Thursday, April 3, 2008

Is this odd?

Ok, so this thread really, in the end, isn't so odd at all.

Is it really so important to be outraged that you have to come up with the flimsiest of excuses? It doesn't help one's cause to cry wolf all of the time. I don't doubt that there is still plenty of sexism out there, but posts like this complaint about "oddities" make me seriously doubt the individual complaints of sexism coming from the author of the post. Why sacrifice credibility just for the chance to be outraged? Maybe those who post there have an illusion of credibility created by like-minded people filling their comment sections with echo chambers of agreement.

In other posts, while I may not agree 100% with the author, at least I can see where he or she might have a point or a valid concern. With this, though, it is just nonsense. Perhaps that's why there's such the strong reaction to what I said - how dare I inject data in the way of a good dose of outrage? I don't know. It reminds me of something I heard in law school: If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts; if the law is on your side, pound on the law; if neither are on your side, pound on the table! It sounds to me like there's a lot of table pounding going on.

Comments, anyone? Beyond telling me I'm crazy to keep on reading stuff like at that blog? I'm trying to figure out why I still read them. Maybe because I think the right-wing extremists are just beyond any reason, so I don't bother to read or comment (though I have on occasion), but I somehow think, since I'm closer to the progressive side, if I read left-wing extremists, they must be more reasonable because we agree. I know that really isn't true - because the reason one thinks something is just as important - is more important - than what one thinks. I'm not a rigid ideology kind of person. Oh well. Back to the grind.


Michael said...

Whenever you stray too far to either side, it ends up being the same looney shit. It's easy to get really pissed off about stupid, tiny shit. ( I should know, I've had lots of practice )

If you want to be a victim, it's easy to find a line of people ready to either:

a) agree that you are, indeed, a victim


b) victimize you

Like you, I agree that sexism, racism and all the other "-isms" certainly exist in this world. But why pick over the minutae, when there are such HUGE, GLARING examples of it to be found just as easily?

I think people like this end up hurting their cause by acting like pussies.

Is that sexist?

I mean, calling someone a "pussy"?

Someone needs to explain the rules to me, or I'll end up on this woman's blog.

E said...

OK, yes, pirahna slave=bad. I don't think getting bent out of shape at the fact someone has a circus act that consists of forcing someone (if that is indeed the case) to swim around with animals that, under the right circumstances, could eat you. Even though like 6 people ever in human history have been actually devoured by pirahnas. But maybe someone, somewhere, is so eager to take a feminist read on world events that this would be something to get all morally outraged about that they are, in fact, missing way bigger problems.

The issue I have with people like that is practical rather than ideological--I deal with high-school drama all day, and I don't want it taking up the rest of my life. Work on the big stuff, and the little things have a way of working themselves out.

Tammy said...

"Work on the big stuff, and the little things have a way of working themselves out."

I think I'll have that inked across my ass, E, so that I don't forget it... right underneath a tattoo of a pirahna.

DBB said...

I think they've gone far off the deep end.

I agree - focus on the big things. When someone focuses on trivia, I start to wonder if the big things are all taken care of, because otherwise, why would they have the time to waste on trivia?

I just went back and read the last five or six comments there (which weren't there the last time I looked at it) and damn - it got even worse.

While I generally don't address the asshats by name, I feel compelled to at least say something in this comment - ginmar, number one, is a miserable excuse for a human being. She may have had a rough time in life, but with the way she acts, I really have no sympathy for her whatsoever - she's a spiteful, hateful person who isn't worth the time of day to even mention. And no, that has nothing to do with her gender.

Betty there is an only slightly better version of ginmar.

And Melissa, the host, isn't as bad as either of them, generally, but seems like she fully supports both of them in what they say there, so that probably does make her just as bad.

After the vile things said there specifically to me by the site's author and her cohorts, I probably won't read that site again for the same reason I don't read Rush Limbaugh or Michelle Malkin. Geez, it is sad that the left has loonies just as bad as them, spewing forth nonsense and bile. That won't help anything.

Insults really don't help anything. I really had to think long and hard before evening mentioning these three by name, but finally decided I didn't want to remain totally silent on the subject (as I have for a long time for two of them). Partly, because this is in a comment, not in a main post, I decided to put it in anyway.

It is utterly fascinating to see how one gets to be a "sexist" in their eyes - basically, all you have to do is disagree. That's the sort of thing that makes me think that their other cries of "sexist" are bogus as well, which is unfortunate, because I'm sure not all of them are.

It saddens me to see how rage and hatred seems to be what binds so many together, rather than reason and understanding. It almost seems like the sites with the most bile are the most trafficked and those that are thoughtful and reasonable have very small readerships (of course, I say this without having gone out and actually compared sites or traffic). I guess I can feel good that at least Glenn Greenwald is out there. But the other sites I respect seem to have much lower readership than a place like Shakes or IBTP, or other places with a high signal to bile ratio.

Pushing away and insulting everyone not a syncophant is no way to learn anything or to sharpen one's knowledge or message.

In the end, I think this is just sad.

BadTux said...

Congratulations, you've gotten the same treatment from the regulars at S.S. that I did, when I *dared* state that being obese was unhealthy (and listed the issues that came with obesity -- joint problems, high blood pressure, heart problems, insulin-resistant diabetes, etc.) on a thread that was glorifying "fat liberation". That means that I'm a sexist who wants to discriminate against women, according to the S.S. regulars. Uhm, no. There's a difference between a healthy weight and being obese, and none of those have to do with oppressing women or, for that matter, with gender at all. Male or female, obese is obese. But the "fat liberation" warriors are quick to jump on you if you point that out...

So I don't read S.S. anymore. If I want to be jumped on by crazed lunatics, I'll go visit an insane asylum or a Republican convention, thank you kindly!

- Badtux the not-crazed Penguin

BadTux said...

For another example of outrage junkies in action, Skippy goes postal on Josh Marshall over... what, do you say? Did Josh advocate torturing people? Defend Bush against his critics? Say that Muslims should be rounded up and put into concentration camps? No. Josh used a word. A word with a perfectly good meaning, but a word that could be read to imply something bad, if you're looking for something to manufacture outrage about. Outrage junkies indeed. Sigh.

Jesus effin' Brian on a cross, I swear that sometimes the left blogosphere seems like a scene out of a Monty Python movie.

- Badtux the non-outraged Penguin