Comments on: Apologies to Digby; more on Colbert

By: Ra

Ra — Thu, 11 May 2006 03:12:32 +0000

Why would anyone be envious of Wonkette? She wrote a book that BOMBED recently; her blog certainly is no must read for newsjunkies.
It has a tabloid quality to it thats more
suitable for celebrity gossip than politics.
I am female and a feminist, but I think its absurd to call a man a misogynist every time he makes a rude remark about a woman (I recently referred to Richard Cohen as little Richy Cohen-am I a man-hater pray tell?)
There is some fine hypocrisy & sophistry here-baselessly calling someone a racist, bigot or misogynist is IMO viler than generic insults like “jerk”, “wanker” etc. They might be slightly more refined as taunts go, but the implications are so much worse. So can I just call every Republican I disagree with a homophobic white supremacist? Its less “uncivil”-clearly I don’t have to be right on the facts of it-as long as I am nice and prim in how I put it.
Digby’s post was spot on imo. Cox’s column was whiny, absurd, attention-seeking hyperbole. Its also comical how sensitive someone, who made a reputation out of viciously trashing other people, is when someone criticizes her/hubbie.
Whats truly irritating about people like Cox and Lehmann is not that they disagree with us on Colbert. Its that they STATE that “XYZ is not funny”-cuz ya know, THEY are cool enough to know what is funny, what is wise etc. Not once does Lehmann say-”in my opinion”. Oh no its a FACT (I have never read Lehmann before but based on that one column, he seems so sour, humorless & pompous that he is surely an odd choice to be deciding whats funny-assuming that can be done?)
Its really annoying how any one even remotely associated with the media, now feels that they can tell us plebes what to think.
Enough of paying attention to media whores like Wonkette, Chris Lehmann or Cohen. These people are just trying to pile on to Colbert’s spotlight.

By: ferd

ferd — Thu, 11 May 2006 00:16:18 +0000

It’ll be a tragedy if frequent use of profanity winds up driving normally-prudish voters away from blog truth.
For me, profanity doesn’t usually improve the the base-rallying snark effect of a post. And, I don’t think my hip-but-nice sister or brother-in-law want to sit in a room with a bunch of “fu&K you,” and I doubt they want to read it either. A little bit; ok. But don’t kill the power of rude words through over-use unless you know it’s an election winner.

By: kc

kc — Wed, 10 May 2006 23:22:31 +0000

Um, by the way, it isn’t strictly necessary to re-post my comment.
‘Cause I sure don’t want Mr. Montalban mad at ME . . .

By: kc

kc — Wed, 10 May 2006 23:20:06 +0000

A-hem. I’ve read your email, Mr. K, and I see why you deleted my post. But it was all a big hilarious misunderstanding – I was quoting one of Retardo’s comments, and I messed the italics up, and you apparently thought I was browbeating you. Also, I was simply addressing Retardo by the only name by which I know him, which is “Retardo” (well, I guess I COULD call him “Mr. Montalban”), not chastising you, Mr. K, for using the word “Retardo.”
I responded to your email, but gmail was acting up, so hopefully you only got one response from me. Not 25.
Isn’t it all pretty funny when you think about it? Let’s put down our swords and have a big group hug . . . you too, Retardo, c’mere . . .

By: rilkefan

rilkefan — Wed, 10 May 2006 20:39:34 +0000

WS, the point is that traditionally this event is covered – Imus’s attack on Clinton (around ‘97?) was widely discussed in the press. And why was the double shtick covered and not Colbert’s routine? The latter had the virtue of being surprising and visibly affected the president and first lady – either normally prime examples of “newsworthy”.

By: Winston Smith

Winston Smith — Wed, 10 May 2006 19:43:34 +0000

KJM,
You know, that seems to me to be just one component of this whole weird affair… I didn’t think that Colbert was very funny, and I don’t think that comedy is really newsworthy, so I just don’t see that MSM is irresponsible for not covering it. In fact, before this came to be a Whole Big Thing, I saw the bit about the Bush impersonator, and kept thinking “is this s#!t *news*???” I guess I think the same thing about Colbert.
I actually think that it might be good that Colbert said those things to Bush, b/c I think that he might need to hear them. (But maybe not–that guy seems mercifully bereft of the ravages of self-doubt.) What I don’t get is the angry denunciations of those who just don’t think Colbert was funny, the claims that the MSM had an obligation to cover this, and the extraordinary anger that’s been pouring out of the left over every aspect of this *utterly insignificant* case.
I mean, look: I’m a liberal. I really, really dislike Bush, and have really, really disliked him longer and more vehemently than most sane liberals. But even I’m left scratching my head about this Colbert affair.
This is, I’m afraid, the kind of thing that gives ammunition to the righties’ charges of “BDS.” And, aside from being unseemly and intemperate, such things undermine the force of our righteous and rational anger.

By: Rasselas

Rasselas — Wed, 10 May 2006 19:33:40 +0000

Why do all these conversations ultimately turn into discussions of who pays more obeisance to the awesome populist power of the blogs?

By: Gavin M.

Gavin M. — Wed, 10 May 2006 19:33:03 +0000

“I’ve spoken out quite strongly against the indecency of torture. Why are you and “Retardo” so insistent that I join you in personally abusing those who (even temporarily) disagree?”
We don’t ask that. We ask that one keep in mind the seriousness of the issues without retreating behind a scrim of words, wordishness, speech-codes, and policing of speech.
There are words, Mr. Kleiman, and there are things-in-the-world. Language certainly is important, but there comes a time, as Mencken said, to spit upon one’s hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. I think that time came quite awhile ago.

By: Mark Kleiman

Mark Kleiman — Wed, 10 May 2006 18:48:27 +0000

KC:
Please check your email. I put your comment on “pending” because I couldn’t figure out whether you were criticizing “Retardo” or me, and wrote to ask for clarification. I’m happy to replace it as soon as I know what you meant.

By: Winston Smith

Winston Smith — Wed, 10 May 2006 15:09:32 +0000

Mark, dude, you’re mostly right on this one. It’s astounding to see how irrational folks in the leftosphere get over stuff like this. Criticism of Atrios, in particular, tends to generate amazingly vitriolic responses.
One of my favorite type of responses goes like this:
Your criticism of X is unwarranted–and shows you to be a bad person–because X is opposed to Y, and Y is worse than X, and you wasted time criticizing X instead of Y.
The righties use this criticism against us for criticizing Bush (there X=Bush, Y= OBL, Saddam, whatever); in the dispute at hand, lefties are using it against you (where X=Atrios, Y= Bush, Fox News, etc.)
You were wrong about the Digby thing, and you apologized, and good for you, man. It’s tough to apologize in American political discussions these days because almost no one has the grace to accept the apology. It’s usually just an invitation to more abuse. Which is why it’s so hard, and so rare, and so admirable.
But you’re laregely dealing with a certain kind of person now (that shows up on the right AND the left) that brooks no disagreement. It’s difficult to act perfectly, difficult to do something that a committed critic can’t pick at. If someone has decided ahead of time that you’re wrong, there’s often little you can do–no matter how right you are–to change their mind.
Anyway, you’re right, and you probably realize you’re right. No amount of strained and Gerrymandered criticism will change that.

By: kc

kc — Wed, 10 May 2006 12:29:29 +0000

Mr. Kleiman – did you actually delete my commentt in which I defended you, using no uncivil words whatsoever? The one in which I merely said Retardo was “absurdly wrong?”
Good Lord. What a wanker thing to do, sir.
By the way – why the hell didn’t you email Digby asking if you had misunderstood her post beFORE you posted that bit about her being a “male chauvinist?” Instead of “as soon as?”

By: serial catowner

serial catowner — Wed, 10 May 2006 12:06:02 +0000

Colbert wasn’t laugh-out-loud funny. The reaction of the audience was. By the time he finished I was wiping tears from my eyes.

By: Mark Kleiman

Mark Kleiman — Wed, 10 May 2006 09:13:30 +0000

Gavin:
The objection to “Retardo” was that of a reader, who attributed it to me.
I’ve spoken out quite strongly against the indecency of torture. Why are you and “Retardo” so insistent that I join you in personally abusing those who (even temporarily) disagree?

By: Gavin M.

Gavin M. — Wed, 10 May 2006 08:45:12 +0000

I’ve now inserted scare quotes around my use of the name in my reply, lest any more readers attribute the insult to me rather than my interlocutor. And please, if you were offended, don’t send him reams of obscene abuse.
Mark, you seem to misunderstand us on a fairly basic level.
We don’t care if people do send reams of obscene abuse, because we don’t take it personally. ‘Obscenity’ is simply irrelevant to whether an argument is sound or faulty. It’s a matter of diction, a stylistic issue.
This is the dichotomy between ‘civility’ and ‘decency’ that Retardo was talking about. It’s a very simple argument, and a very important one, and it’s regrettable that you haven’t engaged it and are instead finding ways to be ‘offended’ by even more things pertaining to Retardo, such as his name. Which is, in fact, once again, a word and not a thing.

By: Mark Kleiman

Mark Kleiman — Wed, 10 May 2006 06:42:45 +0000

PLEASE NOTE:
The commenter above, who is also the poster who exploded in fury at me on Sadly, No! signs himself “Retardo Montalban” on his blog and simply “Retardo” above.
In my reply above, I adress him as “Retardo,” since that’s the only name I know for him. This brought a stern rebuke from a reader, appalled that I should use a variant of an insulting label (now happily obsolete) for a person with developmental disabilities as a term of abuse.
I couldn’t agree more that the use of “Retardo” is in appallingly bad taste. (I would have called him out on it, but he might have considered that another plea for civility and been prompted to issue another blast of fury in response.)
I’ve now inserted scare quotes around my use of the name in my reply, lest any more readers attribute the insult to me rather than my interlocutor. And please, if you were offended, don’t send him reams of obscene abuse.

By: Charlie Robb

Charlie Robb — Wed, 10 May 2006 05:51:13 +0000

I used to be all for relentlessness. Now I’m into ruthlessness. Too much is at stake.

By: kc

kc — Wed, 10 May 2006 02:14:59 +0000

“THAT was enough to get your dander up, though, curiously, calls for hitting protestors with 2×4s or general torture advocacies can’t manage to get your blood boiling in quite the same way.”
Retardo, please. That’s just absurdly wrong.

By: Mark Kleiman

Mark Kleiman — Wed, 10 May 2006 01:50:54 +0000

“Retardo”:
Please take a deep breath and then read carefully what I actually said about Atrios (that he’s frequently mad at people, which seems a fair thing to say about someone who appoints a “Wanker of the Day,” and that he tends to convert disagreement into personal attack) and about Digby (that one remark of hers, which I specified, seemed to me envious, condescending, and misogynistic). I didn’t say that either of them was evil. I didn’t curse them out, or attribute obscene improbabilities to them, or accuse them of lack of reading comprehension or sympathy with torturers. I didn’t bring up irrelevant things I’d disliked about their posts from years ago. I disagreed with things they said, and explained why. When it turned out that I’d misread Digby, I took it back and apologized.
[As is my usual practice when I criticize someone's views in a post — except for those, such as Atrios and Glenn Reynolds, who have stopped responding to such emails — I sent a courtesy email to Digby when the post went up.]
Then go re-read your own scream of incoherent, gibbering rage directed at me, and see if, on reflection, you think it might have been just a teensy bit excessive.
Then we can talk about meeting halfway.
As to why I responded in other people’s comment sections rather than yours, let’s leave that problem as an excercise for the reader.

By: RETARDO

RETARDO — Wed, 10 May 2006 00:43:31 +0000

Noticed you’ve been quite the busy beaver in various comment sections yet curiously not at the one to the post which seems to vex you so much… so I figured I’d come here and meet you more than half-way. Why not? It’s the civil and decent thing to do.
I could give a crap about Ana Marie Cox. My problem was with your attitude to Digby and Atrios whom you thought were being such meanies; though you didn’t say the word, your beef with them had absolutely everything to do with your perception of their civility — or rather lack thereof. THAT was enough to get your dander up, though, curiously, calls for hitting protestors with 2×4s or general torture advocacies can’t manage to get your blood boiling in quite the same way.
Sorry, you can’t weasel out of this with the lame excuse that word “civility” doesn’t show up in your post. I busted you on a pattern — you’re ever-ready to engage the indecent but your line is firmly drawn against the “uncivil”.
One more time to make it clear — it’s not that I’m “horrified” that you debate those you disagree with. It’s that you’re very willing to countenance the moral depravity of your opponenets but at the same time you refuse to abide people — often your ostensible allies — being “mean”. I get the distinct feeling that if Eugene Volokh or Megan McArdle had larded their depraved, absolutely concentrated-evil suggestions with a few f-bombs, and ad hominems, you’d have treated them differently. But since they didn’t, they’re ok — while it’s the people who cussed them who are Truly Bad People.

By: MMGood

MMGood — Tue, 09 May 2006 22:30:45 +0000

Following on Andy Vance's comment, Atrios picked up "Wanker" directly from The Editors at the Poorman here: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_01_09_atrios_archive.html#110530501829742833

By: JR

JR — Tue, 09 May 2006 22:13:47 +0000

1) The point is that Cox is a panderer. When she was blogging she pandered to the audience that reads blogs. Now that she’s graduated to newsweeklies she’s pandering to that audience. “Our little Wonkette has grown up” was right on target. Her shtick on the blog was that she was a naughty little girl. She could have posed for Playboy in pigtails and knee socks. Now she’s pompously bloviating with the rest of the adults. Both personas are frauds.
2) Colbert’s audience was not in the room, any more than Bush’s audience is in the room when he gives the SOTU address. Jeebus Christmas, hasn’t anyone around here heard of television?

By: Mark Kleiman

Mark Kleiman — Tue, 09 May 2006 21:25:46 +0000

Lots of helpful responses here, for which my thanks.
The derivations of “jerk” from “soda jerk” or “jerkwater town” are both attractive, but I think the balance of opinion is with “jerk off.” But I wasn’t really taking a position on that; I was merely responding to the comment that it wouldn’t seem at all odd to call a woman a jerk, so why should it be odd to call a woman a wanker?
I’m puzzled at why people think of Atrios as being to my left and Cox to my right. If “left” and “right” refer primarily to how steep status gradients should be, and in particular how unequal the income distribution should be, I count as pretty far left, and I have no idea how Cox and Atrios compare to one another. But that calls for a longer post.
David W. has introduced a dreaded “ness monster” into this highly elevated discourse. Why use “pompousness” instead of “pomposity”? (he replied, pompously).
Two responses to Hal:
1. Saying that in one particular form of bad behavior X is like Y isn’t saying that X is as bad as Y.
2. There’s a difference between telling dirty jokes and calling someone dirty names.

By: Hal

Hal — Tue, 09 May 2006 20:19:32 +0000

I personally don’t think it’s civil to start off a post proclaiming equality between Atios and those who think disagreeing with the president is treason… While not using foul language, it certainly isn’t extending benevolence, eitber. That may be why it seems tlo others that you’re far more benevolent to torture supporters tban you are to those who are horrified by such discussion.
Oh, and didn’t Wonkette make her name through the mass repeating of @ss f&cking? I’m curious as to why that gets such a wide break. It’s a curious definition of foul language and tone you seem to be proffering.

By: norbizness

norbizness — Tue, 09 May 2006 20:12:56 +0000

At some point, is this going to reach the requisite meta-mass to cause the blogosphere to collapse into a neutron star?

By: neil

neil — Tue, 09 May 2006 19:53:20 +0000

It seems that a lot of people have been accusing Digby of sexism, then abruptly apologizing and pretty clearly identifying the pseudonymous one as a female.
Now that’s what I call some serious heteronormativity.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 09 May 2006 19:53:00 +0000

Great quote from Mencius. Thanks!

By: Andy Vance

Andy Vance — Tue, 09 May 2006 19:33:38 +0000

Lefty bloggers' use of "wanker" is an in-joke. It started with a post on The Poor Man which, ironically enough, quotes Confucious: http://www.thepoorman.net/archives/003631.html

By: pgl

pgl — Tue, 09 May 2006 19:32:48 +0000

Colbert replied the end of his act and I’m glad he did. I first watched it like you by going to that net link. First part was really funny but I did not get his audition tape part until I saw his show last night. That part was also a real crackup when one got to see it clearly. It seems Justice Scalia and Helen Thomas were the only two at the dinner who have any sense of humor. And yes, I’ve been a Colbert fan for a while. Funny man on TV by far.

By: David W.

David W. — Tue, 09 May 2006 19:11:03 +0000

Wasn’t it Meng-tse who also said this to Co-hen:
a pompous man
extends his pompousness
from those he bores
to those he does not bore
As for comedy, when a majority of people get their political news from late night comics rather than journalists, I would be hesitant to say it has little or no value in politics.

By: Brock

Brock — Tue, 09 May 2006 18:55:51 +0000

Kudos to you for apologizing to Digby. The accusation of misogyny was undeserved, and far more serious than calling someone a “wanker.” But sincere apologies are a rare and valuable commodity, and can repay even an serious insult.
Now let’s all hold hands and sing “Kum Ba Yah”!
Robert, the Online Etymology Dictionary says that “jerk” may come from “jerkwater town,” where “a steam locomotive crew had to take on boiler water from a trough or a creek because there was no water tank.”
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=j&p=1