Comments on: The Papers Continue Fatuous http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sat, 20 Mar 2010 08:46:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: rollo http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/comment-page-1/#comment-143952 rollo Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:54:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/#comment-143952 Slocum- I doubt very much that you know anything at all about how the Dixie Chicks were forced to live in the immediate aftermath of Natalie Maines' honest and forthright statements regarding the deceitful and Unamerican conduct of the President. <blockquote>.</blockquote>It's specious to insist there's some kind of level playing field all this is happening on, where ideas can be weighed against each other purely as ideas, and freedom's some abstract thing. Deflating pomposity is the job description of political/social-issue cartoonists - viz. Daumier - whereas toadying to the powerful, going along with the program, reinforcing the propaganda and bigotry of the dominant is not.<blockquote>.</blockquote>Sullivan:<blockquote><i>"It seems to me that one of the most urgent tasks for theological departments in Western universities is to pioneer scholarly research into the origins of the Koran, to deepen our knowledge of its origins, and shed the light of reason on the claims of Muslim fundamentalists."</i></blockquote>As though the light of reason were an owned thing, and as mechanically responsive as a lamp. And should anyone take Sullivan's suggestion fully to heart and then turn that pioneering scholarly research on the origins of the West's theological documents, they would eventually stumble upon this admonition: "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Slocum-
I doubt very much that you know anything at all about how the Dixie Chicks were forced to live in the immediate aftermath of Natalie Maines’ honest and forthright statements regarding the deceitful and Unamerican conduct of the President.
.
It’s specious to insist there’s some kind of level playing field all this is happening on, where ideas can be weighed against each other purely as ideas, and freedom’s some abstract thing.
Deflating pomposity is the job description of political/social-issue cartoonists – viz. Daumier – whereas toadying to the powerful, going along with the program, reinforcing the propaganda and bigotry of the dominant is not.
.
Sullivan:
“It seems to me that one of the most urgent tasks for theological departments in Western universities is to pioneer scholarly research into the origins of the Koran, to deepen our knowledge of its origins, and shed the light of reason on the claims of Muslim fundamentalists.”
As though the light of reason were an owned thing, and as mechanically responsive as a lamp.
And should anyone take Sullivan’s suggestion fully to heart and then turn that pioneering scholarly research on the origins of the West’s theological documents, they would eventually stumble upon this admonition:
“Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

]]> By: Dave F http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/comment-page-1/#comment-143883 Dave F Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:47:20 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/#comment-143883 The assumption is that this is about cartoons. Come on, we know what it's really about: an excuse to flex muscle by whipping up the Muslim masses. The cartoons were published many months ago. The only reason the masses have seen them is that the radical Imams and Mullahs obligingly published them themselves in briefing documents sent arounf the world. So whose fault is all this then? It's odd that freedom of speech is suddenly a political issue in the West. The assumption is that this is about cartoons. Come on, we know what it’s really about: an excuse to flex muscle by whipping up the Muslim masses. The cartoons were published many months ago.
The only reason the masses have seen them is that the radical Imams and Mullahs obligingly published them themselves in briefing documents sent arounf the world. So whose fault is all this then?

It’s odd that freedom of speech is suddenly a political issue in the West.

]]> By: Raw Data http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/comment-page-1/#comment-143872 Raw Data Mon, 13 Feb 2006 06:50:28 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/#comment-143872 Nope, sorry, Walt Pohl, it doesn't. Nope, sorry, Walt Pohl, it doesn’t.

]]> By: dirk http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/comment-page-1/#comment-143869 dirk Mon, 13 Feb 2006 06:18:43 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/#comment-143869 It's you, teddy, that's clutching at air. Sullivan's drivel is a stark example of staggering stupidity, whereas Engels' post #38 is a sensible observation. Never mind. It’s you, teddy, that’s clutching at air. Sullivan’s drivel is a stark example of staggering stupidity, whereas Engels’ post #38 is a sensible observation.

Never mind.

]]> By: Teddy http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/comment-page-1/#comment-143862 Teddy Mon, 13 Feb 2006 04:14:34 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/#comment-143862 Engels, it seems you didn't catch the irony in my second post. Well, let me unpack it for you. Since you said that one who is capable of evaluating arguments does not need to resort to affecting offense at expressions like "staggeringly stupid", I just pointed out that you should then not be offended IF that expression were applied to your own comments. Engels, it seems you didn’t catch the irony in my second post. Well, let me unpack it for you. Since you said that one who is capable of evaluating arguments does not need to resort to affecting offense at expressions like “staggeringly stupid”, I just pointed out that you should then not be offended IF that expression were applied to your own comments.

]]> By: engels http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/comment-page-1/#comment-143856 engels Mon, 13 Feb 2006 03:01:17 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/#comment-143856 Teddy - You have made two comments on this thread. #23 <i>If one has good arguments, one usually does not have a need to resort to expressions like “<b>staggeringly stupid,</b>”...</i> #42 <i>...this is a <b>staggeringly stupid</b> comment.</i> There is a problem here. Can you see what it is? Teddy – You have made two comments on this thread.

#23 If one has good arguments, one usually does not have a need to resort to expressions like “staggeringly stupid,”…

#42 …this is a staggeringly stupid comment.

There is a problem here. Can you see what it is?

]]> By: Teddy http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/comment-page-1/#comment-143842 Teddy Mon, 13 Feb 2006 00:45:05 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/#comment-143842 Engels says that "if one is capable of evaluating arguments, one usually does not need to resort to affecting offense at the language in which they are expressed." I hope no one will resort to affecting offense if I say that this is a staggeringly stupid comment. Engels says that “if one is capable of evaluating arguments, one usually does not need to resort to affecting offense at the language in which they are expressed.” I hope no one will resort to affecting offense if I say that this is a staggeringly stupid comment.

]]> By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/comment-page-1/#comment-143834 John Quiggin Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:20:59 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/#comment-143834 Dan, obviously the rioters only have themselves to blame for their actions [actually the riots mostly occurred in countries like Syria where the govt controls such things, so I guess they should share the blame]. But I don't see how this outcome retrospectively changes our evaluation of those who produce this kind of stuff. If there were riots over Piss Christ, would that make Serrano(?) a martyr for free expression. As far as I can see, he'd be just as deserving of a kick in the pants as before. Dan, obviously the rioters only have themselves to blame for their actions [actually the riots mostly occurred in countries like Syria where the govt controls such things, so I guess they should share the blame].

But I don’t see how this outcome retrospectively changes our evaluation of those who produce this kind of stuff. If there were riots over Piss Christ, would that make Serrano(?) a martyr for free expression. As far as I can see, he’d be just as deserving of a kick in the pants as before.

]]> By: Walt Pohl http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/comment-page-1/#comment-143833 Walt Pohl Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:13:46 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/#comment-143833 Raw Data: I'm sure that this will come as a blow to your surely-inflated self-esteem, but the fact that you don't approve of the post doesn't mean we give a shit what you think. Raw Data: I’m sure that this will come as a blow to your surely-inflated self-esteem, but the fact that you don’t approve of the post doesn’t mean we give a shit what you think.

]]> By: Raw Data http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/comment-page-1/#comment-143831 Raw Data Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:02:26 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/#comment-143831 The problem is that the post is not well-written which is a tip-off that it is not well-thought. The problem is that the post is not well-written which is a tip-off that it is not well-thought.

]]> By: engels http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/comment-page-1/#comment-143830 engels Sun, 12 Feb 2006 22:57:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/#comment-143830 <i>If one has good arguments, one usually does not have a need to resort to expressions like “staggeringly stupid,” “bollocks,”, “bullshit,”, “idiot.”</i> If one is capable of evaluating arguments, one usually does not need to resort to affecting offense at the language in which they are expressed. If one has good arguments, one usually does not have a need to resort to expressions like “staggeringly stupid,” “bollocks,”, “bullshit,”, “idiot.”

If one is capable of evaluating arguments, one usually does not need to resort to affecting offense at the language in which they are expressed.

]]> By: Dan Simon http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/comment-page-1/#comment-143829 Dan Simon Sun, 12 Feb 2006 22:31:11 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/#comment-143829 <em>In fact, I posted on this very topic under the heading</em> Don’t react, it only encourages them. There's a big difference, John, between your "don't react, it only encourages them", and Kieran's implication that the publishers of the Danish cartoons "deserve a kick in the pants for pointlessly stirring-up shit". Would you agree with me, John, that if the protests against the anti-Christian art you dismissed as silly had turned into violent riots, then the rioters themselves would have been wholly to blame, and the artists--however vacuous and childish their scribbles--would not have deserved "a kick in the pants for pointlessly stirring-up shit"? In fact, I posted on this very topic under the heading Don’t react, it only encourages them.

There’s a big difference, John, between your “don’t react, it only encourages them”, and Kieran’s implication that the publishers of the Danish cartoons “deserve a kick in the pants for pointlessly stirring-up shit”. Would you agree with me, John, that if the protests against the anti-Christian art you dismissed as silly had turned into violent riots, then the rioters themselves would have been wholly to blame, and the artists—however vacuous and childish their scribbles—would not have deserved “a kick in the pants for pointlessly stirring-up shit”?

]]> By: y81 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/comment-page-1/#comment-143827 y81 Sun, 12 Feb 2006 20:13:39 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/#comment-143827 But doesn't Michael Moore need bodyguards mostly because he's rich? Most celebrities have bodyguards. I'm certainly not aware that Robert Mapplethorpe, who would be a better comparison to Salman Rushdie, needed bodyguards. But doesn’t Michael Moore need bodyguards mostly because he’s rich? Most celebrities have bodyguards. I’m certainly not aware that Robert Mapplethorpe, who would be a better comparison to Salman Rushdie, needed bodyguards.

]]> By: WhichFerdinand http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/comment-page-1/#comment-143822 WhichFerdinand Sun, 12 Feb 2006 19:02:40 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/#comment-143822 <i>Talk about “staggeringly stupid” and “boneheaded”—the author of this post knows such well indeed. A muddled post brings out muddled comments and both indicate muddled thinking. This post is not about anything at all except bile.</i> This comment, on the other hand, is very civil, original, insightful, and evincing of the author's exceptionally clear thinking, if said clarity of thinking were ever in doubt. Talk about “staggeringly stupid” and “boneheaded”—the author of this post knows such well indeed. A muddled post brings out muddled comments and both indicate muddled thinking. This post is not about anything at all except bile.

This comment, on the other hand, is very civil, original, insightful, and evincing of the author’s exceptionally clear thinking, if said clarity of thinking were ever in doubt.

]]> By: abb1 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/comment-page-1/#comment-143811 abb1 Sun, 12 Feb 2006 15:16:46 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/#comment-143811 I don't remember mentioning Salman Rushdie. His case is, of course, much more extreme; contrast it with bombings of al-Jazeera offices or Serbian TV station in Belgrade, if you want. Otherwise - no, I don't really see much of a difference. Michael Moore has to have bodyguards, the threat is real. The only difference is that he's rich enough to afford his own bodyguards. What about Alan Berg? I don’t remember mentioning Salman Rushdie. His case is, of course, much more extreme; contrast it with bombings of al-Jazeera offices or Serbian TV station in Belgrade, if you want.

Otherwise – no, I don’t really see much of a difference. Michael Moore has to have bodyguards, the threat is real. The only difference is that he’s rich enough to afford his own bodyguards. What about Alan Berg?

]]>