I just caught on to Kevin Drum’s ‘ALL-TIME WINGNUTTIEST BLOG POST CONTEST‘, and I’m not sure if I’m more depressed because nothing I wrote got nominated, or at the notion that Kevin Drum, who I like and is personally a good and sensible guy, is reduced to pandering to the morons in his audience.
Because, like, there isn’t enough partisan asininity in the blogs these days.
I think you are overestimating Drum.
It’s really cool of your friend Kevin to kick the late Michael Kelly. I suppose things like that are necessary when your life is devoted to defending Iran from invasion; minor issues like decency must seem really unimportant next to that.
Yeah, I saw that too…sigh.
A.L.
Reading Kevin’s old blog, and the comments therein, drove me out of the Democratic party. For that I thank him.
In all fairness, though, those are all pretty stupid blog posts. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel. My vote goes to “The Defeatocrats’ Cheer,” although Hinderaker’s post is wicked funny.
Hey, if asked, I can point out your “winguttiest” posts, right here! Just say the word!
🙂
I’d like to be nonpartisan. AL, maybe you could assist me in that by pointing me to anything Kevin Drum has ever written about a human being* outside of the Democratic party that is less than completely loathsome.
*I understand he is quite fond of his cat, but I’m a dog person.
I was wondering how he and his readers define “wingnut,” and how Glenn Reynolds had earned that title. He responded in comments, sort of, but not really.
I doubt he has the balls to point that allmighty finger at himself or his fellow liberals. God only knows that 99.9% of everything written at DailyKos, FiredogLake, and DU would be in competition.
My best assumption is that people are voting simply by choosing the title and author. denBeste took down his post, or at least its not showing in his archives. The top vote getters are the usual targets of Team Lefty’s ire. Just mentioning Bush in a title or anything by Malkin will have most of those people spitting at the keyboard.
Steve – can I invoke “Sturgeon’s Law”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law here? With the obligatory comment that it, of course, doesn’t apply to your stuff or mine…<g>
A.L.
Hmmm…
My vote would go to ‘Let’s take a closer look at those breasts’ for its uncanny resemblence to typical evening news.
But deliberately couched to provoke outrage or not, I would love to have written something as influential as ‘Pussification of the Western Male’ and I’m not going to be ashamed of the passion in ‘Tribes’ just because it conflicts with the media narrative. Anyone who saw the 2000 beds filled with heroin addicts withdrawing after Katrina would have had much the same response. A little more ‘my levies will not break!’ and a little less ‘How much should we pay to keep the ‘Saints’ [tribal identity] from leaving us to go to Los Angeles?’ would have saved alot of grief.
So I guess I’m a ‘wing-nut’.
Oh well. So it goes.
Michael Kelly’s writing sucked, and the fact that he’s now dead doesn’t make his writing any better than it was when he was alive.
And as for Chuck in #4: good riddance, glad you’re not part of my party any more.
Ah, the true generosity of spirit that makes the neoliberals so damn attractive and powerful.
How’s that A-G vote coming for you, Lee?
A.L.
#12 –
Nice choice of moniker. I’m sure it reminds you every day that Lee Atwater is dead, too. I can’t imagine how good that must feel.
#14: Well, not every day, but yeah, when I am reminded of it, I’m glad he’s where he belongs, all right. He truly was a piece of trash.
Seriously, AL. I would like to think well of people. You say you like Drum. Could you point me to any reason to do so?
Or you could go on talking to Lee Atwater – like you said, not enough of that to be found online, best to encourage it here while you can.
_I’m not sure if I’m more depressed because nothing I wrote got nominated, or at the notion that Kevin Drum, who I like and is personally a good and sensible guy, is reduced to pandering to the morons in his audience._
Yeah, I saw that too – it’s something I’d expect from somewhere else. Ah well.
Don’t worry AL – while I don’t think I’d encourage you to put on a cheerleader outfit, maybe calling Giuliani an unassuming man who shies the limelight would get you started.
*Gabriel at 9*
_I doubt he has the balls to point that allmighty finger at himself or his fellow liberals. _
That would be the moonbattery award, which has not yet been created. I’m sure it will be shortly.
Yes, the problem is surely Kevin Drum and not the aggressive, stupid, and totally wrong entrants in the contest. Not.
I LOVE following the link to Den Beste’s site…..
bq. Beeedaaaa!GO AWAY!(Readers of the site you came from are not welcome here.)
THAT made my day! Way to go Steven!
AND Michelle in a cheerleaders outfit! I’ll take three of that video for later, thanks.
Following most of the links pretty much guarantee a good read. I thank what’s his name for the compendium of links. Oh, and his reasons for doing it just show his lack of maturity. (Neener, neener! I’m smarter and cooler than you!) That reflects his attitude. Trying to smack down on Bill Whittle, well, just goes to show what a loser your buddy is Armed. You have to be one of the mentioned sheepdogs to appreciate what Bill has to say.
Oh, and how did that Glen get in there? That dude hasn’t got any cool anywhere and I doubt he would recognize it if he saw it. He is just boring.
Now, Kim, well, if you have to ask you don’t get it. Guns, classic girls and a real immigrant to boot? He would know if you were p——–fied, for sure. I love that essay.
Now, I know that all sorts of folks here may get there knickers in a twist but what the heck are you doing here if you cannot have some fun now and again? Or do ya’ll really take all this blog junk that seriously?
Andrew:
Damn it, Andrew, they are not entrants! They did not enter their names in this competition. They’re just some people who got up Kevin Drum’s butt, and I’m sure they did not intend to do that, either.
You are being aggressive, stupid, and totally wrong, and you are cluttering up this discussion with inexcusable errors.
Kevin Drum appears to be sensible guy, but his fans are among the most rabid in the leftosphere.
Somehow, Drum has perfected the technique of writing in an ostensibly reasonable voice whose perfectly fine-tuned pitch unfailingly inspires the most wildly outraged barks from his minions.
It’s a rare skill, he deserves credit for that much
bq. Damn it, Andrew, they are not entrants! They did not enter their names in this competition. They’re just some people who got up Kevin Drum’s butt, and I’m sure they did not intend to do that, either.
Glen, I’d have a lot more sympathy for this argument, except that the conservative blogosphere has been gleefully jumping up and down on supposedly “crazy” liberal blog posts for years. How many times has Glenn Reynolds linked to a “fisking” of a post he didn’t like? Hell, how many times has Armed Liberal himself attacked Matt Yglesias on this very site?
I suspect that a lot of the grief Kevin’s getting here has to do with how shoddy some of these formerly prominent posts – and authors – look in hindsight. Bill Whittle’s “Tribes” post just looks pompous and meanspirited in these days, and I say that as a native-born New Orleanean who doesn’t completely disagree with what celebrim writes in #11. Much of what Steven Den Beste wrote in the runup to the war has been proven wrong by history, and if Kim duToit’s essay didn’t strike you as way, way over the top at the time, then Winston Smith’s classic takedown should put the final nail in the coffin.
At least, that’s my take on these posts – if you still love them and think they’re nothing but good, honest truth, more power to you. But it’s silly to suggest that Kevin’s doing something unheard-of, or even all that unfair, in unearthing these posts and reminding his overwhelmingly liberal audience how silly they seem to a liberal POV.
You don’t think when Malkin calls politicians that Drum supports “losers” it isn’t intended to annoy Drum? Or to have questioned the masculinity of men who don’t support your failure-to-be war program? What exactly was that essay intended to get up? Conservatives’ pricks, I would guess.
The finalists made it to the list because they were insulting, mean, and in several cases utterly repudiated by subsequent events. If you aren’t willing to have your stupidities preserved and reviewed, then don’t blog, or if you do blog, do so with more decorum. (I might add, you can even skip the decorum as long as you’re right, and siding with George Bush reduces the chance of being right.)
You can dish it out but you can’t take it.
You don’t think when Malkin calls politicians that Drum supports “losers” it isn’t intended to annoy Drum? Or to have questioned the masculinity of men who don’t support your failure-to-be war program? What exactly was that essay intended to get up? Conservatives’ pricks, I would guess.
The finalists made it to the list because they were insulting, mean, and in several cases utterly repudiated by subsequent events. If you aren’t willing to have your stupidities preserved and reviewed, then don’t blog, or if you do blog, do so with more decorum. (I might add, you can even skip the decorum as long as you’re right, and siding with George Bush reduces the chance of being right.)
You can dish it out but you can’t take it.
Speaking of putting people where they belong, Lee Atwater is dead, and I don’t believe in seances. I’ve cut the astral cord on him. As a famous man once said, “good riddance.”
There are people one can legitimately wish dead, but people involved in American politics don’t fall into that category. And the adoption of the moniker was simply the final nail of loathesomenes.
We don’t want that type of individual here, and we won’t have them.
As for Drum, with the exception of the Michael Kelly bit (no more than I’d expect from him), it’s just the usual blogosphere noise and so what.
Why the Washington Monthly finds that useful, and wants to be associated with that comments section, is perhaps a better question.
Wow. I’m guessing John Grisham is hastily awaiting his own demise so people will stop pointing out that he writes like a tenth grader!
And there’s just something ironic about a guy with a woman’s first name and a french last name talking about the “puss(((ficaction” of American men!
That’s quality stuff I tell ya!
And if you really want to see Kim at his best, drop him an email and ask why he took down this post.
I guess it’s a good sign that he his at least sometimes capable of embarrasment.
Chris:
That wasn’t my argument, actually. My argument was that you can’t call them “entrants” because they didn’t enter … oh, never mind.
But are these the ten “wingnuttiest” blog posts ever, then? If so, I’d have to say – not bad. These compare very well with a week’s reading of Daily Kos (like my all-time favorite “I Hope Cheney’s Shooting Victim Dies”, which is now deleted) or Huffington Post, and Kos and HuffPo are not the worst, either.
But I think Kevin Drum could have done better, too; he could have found crazier things written by conservatives. I think Kevin wanted to make a list of very bad things so he could get Glenn Reynolds and Michelle Malkin on it. Then whenever someone wants to call Glenn Reynolds a far-right wingnut they’ll just link to this post, and that will be ample citation.
I like Steven Den Beste. I really, really do. I always have. Even when I disagree with him, a lot.
I’d put his worst posts, including the idiotic repeat post that made him wonder what he was doing blogging at all, over most people’s best posts.
Glen-
bq. That wasn’t my argument, actually. My argument was that you can’t call them “entrants” because they didn’t enter … oh, never mind.
If we’re gonna get into semantics here, I’ll note that they certainly are entrants in Drum’s competition. They’re not necessarily voluntary entrants (although some of them might take being knocked by Drum as an honor and sign up willingly) but they’re entrants none the less in that they’ve been entered into the contest.
And if you believe I’ve misrepresented you by reading your post as basically “they didn’t deserve this kind of thing from Drum,” my apologies.
bq. But are these the ten “wingnuttiest” blog posts ever, then? If so, I’d have to say – not bad. These compare very well with a week’s reading of Daily Kos (like my all-time favorite “I Hope Cheney’s Shooting Victim Dies”, which is now deleted) or Huffington Post, and Kos and HuffPo are not the worst, either.
Well, that’s just it – you’d have to say. Deciding how crazy various posts are obviously has a large subjective component to it, and what you’d see as crazy is gonna differ hugely from what Drum’s audience finds crazy.
Now, I’d suggest that comparing group blogs like Kos and HuffPo to standout posts from individual bloggers isn’t really a fair comparison – Kos vs. Little Green Footballs or Red State would likely be more fair, likewise HuffPo vs. TownHall or WorldNetDaily. For it to even approach a reasonable comparison of how really crazy some of these posts are, you’d have to compare individual posts by high profile liberals to individual posts by high profile conservatives.
And I’ll go out on a limb here and suggest that, as a rule, the occasional rantings of guys like Glenn Greenwald, Kos (the individual, not the site), Atrios, Juan Cole and Matt Yglesias would stand up quite well to the posts Drum highlights. Trot out Yglesias’ post on patriotism all you like, it’ll still be easier to take than duToit’s stuff about the sexual appeal of GWB in a flight suit.
bq. But I think Kevin Drum could have done better, too; he could have found crazier things written by conservatives. I think Kevin wanted to make a list of very bad things so he could get Glenn Reynolds and Michelle Malkin on it. Then whenever someone wants to call Glenn Reynolds a far-right wingnut they’ll just link to this post, and that will be ample citation.
Drum specifically gave the caveat that these were high profile posts, and while the “Ha, so-and-so was on this list of craziest posts ever,” motivation may have been a small factor in his creating the contest, I think that, at the end of the day, the harm that’ll come to the reputations of Reynolds and Malkin is going to be largely in proportion to how crazy their actual posts were, rather than how crazy Drum suggests they are.
The Hugh Hewitt link goes not to a Hugh Hewitt post, but to a post by a hostile critic, mocking or Fisking Hugh.
That’s weak.
GWB in a flight suit- hmm –well, ya know, he IS a pilot, and has a bunch of hours flying jet fighters. Now all I have ever flown are little Cessna’s, and I worked my ass off to get a simple private pilots license-so I do have a bit of respect for someone who can fly a fighter that would, quite literally, kill me in fifteen seconds. So knowing that, and having some tiny actual experience in aircraft, I have to say GWB is damn well entitled to wearing a flight suit. For those of other opinions, I respectfully suggest you hie down to the local FBO and learn to fly. Perhaps this will give some new insight.
“The Pussification of the Western Male” hit the nail on the head. The Nanny State is alive and well, thank you.
Raven-
bq. GWB in a flight suit- hmm –well, ya know, he IS a pilot, and has a bunch of hours flying jet fighters. Now all I have ever flown are little Cessna’s, and I worked my ass off to get a simple private pilots license-so I do have a bit of respect for someone who can fly a fighter that would, quite literally, kill me in fifteen seconds. So knowing that, and having some tiny actual experience in aircraft, I have to say GWB is damn well entitled to wearing a flight suit. For those of other opinions, I respectfully suggest you hie down to the local FBO and learn to fly. Perhaps this will give some new insight.
Fortunately, this isn’t 2003 and we don’t have to rehash old arguments about GWB’s military service. Instead, the relevant quote from duToit’s essay is this:
bq. Because only the strong men propagate. And women know it. You want to know why I know this to be true? Because powerful men still attract women. Women, even liberal women, swooned over George Bush in a naval aviator’s uniform. Donald Trump still gets access to some of the most beautiful pussy available, despite looking like a medieval gargoyle. Donald Rumsfeld, if he wanted to, could fuck 90% of all women over 50 if he wanted to, and a goodly portion of younger ones too.
Defend that statement if you want, Raven, but spare me the strawman attack and condescending tone, thanks.
I’d be happy to discuss the merit of Kim Du Toit’s most famous post, but I really have no desire to defend it. It deserves consideration, but the fact that it a crass over the top rant makes it unworthy to defend. Even so, Winston Smith’s counter-post doesn’t even come close to being a classic take down of it. But to describe the innumerable reasons why would put me uncomfortably close to defending KDT and there are alot of things there that are also if not indefensible, then at least really stupid. Suffice to say that I think I could make KDT’s argument in a more defensible and serious manner, but I don’t think I could make it in a manner that more people would have paid attention to, more people would have been influenced by, and most importantly wouldn’t have bored people in the reading of it.
Which is, for example, one of the reasons Winston Smith’s counter can’t come close to being called a take down of the original essay.
But unfortunately KDT’s famous essay not even close to the wingnuttiest things I’ve ever read. There are some real nuts out there – people that make Ron Paul look sober minded.
Celebrim-
bq. But to describe the innumerable reasons why would put me uncomfortably close to defending KDT and there are alot of things there that are also if not indefensible, then at least really stupid. Suffice to say that I think I could make KDT’s argument in a more defensible and serious manner, but I don’t think I could make it in a manner that more people would have paid attention to, more people would have been influenced by, and most importantly wouldn’t have bored people in the reading of it.
The obvious response here is that getting people to pay attention to a rant that’s laced with obviously stupid things is that, for many readers, the stupid things are entangled with the interesting bits. At best people reading the essay have to separate the wheat from the chaff, as you’re all but admitting needs to be done here, even if you don’t want to do it yourself. And at worst people reading the essay can’t or don’t separate the wheat from the chaff, and you have guys nodding along at the idea that those snooty liberal women really want to have sex with GWB, they just won’t admit it.
That said, if you’re willing to put up with that level of nonsense as long as it’s associated with a germ of truth (which even Winston Smith ackowledges is in the original essay) then it’s a shame that standard doesn’t get applied more often by the denizens of this board when they’re discussing liberal bloggers.
bq. Which is, for example, one of the reasons Winston Smith’s counter can’t come close to being called a take down of the original essay.
Tastes differ, obviously, but I think Smith’s work was brilliant in that it was not only hilarious (I still get some use out of the phrase “nads the size of leptons”) but it managed to acknowledge the basic importance of courage and manliness while lampooning the stupid bits. Using how much coverage a post gets as a measure of quality is a bad metric to be using, I’d argue.
Chris:
Well, of course. Let me point out my nominee for “Worst Kevin Drum post ever.”:http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_06/008924.php
Do I find this crazy? No, it’s the perfectly sane reasoning of a thoroughly despicable mind that calls itself “liberal”, but which is good for nothing but adding up the score in another idiot game of Democrats vs. Republicans.
Iran doesn’t stand for everything Kevin Drum stands against. George Bush stands for everything Kevin Drum stands against. Iran is the Land of Oz compared to that.
It doesn’t occur to Kevin that apologism and silence in the face of evil does absolutely nothing to prevent war with Iran. On the contrary, it encourages the freakish Ahmadinejad, who thinks that the world is too weak and divided to oppose his ambitions. Saddam Hussein cherished the same illusions right to the end. Strong international pressure on Iran might produce results without war, but Kevin doesn’t care – there are no enemies to the left of George Bush. If Bush criticizes Iran, Drum defends it.
The world can go fuck itself, because all Kevin Drum cares about is electing Democrats.
Not just a reactionary, but a petty reactionary.
_It doesn’t occur to Kevin that apologism and silence in the face of evil does absolutely nothing to prevent war with Iran._
If our experience with iraq is any clue, only opposing Bush can prevent war with iran. Bush will sabotage any diplomatic effort to avoid war.
_On the contrary, it encourages the freakish Ahmadinejad, who thinks that the world is too weak and divided to oppose his ambitions._
And he’s likely right. Bush divided us.
_Saddam Hussein cherished the same illusions right to the end. Strong international pressure on Iran might produce results without war, but Kevin doesn’t care – there are no enemies to the left of George Bush._
There’s no reason to think that we can have “results” without war. If we give Bush the authority to go to war, he will go to war.
_If Bush criticizes Iran, Drum defends it._
Drum doesn’t defend iran, Drum attacks Bush. Deservedly.
_The world can go fuck itself, because all Kevin Drum cares about is electing Democrats._
No, all *you* care about is supporting Bush. Bush has been a disaster not only for the USA but also for the Republican Party, and you support him anyway. He has more than a year left to damage the GOP and you’re still supporting him. It’s almost surprising.
I’m more a libertarian than a democrat, but in the short run I find myself supporting the lesser evil. Republican legislators have been blindly supporting Bush so I have to vote against them. I can only hope the GOP will become a third party and then libertarians get their chance to defeat democrats. Remember, at this point a vote for a republican is a vote against libertarians. And for that matter a vote against liberty.
Glen-
bq. Do I find this crazy? No, it’s the perfectly sane reasoning of a thoroughly despicable mind that calls itself “liberal”, but which is good for nothing but adding up the score in another idiot game of Democrats vs. Republicans.
I don’t see anywhere that Drum argues he’s not condemning Iran because he thinks it’ll hurt Bush; rather, I see him saying he’s not condemning Iran (even as he recognizes that Iran’s theocracy is evil) because he’s afraid it’ll lead to another war, one that Bush isn’t capable of managing competently.
That said, you are of course free to find Kevin Drum as despicable as you want. But these days, I think you have to realize that a solid majority of Americans would agree with Drum that Bush going to war with Iran would be, in the end, worse than allowing Iran to get nukes. I know I do. And you’re welcome to find me, and everybody else who thinks the same way, despicable too, of course. But insofar as you’re trying to show how crazy Kevin Drum supposedly is, the fact that many – maybe even most – of America agrees with him isn’t exactly a point in your favor.
Actually, it just occurred to me it might help clarify things to talk about this one particular passage:
bq. It doesn’t occur to Kevin that apologism and silence in the face of evil does absolutely nothing to prevent war with Iran. On the contrary, it encourages the freakish Ahmadinejad, who thinks that the world is too weak and divided to oppose his ambitions.
Well, no, Drum’s probably right that Americans not loudly decrying Iran deprives Bush of the political momentum he’d need to get a war with Iran off the ground. Being quiet about Iran does make it easier for Ahmadinejad to get nukes, but that doesn’t necessarily lead to war with Iran, any more than Mao getting nukes led to war with China.
If our experience with iraq is any clue, only opposing Bush can prevent war with iran.
That’s not true. Before the war with Iraq, many Democrats vehemently opposed Bush and the Republican party. The fact that many on the left considered Bush (and Republicans) to be more of an enemy than Saddam did not prevent the war in Iraq. In fact, the open hatred many Dems displayed towards the right-leaning half of the country probably helped push that half into supporting the war.
United we stand, divided we fall. I don’t like Bush and I think regime change in Iran is a terrible idea, but partisan bickering has never helped the country in the past and it won’t help us now. When the Democrats relentlessly attack the elected president of the country, they’re showing everyone that they only care about their interests. They don’t have America’s best interests at heart.
Offering reasonable alternatives to a war in Iran and supporting America’s interests in Iraq are the only ways Dems can prevent more disasters in the region.
Chris: You are right. I think that Kim Du Toit’s rant was an example of wheat mixed with chaff.
One of the problems with Winston Smith’s attempt at a takedown is that he had absolutely no ability to discern which was which. The real chaff in Kim Du Toit’s essay was his crassness and his politicization of what is fundamentally not a political but rather a cultural issue. Winston Smith’s reply failed to understand the essay, and used it as a launching point for more political point making and crassness. It was no better than the thing he was replying to, and it was a less interesting read and less substantial read to boot. Smith didn’t have nearly as much in the way of an idea animating his response, as the essay he was responding to.
Besides simply being boring, I thought the Smith response was damned in no small part by its own recognition of the kernal of truth in the essay. Smith repeatedly then asserts disagreements with Kim Du Toit that I doubt Kim would actually find to be disagreements, and whether out of a lack of charity or a lack of ignorance repeatedly fails to understand Kim’s point. The esssay repeatedly makes inappropriate analogies, draws inappropriate conclusions, and generally reads like someone who is so lost in the chaff that they can’t see the wheat. Kim would normally be all to blame for that, but if you are discerning enough to see the kernal of truth then you ought to be discerning enough to read the essay with more understanding.
Finally, Smith is every bit as humerously un-reflective as he accuses Kim Du Toit of being, starting with the claim that the essay isn’t really worth responding to and then launching into a long long long detailed counterpost which concludes with how the essay he’s responding to isn’t worth responding to. Given how much time and effort he spends responding to it, this ought to strike a reflective person as humerous and rather undermines the thesis of the post – which is that Kim Du Toit isn’t conscious of his own unmanly behavior as evidenced by the essay. A classic takedown, especially one that claims that the opponent is beneath responding to, is short.
I’m more than willing to discuss the kernals of truth underlying liberal beliefs. I don’t know why you would think I don’t, or that someone like Armed Liberal doesn’t. Granted, when I do, I tend to be accused of being a communist or some other silly thing, but the number of posters here likely to respond to me in that way is tiny compared to the number of liberal trolls that now call winds’ home.
celebrim-
bq. One of the problems with Winston Smith’s attempt at a takedown is that he had absolutely no ability to discern which was which. The real chaff in Kim Du Toit’s essay was his crassness and his politicization of what is fundamentally not a political but rather a cultural issue. Winston Smith’s reply failed to understand the essay, and used it as a launching point for more political point making and crassness. It was no better than the thing he was replying to, and it was a less interesting read and less substantial read to boot. Smith didn’t have nearly as much in the way of an idea animating his response, as the essay he was responding to.
It’s interesting that you’d focus on politicization and crassness as the failings of duToit’s essay – I’m far less bothered by his slamming of liberals and occasional use of swear words as I am by the misogyny that runs through the essay. The suggestion in the quote I posted above that duToit knows what women really want is one example, but duToit’s grossly over-the-top reaction to a Cheerios commercial is even more repulsive. Insofar as Smith focuses on this stuff (which really does run throughout the whole of duToit’s essay) and makes solid, corrective points, I think he’s done a great service.
bq. Besides simply being boring, I thought the Smith response was damned in no small part by its own recognition of the kernal of truth in the essay. Smith repeatedly then asserts disagreements with Kim Du Toit that I doubt Kim would actually find to be disagreements, and whether out of a lack of charity or a lack of ignorance repeatedly fails to understand Kim’s point. The esssay repeatedly makes inappropriate analogies, draws inappropriate conclusions, and generally reads like someone who is so lost in the chaff that they can’t see the wheat. Kim would normally be all to blame for that, but if you are discerning enough to see the kernal of truth then you ought to be discerning enough to read the essay with more understanding.
I think you’re vastly overestimating the amount of wheat in duToit’s essay – other than “it’s bad for courage and manliness to be banished”, there’s just not that much there beyond duToit’s personal hangups. And I’m curious as to what disagreements you think Kim would find not to actually be disagreements – that Queer Eye for the Straight Guy really isn’t all that bad? That not all women really want to be ravished by powerful men? That many of the examples duToit holds up as paragons of manliness are actually manufactured personas? You’re making blunt assertions of “inappropriate” analogies and conclusions, but it’s hard to deal with those assertions when you’re being so vague.
You’re also continually confusing the idea of a takedown – which is to mock stupidity – and the idea of a rebuttal, which is to soberly, and even charitably, analyze the argument your opponent is making. Smith’s post is very much the former, and not at all the latter. When over half of duToit’s essay consists of pure bile towards women and liberals and anyone duToit doesn’t think is sufficiently macho, duToit’s not owed any “understanding” from the people he’s attacking.
bq. Finally, Smith is every bit as humerously un-reflective as he accuses Kim Du Toit of being, starting with the claim that the essay isn’t really worth responding to and then launching into a long long long detailed counterpost which concludes with how the essay he’s responding to isn’t worth responding to. Given how much time and effort he spends responding to it, this ought to strike a reflective person as humerous and rather undermines the thesis of the post – which is that Kim Du Toit isn’t conscious of his own unmanly behavior as evidenced by the essay. A classic takedown, especially one that claims that the opponent is beneath responding to, is short.
Well, no, a classic takedown yanks out and dissects every little bit of stupidity in what it’s taking down. You’ve got a point that Smith does engage in some unintentional irony when he takes so long to demolish something he initially disparages, but he does also point out towards the beginning that he feels compelled to do so, simply because duToit’s essay got so much play at the time. In contrast, I don’t know what, if anything, excuses duToit’s whining about the lack of real manly values these days.
bq. I’m more than willing to discuss the kernals of truth underlying liberal beliefs. I don’t know why you would think I don’t, or that someone like Armed Liberal doesn’t. Granted, when I do, I tend to be accused of being a communist or some other silly thing, but the number of posters here likely to respond to me in that way is tiny compared to the number of liberal trolls that now call winds’ home.
You personally may well be willing to discuss the kernels of truth underlying liberal beliefs, but I’ve rarely seen Armed Liberal be particularly generous to the liberal posts he highlights. And Glen’s ire at the Kevin Drum post above is a perfect example of how uncharitable most WoC posters tend to be towards liberal thought.
And as for your closing dig about liberal trolls, I’ll suggest that much depends on point of view – “Lee Atwater” may have been banished above for trollish behavior, but I find the outright hatred that Glen Wishard displays towards those who don’t follow a neocon hardline on Iran to be far more destructive towards meaningful dialogue. The former is just an annoyance; the latter is a state of permanent hatred towards those who don’t think the same as you.
Chris:
Kevin Drum doesn’t care about a war with Iran, any more than he cares about Iran getting nuclear weapons. “Bush is trying to start a war with Iran” is the propaganda bray of the hour, and Kevin wants everybody to know that he’s right on message. He’s not getting it mixed up with any nuance.
His hand-wringing about helping to start a war by speaking the truth is pathetic. And his crocodile tears about theocracy and repression in Iran are an insult.
Apparently Kevin has decided that the Democratic base has insufficient mental architecture to entertain two notions at the same time: “The Iranian regime is bad” and “War with Iran is bad”.
chris:
I am not a neocon, and I don’t demand that anyone follow any line on Iran, much less one that leads to war.
I do demand that serious people recognize that Iranian fascism is brutalizing the Iranian people, sponsoring terrorism, fomenting war in Iraq and threatening war with Israel. And I am not impressed by a thoroughly bogus and hypocritical “pacifism” that goes into a coma every time a Democrat gets into the White House.
However, since I can’t disagree with you without being accused of hating you, and having your favorite epithet/code-word thrown at me, the discussion is over.
Chris: The ancient Greeks believed that there are two things that demonstrate exceptional braveness: a man in battle and a woman in labor. Neither province could ever be fully the part of the other gender. Women would never as whole possess the physical strength required for battle, and men obviously can never possess a womb. We are different, like that or not.
True misogny consists in believing that women are merely flawed men. It does not consists in thinking that women aren’t men or that men aren’t women, or that it is quite fine for either to not be the other. One can hold women in quite high regard, and still think it extremely bad for men to be made into women. In the same fashion, you can hold men in high regard, and still think it extremely bad for women to be made into men.
We have become a society which treats men (and boys) as if they were flawed women. We have gone from being a society that protrays women as bimbos, to being a society that portrays men as himbos. This is not a net improvement, nor is it a sign of any sort of progressiveness.
If you want to take down Kim Du Toit, you don’t need a long rant. Any man could do it in twelve words or less.
Kim Du Toit acts just like the sort of sterotypical ‘Himbo’ he detests.
Maybe that’s what he really dislikes.
_”We have become a society which treats men (and boys) as if they were flawed women. We have gone from being a society that protrays women as bimbos, to being a society that portrays men as himbos. This is not a net improvement, nor is it a sign of any sort of progressiveness.”_
Wow, that is really well said. I wonder if the fear and hatred of our culture from the Islamo-fascists is more from the Britney Spears hyper-sexualization that they claim, or really from the way we elevate women as the naturally wiser, more mature sex. That has to scare the hell out of the true mysognists of the world, those that want to cut womens heads off for learning to read.
Thats not to say I approve of this practice either- when we say the sexes are equal we should really mean it. Not that men make good pack mules and women are better at virtually everthing else. It really bothered me growing up (still does) to see a constant homogenous stream of television and movies where the man was the bumbling, oversexed, idiot who just needed to be straightened out by his mate. I forget the percentage, but a study found something like 90%+ of commercials had the female winning out over the male in some way. We’ve got a real problem with the psyche’s of boys in this country and we wonder why. Little girls growing up thinking they were at best barbie dolls was bad, but so is little boys aspiring to be K-Fed. And i am dead serious about that.
Glen-
bq. I am not a neocon, and I don’t demand that anyone follow any line on Iran, much less one that leads to war.
bq. I do demand that serious people recognize that Iranian fascism is brutalizing the Iranian people, sponsoring terrorism, fomenting war in Iraq and threatening war with Israel. And I am not impressed by a thoroughly bogus and hypocritical “pacifism” that goes into a coma every time a Democrat gets into the White House.
bq. However, since I can’t disagree with you without being accused of hating you, and having your favorite epithet/code-word thrown at me, the discussion is over.
Glen, you’ve given every indication that you do hate Kevin Drum, calling him despicable and accusing him of any number of terrible things in posts #36 and 43. Since I and many others think more or less the same way that Drum does, to the extent of believing that agitating against Iran does play into plans for war with Iran, I’m not sure what to think other than that you’d find us similarly despicable.
And, for the record, “neocon” isn’t a favorite word of mine – I hardly ever use it, as a quick search of my comments should suggest, and I certainly don’t use it as an epithet or codeword. But since guys like Norman Podhoretz are virtually the only people I see arguing for military action against Iran, and Podhoretz and company are unquestionably neoconservatives, I don’t feel particularly guilty labeling the “attack Iran” line as a neocon one.
Celebrim-
bq. True misogny consists in believing that women are merely flawed men. It does not consists in thinking that women aren’t men or that men aren’t women, or that it is quite fine for either to not be the other. One can hold women in quite high regard, and still think it extremely bad for men to be made into women. In the same fashion, you can hold men in high regard, and still think it extremely bad for women to be made into men.
I don’t entirely disagree with this, although I don’t entirely agree with it either, as it’s so vague it’s hard to know what the practical implications are. Are men and women different? Sure. Are men and women different enough that they should be treated differently by the law, and with regard to access to certain jobs? Highly debatable, I’d say. It’s also important to note that your argument has been used in the past, almost verbatim, to argue against women doing things like voting, wearing pants and gaining access to good careers and higher education. I very much doubt you’re arguing for any of these things, but that’s why it’s so important to precisely delineate what you’re actually arguing for, rather than falling back on broad platitudes like “men and women are different.”
Now, that said, I’d argue that whatever your definition of “true” misogyny is, it’s misogynist as hell to basically tell women that you, as a man, know who she really wants to f&*k better than she herself does. This has nothing to do with treating women as men, or men as women, nor does it have anything to do with liberal vs. conservative. It’s simply an incredibly rude and condescending thing to do that no woman I have ever met would feel comfortable with.
And, I have to say, it doesn’t speak terribly well of you, Celebrim, that you dodged this point and retreated to vague definition of “true” misogyny rather than admitting that, whatever the other merits of duToit’s essay might have been, there’s a real ugly streak of exactly this kind of misogyny running through it.
bq. We have become a society which treats men (and boys) as if they were flawed women. We have gone from being a society that protrays women as bimbos, to being a society that portrays men as himbos. This is not a net improvement, nor is it a sign of any sort of progressiveness.
Funny, I think we’re still portraying plenty of women as bimbos, and plenty of men – both in and out of the media – as “real men”. I’ll also point out that the degree to which we’ve feminized men is both debatable and somewhat subjective. No, we’re not the rugged cowboys of the western frontier, but we can’t really afford to be in an increasingly crowded, complex society where individual actions affect more and more people (and more and more people aren’t really willing to swallow the amount of crap they used to from dominant males). The real question, to my mind, is whether we can still summon qualities of courage and strength when needed. Ironically, prior to 9/11, I had my doubts about our society being able to do so, but after seeing the reaction by firefighters, police, and regular citizens on that day – both men and women – I don’t worry about such things anymore.
Now, all that said, you’ve got to ignore a whole lot of duToit’s essay to act like that was really the thrust of what he was saying. And I still maintain Smith’s piece was excellent precisely because he wouldn’t let such stupidity as “the Cheerios commerical guy will go cheat on his wife and it’s all her fault” off the hook.
bq. If you want to take down Kim Du Toit, you don’t need a long rant. Any man could do it in twelve words or less. Kim Du Toit acts just like the sort of sterotypical ‘Himbo’ he detests.
Except that’s not a takedown, that’s an assertion. I don’t even like duToit, and I’d expect a good deal more evidence to that effect before I’d agree about the post. And I note that, if nothing else, Smith’s post is valuable because very, very few of the conservative blogs slapping duToit on the back after his original post were willing to admit as much.
Chris:
Well, I called his mind despicable; for all I know, his soul is as pure as the driven snow. Maybe I should have said that the ideas expressed in his post are despicable – and they are – and leave open the possibility that the rest of his brain is occupied with humane thought, which must remain silent when the political id is screaming.
At any rate, I feel there is no danger of Kevin Drum being reduced to sobbing in his corn flakes over anything that I might think, any more than George Bush is waiting for Kevin to drop a careless word of criticism so he can bomb Iran.
You know, the problem with the world is not really the wingnuts and the moonbats. The people who are truly crazy and ignorant are not the real problem. The problem is the people who know better and don’t care.
Glen-
bq. Well, I called his mind despicable; for all I know, his soul is as pure as the driven snow. Maybe I should have said that the ideas expressed in his post are despicable – and they are – and leave open the possibility that the rest of his brain is occupied with humane thought, which must remain silent when the political id is screaming.
bq. At any rate, I feel there is no danger of Kevin Drum being reduced to sobbing in his corn flakes over anything that I might think, any more than George Bush is waiting for Kevin to drop a careless word of criticism so he can bomb Iran.
Justify it however you want, the point is that you can’t reason with Kevin Drum – or his ideas, and by extension, anyone else who has those ideas – because they seem to make you spitting mad. I’m not trying to save your soul here – hate what you want, be pissed off at whoever you want. But insofar as you’re actually trying to shift opinion away from those ideas, I’ll go ahead and suggest it’s a counterproductive strategy.
Chris:
You sound like that weaselly little guy in my therapy group. The one I pushed through a plate glass window. He didn’t know what the word “entrant” meant, either.
Seriously, Chris, if you want to reason about Iran, or about Kevin Drum, then get your reasonable arguments out and stop being a martinet.
_You sound like that weaselly little guy in my therapy group. The one I pushed through a plate glass window._
Um. They haven’t actually let you *out* yet, have they?
They let you post from there, right?
They haven’t pushed this cost-cutting throw-people-out-on-the-streets-to-fend-for-themselves thing to the point they’d actually let you out, have they?
J Thomas –
I didn’t really defenestrate somebody for not knowing what “entrant” meant. I know you know that, but perhaps it should be clarified for some the excitable types who’ve been coming around lately.
As Kevin Drum would say, I know that pushing people out of windows is wrong. However, if I don’t push people out of windows, my complacency might lead George Bush to think that he can start a war with Iran. And I’m simply not willing to be a pawn in the Bush administration’s latest marketing campaign.
I don’t have a very good answer for this dilemma.
Glen, this isn’t supposed to be a therapy group so it’s not very important here exactly *why* you pushed him through a plate glass window. The point is, that is not usually acceptable behavior in therapy groups and it might be a sign that closer supervision and individual therapy are indicated. 😉
Seriously, given a choice between iran slowly developing nukes, versus iran slowly developing nukes while the Bush administration incompetently attacks them, I have to prefer the former. Our international relations need to be on hold until 2009, unless we can get Bush/Cheney impeached which unfortunately looks very unlikely.
Perhaps they might both resign for medical reasons?
It makes no sense to support Bush in anything at this point. He has shown us what he can do. We are better off to do nothing for another year or so.