I don’t think I’ve ever seen the concepts “breathtaking” and “irrelevant” yoked with such peculiar force before:
Our revulsion at Mosley’s behaviour is breathtakingly irrelevant. I am repulsed by homosexuality – in the strict sense that I feel nauseous at the thought of personally engaging in gay sex – but that is not sufficient reason to condemn gay men. Disgust carries not a shred of moral or legal force when it is directed at those engaged in mutually consenting behaviour, whether it involves sex, spanking or leopardskin handcuffs.
I have a question for Censorious of Tunbridge Wells: during the strange paroxysms of ecstasy known as the human orgasm, have you never indulged in fantasies of a kind that you would not wish to share with your grandparents? Have you not, in your various forays into the perplexing and uncharted waters of human sexuality, glimpsed the curious affiliation between the forbidden and the erotic, between shame and arousal?
It has been shown that pornography and prostitution can lead to a reduction in violent sexual crime by releasing pent-up tension, but it is also true that they can legitimise the kind of behaviour that leads to criminality. One thing, in my mind at least, is clear: Mosley falls into the former rather than the latter category. We may speculate that Mosley’s sexual motivation sprang not from anti-Semitism but the powerful erotic instinct allied to the assuagement of guilt. What, I ask you, does that have to do with the rest of us?
Not much, honestly, Mr. Syed. The thing is, I suppose, that such people are celebrities who court our attention and benefit from it, and it becomes difficult to place limits on voyeurism after you’ve been involved in promoting it.ÂÂ
And personally, I don’t feel that there’s really much “uncharted” about “the waters of human sexuality” (permission to board? shove off, thar she blows!), nor do I engage in much fantasy during the “paroxysms of ecstasy known as the human orgasm” [emphasis mine] specifically, being preoccupied. Also, learn the difference between “nauseous” and “nauseated,” or people will mock you and characterize you as a semi-literate Swinburne. Still, I hope you enjoyed your little sneeze.
So Mr. Syed – you’re sayin’ you like to dress up like ‘Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS’ and play spanky-spanky with Mosley? And we’re all to consider you perfectly normal for doing so?
Let me just say ‘nice try’ and leave it at that.
Some Hispanic thinker or other once said that the Anglo-Protestant morality does not prevent people from sinning. It just prevents them from enjoying it.
Satayana?
[…] See also. Posted by Dan Collins @ 8:29 am | Trackback Share This […]
“Censorious of Tunbridge Wells”?
Wonderful. Somebody has a sense of humor.
This Syed person is wasting my time with his dumb. That’s just a lot a very self-indulgent analysis. Formula 1 is first and foremost a brand. It’s a brand that really has to walk a fine line between a certain exclusivey rarefiedness and decadence with respect to its popularity and what people will associate with brands that co-brand with Formula 1. Europeans, remember, are already a lot more in touch with the idea that Formula 1 cars are really just earth-raping carbon-spewing corporate harlots. I’m thinking Hitler bondage boy is probably not long for the job. Also, it’s just gross.
F1 races are pretty fun, I must admit. Shame they aren’t running here at Indy anymore. I guess the MotoGP will make up for that.
Our revulsion at Mosley’s behaviour is breathtakingly irrelevant. I am repulsed by homosexuality – in the strict sense that I feel nauseous at the thought of personally engaging in gay sex – but that is not sufficient reason to condemn gay men. Disgust carries not a shred of moral or legal force when it is directed at those engaged in mutually consenting behaviour, whether it involves sex, spanking or leopardskin handcuffs.
While that’s technically true, the revulsion might be hardwired into humans for a reason, it might be the result of how we’re supposed to react to things that are objectively disgusting, like how some smells are repellent to us and coincidentally not good for us (rotting meat, for example).
I didn’t even know who this guy was or what he did (publicly or privately) until I followed your previous link to this story. If I were one of the people who are in charge of deciding who is going to head up F1, I would tell the guy that so long as his private life was private, it was his business, but now that it is public, he needs to find another job.
On the other hand, I don’t have a lot of patience with all the finger wagging, especially from people who I’m guessing have zero interest in F1. What’s it to you? It’s not like he’s the governor of New York.
Don’t you dare wag your finger at my wagging my finger at his wagging his finger at the fingerwaggers, Ards!
My only interest, really, was in deploring the terrible writing.
You can be the leader of the British fascist movement or a world renowned designer of ladies’ undergarments, but you can’t be both.
My only interest, really, was in deploring the terrible writing.
Ah. I thought you had a problem with the substance of his claim, and that the writing critique was just thrown in as an extra.
If I were going to say something about the substance of his argument, I would point out that liberalism–by which I mean real, i.e. classical, liberalism–does not require an enforced blindness to moral depravity. An individual has the right to privacy, but once his behavior becomes public we’re not required to pretend like we don’t know.
That sets up a problem though. Are we rewarding the low-lifes who make their living by invading the privacy of celebrities when we deign to notice the crap they put in their tabloids? We certainly are if we ignore their immorality while condemning their targets.
Recently I rewatched an old Sherlock Holmes episode from the Jeremy Brett series called The Master Blackmailer. Holmes pursues a blackmailer who makes his living by acquiring information about the indiscretions of the upper class. Lives are ruined, people are driven to suicide. Holmes considers his adversary to be the most depraved villain he has ever encountered. The same class of people now infest the media, but their victims don’t even have the option of paying them off. Why? Because the information is worth more being sold to a public that gobbles up every bit of scandal thrown to it, no matter how putrid.
That’s why I have a problem with PW picking up this story and spreading it. It is breathtakingly irrelevant to the concerns of your regular readers, and your coverage so far has gone from pointing and sniggering to the aforementioned finger wagging. Is this the blog for the National Enquirer?
Do you know what, Ards? You seem not to grasp my self-irony at all, which is somewhat disappointing. But even as I acknowledge that I’m complicit, that Syed’s (probably more) complicit, that still doesn’t excuse the dreadfully self-indulgent writing–a form of prurience in itself.
Do you know what, Ards? You seem not to grasp my self-irony at all, which is somewhat disappointing.
It’s true that I don’t, and it is disappointing. If we were talking face to face, I’m sure I would get it, but text loses a lot in translation. Everyone knows that text loses in translation, though, so I sometimes wonder why you don’t understand that some of the things you mean to be ironic don’t come across the way you intend them.
Prime example: Negromancer.
I mean, you should expect even your allies to have a little trouble with that one, but when your enemies get ahold of it, all it can do is distract from whatever serious point you may have had. It’s hard enough to get people to really engage with ideas in this medium, but such an unserious use of language gives people a ready-made excuse to dismiss anything you type. Why do that to yourself?
I don’t believe it’s at all an unserious use of language. On the contrary, I deployed it because it brings into focus so many of the issues about language that we entertain here on a frequent basis. I use the term with surgical precision, with an attention to the etymological basis of the term, with an ear toward the irony, with a consideration of Obama’s tactics, with reference to the existential genius of Cervantes’ great work. What do I get in return?
RACIST!!!
That’s why I do that to myself.
I mean, tell me if I’m wrong, but is there any particular reason that I ought to try and control people’s interpretation more closely? They reveal more about themselves than they do me when they assume too much or misread willingly. I say what I mean.
I don’t believe it’s at all an unserious use of language. On the contrary, I deployed it because it brings into focus so many of the issues about language that we entertain here on a frequent basis. I use the term with surgical precision, with an attention to the etymological basis of the term, with an ear toward the irony, with a consideration of Obama’s tactics, with reference to the existential genius of Cervantes’ great work.
That’s wonderful, but all I saw was one sentence. It can be asserted that a text has a very specific meaning given its full context, but dropping that word into a single sentence left it open to numerous interpretations. If there was anyone on the other side who felt it necessary to prove that Republicans are racist, they could have a field day deconstructing your intent. Negro=necro, black=death, blacks=evil, yada, yada, yada… But the most telling accusation would be that it was an attempt to keep the debate focused on Obama’s color, rather than the content of his character.
If it was meant to be a surgical instrument, it felt more like a club to the head. I was stunned. My reaction wasn’t “racist,” though, it was “that’s not cute, it’s just dumb.” You are not responsible for bad faith interpretations, but a clumsy witticism like “negromancer” is impossible to defend on its merits. All you can fall back on is “that’s not who I am,” but you only get to do that a certain number of times before people start to think, “well maybe it is.”
Shit, man. Who foregrounded the race issue? I really meant for it to be read with reference to my post about Alice Walker’s deep moronicity.
It’s true, though, that in this instance there is a deep connection between negro- and necro-, insofar as that the constantly repeated reversion to the injuries of the past (kept alive through the efforts of such latter-day racebaiters as Rev. Wright) is a manifestation of thanatos. It’s a concept that’s well expressed in Faulkner’s “A Rose for Emily,” and a valid analysis. Honestly, I don’t care very much whether I’m branded a racist for making the equation.
in this particular context.
But enough about me. Thanks for the feedback; I will take it into consideration.
How are you?
I’m doing alright. I’m enjoying this period of the election year. It’s nice to see the Dems ripping each other apart. Whoever wins is going to be bloodied and bruised by November. I forsee my complacency being shattered, though, when the focus turns to McCain, and he starts talking about what he’s going to do while in office. I still don’t understand how we ended up with him. Giuliani just sort of evaporated on me.
I recently characterized the election to one of my nephews thusly: Those who feel guilty about being white can vote for Obama, those who feel guilty about being male can vote for Hillary, and those who feel guilty about being Republicans can vote for McCain. And of course, those who just feel guilty about being can vote for Nader.
Yes, well, we might as well enjoy it now.