Where Is The Outrage?

Thanks for posting this. Malkin might be the worst American not employed by the Bush administration, but too many folks don’t understand that you can’t insult someone based on their group membership without insulting everyone in the group.

As for the nukes, we ought not fall for this extra “tactical,” as if they’re something other than nuclear bombs.

I take the point to heart. Yet I am conflicted: are we to let venoumous slurs,perfectly appropriate to the moment and target, languish in the service of a broader good? Such a course might be appropriate, but I see a need to argue for it, rather than assume that the struggle to attain gender-neutral profanity must override all else.

Consider the following: Malkin is willing to dramatically change her beliefs and prescriptions to accomodate the currently profitable political interests. In so doing, she feels it expedient to justify perhaps(apologies to Mr. Scott and Tears et al) the most official act of racial injustice in U.S. History.

In the first case, Ms. Malkin shows herself to abandon her principles for monetary gain. In the second, she demeans the Asian community in service to imperialism.

“me love you long time” summarizes this condition perfectly.

I understand that a Filipina woman might be strongly offended by this, and most should: Malkin, however, is not among them.

ogged: but too many folks don’t understand that you can’t insult someone based on their group membership without insulting everyone in the group.

Is that really the best reason for the taboo? Isn’t it that your race, sexual orientation, or whatever forms a part of your identity that’s supposed to be off-limits?

Mr. Foolishmortal,

Michelle is my kababayan (homegirl), and I am on her side of course, but I will limit my comment to that business of “demeans the Asian community”.

There is no “Asian community”, and certainly not on the matter of the Japanese internment. East Asian cultures are more diverse than those of European nations.

Malkin is a daughter of Filipino immigrants, not Japanese. Filipinos and Japanese have absolutely nothing in common, not language, culture, manners, religion or customs. Filipino-Americans do not naturally mix socially with Japanese-Americans, certainly no more than they do with any other ethnic group in the US. There just isn’t any particular affinity.

Filipinos, like most East Asians, also have an old grudge against the Japanese. We Filipinos of a certain age grew up with stories of the war and Japanese atrocities and of revenge against the Japanese. And there was the universal experience of Japanese residents who turned out to be spies, soldiers and agents, who had flooded the country for years before the invasion. This was a universal experience for Filipinos, part of the national myths by now.

It may even be that out of all Asians the Filipinos have been the most willing to forgive. There is little anti-Japanese bitterness in the Philippines today, nothing like that which is still common in China or Korea. But to forgive is not to forget.

Whether or not Malkin is correct, her writings are no betrayal of anyone. One can even say they are true to her heritage.

ogged: Can’t we just call her a “self-hating Pinay”?

Belle seems to be presupposing that there aren’t any genuine racists/sexists on the left – that’s unfortunately just not the case.

One of the “proverbs of Satan” by William Blake is “opposition is truest friendship”. And someone made the observation (and I haven’t a clue whom) that some peoples intellect and expression is formed in opposition to things, and rather like tennis, needs a good return to grow as a player. We are all to some extent reactionaries, in this way…
It’s precisely the way one group of players in the Blogwars is trying to hold their real or perceived opponents to standards they don’t themselves remotely meet is this bizarre thing, and source of much of the anguish (and blog postings). BTW, Howard Kurtz seems objectively to have differing standards for, say, Glenn Reynolds than Amanda Marcotte…
And henry(not the famous one), my local paper (the Atlanta Journal Constitution) often seems to have at least twice the copy on sports than national/international news.. and the ‘newshole’ for those sections isn’t growing..

Henry,(not the famous one)

You comment regarding the 8 year old strikes me as pretentious, judgmental, and silly. Ridicule, specifically, nicknames, has always been a part of confrontation. True, personally, I like it in small doses, and juxtaposed, hopefully, with wit, wisdom, and where possible, factual authority. But it does have its place.

As to not reading ‘Right wing’blogs….well, perhaps you should sometime. Clearly generalizing, nonetheless,I would argue that the ‘Right wing’ blogs represnt the official, second tier, most times, but official just same, wing of the BushCo.And therefore worthy of some study. While ‘Left wing’ blogs are clearly outside the mainstream of the present Dem leadership. Much to the chagrin, i might add, of the ‘Left wing’ blogs. I think Peter Daou’s article on this dynamic makes enligtened reading on this dynamic. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-daou/the-broken-triangle-pr_b_13691.html

I remember a withering editorial in Socialist Outlook in the late 80s which took someone to task for calling Nigel Lawson a “clever fat Jew”. It said that the complainer had “managed to comment on the only 3 things about Nigel Lawson that are unobjectionable”.

I gotcher outrage right here, Belle. Seriously, I’ve been reading through those threads as well, and — even though I think Collins’s implied “Michelle Malkin = Melamandissa Marcottewen” moral equivalence is, how shall I say this politely, utter horseshit — it’s really an appalling experience. I left a brief comment to try to call a halt to the “me love you long time” crap in Atrios’ comment threads, and a few people picked up on it. But you know what they say about tossing a message into a sea of a thousand comments.

I can just confirm, perhaps to pedro’s relief, that this strain is not limited to non-white non-anglo-saxon immigrants. I have had some distinctly unpleasant experiences with self-styled leftists when, for example, calling people for GOTV or fundraising purposes. Experiences that made me wonder what on earth these people would have been like if I’d had, for example, less than perfect english.

Yes Luis, WWII was a disaster for us Filipinos, but i don’t see anything ‘natural’ in blaming the Japanese Americans. It only takes a bit of thinking to see that such a knee jerk association is misplaced, and i can assure you that most Filipinos are capable of such reflective thought. I don’t see how Malkin would improve the tone of Philippine media. Our local media (and politics) has more than its share of faults but, thankfully, overt racism is not one of them.

Mr. Cvj,

I don’t know, it seems to me there is more frank and acceptable racism in the Philippines than is normal in the US. People complain about the “intsik” all the time, among other things.

And opposition to immigration (back when immigration TO the Philippines was desirable, oh how we have fallen!) was the Filipino norm.

As for the Filipino newspapers and TV, I don’t know what you watch, but Malkins usual tone and level of discourse is superior to most commentators if you ask me.

Oof, I need to pay more attention, as I didn’t understand the “me love you long time” thing one whit. Please, ignore #3 people, for I am an idiot. I will now pay penance by…reading some Malkin and figuring out what people are talking about. (From what I can gather, that should be penance enough.)

Luis, yes our people gripe about the ‘intsik’ (Chinese-Filipinos), but it comes from the standpoint of economic grievances of an impoverished majority vs. a privileged minority. Opposition to immigration has also been driven by economic insecurities. Outside that, our peoples have generally gotten along fine in terms of ethnic relations. As i said previously, i don’t see how Malkin’s racist tone and discourse could be an improvement over the local fare.

Mr. Cvj,

US opposition to immigration is for the most part based on the same kinds of insecurity, there is nothing special about it. It is also a class-based anxiety, much stronger in the lower than the upper classes. The WSJ is all for immigration.

When we in the Philippines were dealing with Vietnamese refugees thirty years ago there was much complaining about taking them in because they would take jobs from poor Filipinos.

Back in the 1950’s Filipinos worried about competition from cheap Chinese “coolie” labor (thats how the newspapers referred to it), not economic domination. The Chinese only became a “priveleged minority” later.

There is nothing unusual there about being against immigration, particularly in the second generation.

Yes, “zealous convert” is not the right word for this phenomenon. Perhaps we could call it, after Wittgenstein, the Tractatus 6.54 syndrome.

Belle seems to be presupposing that there aren’t any genuine racists/sexists on the left – that’s unfortunately just not the case.

As one has come to expect from Novakant, this statement is wrong in a number of ways, but I’m not sure it’s really worth trying to explain why to someone who just types up his confused opinions as if they are self-evident truths.

Luis, that’s one hell of a blind spot.

Luis, it’s OK for a second generation or even for an actual immigrant to be against certain aspects of immigration or even against all immigration. I don’t have a problem with that.

But what’s with the rage, the zeal? C’mon, you have to admit it’s bizarre, it’s odd, it’s ridiculous.

Mr. G.M. Texan,

1. It reflects badly on the person hurling the insults, it implies a lack of manners, a lack of prudence, a lack of propriety, and no sense of proportion.

2. It is read or heard by third parties who may feel they are included in the slur, or get the idea that the combatant holds such views in general and not in particular.

Luis, I don’t read Malkin, I only get snippets like this: http://mediamatters.org/items/200604010001 . I think it’s pretty far-out stuff. Even Patrick Buchanan doesn’t say this kind of stuff. White supremacists are supposed to be saying these things.

But maybe this is not typical of her, I don’t know.

It reflects badly on the person hurling the insults, it implies a lack of manners, a lack of prudence, a lack of propriety, and no sense of proportion.

Welcome to the internet. Did you tell your tea-party where they could find you, or are you hiding a tracking device in your frilly sleeves? (In case you mistake my sarcasm for dimissal, what I am saying is this: I understand this audience and you clearly do not.)

It is read or heard by third parties who may feel they are included in the slur, or get the idea that the combatant holds such views in general and not in particular.

While I am not responsible for other people’s inadequacies, I do know how to pick my enemies.
.

From what I have seen she gets into immigration topics only on occasion.

Immigration is Kurtz’s red-herring from yesterday (or Thursday?). Meanwhile, back in reality, Malkin came to be seen as a vicious racist after she attempted to sanitize the Japanese internment camps of WWII and defended her afactual thesis against all professional attempts by real historians to point out the truth.

So, someone sent a high-profile Asian-American to prepare public opinion about what happened to the Japanese, linking to the issue of Muslims among us (i.e., the very cover of her book).

It’s one thing to be a vicious racist. It’s quite another to be a vicious racist for hire. What sense of “proportion” should I use in dealing with such an un-person?
.

…using group slurs against individuals is bad politics since it insults everyone in the group.

Not necessarily, depends on the slur. For example, you can call Clarence Thomas “uncle Tom” all you want, (or even Colin Powell – “yessir, Massah George” – is this a ‘group slur’?) and hardly anyone is offended.

I should have said that there uis really no such thing as an “Asian-American” since they really have no common identity. This is relevant to something said above, not necessarily by you, where it was assumed that it’s unusual or especially offensive for someone from one Asian group to attack members of another Asian group.

But the main point is that you can’t attack Malkin on grounds of race and gender without insulting everyone of that race or gender. The “me love you long time” smear (i.e., “your mother is a whore”) has been a sore spot for several friends of mine with Asian mothers and (Caucasian) American fathers, and you can’t really hit Malkin without hitting them.

So there’s really no “Asian-American vote”, and as Luis says, there’s really no reason for there to be one.

I don’t know what you’re getting at here, unless you’re responding to something else. I said that Malkin’s book was aimed at sanitizing internment, not that it had some impact on an Asian American vote. I’m not sure what the Asian American component of Malkin’s audience is.

As for what is acceptable ad-hominem, I think it’s pointless to discuss since it’s already beyond the pale. If you think it’s wrong, that’s fine. I just see racists as fair game, including their race (real or imagined).
.

To all with an interest in this –

As an example of Filipino attitudes towards Japan today, and journalistic practice, I recommend the late Max Solivens last column – this is obviously the work of a reminiscing old man, but it gives the flavor of what works there, which is a sort of Walter Winchell approach.

http://philstar.com/philstar/show_content.asp?article=287985

Max Soliven was the dean of Philippine journalism, perhaps the most popular writer in the country even on the day he died. In a lot of ways Michelle Malkin reminds me of him, in the straightforward, non-PC opinions, the range of interest, the lack of restraint. She could probably get a columnist job in Manila tomorrow.

Not necessarily, depends on the slur. For example, you can call Clarence Thomas “uncle Tom” all you want, (or even Colin Powell – “yessir, Massah George” – is this a ‘group slur’?) and hardly anyone is offended.

But, as you note, neither of those slurs are categorical in the way that the n-word is. They refer to certain subtypes of blacks rather than the group as a whole, and are thus publicly acceptable in a way that the n-word and me-love-you-long-time are not.

I predict that in the next ten minutes, norbizness will post this:

I was so outraged by the outrage at the lack of outrage over the outrage, I was unable to finish a second helping of pancakes.

Shut up, Senator Inhofe and Woody Allen, y’all ain’t gettin’ a dime out of me.

I knew Max Soliven (well, I met him once, when I arranged for him to speak to a group of students on a field trip in Manila). Interesting man. I’m sorry he’s dead.

Michelle Malkin is no Max Soliven.

Barry 5:27 — This whole thread is disordered. 50/50 my post will be ahead of yours.

Mr. Walt,

Perhaps I should do as Michelle Malkin has, and collect embarassing blog comments for a book. Yours would be No. 1 !

Mr. SG,

“It`s easy to get out of control on the internet, and I think it reflects badly on one as an individual if one is willing to say from a distance what one would not say in person.”

Bravo ! Well said.

“Generally I think if one were arguing with Ms. Malkin in person, one would point out that her heritage was inconsistent with her views”

This is not at all obvious. Why is her heritage inconsistent with her views ?

“If at this point she started screaming and trying to scratch one`s eyes out (which I rather think she would)”

Highly unlikely. This is not “the done thing” at all, it is most un-Filipino. The usual Filipina response, unless the person in question is certifiably insane, is to turn on the charm. That is much more effective. I think Malkin knows how to use that weapon.

#56 They refer to certain subtypes of blacks rather than the group as a whole, and are thus publicly acceptable in a way that the n-word and me-love-you-long-time are not.

Me-love-you-long-time is not an equivalent of the n-word. Me-love-you-long-time is an equivalent of uncle-tom: Asian woman eager to serve her white masters. Or at least this is my impression.

Yes, yes, all very true, wouldn’t want to stoop to their level and all that. But my God, there has to be a Coulter exception in there, doesn’t there? Check out this delightful exchange from Chris Matthews’ “Hardball” in which Matthews asks her what purpose she could have for referring to Michael Dukakis as a “Greek midget” when criticizing Dukakis’ policies. You’ll notice that Coulter simply changes the subject, and Mr. Hardball lets her do it (concluding the segment with a cheery “Ann Coulter, always fun to have you on the show”).

After reading about that appearance by Coulter, I wrote the Hardball producers a very nice letter, explaining that I wanted to be as rich and famous without having to actually achieve anything, just like Ms. Coulter, and if I signed an agreement in which I promised to refer to Mickey Kaus as an “ugly little Jew” on national TV, would they book me on their show? They never did respond. Strange, that.

I dunno. When someone refers to Al Gore as a “total fag” for no discernible reason and the DC punditry treats her like a brilliant political satirist, it’s really, really hard not to point out that she looks like a strung-out anorexic transexual hustler after a particularly rough night working the docks. I generally do restrain myself, mind you…but it isn’t easy.

…most “opposition to immigration” in the US is opposition to illegal immigration.

Well, according to the Media Matters link upthread:

Echoing the Washington Times during the March 30 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin declared that Latinos protesting a recent House bill aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration believe in “reconquista,” or the theory that “the American Southwest belongs to Mexico.” Malkin added that “the intellectual underpinnings of reconquista are embraced by the vast majority of mainstream Hispanic politicians.” Malkin also claimed the protesters were advocating “militant ethnic separatism” and “Chicano power,” and are “try[ing] to sabotage our sovereignty.”

Clearly, sounds like a dig at the ethnic Hispanics in general.

John, what does it have to do with “woman Asian descent married to a Caucasian man”? Hooker says MLYLT, not a woman married to a Caucasian man.

If you want to suggest that an Asian woman prostitutes herself to the white establishment, you say MLYLT; just like when when you want to suggest that a black guy is being a loyal servant to the white establishment (The Man) you call him an Uncle Tom.

Well, I never said nor did I want to imply, of course, that calling someone “me so horny” or “uncle tom” would be an acceptable political strategy or a serious political argument; I only argue that it’s not necessarily a “crazy sexist and racist thing” when used as a mockery, ridicule, as a satire.

But fair enough.

most “opposition to immigration” in the US is opposition to illegal immigration. Pretending otherwise is just a rather annoying rhetorical tactic.

Tangential, yes, but Loud Obbs’ regular rants on English as an ‘official language’ and bilingual ballots make it quite obvious that it’s all about the Hispanics with him, regardless of their immigration or citizenship status. Until the protests start against Irish barstaff in Boston on overstayed tourist visas, pretending otherwise is just a rather annoying rhetorical tactic.

Luis, I notice that your devotion to “straightforward, non-PC opinions, the range of interest, the lack of restraint” ends as soon as you are the target of any of them.

Barry, don’t listen to John Emerson. I have the gift of prophecy. Unfortunately, it’s restricted to what norbizness might say in a Crooked Timber thread, so it’s not a big gift, but a gift nonetheless.

No one can be wrong all the time, Radek. Not even you / me.

My last comment on this topic was about decency, and maintaining the rules of decent engagement. But it seems that the conservative and christian side of the web have long suspended the rules as far as their own behaviour goes.

I suppose at some point – if one advocates indecent behaviour – one should lose one`s own protection against it. For this reason I get a certain abstract satisfaction from hearing of pro-gun advocates getting shot. Similarly, if some idiot in Australia wants to tell me she deserves the right to publicly say offensive things about muslims (as one such idiot recently did) then yes, I deserve the right to lambast her for whatever group she is a member of.

And, unsurprisingly, when one does that one gets howls of outrage from the offended party. Which is, in some cases, the reason people do it. And I think in these cases it serves a valid role in showing that the right`s objection to “political correctness” tends to stop at the point where they lose its protection.

Not that I am suggesting that this is what left-wing people who say racist things to Malkin are always doing. But I think this is Abb1`s point, particularly for example at post 67.

And Luis, Malkin turning on the charm…?

Well Luis, I meant … when has Malkin ever been “charming”?

I`m uncertain as to whether there is a way to point out the absurdity of demanding that rules of decency be waived for others (except not yourself) except to use the contradiction it implies. Can you suggest another? Sure, you can say polite things like “oh, well wouldn`t that mean that we can use bad words for your minority”, but generally the response to such a suggestion is for the person advocating indecency to pretend they wouldn`t be offended by the “rough and tumble” of discourse, etc. They of course behave very differently when the rough and tumble is pointed at them (a point someone else made above, I think, specifically about Malkin). Especially if they can`t be sure it`s a rhetorical device, which is when their commitment to “free speech” and the like gets tested.

And regarding the suspension of the rules being commenced by the “left” in the 60s, I don`t know that there are many examples of 60s left wing activists who are quite up to Coulter`s standard. And in any case, what about McCarthyism? Didn`t certain left wing people in the 50s fry because the rules of decent interaction were suspended? And if so, wouldn`t that mean you`re tarring the wrong group? I feel I speak only for myself when I observe that I wouldn`t be too happy about maintaining “polite” discourse during the era of McCarthyism, or in connection with anyone who supported it.

Michael Bérubé: …Collins’s implied “Michelle Malkin = Melamandissa Marcottewen” moral equivalence is … utter horseshit …

Collins’ comparison reads, in full: Some of the emails, apparently, resemble the kind that Michelle Malkin receives on a daily basis.

Like Bérubé, I haven’t read all the relevant email. I have no more idea than he does how far the resemblance goes. But does Collins imply that Malkin, Marcotte, & McEwen are themselves morally equivalent? I take it Bérubé doesn’t mean that the differences among them would imbue the same threat of sexual violence with different moral significance, depending on which woman is being victimized. But what does he mean?

Collins says Malkin receives threats that resemble the ones Marcotte & McEwen describe. That’s an empirical question, the answer to which isn’t affected by how undoubtedly rotten Malkin is. Utter horseshit?

The 1960’s-70’s left wing message was, roughly, “we are going to kill you”; “Up against the wall, M_F_ !”.

…which I hereby nominate for inclusion in Luis Alegria’s forthcoming book of dumbass blog comments.

Using “bad words” risks damage to the argument with respect to third parties

words like, for example, sedition? One of the central attacks on those innocent leftists in the 50s whose lives were ruined by it; and strangely recurring in the language of the d’souzas and Malkins and Coulters of the modern world. If you want the right to call innocent leftists traitors, doesn’t that give others the right to call colluding asians by similarly dirty names? I haven’t seen any books recently published entitled “Me Love you long time: Immigrant asian whores and their responibility for 9/11”. Yet there are books making this claim about people who support diversity and multiculturalism.

Of course, you will claim that the names aren’t equally dirty – but you aren’t being singled out as a traitor on account of your political ideals. Perhaps if you were you wouldn’t be so sanguine about it?

In response to Michael Berube’s criticism (I respect him for his intellect and his honesty), I’ve just gone back and reread what I wrote about Marcotte in the link cited in the post, and I find it impossible to see where I’ve indicated that I thought that Marcotte and McEwan “had it coming,” if “it” is the threatening emails. It seems to me, on the basis of what I wrote, that I’ve suggested nobody has it coming, if that is what it is.

As regards moral equivalence between Marcotte and Malkin, I did not mean to suggest that, either. I don’t believe such an argument would be germane, because I don’t believe that anyone ought to be subject to threats for saying anything that is not in itself threatening (and not merely to someone’s ego).

I do find it hilarious, though, that lots of people have accused those critical of Marcotte of smearing her by quoting precisely the language that she has employed. Her argument that she is excused by virtue of sardony is absurd. Do you buy it? If Michael has your outrage, perhaps he’d like to expend a bit of it on Liberal Avenger’s sickening rewriting of a poster’s comment and subsequent lies about the same. That seems worth the effort.

I don’t carry any water for Donohue. I hope my characterization of the guy in my post makes that clear. I don’t excuse the behavior of the morons who’ve written threatening emails to Marcotte or McEwan. I am appalled by the attitude that Marcotte has continued to adopt toward the evidence in the Duke “rape” case–i.e., that it doesn’t matter, because it doesn’t fit a typical victimage narrative based on subject-position typology. I’m sure it’s reprehensible of me to say so, though. Let the love begin.

And Luis, the substance of Malkin’s message, the delivery, and the weay she treats individuals are harsh and provocative enough to justify the strongest possible counterattack within whichever rules of engagement are in place. Only a very silly pewrson would wonder why she rouses such anger.

She’s vicious much of the time, and her political ideas are ignorant and at times near-fascist. Her enthusiasm for the Japanese internment, which for a multitude of reasons has been almost universally discredited forfor more than a decade, suggests that she is entirely outside the rational, civilized world.

Perhaps in some vestigial way she really is a Filipina after all, and is channelling the resentments of the most ignorant Filipino-nationalist thugs.

john emerson, i would have to agree with your ‘vestigial Filipina’ diagnosis, but it is less a manifestation of latent Filipino nationalism (which is absent in a lot of Filipinos who left for the United States anyway) as it is a display of American jingoism mixed with self-hate for her own origins. IMHO, being more popish than the Pope is her way of compensating. We see that phenomenon in a good number of Filipino-Americans, particularly from Luis’ generation, who when they visit us back home (in the Philippines), never tire of comparing us unfavorably with their adopted homeland. This annoying behavior is a legacy of the American presence so i’m hoping that i will see less of that with the passing of that pro-American generation.

Jaybird, what about The Leader Of The Free World calling another country’s president a “loathsome pygmy” in front of a bunch of US Senators. Would this be vile slur racist comment or a fair characterization or, perhaps, a silly childish insult?

CVJ, do you think it’s a factor in Filipino-American politics that a fair proportion of Filipino immigrants got their green card through US military service? I’ve known families of that discription. (Koreans too.)

Abb1, you’re full of shit. Have you ever lived in Asia? Have you ever known anyone with an Asian mother and a US military father? Or have you ever even known anyone with an Asian mother and a Caucasian father?

Whether or not you know it, and whether or not you’ll ever understand it, MLYLT is offensive, racist, and sexist.

But your mother and grandmothers were all whores, so what do you care?

It really is, Abb1. Seriously. It comes from Americans (mostly GIs) who did R&R in whorehouses in Thailand, the Philippines (and before that Korea and probably Taiwan). It’s like making Tijuana whore jokes to Mexican-Americans.

On MLYLT, i have to admit that the only time i feel some twinge of sympathy for Malkin is when she is on the receiving end of these types of comments. I first witnessed this predictable progression in the comments section of a liberal blog (‘thepoorman’). At that time, I just rationalized that the liberal commenters are, after all, also Americans.

This is a true story. A guy I knew at work went to couple counseling when he and his girlfriend started having rpoblems, and he learned a few things. One of them is how women and men interpret certain words differently, so that a man might say something offensive without even knowing it. The whole Mars / Venus thing. For example, he found that women are highly offended by the simple phrase “Fuck you, bitch!”

No, it’s nothing like “I wish you were dead”, obviously, or like calling a random woman “girl”.

But I’ve already argued all this earlier in this thread. Enough is enough. Search for “uncle tom”, if you want.

Sorry to come late to what is probably a dying thread, but I don’t see any arguments from abb1, except for Yes, it’s a bit unfair, sorry. Tough luck. The other (happily, minority) arguments supporting the MLYLT routine against Malkin pretty much amount to the same thing, with the nuance of “but maybe we shouldn’t use it ‘coz it seems Asian women are kinda sensitive about it.” A nice granulation. Ee-yuck.

Just to answer Innocenti Illjes and Dan Collins: perhaps the moral equivalence implied in Collins’s rhetorical device would be clearer — after all, it’s only implicit, right — if I said “Dan Collins is getting some grief these days, kind of like the stuff Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky gets on a daily basis.” Surely Dan would object to the implied comparison?

See, the problem is that Malkin is truly, truly vile. With Malkin you’ve got a defender of the Japanese-American internment camps and a promoter of the thoroughly lunatic theory that the New York Times travel section was targeting Rumsfeld and Cheney for assassination. Lately she’s taken to calling John Murtha a coward. She doesn’t deserve hate mail, and she certainly doesn’t deserve slurs about her gender or ethnicity. But saying that Marcotte and McEwen are just getting some of the same treatment dished out to Malkin is a tawdry way of covering for the fact that Malkin, altogether unlike Marcotte and McEwen, is a vicious and despicable person.

And Dan, if you’re still on the thread, what’s with the gay jokes about Glenn Greenwald?

Heck, I’d lambaste Ms. Malkin for her sloppy scholarship, her pretenses to intellectualism, and her betrayal of every single concept behind the Enlightenment.

I would have absolutely enjoyed seeing her having to do a public defense of her book along the lines of a doctoral thesis defense.

And then get kicked out, publicly, with a booing and hissing from the crowd. Too bad we can’t yank degrees for intellectual malpractice.

Mr. Emerson,

With respect to Malkin, in substance and style, de gustibus, etc.

As for “nationalist thugs”, you have definitely got the wrong picture. Extreme nationalism in the Philippines is associated with the left, not the right, and this association is very common around the world. I have never found it difficult to undertand where Pol Pot came from. I remember talking to an NPA commander in Albay (yet another UP student gone bad) who refused to speak to or even be in the presence of any foreigner or even any white person.

Having fed the dead thread I am now off to bed.

Urrgh. Shouldn’t type words before the morning coffee.

Luis, please clarify. Is “de gustibus” supposed to be a defence of Malkin’s remarks on internment? Are you actually a rightwing caricature of Richard Rorty?

John, I disagree if they were using it to point out to her that her own defence of indecency has consequences. The situation plays out as follows:

1) Malkin defends the right to say offensive things about whoever she wants, based on their race or religion
2) people apply this right to her (as they should be able to under her ideals)
3) Malkin is offended

Putting aside the faux nature of her outrage (she will claim indecent behaviour by the left no matter what we say), her being offended has served to prove a point, namely that she can’t demand the right to impugn islam and deny the right to impugn asians. Doesn’t work. The questions that then arise are simple questions like “did Malkin ever demand this right”, “is it worth using nasty language”, and “what will the consequences be for us?”

One can’t stand about demanding the return of vicious language in public discourse, and expect to be above its use; and in showing this, the responsibility may well fall on someone to abuse the person demanding this right. If noone from the correct minority group is around to do it, well I suppose someone else will have to. To really make the point the abuse has to be on the basis of a racial or religious trait of the person demanding the right to insult other peoples’ race or religion (not some other thing).

Also, a large part of the argument against using bad language in this thread has been that it demeans the groups who are insulted by it. Thus calling Trotsky a “whore” is offensive to women regardless of whether or not Trotsky is a woman. In fact i would argue that using the word “whore” to describe someone who sells out their principles is really offensive to women and sex workers; and if you are willing to do this in describing a communist man, you are committing the same sin you decry when applied to Michelle Malkin.

I am willing to consider dropping the term “whore” for the reasons you give. I try to avoid it.

To me the bottom line is that Democrats identify themselves as the non-racist non-sexist party. The MLYLT slur doesn’t fit with that — you can say it’s wrong, or you can say it’s bad politics.

If we were talking about a master satirist or over-the-top humorist, I might grant a pass, though guys like that should not represent political parties. But the stuff I’ve seen about Malkin (and the “Mann Coulter” stuff too) isn’t at a high level. It’s really indistinguishable from nasty Republican frat-boy jokes about Tijuana.

Not quite, uncle kvetch.

There are people who make an effort to be honest, and there are liars.

It makes very little difference to me if they are idiots/morons/delusional paranoiacs/saddled by the baggage of false consciousness, so long as they are making a good faith effort. Otherwise, you and I and everyone can sit around debating the nature of everyone else’s confirmation bias for eternity, secure in the knowledge that we, and only we (however we define it) possess the privileged perspective from which these issues must be viewed if one wishes not to be deceived.

I am mocking the semiotics of authenticity, if you like.

Those who wish to deploy irony successfully need to signal that they have some inkling of the limits of their ability to perceive “the truth.”

Then I’ll try again.

There are people who make an effort to be honest, and there are liars.

And if you determine that someone is the latter, all this bullshit about civility and fair play goes out the window. Someone’s sexuality or ethnicity or gender is fair game. You think Greenwald’s a liar, and that makes his homosexuality a justifiable target. So all the people who find Malkin beyond the pale are perfectly justified in using Asian-whore jokes to denigrate her.

Right? Just want to make sure that we’re clear here.

Well, some of you are asserting that Marcotte and McEwan are not as culpable as Malkin, because she is demonstrably despicable, by a presumably objective set of criteria. But in fact, all this boils down to, theorize as you like, is a matter of whose oxen are being gored by whom.

I do find Greenwald specious and intellectually dishonest, particularly with respect to his use of sources, and for that reason I lob barbs in his direction. His recent argument based on the resemblance of the Victory Caucus logo (whoever they may be) with that of V for Vendetta is beyond absurdity; if he were an interlocutor in the Cratylus, Socrates would have whacked him over the head with a rock for that one. If my mockery of his self-construction constitutes some form of prohibited speech (not that he notices, because sockpuppets tell me that his blog’s been quoted on the Senate floor by Russ Feingold (WI-D)), then what classification to you extend to Marcotte’s abuse of Catholicism, and her defense, recently issued, that it ought to be a legitimate target because so many people in the country self-identify as Christians?

The determination of what constitutes a valid point of view and what is discredited, and what is theoretically within or beyond the pale is certainly not as much a fascination with me as it is with the academy. By and large it is a fashion system, in my estimation. But I’ve seen Gleen conveniently misprision too many times to take him seriously, and the idea that you can endorse him as relevant on one hand, and dismiss me as screamingly hysterical and opportunistic amuses me.

I would have thought that my comparison of Gleen to Matt Lesko would have raised more of a welt.

Consistently misspelling Greenwald’s first name is a nice touch too. I’m eagerly awaiting an update on the nature and quantity of his homo-cooties.

Somehow a very appropriate way to end the thread, don’t you think, John E?