Rarely of late have I encountered descriptions of my theoretics that I believe are intellectually honest. And that don’t incorporate the word “paste.” Which is why I am happy to highlight one that I must admit delights me to no end:
Goldstein, it seems to me, is the academic left’s nightmare of what Michaelsian thought can produce”—Scott Eric Kaufman, writing at The Valve (a discussion site for those invested in literary theory).
See there? How hard was that?
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, BABY!
It’s about the INTENT!
And, also, about the signification. That just doesn’t fit as well on a bumper sticker.
I’ve got a picture of me in a flight suit; feel free to photoshop your face onto it.
TW: A small favor, Jeff? Could you perhaps do front page text / extended text on your orginalism posts?
Heya, Moe! How’s things?
~sniff~
I’m so proud.
~sniff~
I thought he could of said more about how truly witty/orginal/doggily persistant Thesites, ect., have been about the whole “paste” motife. To me, that’s what relly just makes it more than about intentionism or whatever—like a epic poem almost of epic porportions, to just keep banging it back to that one pure image of your dumbness. Paste.
Because, whatever else, when this whole teapot blows over? I’m always will remember with a fond chuckle, our days of paste and daquiri.
Hell, we’ve been telling you the same thing Jeff; except without using such strange words as “Michaelsian”. I’m pretty sure he made that up to sound smart, just like he made up the whole two first names thing. I mean, who does that?
Would that more people had the manners and intellectual honesty that our host and Mr. Kaufman have displayed.
Oh, and Witheld?
That is pure gold, my friend.
That was nice and sums up the whole deal, except that he has accepted as fact that one of us dropped that pantload of a comment over at metacomments because Thirsty said so. He didn’t mention our outrage over it. That’s why I got angry yesterday, I was stuck in front of the computer(waiting on a call that never happened) and watched it unfold. Thirsty has succeeded in painting everyone who posts here as beneath contempt. He couldn’t argue with you, so he changed the argument. He couldn’t figure out how to get the IP of the troll so you could ban it, but instead of asking you or his readers how to do it, he pretended it was beneath him. He’s the internet equivalent of the guy who blames all his failures on his bum knee. So now the word’s out, argue with Goldstein and he’ll send his minions out to troll your site.
Then Mr Kaufman follows up by saying that your trolls agree with you.
What about the jackass who drops the “get a job” line in every thread, is he not a troll?
A troll is someone who drops a hand grenade in a comments section or listserv or whatever and then stands back to watch the fun. Whoever dropped that line over at Thirsy’s place was a troll. The “get a job” guy here is a troll. If you need a real-life example, Fred Phelps comes to mind.
Most of the people here, your “trolls”, were trying to understand your argument, and while they might not be “academics” most of them realized through all of the noise that Thirsty wasn’t answering you. Most of us don’t know enough about literary criticsm to be able to agree with you, but we were interested in learning more about the subject. Hell, it reminded me of the Philosophy of Communication class I had way back when, I still have the books, Baudrillard, Chompsky, Eco.. they impressed the chicks, man.
But the people over there started with “paste eater” and went from there. Dismissing your ideas and arguments without addressing them because of who they think you voted for. Then, when it became apparent that simply making fun of your ideas wouldn’t work, smear the people who presumably agree with you.
That part worked pretty well.
Bravo, Mr. Kaufman. That brings a vicious little tear to my eye.
Congratulations!
Someday someone’s going to have to explain to me why political ideologies are so central to literary theory. Is this primarily an American phenomenon?
Even Mr. Kaufman makes the effort to stress his bona fides.
I have to warn you, though, that the picture of me in the flight suit WILL make your ass look fat. Sorry.
I am convinced that I would never have made an academic, at least outside of the hard sciences. As I get older, I find it harder to focus on theoretical concepts that don’t just totally grab me. It’s either “the culture of the remote control” or too many beers, because I sure didn’t have this problem when there were only three television networks and no personal computers.
The comments about the Korean language made following the whole discussion worthwhile for me. I always wondered, idly, what that Hangul alphabet was about but never spent enough time in Korea to make learning anything about the language a profitable use of time or energy.
Thanks to all for the comments. Jeff, your job is certainly safe from me.
Wonder what M/M Thirsty will come up with to dismiss Kaufman?
So does Pasteboy have kids? Do they suck his cock? Or is that what he hangs around the local playgrounds for?
Just asking! Hey, can’t you take a joke?
That’s what your Mom is for, dave. Which is also proof that we can take a joke, at least out into the alley, behind the dumpster. All of us. In a row.
Is that what you were looking for, dave? Have a great day, buddy!
Bravo, Bravo, I think I will break cover to personally congratulate you on your success.
Lost your cookies, I know exactly what you mean. I was watching it and started to feel more and mroe angry of the evolution of the smear. makes you want to raise the black flag and set sail with a massive can of whupass.
Darleen, obvious they will right him off as another pasty dude.
Your the better man Jeff, the definite better man. Bravo again.
Interestingly, I wandered over to Thristy’s place to see what was going on in the comment section … lo! There is no comment section anymore.
Such a BRAVE little English teacher… BRAVE.
And while Kaufman laments Thristy’s lack of literary imagination in the fine art of insult, it may not be laziness but skill. A quick perusal of Thristy’s other “writings” shows an obsessive use of the word “fuck” in connection with anything or anyone that doesn’t genuflect in his direction.
Small, petty male.
Post Dave’s ip address. We can port scan him to oblivion.
I’ve been quite into learning about where Jeff is with this whole thing, but who is the Michaels refered to in “Michaelsian thought” ?
(Forgive the ignorance. I tried Google first but it just kind of looked at me as if I were a paste-eater)
Hey…and consider dave only got a D in a Thristy “class”!
Darleen, hey!
He never joined our club and I am the president.
Somehow I don’t think “dave” agrees with Jeff.
Oops – nevermind. I re-read my class notes, it’s Knapp and Michaels…um, right?
– You’all have to forgive dave…He wakes up a lot in the morning with a smile on his face, a quarter in his hand, and a sore ass….
– Incidently dave… the park manager called… He wants you to do something about that tall grass around your trailor…..
I’ve been keeping up with this for a week or so and I get the impression that eating paste is considered a “bad” thing.
Is this true?
I’m assuming Walter Benn Michaels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Benn_Michaels
* don’t take wikipedia entries as gospel
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/1547.ctl
I lost interest when it turned out that Thersites is a “prof” at a juco. That instantly explained the bitterness, the level of discourse, everything. I hope he doesn’t have a PhD, as that would be really too sad.
And of course he’s obsessed with paste—his students use lots of it when they glue together their scrapbooks and other literary assignments. (“Not quite so much glitter next time, Bernice.”)
– Overheard in an alley behind the Whooper B. Krebs trailor park –
Hotdog Jink Wilson: (daves pissed off pimp)…So wheres the bread you little shitbag… You’all were on the street for a freekin week… Wheres Mah money….
dave: (shuffling Birkenstocks, “I Heart Kerry” T-shirt pulled over his beer belly, digging his hands in his WalMart spandex shorts) ….Hummmm…. here…..here’s what I got…all of it…
HotDog Jink: (looking at the wrinkled $20, and the dime dave hands him)…What the fuck is this!?!?…..Yo’ sorry ass was out there for a week and this is it?….and who the hell payed you a dime for a mouth job pencil dick?
dave: (shuffling feet faster and sweating profusely) ….Awww hell jink….
Hotdog Jink: …Well?…. An’ don’t give me no jive shit turkey….WHO!
dave: ….Jeeeeezzz Jink….yooou k-k-know…..t-t-they all did…
Pure speculation, but I suppose that could be because he went to blogger for the disputed IP address and they shut down comments to pull the IP list. Thersites will have to scan through comment IPs by time tag maybe?
I really don’t think he’s ever going to come up with the IP anyway, but willing to extend the benefit of the doubt for a bit longer. He’s played the whole aggrieved parent thing hard, and will either have to show a good faith effort to prove his claims against the commenters here or come up with a good reason why he can’t. Said reason need only be superficial for his peanut gallery to accept it wholeheartedly, but fairly substantial from this end.
Stuck in a cleft stick I think. For all his vulgar bluster and attempts to take the mantle of victim status, I really think he regrets this whole thing at this point. The whole amused sophist condescending to fondly chastise the confused helots schtick backfired pretty badly.
Academically, the substance of his original premise that he had the upperhand in discussions of interpretive theory went down in flames in one response from JG. The flailing about with the inane math analogies made him look even more foolish. The linking of his professional persona with the asinine tone of his blog can’t be making him very comfortable right now either.
The various factors in the dispute are rapidly morphing into a portrayal of Thersites, NYMary et al as tragic victims. The reality based community will declare him the victor. Lots of nasty words, but no sticks or stones and as long as Jeff ignores the trogs hooting about their collective victory, the moonbat crowd will move on.
One good thing may come out of this besides a lot of people getting some great exposure to interpretive theory. I suspect that Dr Haggerty will be more cautious about extending whatever academic expertise he actually commands into demeaning masters of subjects he is ignorant of for purely political reasons.
Hmmm.
@ Jeff
Actually you’ve really piqued my interest in something that I’ve never really thought about before. Are there any texts available that you would recommend for a beginner?
Last time I was at a fancy French restaurant, they had something on the menu that translates to “Paste of Fatty Liver” for $25/plate.
JPT – If all that means he sucked the big one before taking the pipe, I would agree. Hope he enjoyed his “one time” 15 minutes, because it could have, may still, cost him big time. Not smart. But the the “elites” have never been accused of common sense. Seems to be one of the glaring ommisions from thier toolbox.
They’re attacking JG’s expensive taste, not his intellect. Pastes are for those kinds of people. You’d never catch a lefty with the kind of money to spend on Paste of Fatty Liver, and rightly so. Capitalist pigs, with your paste eating and warmongering!
If Dr. Haggerty had a primary concern for his kid, he’d have simply removed the comment and gone on with things.
I’m guessing that Dr. Haggerty had a more pressing concern for ‘The Integrity of His Blog vis-a-vis History’ and thus couldn’t bring himself to just prune the offending comment, notify Blogger, and carry-on with the conversation, as such..
It seems Dr. Haggerty is doing his post-doc work in Drama, sorry, make that Melodrama.
I’m in the same boat as Ed. Except when I say beginner, I mean someone who took one English lit course in college because The Lord of the Rings was on the syllabus.
(Nevertheless, I am seriously interested in learning more, and the blog conversation seems to have gotten off course a tad. If it ever truly was a conversation that is.)
Good job, partner (say that last word with a Texas accent).
A junior college teacher is part of the “elite”? Holy Toledo, how far down the food chain am I?
You don’t wanna know, TG.
“Civilization stops at the water line. After that, we all enter the food chain – and not always right at the top, either.”
— HST, “The Great Shark Hunt”
Stewie:
If Jeff is a paste-eater, pass the paste!
Shank said: Hell, we’ve been telling you the same thing Jeff; except without using such strange words as “Michaelsianâ€Â. I’m pretty sure he made that up to sound smart, just like he made up the whole two first names thing. I mean, who does that?
Not that I expect generous readings, but really, how about you make a couple more inane assumptions? First, “Michaelsian” is the standard term used to refer to the body of thought of Walter Benn Michaels, a scholar with whom Jeff studied. Second, I go by my full name as a matter of disambiguation (as explained here). Or you could assume the worst and use my practical decision as evidence that I one of those people “who does that,” whatever it is “that” is.
Lost said: That was nice and sums up the whole deal, except that he has accepted as fact that one of us dropped that pantload of a comment over at metacomments because Thirsty said so.
As I comment over there, I’m not really interested in who did what to whom and from what IP address. You’ll note that I’m fairly critical of all the venom spewed by all involved.
Mau Mau said: Someday someone’s going to have to explain to me why political ideologies are so central to literary theory. Is this primarily an American phenomenon? Even Mr. Kaufman makes the effort to stress his bona fides.
I don’t make an effort to stress my bonafides, but since our differing political philosophies are what make our relatively similar the intentionalist stances interesting in the first place, I thought it best to, you know, say that. As for why political ideology is central to literary theory, well, that’s too complicated a discussion to rehash now. Poke around on the Valve–starting with the links in my post–and you’ll get a sense of how these debates play out.
Congrat’s. Let’s have a Klonopin party to celebrate.
Quick note: Although Jeff says the site’s sponsored by the ALSC, I’m not, myself, a member, nor do I subscribe to their approach to literary studies. The same holds true for the majority of the Valve’s contributors.
Sorry if I got that wrong, Scott. It says so on the site header. For what it’s worth, I’m not a member, either.
Mr. Kaufman,
Re-read your post, you’re right, I’m wrong.
Thanks for replying.
Excellent!
I didn’t understand it, but if you like it Jeff, I like it!
Is dave still around? I wanted to get in on that Mom action……
Personally, my fave comment over there was by Anatoly, who decried the lack of civility here while referring to people as “lobotomised monkeys with amputated fingers.”
However, the simple inability of people like John Emerson to properly use the term “troll” is a close second. It’s a term of art with a generally understood meaning. In the context of the underlying dispute, the misuse is amusing.
I’ve been kind of slack-jawed staring at this train wreck, rather than jumping in headfirst with both feet. What occurs to me, watching from the street, is:
1) Thirsty and co. have a history of obsessive harassment (Althouse).
2) Thirsty and co. have a history of inappropriate language and behavior (Althouse, his own blog, his wife’s, other records of behavior “dug up” by commenters).
3) When the “P-bomb” was dropped at Thirsty’s site, he highlighted it, dragged it to the front, won’t shut up about it, and yet declares it’s too horrible to think about. That’s odd.
If I was that pissed about something, I wouldn’t try my hardest to make it front page news. That’s called trying to leverage your victimhood.
I would, on the other hand, do everything I could to track down the culprit, because THAT person needs a nice public spanking.
It is easy to suspect, given the circumstances, a certain amount of manufactured outrage and sock-puppetry going on here. We’re kind of awaiting Thirsty’s exposure of “who dun it,” but not with bated breath.
If it wasn’t for the left’s history of manufactured outrage and his personal history of aggression, I imagine Thirsty would receive more sympathy. If it turns out that a commenter here did it, they will get hashed.
If it wasn’t, I imagine suddenly Thirsty & co. will want to “put it behind them,” except for the part where they continue to try to smear Jeff with responsibility for it.
One thing I’ve been curious about—Last night I was having some difficulty in reaching this site (extremely slow response times, 15-20 mins to load up the main page and individual post pages). Was ProteinWisdom being attacked or was it just the huge number of people sitting around clicking refresh compulsively waiting for the next comment?
We’ll never know, because the information to prove/disprove will never be produced.
To their credit SEK and a few of the other commenters are trying to maintain the course of the original post.
I’d like to see the debate play-out on these questions and will suggest that rehashing the Thersites incident on the Valve forum is counterproductive – it’s only going to result in the same sort of flame war that we’ve seen here.
Lost, thanks for that. (You too, Jeff.)
Karl, it’s hard to knock someone for decrying the civility of a particular forum when the previous comment jumps on the “fellatio from someone’s mother” bandwagon. You can say we’re overly sensitive, but it’s a matter of choice; most of the Valve’s readers choose not to participate in forums where the rhetoric gets as heated as it does here and at Thersites’ place. I see what you’re saying, and appreciate the irony, but even that comment pales in comparison to some of what appears on the political end of the blogosphere. I mean, Anatoly didn’t mention or even allude to sex acts illegal in 43 states.
As for trolls, sir, we know trolls. If you were to post on Thersites’ site, would you go there with an open mind, eager for honest intellectual interaction? Or would you, from his perspective, troll him the way some of his commenters troll Jeff? I don’t mean this personally, I’m merely pointing to the dynamic I see at work in the political blogosphere.
The comments over at Majikthise are a wonder – apart from geoduck popping up yet again to quack “new historicism, new historicism” and the risible attempts at “diagnosis” some have offered, there’s this dogmatic statement from commenter DB:
Can we stop calling it “intentionalism?” It’s not an “ism.” It’s the profound observation that a poem exists because someone wanted it to. Calling it “intentionalism” lends it intellectual credence and pretends that it has some kind of school of thought behind it that isn’t Jeff Goldstein and his right hand. There has NEVER been an interpretive apparatus called “intentionalism” in the field of literary studies since it became institutionalized. Again, it doesn’t even qualify as an interpretive apparatus, since it wants to keep interpretation–i.e. a reader making meaning–from happening. The reader has no agency here except in recouping the intent of the Master.
I have neither the academic training or expertise to critique DB on this, but it doesn’t ring true to me based on what little I’ve been able to read and follow of matters to date. Am I off-base here?
That is funny.
I was going to become an academic. History discipline, specializing in Early American History. I just was not able to kiss enough ass and swallow enough bullshit to get it done. Switched to the sciences, where everything was a little more free wheeling.
I do have an interest in this subject and have learned a lot with these posts and contributions by commenters. I second ed’s request for some “beginner’s” texts. Pull us up a list, Jeff.
Master Tang – Its the Lefts lame excuse for rallying against the whole perspective of “Author ownership” of intent and meaning. It body slams one of their chief pony tricks of “revsionism”, so they desperately “need” to subvert the reasoning. Old news.
“revisionism” that is. The art of making things mean whatever you want them to mean to support your arguments.
Scott: the two guys making ‘mom’ jokes are both fans of Jeff’s, regular commentors at this site & are being tongue-and-cheek. And the guy who accused you of making up ‘Michaelsian’ was also joking, making the remark at his own expense (i.e. saying he’s not smart enough to know what you’re talking about).
We really do tend to be a friendly lot. We’re just a little rough around the edges at times, and it’s hard to know when someone’s joking vs. when they’re being serious without knowing who the regulars are.
I tried to post civil comments over there and I try to post civil comments whereever I travel. But….when you are personally attacked for having a different opinion, constantly, with no attempt to discuss or rebut the primary point…you have a tendency to lash back, or to disappear.
I used to read and comment at Balloon Juice, but look at that fever swamp now. I just gave up on that one. I would enjoy open discussion on some of the Leftist blogs, but it is almost impossible to have a civil discussion. After so much of that, you have a tendency to gravitate to blogs that “treat you civil” which unfortunately, tends to be those that share your viewpoint.
It is sad to lament that the tone of public discourse has degenerated to the point where disagreeing is tantamount to some capital crime.
Beck,
They aren’t “mom” jokes, they’re ”your mom” jokes. Don’t go bringing my mom into this.
(the smiley means it’s a joke)
Mr. Kaufman-
My above comment was a honey-coated barb brotha, not a dig. Please take no offense.
I think I can guess how Jeff will respond- he’d point out the difference between interpretation and meaning creation/understanding. Jeff acknowledges that, given a text, a creative person can come up with all sorts of wacky interpretations of the text…re-valuing certain signifiers and highlighting certain parts of the text to produce a sort of “personal meaning” (innaccurate term). Despite what some of Thers’s commenters have suggested, this is not at all part of the debate nor is it at all controvertial.
Jeff’s point is that such interpretations are distinct from how we go about understanding what the author intended for the text to mean…
Intentionalism ties literature to speech act theory. These “interpretive” theories (again, innaccurate term) want to focus on how a text has become valued by a culture…in how they have procurred their own meanings from the text.
Man, I really need some coffee. I’m falling asleep at my desk…
Beck, I don’t believe Dave (who started the whole episode on this thread with pedophilia) is anything but a troll here. Pablo is a regular and his response was turn the insult to Jeff back on Dave. As for people like Dave, I personally wish they were elsewhere and not here (unless there is some massive inside joke that I completely missed, it happens).
As to Scott’s assertion of
Yes, I would, but long experience has shown me that it is not welcome at all. So I don’t bother. No matter how civil (an this is my direct experience), I would be called profane names, banned almost instantly, and subjected to personal harrassment and death threats on my posted email address.
rls’s experience reflects my own.
Well, if the party started out civil, we can have a civil party.
But the thin pasty line in the sand was drawn by Thirsty with his “I am too busy to deconstruct the Elmer’s Bandito’s thesis, but if I had time and a girlie drink welded to my limp hand, BOY, WOULD I DO IT.”
Errrr…no. Thirsty did not start a civil conversation, never engaged on one when offered an opportunity to, never backed off, never included a modicum of respect for a rival (civility).
His every action was to prove Goldstein was a fool. You do not have a civil discussion over an insult.
– Which, unfortunate for the propect of any uplifting debate, has become the templet that is the Left these days.
You might be at least peripherally interested in Norm Geras’s take on the subject. (No, he isn’t paying attention to either Jeff or Thersites.)
Briefly: “…the principle, namely, that if the item before you – here, a document – doesn’t actually say what you need it to say for your critical purposes, never mind, invent something.”
Says it all, really, but RTWT. It’s good to see at least some Leftists who are aware that that particular petard is hazardous to handle.
Regards,
Ric
I have to commend geoduck on one thing – that day they covered “New Historicism” in class, she was clearly present with bells on and all attentive.
She reminds me, somehow, of a minor character in a Gus Van Sant movie, circa 1997.
SEK from Valve has just dealt this this one.
The commenter who spooks me is GeoDuck. One of her personalities cries for civility while the other engages in defamation. Strangely neither personality seems to recognize the work of the other, even when they’re evident in the same thread.
Not even with the esteemed grammarian, Professor F. Fuckity Fucking Fuckheimer.
Although I can’t say I’ve enjoyed the debate, Jeff’s taught me a lot about literary theory. Interesting stuff. Thank you.
Beck, point taken. Still, even joking, those jokes indicate that this is a different kind of forum than the one the Valve’s readers typically read.
shank, check. But you can understand why I thought it a dig at the presumed pretentiousness of academics. I’ve been attacked for this bit of pragmatism in the past, so I admit it may be oversensitivity on my part.
Vercingetorix: Well, if the party started out civil, we can have a civil party.
That’s a bit of buck-passing, isn’t it? Some people even manage to behave at a riot, no? Look, I’ll amend my earlier statement: I’m not interested in the who did what to whom and from what IP address first. I’m interested in discussing matters of intellectual substance in a civil way. My point about trolls above was not intended as an insult to any of the participants in this discussion, merely to point how a conservative’s comments would be received by Thersites, and how his would be received by a conservative. It’s an unhealthy dynamic which, at this point, can’t be rectified by pointing fingers, by saying the other guy started it. I don’t mean to come in here sounding high-handed, I’m just calling it as I see it.
Finally, I’d like to remind all involved that I’m a lefty, nor am I particularly shy about it. I have the Koufax Award insignia I made right there in the upper-righthand corner of my blog. (Granted, it’s a runner-up “Most Humorous Post” for my response to catching two students having sex in my office, but it tells you how I self-identify.) All I’m saying is that I’m a lefty who, I think, is capable of rational, intelligent debate. I’m not fishing for compliments here, merely saying that the notion that “it’s impossible to have a rational conversation with a lefty” is part and parcel of what I said about the left-right blogosphere dynamic. You and Jeff are currently having a rational, intelligent debate with a lefty, so it is possible.
I’m have no the first idea what that sentence even means, but I would like to (and in the sprit of unpartisan bone homie) say that I liked very much the cusp of its gib, Vercigoiterix. (just fun to read outloud or whatever).
Whats up with Kauffman straddling up to his liberal bona fides no less than three times while agreeing with Jeff? And what about Jeff’s rock-hard right politics does Kauffman disagree with? Or is this a case of veiled satire (which, is it really satire if its veiled?) of Jeff’s daily attempts to shore up his own Ghengis-Khan-baby-blood-sucking-village-razing-Halliburton-shilling politics? Was Jeff-Kauffman exchange really just a philosophically second-level subterranean “shout out to their bloggedy dog”?
strange
Agreed, with exclamation points. It’s why I pretty much hung it up; smarter people than me may someday figure this out, or our grandchildren may laugh at us for harboring the illusion that we ever could hope to avoid said dynamic.
I think hilzoy posted that one over at Obsidian Wings; I thought it was one of the funniest things I’d ever read.
A lefty who has not propped up his side of the conversation with invective, which is a crucial difference. Civil debate requires that BOTH parties remain civil. You remained civil in your conversation with the Troll of Sorrow, but the “debate” aspect was notably absent. You did scathe the hell out of him, though, not that it ever seemed to register.
holy crap. he did it again. more bona fides. Mr. Kaufman, with all due respect, if you’re gonna be so adamant about disagreeing with someone, at least throw out one or two issues that distinguish you from Jeff, facist puppy-killer, that he is. A Jewish one no less, so he probably even pets the puppy and wispers niceties into its ear before plunging his k-bar down the sternum of the little fella as he shouts with horrific laughter and then takes a bite from his turkey on rye, with just a bit of dijon, crispy romaine and a slice of havarti. No onions though, or he’ll fucking kill you.
Which proves your question; can we have a civil discussion with an opposing person? Yes. But look at how you act and how you speak and how you defer and demur and all of that. You are reasonable.
And why did things disintegrate with Thristy and his merry band of ObGyn marauders? Because they were/are/will always be…DICKS.
It really is that simple. Jeff addressed the material. Thirsty dismissed the material and talked about something else, including ad hominems and a score of ever-flat insults (pasty-foot? WTF?). Not once did they choose to elevate the discourse and NOW they are accusing us all of pedophilia or some such, as if his blog was located in the third ring of Langely and only PW had the key to get in.
It might have been one of the fifteen-year old trolls at Firedoglake or wherever, or a nifty innovation I think they call “Google”. But no, ad hominems, insults, accusations, imprecations, yadda yadda yadda. Go over there if you want to get to the bottom of the problem.
I hate you, Witheld.
It certainly is, and one would think such would be more commonplace. But even in this little blog war, which some may find offensive and others amusing, the vitriol seems to arise from a dedicated disregard for facts and the reaction thereto.
Because of that disregard, this was never going to be an enlightening discussion. Jeff has presented the opportunity by issuing a challenge based on the nasty, dismissive challenge to his professional work. The response was “You fucking clown.” and very little else, save permutations of the word paste. The source of the problem is not evenly distributed.
The rest of us are all peanut gallery, really. Of the principles, one behaved like an adult, the other like a two year old with a particularly nasty diaper rash.
Frankly, this has become pandemic on the left whose arsenal seems to be stocked with “we aren’t the Right” and not much else. I give you John Kerry’s “I’m not Bush” Presidential campaign, Harry “Culture of Corruption/Sure, I’ll take those ringside seats” Reid, and Howard “I hate Republicans” Dean.
While both sides have their brawlers, the majority of knee-jerk dismissiveness emanates from the left. At some point, it’s no longer debate, but simply sport, with points to be scored and an adversary to vanquish. Which isn’t for everybody, naturally.
Scott
I remember the post about the students in your office. Very funny stuff.
Sadly I will now be required to revert to loathing you for the star on your belly, where on mine I have none. Have at you sir!
I used to be a liberal, but then they changed what liberal means. Now I’m a conservative married to a liberal who wonders why G-d would be so cruel as to leave my ample belly free of the required blue markings that allow all around me to know I am ‘in’.
– And of course the obligitory third possibility, wherein both sides positions can be “true”/”good”/”correct”, or conversely, “false”/”bad”/”wrong”, most usually because neither takes the time to understand the other, and consequently they’re arguing two entirely different points. With this situation, the better, more artful rip, will generally win.
A: The sky is blue.
B: The grass is green.
A: You suck.
B: When you get home to your kennel, I hope your mother bites you.
…etc, etc….
At the risk of keeping the old story alive, I couldn’t resist quoting this, which I found posted at the site of one NTodd, a commenter or friend of Thers and Mary:
You’d think we were the Manson family.
Anybody else noticed that Thirsty’s blog is gone?
Is it ‘bona fides’ ( good faith ) or ‘bonafides’? I’d used two terms but SEK had used one.
FWIW: I’m the one who’d initially assumed that the statements on Valve, regarding his political orientation, were intended to demonstrate his loyalties as an appeal to his academic community. He stated that they weren’t and I don’t see any reason not to believe him.
Anyone else notice that NTodd still, after having been corrected multiple times, clings to a conclusion based on an assumption, which in turn is based on nothing at all (other than pure assertion by geoduck, who in all likelihood knows less about this than Thersites)? And that this is the support for most of his anger at “the cocksuckers”?
Ah, Metacomments is toast. Wonder what that does to the effort to unearth the IP of the culprit?
– Hey, it was just an IP address, how bad could that be?…. *chough*
Well, congratulations, you evil repukes! Another true, stong progressive voice has been silenced for speaking truth to power.
*snif*
Some have already said, but I’ll say it again. We know very well we’re having a debate with a lefty. We know it’s possible. So, if we grant that Jeff’s commenters are the same as those involved in the Thersites kerfuffle, what is the difference between that flame war and our conversation with you? Same evil righties in both scenerios. The difference is YOU. Call it buck-passing if you like, but respect–an essential element of dialogue–has to be mutual. And call us crazy, but Thersites doesn’t seem to be alone on the left in his refusal to grant the respect necessary for constructive debate. To say all lefties are incapable of debate is clearly overbroad, but apart from you, lefty sites seem to be lining up behind Thersites to savage the “execrable” Jeff Goldstein.
Gotta be Treach. Too effin’ hilarious to be anyone else, isn’t it?
I was going to ask if they’re home from school yet, but I guess I probably should refrain. That would be the high road, right?
Actually, Jeff’s been their target for months. Apparently they don’t like that he writes more than just cock jokes.
It did not escape my attention Slarti. It’s not like he has any credibility, though. He’s a partisan shit slinger; he knows it, his readers know it, and I imagine he’s proud of it. It must be very comforting to feel so sure about everything. Reality doesn’t matter as long as he can score some points and fashion enough scattered bullshit to serve as a platform from which to shout his moral outrage. Whatever makes life simple for him I guess…
– Well D.B., geoduck2, and the Illustrious Nate Carlow, whos partisan swill he passes off as political commentary I find so much joy in dismantling, have now moved their 7th grade arguments over to “The Valve”, in order to continue their infantile nattering. I’m sure Scott is thrilled.
Tone, friend, tone. Now:
Whats up with Kaufman straddling up to his liberal bona fides no less than three times while agreeing with Jeff?
As I said earlier, that’s what interests me. I’m asking, genuinely asking, why people associate the intentionalist position with conservative politics. As Jeff noted elsewhere, it’s possible to agree with a given stance but draw different conclusions about the evidence acquired from it. I agree with him, then, both about the validity of the stance and the possibility that one can draw different conclusions based on it. The example he gives is a good one: race has been the object of mystification in the United States, but whereas Michaels and I take this anti-racist position and say, “Well, yes, but we can’t deny the utility of some race-based coalitional politics, since just because we know something shouldn’t exist, that it shouldn’t work the way it does, we also know it does exist and does work the way it does.” I think Michaels and I would agree that the point is to address the mystification, attempt to show it for what it is, but we have a long, long way to go. In the short term, we act pragmatically to promote our idea of social justice; an idea which, I believe, Jeff wouldn’t think coterminous with his.
Was Jeff-Kaufman exchange really just a philosophically second-level subterranean “shout out to their bloggedy dog�
No, friend, it wasn’t. And vis-a-vis your second comment, I repeat: “Tone, friend, tone.” What good does it do you or the debate to write faux-hysterical diatribes? Why not just ask, in a civil tone, why I think my own political beliefs are central to this debate?
Which proves your question; can we have a civil discussion with an opposing person? Yes. But look at how you act and how you speak and how you defer and demur and all of that. You are reasonable.
Vercingetorix, I’m not sure we want to associate “reasonable” with deferring and demuring, but I take your point. Mine is simply that if I can come here and behave this way and get this response from you, what’s to say that you can’t go to liberal blogs and get this response from other lefties if you comport yourself as I have here? People say that it’s impossible, that they’ve tried to engage liberals rationally and what-not, but I wager that long experience with lefty button-pushing has left them doing it unconsciously; at the very least, it may deafen them to their own rhetoric, to the way it’s been influenced by their own ideology, such that even when they believe their words politically-neutral, plainly rational, they’re still pushing-buttons. But that’s just a guess. (I mean that seriously. Am I pushing any buttons? I’m trying not to, but by rights, I either should be or I 1) invalidate my theory or 2) make an elitist claim about being more self-conscious than “the rabble.”)
A lefty who has not propped up his side of the conversation with invective, which is a crucial difference. Civil debate requires that BOTH parties remain civil. You remained civil in your conversation with the Troll of Sorrow, but the “debate†aspect was notably absent. You did scathe the hell out of him, though, not that it ever seemed to register.
Slartibartfast, no, it really didn’t. That said, I save my invective for when it’s necessary. I mean, I’m a former warboarder, so I love a scuffle as much as the next guy, but they’re bound to the law of diminishing returns. You can only have the abortion debate so many times before the outlines of the inexorable positions become clear and the debate becomes an endless round of re-re-re-re-reiteration.
Let’s not follow suit, ok? I think Scott can hold his own. No sense catching him in the middle of a shit-flinging match on his own turf. Especially since he’s been nothing if not courteous here.
– I would second that motion.
Scott is correct here. I’ve said on numerous occasions that I think the project of pragmatically propping up race simply because, well, we’re used to propping up race, actually hurts social progress. Rather than demystifying it, studies in race and culture tend (in my opinion) to reinforce difference, and so reinforce identity politics, which are then used as ways to undermine the project of classical liberalism, which centers on the individual.
But with Scott (and Michaels), they at least foreground the project and show intellectual honesty when they admit that the entire project is only “necessary” from a particular position on how we should go about promoting social justice.
I like to think that constructive dialogue is not button pushing, but I fear that it may well be, if that dialogue is counter to a held position….no turf ceded and all, you know. I’m not trying to speak for all the regulars here, but I think that most would agree that it is basically impossible to reason with an unreasonable person.
Scott, those items that the political divide (the Left and the Right) agree upon are more numerous than those that are in disagreement. That those that we disagree upon are the items for discussion are….because we disagree.