“And that’s the difference: intent”: on “racist” goats and racialist hermeneutics
Finally. Someone with some journalistic balls points to the naked emperor and makes it quite clear, in a loud and unshakable voice, that what we’re all looking at isn’t a “smallish, fur-lined scepter.”
Perhaps what’s been missing all these years in my discussions on meaning, intent, and the idea that what we believe we’re doing when we interpret — that is, how our conscious ideas about the process influences the product of that process in ways that would make Heisenberg nod knowingly — is crucial to any useful discussion of epistemology, has been my failure to introduce the public to a “racist” talking goat endeavoring to sell (on the meta level, and through absurdist intertextual sequencing) Bloombergian nightmare water.
Which I can assure you was just an oversight on my part. I mean, I’ve used egrets and copulating bunny clouds. Eventually I would have gotten around to a talking goat, don’t you think?
Of course, the fact that one award-winning journalist bucks the outrage trend and tells the (rather obvious) truth about the Dew ad doesn’t solve our national problem: the spot was still pulled, and its creator has been under siege for his failure to adhere to the “tolerance” dictated by the PC thought and speech police.
And so until companies become less risk-averse, and laugh off the ludicrous charges that self-serving racialists and race-baiters throw at anything that they can wrangle into some contour of supposed racism, we as a nation will continue to allow shame and grotesque racial and gender politics from identity groups shape and in many ways control, our thinking.
As I’ve tried to demonstrate here over the years, the end product of this kind of leftwing hermeneutics is progressive tyranny and consensus-based truth, a repudiation of the Enlightenment and its reliance on rationalism and individual autonomy supplanted by an embrace of anti-foundationalism and post modernist relativism, where collectivism is ascendant and the individual is subsumed, molded, and managed by the decrees of motivated interpretive communities.
You decide. Consider it a reader poll, which I’m pretty sure is, in the current thinking, the way we’re to determine such things. Because if most of us agree it’s racist, well, that it has to be so, right?