responces and the anger is very clear. Why do you insist on following this course? I do not say this with disrespect. You're views are yours and I have no interest in changing them personally. But why do you torture yourselves this way? There are many conservative blogs where you can share your thoughts with like-minded people. Case in point; Protein Wisdom. You can't possibly be enjoying this. You're human beings for God's sake. With all due respect, we are not likely to stop posting the views with which you do not agree on here. So what's the point? I can't order you to stop doing this and I suppose when all is said and done I would not wish to silence any person's view whether I agree with it or not but...well, I can only say that I'd let it go if I were you guys. It's not going to persuade anyone. But, I guess that's for you folks to decide in the end.
Terribly sorry to upset you, todd. I will leave you all to your little echo chamber, then, but one thing puzzles me...
"You people have a habit of trying to debate things that are not up for debate. Ric supplied facts. You chose to interpret them as opinions. You were mistaken."
Could you please give me an example of a fact from Caric that you think I have taken as an opinion? Seriously, I am curious as to what type of things you are talking about.
Post a Comment