Author: has written 462 posts for this blog.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

682 Responses

  1. Betsy
    Betsy February 28, 2007 at 2:39 pm |

    Thank you! Right-fucking-on. I don’t know why these people can’t understand that making fun of people’s looks and bodies just drags them down to the wingnuts’ level, and it SURELY won’t win them any allies. If what we care about is creating a progressive voting bloc with any muscle, this kind of thing is counterproductive. Yes, there are lots of fat Americans. And guess what? Their votes count just as much as anyone elses. So unless you’re prepared to argue that progressives should only try to win skinny people’s votes, SHUT UP about the bodies. It’s not relevent, not helpful, and not honorable.

  2. anon
    anon February 28, 2007 at 2:39 pm |

    Amp is, as I recall, that asshole who pimps his blog for porno shit. Does anyone still read that??

  3. twf
    twf February 28, 2007 at 2:43 pm |

    Thank you for that. We have to be able to call out our allies on their bigotry so that we’re not hypocritical when we criticize our opponents for theirs.

    Similarly, a lot of progressive “criticism” of right-wing women like Coulter and Malkin is overtly misogynist. It talks about their looks, their fuckability, etc. And it’s not necessary. Their arguments are so flawed that we don’t need to resort to personal attacks to rip them to shreds every time they open their mouths.

  4. Isabel
    Isabel February 28, 2007 at 2:55 pm |

    Big, fat word to the entire post.

    twf: totally agree. Whenever someone tries to insult Ann Coulter by saying she’s a man, I wonder why they hate men (kidding. sort of).

    Also this:

    (I’ll cheerfully go on record right now as saying that making fun of geeks and nerds is also pointless, immature, and really stupid. You’re writing on a blog to other bloggers. About government policy and media trends, no less. This all erupted over a photoshop funny. I hate to break it to you, but we’re nerds.)

    makes me sort of love you. Hee. Nerds indeed.

  5. zuzu
    zuzu February 28, 2007 at 3:10 pm | *

    Bravo!

    Sadly, No! You’re completely full of shit. The post and the follow-up attacked him for being fat. The clear implication is that being fat–rather than any of the truly noisome qualities embodied by ab Hugh–is disgusting.

    What’s quite amusing about all this is that the folks at Sadly, No! quite frequently use “Michael Moore is fat” as a shorthand for the kind of wingnut argument that abandons substance and relies on appearance to make an attack.

    Shorter S, N!: Daffyd ab Hugh is fat.

  6. ichomobothogogus
    ichomobothogogus February 28, 2007 at 3:19 pm |

    i feel i should clarify. my comment (that you cruelly took out of context by quoting in full) wasn’t ragging on Hugh for being fat and it wasn’t an attack on nerds or people who wear ill-fitting clothes or whatever. The reason I personally found it funny (the original picture not the photoshop) was because he appears to embody so many wingnut stereotypes. He’s a walking cliche. pop psychological profiles tend to assume that a lot of right-wing bloggers obsessive tendencies and violent fantasies are overcompensation for percieved inadequacies. Nerdy guys who can’t handle being nerds, social rejects who feel they dont measure up to society’s standards, etc. etc, and that many of them find it easy to call for wars and deaths because their only experience of combat is on an xBox. And suddenly here’s PowerLine’s top military expert and rising star of the right-wing blogs looking like the guys you used to play Magic the Gathering with in high school. We’re all nerds yeah, but most of us don’t think a couple of blog posts make us Alexander the Great

  7. erin
    erin February 28, 2007 at 3:20 pm |

    Here, here!

  8. zuzu
    zuzu February 28, 2007 at 3:26 pm | *

    You know, I thought this whole thing seemed familiar.

    Chris Clarke tore the S,N! folks a new one over the original post, and I wrote a post on it myself, in which someone from S,N! showed up and said they were taking the points we raised seriously.

  9. zuzu
    zuzu February 28, 2007 at 3:39 pm | *

    Well, I guess we got our answer as to how seriously they took the criticisms.

  10. ichomobothogogus
    ichomobothogogus February 28, 2007 at 3:40 pm |

    apart from that minor quibble, very good post

  11. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services February 28, 2007 at 3:47 pm |

    Oh, we explained this already.

    If Dafydd ab Hugh is going to attack lefties as cowards for not ‘having a military background’ and not ‘blogging from the war zones of Iraq or Afghanistan,’ it becomes hard to avoid the observation that ab Hugh himself would never be admitted to boot camp.

    Seriously, you guys: Sticking up for rabid genocide-flirting anti-Muslim fanatics? It can’t be that slow a week.

  12. Chris T.
    Chris T. February 28, 2007 at 3:47 pm |

    Great post — this kind of stuff is ridiculous coming from progressives. But then, it’s no surprise that many progressives don’t consider feminism, healthy-at-any-weight, or gay rights to be “central” to what they’re doing.

    BTW, speaking of this:

    Our next candidates are already being evaluated on the most superficial criteria imaginable.

    I was just subjected not fifteen minutes ago to an astonishingly offensive commentary on NPR about the weight of various presidential candidates. Obama, according to the commentator, is too thin, and Hillary is a big ole fatty. On NPR. Mindblowing.

  13. zuzu
    zuzu February 28, 2007 at 3:54 pm | *

    If Dafydd ab Hugh is going to attack lefties as cowards for not ‘having a military background’ and not ‘blogging from the war zones of Iraq or Afghanistan,’ it becomes hard to avoid the observation that ab Hugh himself would never be admitted to boot camp.

    Seriously, you guys: Sticking up for rabid genocide-flirting anti-Muslim fanatics? It can’t be that slow a week.

    So, Gavin, how do you square the “Daffyd ab Hugh is fat” argument with your criticism of the “Michael Moore is fat” argument?

  14. zuzu
    zuzu February 28, 2007 at 3:56 pm | *

    Also: if you want to point out that he’s not exactly combat-ready (though the military does give weight waivers occasionally, particularly given the shortage of soldiers), why don’t you just point that out?

    Just making fat jokes as a general character slam is really damn lazy. Your comedy standards are better than that.

  15. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services February 28, 2007 at 3:58 pm |

    So, Gavin, how do you square the “Daffyd ab Hugh is fat” argument with your criticism of the “Michael Moore is fat” argument?

    Michael Moore never called anyone a fraud or a coward for criticizing a war without having served in the military.

    Ergo, Michael Moore is not fat.

  16. zuzu
    zuzu February 28, 2007 at 4:01 pm | *

    That’s lame.

  17. car
    car February 28, 2007 at 4:04 pm |

    Add another big fat WORD to the others. It’s so intellectually lazy to attack the way someone looks, especially when there’s so much other fodder to go after. Really, that’s all you’ve got? All you can think of is to make fun of their appearance? Sad. Like, mental maturity of a second-grader sad.

  18. zuzu
    zuzu February 28, 2007 at 4:05 pm | *

    But maybe you’re just not up to the challenge of mocking an odious, cowardly little toad of a man without resorting to the cheap laugh.

    You sir, are no The Editors.

  19. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services February 28, 2007 at 4:06 pm |

    Also: if you want to point out that he’s not exactly combat-ready (though the military does give weight waivers occasionally, particularly given the shortage of soldiers), why don’t you just point that out?

    Oh, I did. That was the occasion for the reemergence of the controversial sandwich photo (that we retired after Chris Clarke complained). I even used a disclaimer.

    Then Teresa Nielsen-Hayden admonished me over that post, and a breaking-loose of heck occurred when I re-retired it and used the original non-sandwich version.

    I’ve tried everything! Salads, giant heads of celery…

  20. Sara
    Sara February 28, 2007 at 4:07 pm |

    Ohhh. So fat is the same thing as bad. Thanks for clarifying.

  21. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services February 28, 2007 at 4:09 pm |

    But maybe you’re just not up to the challenge of mocking an odious, cowardly little toad of a man without resorting to the cheap laugh.

    Well, not ‘little.’ And let’s be honest: I do that every day, including weekends and holidays.

    You sir, are no The Editors.

    The king of left-internet fat jokes? The creator of ‘Doughy Pantload?’

    Insert a quip about standing on the shoulders of giants.

  22. Roy
    Roy February 28, 2007 at 4:13 pm |

    If Dafydd ab Hugh is going to attack lefties as cowards for not ‘having a military background’ and not ‘blogging from the war zones of Iraq or Afghanistan,’ it becomes hard to avoid the observation that ab Hugh himself would never be admitted to boot camp.

    No, it doesn’t.
    Ad hominem tu quoque is a fallacy regardless of which end of the political spectrum you’re on.

    It’s not intelligent, clever, or helpful to attack someone you don’t agree with by calling them names, saying they’re ugly, pointing out that they’re fat, or throwing their sexuality at them like a weapon. It’s wrong when right-wingers do it, and it’s wrong when we do it.

  23. Heraclitus (Jeff)
    Heraclitus (Jeff) February 28, 2007 at 4:14 pm |

    Really good post, piny. And if you’re going to think this guy’s size and awkwardness somehow speak against him, you have to accept as a corollary or consequence that is he were conventionally good-looking, athletic, socially skilled or charming, and professionally successful, his views would somehow be more valid. I hate to break it to these folks, but most people who fit that description aren’t terribly progressive, even in NYC or DC, and even less in Terre Haute, IN or Amarillo, TX. I’m not really on board with the whole “let’s go back to high school and reappoint the athletes and cheerleaders as our overlords” thang (although that is, as you point out, largely what we’re stuck with with our political coverage).

  24. Joel Sax
    Joel Sax February 28, 2007 at 4:17 pm |

    I’ve caught it from reader’s of this blog for questioning the wisdom of the so-called “Fat Rights” movement. Those who didn’t get exactly what I saying will be surprised, but others who did won’t.

    Piny, while I view obesity as every bit as much a health issue as anorexia, I don’t go denying people intelligence on the basis of their weight. If you don’t like the man’s principles, then attack the principles not the body.

  25. Joel Sax
    Joel Sax February 28, 2007 at 4:19 pm |

    Piny, I didn’t read to the end. Still, I don’t think the exercise will engender the results you wanted, especially since most people won’t be reading to the end of the article.

    Best to start with your argument up front.

  26. Joel Sax
    Joel Sax February 28, 2007 at 4:19 pm |

    Piny, I didn’t read to the end. Still, I don’t think the exercise will engender the results you wanted, especially since most people won’t be reading to the end of the article.

    Best to start with your argument up front.

  27. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services February 28, 2007 at 4:25 pm |

    No, it doesn’t.

    Yes it does. He has no right to say such a thing.

    It’s not intelligent, clever, or helpful to attack someone you don’t agree with by calling them names, saying they’re ugly, pointing out that they’re fat, or throwing their sexuality at them like a weapon. It’s wrong when right-wingers do it, and it’s wrong when we do it.

    No, it’s wrong when they do it because they mean ill by it. It’s right when we, collectively, do it because we do not hate (or fear) others because of their race, gender, sexuality, or physical size. That’s why we’re funny and they’re not.

    The joke is never ‘this person is different.’ The joke is always ‘this person is a fool without principles who does not respect others.’ The vehicle varies, but the core is always the same.

  28. zuzu
    zuzu February 28, 2007 at 4:29 pm | *

    No, it’s wrong when they do it because they mean ill by it. It’s right when we, collectively, do it because we do not hate (or fear) others because of their race, gender, sexuality, or physical size. That’s why we’re funny and they’re not.

    So, why use physical size? You wouldn’t mock someone based on race.

  29. norbizness
    norbizness February 28, 2007 at 4:29 pm |

    I created “Doughy Pantload,” you bastards! Whoops. I mean, it was The Editors. To be fair, I meant doughy as in pale and clammy and possibly Charmin-soft, and pantload as in the stuff that loadeth the pants.

    To be doubly fair, I also (in the same post) christened Jeff Jacoby “Unfrozen Caveman Columnist.”

    To be triply fair, I was called out on fat-hatred and bigotry when I mocked an overweight, frothy sports announcer who insanely chastised Alex Rodriguez for not playing through an injury.

    This is the confessional booth, right?

  30. Heraclitus (Jeff)
    Heraclitus (Jeff) February 28, 2007 at 4:35 pm |

    Yeah, I always thought “Doughy Pantload” meant he was a pasty piece of shit, which he is. And that post is pretty awesome, norbizness.

  31. A Pang
    A Pang February 28, 2007 at 4:40 pm |

    Wow. I read the Dafydd ab Hugh thread at Making Light and everyone somehow managed to disparage the man entertainingly without once mentioning his weight.

  32. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services February 28, 2007 at 4:40 pm |

    So, why use physical size? You wouldn’t mock someone based on race.

    Tellingly, nobody complained about the fake ad we had on the site a couple of weeks ago.

    See, this is interesting: Apparently people came by and saw a cover shot of Dinesh D’Souza’s new book, ‘Negrofascism: The Democratic Party, Islam, And The Crisis In America’s Cities,’ and just kind of shrugged their shoulders thinking it was real. Like, “Oh well, there goes Dinesh D’Souza again.”

    My question is, How far does parody have to go before people have the click-moment and realize the meaning of what they’re seeing?

  33. zuzu
    zuzu February 28, 2007 at 4:44 pm | *

    Tellingly, nobody complained about the fake ad we had on the site a couple of weeks ago.

    See, this is interesting: Apparently people came by and saw a cover shot of Dinesh D’Souza’s new book, ‘Negrofascism: The Democratic Party, Islam, And The Crisis In America’s Cities,’ and just kind of shrugged their shoulders thinking it was real. Like, “Oh well, there goes Dinesh D’Souza again.”

    My question is, How far does parody have to go before people have the click-moment and realize the meaning of what they’re seeing?

    This has to do with your using ab Hugh’s size as a proxy for his character how?

    The fake ad mocked D’Souza’s attitudes toward race and civil liberties. But I bet you wouldn’t use *his* race as a stand-in for his character.

    Er, would you?

  34. Roy
    Roy February 28, 2007 at 4:45 pm |

    He has no right to say such a thing.

    He’s wrong because he’s an idiot, not because of how big his pants are. Further, it doesn’t matter that he fails his own test. If drunk driver crashes his car into mine, gets out and says “Hey, man, drunk driving is really stupid and wrong” the fact that he’s a drunk driver doesn’t invalidate the message.

    If the message he’s putting out there is wrong, it’s wrong.

    That’s why we’re funny and they’re not.

    That it would seem, is debatable.

  35. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services February 28, 2007 at 4:58 pm |

    The fake ad mocked D’Souza’s attitudes toward race and civil liberties. But I bet you wouldn’t use *his* race as a stand-in for his character.

    Er, would you?

    If D’Souza was like, “Bwaha, you liberals are cowards because you are of Indian extraction,” he’d get his face pasted on a screen shot of Amitabh Bachchan in a rollicking dance number, yes.

    Further, it doesn’t matter that he fails his own test. If drunk driver crashes his car into mine, gets out and says “Hey, man, drunk driving is really stupid and wrong” the fact that he’s a drunk driver doesn’t invalidate the message.

    So critics of the war are dishonorable cowards because they have no military background and don’t blog from the war zones of Baghdad?

    A better analogy would be a drunk driver crashing into your car, then getting out and being all like, “Hey man, you are a drunk driver who crashed into my car!”

  36. Mnemosyne
    Mnemosyne February 28, 2007 at 4:59 pm |

    You had a “Reagan Revolution” t-shirt AND self-published Star Trek fanfic to make fun of and you went for the fat joke instead?

    Lazy. Very lazy, my dears.

  37. zuzu
    zuzu February 28, 2007 at 5:03 pm | *

    If D’Souza was like, “Bwaha, you liberals are cowards because you are of Indian extraction,” he’d get his face pasted on a screen shot of Amitabh Bachchan in a rollicking dance number, yes.

    So, if ab Hugh called you cowards because you weren’t fighting in Afghanistan, why not simply point out that he’s not fighting in Afghanistan and is therefore, by his own standards, a coward?

    Really not seeing the relevance of his weight here.

  38. Ilyka Damen
    Ilyka Damen February 28, 2007 at 5:09 pm |

    because we do not hate (or fear) others because of their race, gender, sexuality, or physical size. That’s why we’re funny and they’re not.

    Aw, that’s cute. Go sit in the corner with you-know-who and commiserate with him about how much it sucks when people refuse to acknowledge your authorial intent.

    I was mild in the thread at S,N! because I thought there was a chance y’all would get it, and because aesthetically, I thought DAH’s hands were situated too perfectly in the original photo NOT to ‘shop a 6-foot sub sandwich into ‘em. My sense of humor lacks maturity, I admit it.

    But your defense shows you plainly aren’t getting it, so now I’m thinking that photo’s not so clever anymore, after all. Look:

    You can say how much you don’t fear or hate others because of [characteristic] ’til the cows come home–it doesn’t matter. What matters is what you do. And if what you do, every time the opportunity arises to score cheap points off a fellow nerd from across the aisle, is throw your allies who share [characteristic] with nerd right under the bus, in your haste to score those cheap-cheap points, then sadly, no: In the eyes of people with [characteristic], you aren’t any different than your opponents.

    Now I know you think you are, because you hate torture and BushCo and everything? But it makes no practical difference to the obese, the large, the anorexic, the whatever, who is insulting them, or how otherwise good a person they are, or how much they give to Amnesty International, or how they voted last election. An insult’s an insult; it hurts regardless who delivers it.

    I thought you’d figure this out when your comments were flooded with “Yah, fat people are gross and lazy and they eat too much McDonald’s!!1!”–You know? If those are the cretins agreeing with you, then just maybe you fucked up somewhere, whether you meant to or not.

    I like you guys a lot. I just wish you’d give this a little more consideration than you seem to have so far. If that makes me Ann Bartow, so be it.

  39. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke February 28, 2007 at 5:16 pm |

    The point, SNIS, is not that you are hurting Dafydd Ab Hominem in a good way or a bad way. I don’t give a flying fuck if you hurt him.

    The point is that you are hurting people you claim to want as your allies. Myself included.

    Because “we only mock Dafydd Ab Hugh’s fatness because he is dethhhhhpicable” basically equals “we only accept Chris Clarke’s fatness because our current agreement with his recent writing makes up for his disgusting lard.”

    If an irrelevant physical trait is fair game when some unrelated behavior fails to meet your approval, then all of us who don’t meet your demanding physical standards are basically being put on notice.

    And yeah, I know that there are way bigger issues than the knife you stuck in my back. But you know what? There are people who can criticize the right really fucking effectively, and vulgarly, and hilariously, without sticking that knife in my back.

  40. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke February 28, 2007 at 5:17 pm |

    The point is that you are hurting people you claim to want as your allies. Myself included.

    And like ilyka said: people who like you. You’re hurting people who like you.

  41. Roy
    Roy February 28, 2007 at 5:18 pm |

    So critics of the war are dishonorable cowards because they have no military background and don’t blog from the war zones of Baghdad?

    A better analogy would be a drunk driver crashing into your car, then getting out and being all like, “Hey man, you are a drunk driver who crashed into my car!”

    Way to completely miss the point.

    A fallacy is a fallacy whether the conclusion is right or wrong.
    I agree with you that “critics of the war are dishonorable cowards because they have no military background and don’t blog from the war zones of Baghdad” is wrong. It’s wrong for a many reasons. None of those reasons, though, is “because the guy who originally said it is fat and couldn’t possibly serve in the military.”

    “critics of the war are dishonorable cowards because they have no military background and don’t blog from the war zones of Baghdad” would still be wrong even if the guy saying it happened to be a high ranking soldier who took four bullets and had shrapnel stuck in his back.

    It doesn’t matter who the message is coming from- if you’ve got a problem with the message, you should address that, instead of pointing at the speaker and saying “Haha! You’re wrong- look at how fat and poorly dressed you are!”

  42. Ilyka Damen
    Ilyka Damen February 28, 2007 at 5:20 pm |

    The point is that you are hurting people you claim to want as your allies. Myself included.

    And since you all love the “Shorter” concept so much, fellas, just consider what Chris said shorter me.

  43. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services February 28, 2007 at 5:36 pm |

    I was mild in the thread at S,N! because I thought there was a chance y’all would get it, and because aesthetically, I thought DAH’s hands were situated too perfectly in the original photo NOT to ’shop a 6-foot sub sandwich into ‘em. My sense of humor lacks maturity, I admit it.

    Ah, see? It was funny.

    You can say how much you don’t fear or hate others because of [characteristic] ’til the cows come home–it doesn’t matter. What matters is what you do.

    But this isn’t the argument. You’re expressing that what matters is not what I do, but what I say and the means by which I say it.

    Ilyka, the notion of intention is not owned by Jeff Goldstein. It’s quite real and imminent, as we know extremely well through knowing how to react to a charged term — such as the word, ‘nigger’ — according to who speaks it, and in what circumstance.

    If you’re getting rid of intentionalism, there’s quite a bit of blindsidedness that’s going to have to come with the new program. It’ll no longer be okay to distinguish among (forgive me for using this term) discursive strategies whose differences are utterly essential. Discourse isn’t just a string of statements with reified meanings, but a play of context and referents.

    And I hate talking like this, but I think you know what I mean.

    And if what you do, every time the opportunity arises to score cheap points off a fellow nerd from across the aisle, is throw your allies who share [characteristic] with nerd right under the bus, in your haste to score those cheap-cheap points, then sadly, no: In the eyes of people with [characteristic], you aren’t any different than your opponents.

    This is where we diverge. If you think that calling Rush Limbaugh a pork tuba is a priori defamatory toward fat people, I’m simply not there on that wintry peak with you.

  44. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services February 28, 2007 at 5:41 pm |

    The point is that you are hurting people you claim to want as your allies. Myself included.

    Chris, as you noted the last time around (and please witness the fact that I remember this after all these months) you’re in great physical shape. If you’re classing yourself with a basement-tanned entity like Daffy le Pew, I think you’re the only person who even sees that comparison.

  45. Robert M.
    Robert M. February 28, 2007 at 5:42 pm |

    I have a semi-serious quandary here, which I wish to extend to a larger philosophical question.

    Piny’s post fills me with the spirit of agreement, and yet I (generally) like Sadly, No!, so I’m inclined to give them a pass on this and continue reading the blog.

    This is, by way of analogy, the same way I felt when Jane Hamsher posted the blackface picture of Lieberman.

    So… what’s the real-world progressive thing to do, here?

  46. Heraclitus (Jeff)
    Heraclitus (Jeff) February 28, 2007 at 5:42 pm |

    What’s with all these progressive or liberal bloggers refusing to admit when they’ve done something stupid? Honestly, I can imagine myself having said something equally stupid about this guy, or some other guy, myself, even after a few months reading feminist and other blogs that critically examine social attitudes about weight and such. And it sure as hell isn’t because I’m the guy whose “chiseled abs” you see on the commercials for The Abinator Rocking Chair!!! at 3am. It’s because, if I were angry enough and reaching for a rock to throw at someone like this, I might just grab the fatty rock and chuck it as hard as I could. And it would be stupid, ugly and wrong-headed, for all the reasons everyone here has noted. But if this were brought to my attention, I like to think I would at least acknowledge that I was wrong, however embarassed I was and however much I was thinking, “Man, now I look like a total dickweed.”

    But the thing is, even if you don’t care about why this, or the blackface, or the seaward, or the Chief Iwannakeg, or the Man Hands, etc., etc.–even if you don’t care about why these things were wrong and, if I can be frank, quite fugly, you should still just apologize and move on. Because you look like an infinitely bigger dickweed when you respond with self-congratulatory obfuscation and dismissal.

  47. zuzu
    zuzu February 28, 2007 at 5:47 pm | *

    Chris, as you noted the last time around (and please witness the fact that I remember this after all these months) you’re in great physical shape. If you’re classing yourself with a basement-tanned entity like Daffy le Pew, I think you’re the only person who even sees that comparison.

    So Chris is okay now, since he’s no longer overweight? He’s one of you now?

    What about me? I’m fat, and I take offense. You can argue intentionalism or no all you like, but when people who are at least nominally your allies are telling you that your insults are not as targeted as you like to think they are, maybe you ought to listen.

  48. HTML Mencken
    HTML Mencken February 28, 2007 at 5:47 pm |

    Amp, however, is not a wingnut. Many fat people are not wingnuts. Amp is a committed progressive. Amp runs a big fat progressive blog. Sadly, No! and its commenters reacted to Amp the progressive and his really rather mild complaint about a pretty mean-spirited slur on people like Amp by…treating Amp exactly the same way they treated the conservative asshole.

    No, I did not. My point was Amp’s blogroll hypocrisy. More narrowly, my point was that people who espouse pro-torture, pro-genocide viewpoints must be more morally objectionable than those who use the occasional fat joke. Or are they? Reading Amp’s post and considering his blogroll, it’s heavily hinted that they are not, ergo my comment along the lines that fat-acceptance is apparently for some people the sine qua non of moral issues — which I think is stupid and misguided on so many levels.

  49. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services February 28, 2007 at 5:51 pm |

    Thank God, reinforcements have arrived.

    I’m’unna go roast this chicken with a masala dry rub, with onions and arrowhead tubers.

  50. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services February 28, 2007 at 5:55 pm |

    Because you look like an infinitely bigger dickweed when you respond with self-congratulatory obfuscation and dismissal.

    Jeff, I am a dickweed. You’re talking to a dickweed.

    Does a cobbler not make shoes? Does a horse-trainer not train horses?

    This weed in my dick; I like this weed. Why do I eat of it? Because it is my dick, and because it is bitter.

    Serious, yo — need to deal with this chicken in the oven.

  51. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke February 28, 2007 at 6:06 pm |

    So Chris is okay now, since he’s no longer overweight? He’s one of you now?

    Here’s the interesting part. Not only did I never lose enough weight not to be considered “fat” by some folks — at my low point, around 185 and 5’9″, I was still “overweight” by BMI standards — but I actually gained some weight back during the time I was unable to leave the house for very long because of taking care of Zeke 24/7. Not all of it. But some.

    So I’m wondering, Sadly No folks: where, exactly, is the cut-off weight beneath which I’m still a full-fledged human being? I’d sure hate to lose my progressive credibility just because a family crisis kept me from hiking 15 miles a week, and just because I’m too fucking depressed to hop on the trails I used to hike with my dog.. I got down to the point where I could wear 34-waist pants comfortably. They’re now a little snug. Do I get points for staying in the same size, or do I get points off for having a bit more belly hanging over the belt? Would going up to 36-waist pants be the politically appropriate approach?

    And personally, I agree with HTML’s point about the priorities in Amp’s blogroll. (I believe I’m on record as having had a minor disagreement or two with Amp on fat politics.)

  52. raging red
    raging red February 28, 2007 at 6:10 pm |

    A better analogy would be a drunk driver crashing into your car, then getting out and being all like, “Hey man, you are a drunk driver who crashed into my car!”

    And if this Hugh character had been going around insulting people by calling them giant lardasses and you unearthed a photo of him that revealed he is fat, then it would be relevant to post the photo and point out that he’s also fat. But your argument that his weight is relevant to him calling critics of the war dishonorable cowards because they have no military background and don’t blog from the war zones of Baghdad is quite a stretch. (And, come on — that’s not really why you posted the photo anyway.)

  53. Marked Hoosier
    Marked Hoosier February 28, 2007 at 6:11 pm |

    Mom, Dad… Don’t Fight!!!

    *cries to self…*

  54. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services February 28, 2007 at 6:12 pm |

    So I’m wondering, Sadly No folks: where, exactly, is the cut-off weight beneath which I’m still a full-fledged human being?

    The weight at which you don’t espouse mass murder, torture, or genocide, basically.

    I think our position on this is far simpler than many imagine.

  55. HTML Mencken
    HTML Mencken February 28, 2007 at 6:16 pm |

    Well, Chris, that’s what the post was all about. Then it got turned into ‘Gah, why does S,N! hate me?!?!’

  56. HTML Mencken
    HTML Mencken February 28, 2007 at 6:20 pm |

    Yes, you did, though. You didn’t just point out Amp’s hypocrisy. You also ridiculed him for being fat, just like ab Hugh. And this argument on your part is a pathetic one. It really doesn’t matter for purposes of this discussion that Amp is more sensitized to fatphobia than to, say, complacency.

    Yes, I did. And why I did is because my point does most definitely ‘matter for purposes of this discussion’. Amp is stupid for arguing that on the scale of moral depravity, Fat Joke > Pro-Genocide, Pro-Torture crapola. Anyone who has such a moral calculus deserves another fat joke whether they are fat or not.

  57. Matthew Morse
    Matthew Morse February 28, 2007 at 6:26 pm |

    Robert M:

    My experience has been that when bloggers who I generally like write something that offends me, when I keep reading them they keep writing offensive things.

    Sooner or later I decide I’ve had enough.

    I don’t have hard rules, but I try to recognize patterns. And there are some otherwise good bloggers who I now refuse to read, and others who risk joining that group.

  58. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services February 28, 2007 at 6:27 pm |

    If you had resorted to sexist insults, would a woman not have the right to object if she happened to be sensitive to sexism but not to, say, rightwing xenophobia per the contents of her blogroll?

    Proposition: A woman who objects to sexism but not to right-wing xenophobia is practicing a brand of hooray-for-people-like-me politics that’s no more morally elevated than that of racial supremacists. Everybody is for empowering people just like ourselves. It’s how we empathize with people who are different that defines us.

    Someone is going to say something right now about ‘not empathizing with people of different body weight.’ And I’m going to say this:

    Proposition: Fat people who are outraged by mild and random fat jokes while tolerating genocidal torture-apologists need something greater to identify with than their body weight.

  59. Mnemosyne
    Mnemosyne February 28, 2007 at 6:29 pm |

    Can we Photoshop this in for next time?

  60. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke February 28, 2007 at 6:29 pm |

    The weight at which you don’t espouse mass murder, torture, or genocide, basically.

    I think our position on this is far simpler than many imagine.

    Oh, it’s simple enough to imagine it. People like me are collateral damage to your ability to make a joke and you don’t give a flying fuck, except to tell us that our feelings are wrong. Pretty goddamned simple.

  61. Mnemosyne
    Mnemosyne February 28, 2007 at 6:31 pm |

    Can we Photoshop this in for next time?

  62. Mnemosyne
    Mnemosyne February 28, 2007 at 6:32 pm |

    Sorry for the double post. It really wasn’t THAT funny.

  63. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke February 28, 2007 at 6:33 pm |

    but it was funnier the second time.

  64. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services February 28, 2007 at 6:39 pm |

    but it was funnier the second time.

    I’m not even going to lecture you on your ability to laugh at a penis pinata while going howling bonkers over a Photoshop of a fat guy with a big sandwich.

    Which, by the way, we stopped using expressly because you objected to it.

    Isn’t there something else going on in the world today? CNN? Something?

  65. C.Exile
    C.Exile February 28, 2007 at 6:41 pm |

    Making fun of someone because of their weight or physical appearance is a shitty thing to do.
    I don’t care what your politics are, what their politics are, whether you think you’re funny or not.
    It’s mean-spirited, pathetic, and childish. You can defend yourself all you want, on whatever shifting grounds you want….
    the fact remains that you took a cheap, dirty shot, and you know it.

  66. HTML Mencken
    HTML Mencken February 28, 2007 at 6:43 pm |

    Yeah, except that he didn’t argue that.

    Yes he did, by heavy implication (corroborated by an inspection of his blogroll), which is why he apologised and that would have been the end of it.

    All he actually said was that he’d never link you–and I’m gonna go out on a limb here and speculate that he meant, “Because I don’t like seeing fat people like myself casually abused.” What he was arguing that fat jokes are wrong.

    I don’t care if Ampersand links to us or not. All I cared about was that he said he refused to link to us because of one fucking fat joke, but at the same time he, such a fair moral arbiter, links to Volokh and Trevino. Again, it’s not that I think he’s pecksniff in not linking to us, it’s that his moral calculus implied in who he will and will not link to appears to be fucked-up beyond all belief, if we’re unworthy but T & V pass the smell test. Do *you* think a fat joke is worse than pro-torture, pro-genocide wingnutty crap? Be honest.

    I readily admit I’m an asshole. Sure. And I expect criticism for it. I deserve it. I just draw the line at silly people who think fat jokes are the Worst Thing Evar, worse than wingnuttery. After we get to the anti-wingnut Utopia, then you can purge me, okay? ‘Til then, I ask that people refrain from voicing Amp’s apparent belief that I’m worse than a Wingnut. ‘Cause I’m not.

  67. Ilyka Damen
    Ilyka Damen February 28, 2007 at 6:46 pm |

    Ah, see? It was funny.

    I can see the appeal of doing it, sure. I can also see why people aren’t digging it. Hey, if he’s such a genocidal nutbar, why not plop a missile across his palms?

    You’re expressing that what matters is not what I do, but what I say and the means by which I say it.

    Sorry–I was unclear. I mean that if you say “I don’t hate fat people,” but then do something (say, Photoshop a big-ass sandwich into a fat man’s hands) that invites people to hate on Teh Fatties, some are going to ascertain your beliefs by what you did, not by what you said.

    You’re arguing an exception clause for wingnuts, as just about everyone in this thread’s pointed out. “He’s a really bad person, so we can call him a lardass. No mercy 4 wingnutien!” And I guess my question is, if he’s such a bad person, why is “lardass” the best you can do?

    And note the outcome of that: No one’s sitting here talking about genocidal Dafydd. Everyone’s talking about that horrible, fat-bashing Sadly, No! blog. You could propose that this is because everyone’s being too sensitive, or because everyone’s being too much of a pussy (everyone needs to butch up and learn to fight dirty, the way the Rethuglicans do), or because everyone’s, ah, up on that wintry peak of Mount Sanctimony with me. But I’m proposing it’s because you took it that direction to begin with.

    If you’re getting rid of intentionalism, there’s quite a bit of blindsidedness that’s going to have to come with the new program. It’ll no longer be okay to distinguish among (forgive me for using this term) discursive strategies whose differences are utterly essential. Discourse isn’t just a string of statements with reified meanings, but a play of context and referents.

    Agreed. I’m not saying intent never matters and I’m not proposing getting rid of intentionalism. It’s been pointed out to me that I don’t understand what intentionalism is to begin with, and this is probably so; I’m no great intellect and it ain’t my field besides. To the extent I’m saying anything about the topic at all, I’m saying what we aim at isn’t always what we hit.

    Honestly, I believe you don’t fear/hate fat people. I also believe you’d be more convincing claiming that if you weren’t insisting on the moral rightness of making gluttony jokes about overweight wingnuts simply because they’re wingnuts. Like Chris said, it’s too easy to flip that around–”We’re only tolerating your fat ass because we need all the help we can get. Soon as we can gin up a half-dozen thin replacements for you, out you go, butterball. Try not to stop at Krispy Kreme on the way home, ‘kay?”

    This is where we diverge. If you think that calling Rush Limbaugh a pork tuba is a priori defamatory toward fat people, I’m simply not there on that wintry peak with you.

    Then we don’t diverge as much as you think, because I sure wouldn’t be crying for Rush’s hurt feelings, should he turn out to actually have them. I’d be crying for every overweight person who read “pork tuba” and flashed back to the last person to call them something simlar.

    It’s unnecessary collateral damage, like taking out mosquitos with an RPG. Pick on Rush for being a dirty old impotent child molester, for fuck’s sake–and if the dirty old impotent child molester blogs remove you from their blogrolls, bonus.

  68. Red Queen
    Red Queen February 28, 2007 at 6:49 pm |

    Just a thought

    Progressive means progressing towards a future that is better for all people

    Conservative means conserving traditions that benefit a few people.

    Progressives do not come out of the womb being perfectly forward thinking in all areas. Sometimes we fuck up. But part of being progressive means you realize that your fuck-ups hurt people and you alter your behavior. You’ve stopped telling racist jokes, or making sexist comments or joking about gays. This is one more area where we need progress. Making fun of people for their weight is as hurtful and stupid as making fun of someone for their sex.

    A real progressive would understand the transgression and apologize.

  69. Neb
    Neb February 28, 2007 at 6:53 pm |

    I guess making fun of people who are old or impotent is ok now huh? Why don’t we all admit the truth here: we’re all hypocrites in some dimension if we refuse to laugh at ourselves.

  70. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke February 28, 2007 at 6:57 pm |

    Mmmm Krispy Kreme.

  71. Ilyka Damen
    Ilyka Damen February 28, 2007 at 6:58 pm |

    Isn’t there something else going on in the world today? CNN? Something?

    That reminds me, I forgot to wake Patterico this morning. It’s too bad, because post after post of Brad arguing with him is always super-consequential and important.

    ‘Til then, I ask that people refrain from voicing Amp’s apparent belief that I’m worse than a Wingnut. ‘Cause I’m not.

    False binary. I think Amp’s a dick for linking Trevino and Volokh. I think he was a dick about the way he notified people (or didn’t, rather) that he was selling his domain to pr0nographers, too. And the time he went over to Jeff’s blog to help sort out whether Cathy Young was a feminist or not, you know, on behalf of all the helpless lefty ladeez?–Diiiiick.

    I guess this all means I can never agree with him about anything else ever, because he’s a dick. Case closed.

  72. Sirkowski
    Sirkowski February 28, 2007 at 6:58 pm |

    He writes Star Trek, he’s fair game.

  73. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke February 28, 2007 at 7:07 pm |

    I’m not even going to lecture you on your ability to laugh at a penis pinata while going howling bonkers over a Photoshop of a fat guy with a big sandwich.

    I see your sense of non sequitur is unimpaired.

    Dude, this is me being cordial and not taking it all that seriously, despite my serious objections to such jokes.

    If I was howling bonkers about it, I’d be kicking over a hornet’s nest at Pandagon.

    Stop being so sensitive.

    Which, by the way, we stopped using expressly because you objected to it.

    Little hint: the problem wasn’t the sandwich.

  74. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke February 28, 2007 at 7:11 pm |

    Do *you* think a fat joke is worse than pro-torture, pro-genocide wingnutty crap? Be honest.

    Depends on the specifics. The two sets overlap.

    Do I think SN’s fat joke is worse? No.

    But it’s so easy not to have either one on your blog.

  75. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services February 28, 2007 at 7:17 pm |

    A real progressive would understand the transgression and apologize.

    But I don’t agree with you.

    I believe that there’s a hierarchy of ethics, in which the Photoshopping of a big sandwich into someone’s hands yields to the espousal of mass murder. It’s becoming frightening that no one here sees this.

    I don’t believe that ‘being offended’ is a political litmus test or a mark of virtue. I’m plumb fed-up sick of intercycling lefty ‘offense’ and the inexorable need among some people to focus on language and speech-policing, to point out ‘insensitivity,’ when there are, right now in the world, lunatics running around trying to whoop up a possibly nuclear attack on Iran — among other things. There are bad people at work, and one’s private shibboleths of ‘fat-insensitivity’ aren’t even a speed bump to them. It’s marginilization beyond marginilization, identity politics as reductive particularism.

    Or, as Ilyka said:

    You could propose that this is because everyone’s being too sensitive, or because everyone’s being too much of a pussy (everyone needs to butch up and learn to fight dirty, the way the Rethuglicans do), or because everyone’s, ah, up on that wintry peak of Mount Sanctimony with me. But I’m proposing it’s because you took it that direction to begin with.

    That’s close to what I mean, if not exactly it. But I’d point out very strongly that the see-what-you-made-me-do argument strips its subject of agency. I have no such magic powers.

  76. Ilyka Damen
    Ilyka Damen February 28, 2007 at 7:19 pm |

    I apologize, piny. I got so busy being too sensitive that I forgot to applaud this:

    Do you remember what happened the election cycle before last? Do you remember how Al Gore’s suits became more important than George W. Bush’s incompetence? Do you remember how Al Gore was ridiculed for his his stilted speech, his wooden mannerisms, his inability to tell a joke, his wonkishness, his solemnity, his earnest concern? In other words, his nerdiness? Remember how he was turned into the loser of the election not because he was the worst potential president–because hoo boy–but because he was a big dork? Remember the utterly straight-faced arguments about how Bush deserved your vote because he’d be more fun to have a beer with? Remember how the same thing kinda happened again four years later?

    Exactly. And the best part is, none of this–not your excellent point above, not this thread, nothing–is going to stop someone here from eventually bewailing all this trivial superficial shallow emptyheaded Anna Nicole Smith coverage on teevee without any irony whatsoever, if in fact they haven’t done so already, because it’s always those other people who get befuddled by smoke and mirrors. Not us, though. We’re all uniformly awesome.

  77. HTML Mencken
    HTML Mencken February 28, 2007 at 7:26 pm |

    Depends on the specifics. The two sets overlap.

    No, they don’t. I can’t believe you’re seriously arguing this, especially after agreeing with me in RE: Ampersand’s blogroll.

    False binary.

    Talk to Ampersand about that one. It was his implied false binary that started this mess; and I would say y’all have known he’s wrong with it, but unless I’m mistaken, Chris now agrees with Amp in theory. And this just when I was thinking this post was *really* about the singular moral crime of S,N!’s original photoshop of Daffy!

    Sorry, a fat joke is never worse than advocating policies of torture and genocide. Never.

  78. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services February 28, 2007 at 7:26 pm |

    Little hint: the problem wasn’t the sandwich.

    Well, I don’t actually know what it was, because I didn’t even write that post and you didn’t tell anyone. You were just like, “I’m a big guy, but I’m strong and can climb mountains. Ergo, how dare they make fun of some other big guy who’s totally out of shape and doesn’t resemble me in the least?”

    And then, months and months later, Ampersand linked to that same old post again, and you came popping up still angry about this…other not-sandwich thing which you haven’t said what it was.

  79. TRex
    TRex February 28, 2007 at 7:28 pm |

    I don’t believe that ‘being offended’ is a political litmus test or a mark of virtue. I’m plumb fed-up sick of intercycling lefty ‘offense’ and the inexorable need among some people to focus on language and speech-policing, to point out ‘insensitivity,’ when there are, right now in the world, lunatics running around trying to whoop up a possibly nuclear attack on Iran — among other things. There are bad people at work, and one’s private shibboleths of ‘fat-insensitivity’ aren’t even a speed bump to them. It’s marginilization beyond marginilization, identity politics as reductive particularism.

    Well, I believe that about sums it up, doesn’t it?

    You know, it’s good to see that the Lovely Ladies of Feministe are spending so much of their time and energy fighting the real racists, sexists, homophobes, criminals, and genocidal maniacs on the Right rather than wasting huge amounts of time and energy playing Circular Firing Squad as they feverishly try to censor other Left Wing bloggers.

    Oh, no, wait.

    Way to seize the moral high ground there, girls! Keep up the good work! You’ve nearly ideologically cleansed our side of any and all less than pure political thinkers. Excellent, excellent work. I know that Bill Donohue must be insanely grateful for your help neutralizing and silencing your fellows on the Left.

  80. Sniper
    Sniper February 28, 2007 at 7:31 pm |

    If you think that calling Rush Limbaugh a pork tuba is a priori defamatory toward fat people, I’m simply not there on that wintry peak with you.

    I would find that hurtful, personally, and I loathe Limbaugh’s very aura. In fact, as I read your comment there I remembered asking my endocrinologist if I could get a notarized note from her to the effect that the fat is caused by a health condition, not the result of it. Being fat doesn’t mean being stupid, lazy or hateful. If someone is stupid, lazy or hateful, then what the hell is the point of ragging on the fat?

  81. Jill
    Jill February 28, 2007 at 7:34 pm | *

    You know, it’s good to see that the Lovely Ladies of Feministe are spending so much of their time and energy fighting the real racists, sexists, homophobes, criminals, and genocidal maniacs on the Right rather than wasting huge amounts of time and energy playing Circular Firing Squad as they feverishly try to censor other Left Wing bloggers.

    1. We’re not all ladies.
    2. We aren’t trying to censor anyone. I can’t speak for piny, but I know I personally cringe when bloggers who I really, really like pull stupid stunts like this. I’ve done plenty of stupid stuff myself, and have been called out on it. I wasn’t being “censored” — other people were simply responding. I apologized and moved on, and tried to be more conscientious in the future. It’s a pretty neat strategy.

  82. Sniper
    Sniper February 28, 2007 at 7:40 pm |

    I’m plumb fed-up sick of intercycling lefty ‘offense’ and the inexorable need among some people to focus on language and speech-policing, to point out ‘insensitivity,’ when there are, right now in the world, lunatics running around trying to whoop up a possibly nuclear attack on Iran — among other things.

    Wow. Piny points out that ragging on a complete asshole for being fat is probably not the way to go and now, apparently, people will die as a result. How dare she put the world in such jeopardy? And on her own blog, too!

  83. HTML Mencken
    HTML Mencken February 28, 2007 at 7:40 pm |

    Edit:

    I should say that Chris apparently comes close to agreeing with Amp not about our specific fat joke, but that fat jokes are moral abominations along the lines of pro-torture, pro-genocide arguments. Not *worse than* them, as per Amp’s specific case, but equivalent, which is what I get out of that ‘the two sets overlap’.

    Sorry for the lack of clarity.

  84. Mnemosyne
    Mnemosyne February 28, 2007 at 7:40 pm |

    I’m not even going to lecture you on your ability to laugh at a penis pinata while going howling bonkers over a Photoshop of a fat guy with a big sandwich.

    Um, you don’t understand the difference between a fat joke and a small penis joke? Really?

    Way to seize the moral high ground there, girls! Keep up the good work!

    Way to dismiss women’s concerns once again, TRex! Why not go back to your big manly blog where you can talk about big manly concerns and not all of this girly stuff?

    And, no, being gay doesn’t mean you don’t get called out for being a misogynist. You’re the reason I stopped reading Firedoglake. The pure hatred of women that dripped from your posts was just too much to handle.

  85. HTML Mencken
    HTML Mencken February 28, 2007 at 7:41 pm |

    Unless you didn’t mean it that way, Chris?

  86. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services February 28, 2007 at 7:44 pm |

    Um, you don’t understand the difference between a fat joke and a small penis joke? Really?

    Only inasmuch as one is acceptable at Feministe, and the other an abomination.

    People with genetically small penises are supposed to feel exactly how about these jokes?

    I’m anticipating the old ‘that’s different’ argument, where it’s pointed out that one thing is not like another because they are just-different.

  87. Sniper
    Sniper February 28, 2007 at 7:47 pm |

    How often do guys get harassed on the streets for having small penises?

  88. Jillian
    Jillian February 28, 2007 at 7:50 pm |

    I’ve been reading through this and not saying much, just because dustups like this mostly just make me sad.

    But I really sort of felt like I had to add that I don’t see the difference between a fat joke and a small penis joke. I’m trying to find a way to phrase that which indicates that I’m really being sincere when I say that and not trying to be inflammatory, and I can’t think of one – text often does so little to convey tone and meaning that it can be frustrating, and I’m sorry about that. But really, sincerely, and honestly, with all the best of intentions and charitable reading toward all parties involved here – I don’t see the difference.

    What am I missing?

  89. HTML Mencken
    HTML Mencken February 28, 2007 at 7:54 pm |

    You’re the reason I stopped reading Firedoglake.

    Wait a minute.. really? You stopped reading Jane Hamsher and Christy and Pac and everyone else over there because of TRex?

    I assume that many here will stop reading S,N! because of me and Gavin and Brad, even though Travis and DA and Seb have been innocent of all fat joke atrocity related activities.

    And all that’s okay, but … it just makes me wonder how many sites — sites that deal with Wingnuts who are, you know, the real menace to civilization — get the personal blacklist treatment just because of this sort of thing?

  90. Mnemosyne
    Mnemosyne February 28, 2007 at 7:55 pm |

    People with genetically small penises are supposed to feel exactly how about these jokes?

    If people felt free to walk up to strangers with small penises and say, “Wow, your penis is really small. You should do something about that,” or, even better, “You disgust me,” I might agree with you.

    If there were constant stories in the media about how having a small penis was filthy and disgusting and a sign of bad character, I might agree with you.

    If people looked right through you on the street and pretended you didn’t exist because you had a small penis, I might agree with you.

    If you had, say, famous actresses like Elizabeth Hurley saying things like, “I’d kill myself if my penis was as small as Marilyn Monroe’s,” I might agree with you.

    Are you kind of getting the point here, or do you need a few more examples?

  91. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke February 28, 2007 at 7:56 pm |

    Depends on the specifics. The two sets overlap.

    No, they don’t. I can’t believe you’re seriously arguing this, especially after agreeing with me in RE: Ampersand’s blogroll.

    Come on. I’m sure you can imagine a fat joke hateful and vicious enough that it qualifies as advocating torture, and even, given that fat is an aspect of a number of racial stereotypes as well, genocide.

    This is pretty elementary stuff. And the “you guys ought to be focusing on the important shit” line? Pathetic.

    The only way— the only way — you could state baldly that there’s no overlap is if you really feel that fat people deserve the abuse you hand them.

    As evidenced by the fact that the first response to my first comment here was to dismiss my concerns because i’m “not fat” and therefore in the clear.

    Elementary stuff.

    Well, I don’t actually know what it was, because I didn’t even write that post and you didn’t tell anyone. You were just like, “I’m a big guy, but I’m strong and can climb mountains. Ergo, how dare they make fun of some other big guy who’s totally out of shape and doesn’t resemble me in the least?”

    And then, months and months later, Ampersand linked to that same old post again, and you came popping up still angry about this…other not-sandwich thing which you haven’t said what it was.

    Swapping out the sandwich for a celery was making the same insult.

    Here we have this conversation translated into racial terms, complete with hyperbole.

    SN: Alan Keyes is an overeducated porch monkey.
    Everyone else: Wow. That’s a really racist thing to say.
    SN: But he’s an idiot! And a facsist wingnut!
    EE: Well, sure. So talk about that.
    SN: OK, he’s a stupid black wingnut.
    EE: Why mention the skin color?
    SN: Well, he’s black, isn’t he?
    EE: Yes, like Obama and Malcolm X and Alice Walker. Why insult them to get at him?
    SN: I’m not insulting his skin color. He is a stupid black wingnut.
    EE: *fume*
    SN: OK, fine, I won’t say “black.” Can I call him Darky McIOKIYOR?
    EE: No.
    SN: Sambo Buchanan?
    EE: No.
    SN: LL Cool Privatization?
    EE: Heh. No.
    SN: Can I use blackface?
    EE: No. It’s not about the individual choice of racist name. It’s about using racist names at all.
    SN: OK, we’ll think about it.

    [months pass]

    Third party who just noticed the old conversation: I’m delinking.
    SN: Well, you’re linked to David Duke, so what the fuck. And besides, Keyes is a stupid black wingnut.
    EE: Gah.
    SN: Why are you so angry still?

    etc.

    Anyway, I’m done here. Feel free to question my commitment to opposing torture etc. because I have the nerve to say something when you hurt people I care about. I recognize that turning away from Sadly No will dilute my connection to the nerve center of the movement to oppose all that is evil, but

  92. Mnemosyne
    Mnemosyne February 28, 2007 at 7:58 pm |

    And all that’s okay, but … it just makes me wonder how many sites — sites that deal with Wingnuts who are, you know, the real menace to civilization — get the personal blacklist treatment just because of this sort of thing?

    Considering how many supposedly liberal male bloggers talk about how abortion rights are expendable (after all, they’re not going to be affected if abortion is made illegal), it’s probably a lot more than you think.

    And if you think that having abortion made illegal is not a “real” menace to civilization, then I’ve got no time for you.

  93. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke February 28, 2007 at 7:58 pm |

    Ah, HTML, I see your clarification. No, I meant overlap, not equal to. There are plenty of small-offense fat jokes.

  94. HTML Mencken
    HTML Mencken February 28, 2007 at 8:02 pm |

    Considering how many supposedly liberal male bloggers talk about how abortion rights are expendable (after all, they’re not going to be affected if abortion is made illegal)

    I’ve never said this and don’t agree with the sentiment at all. Of course abortion rights aren’t expendable. Has TRex argued otherwise? If so, I disagree with him in the extreme. Still doesn’t mean I’m gonna stop reading him in total, nor especially does it mean that I’m gonna purge Jane, Christy, Pac, et al. for TRex’s opinion.

  95. Ilyka Damen
    Ilyka Damen February 28, 2007 at 8:04 pm |

    You know, it’s good to see that the Lovely Ladies of Feministe are spending so much of their time and energy fighting the real racists, sexists, homophobes, criminals, and genocidal maniacs on the Right rather than wasting huge amounts of time and energy playing Circular Firing Squad as they feverishly try to censor other Left Wing bloggers.

    Well, it’s no “before you go assailing your betters,” but I’ll give it a B- for effort.

    Wait: No, I won’t. Just get fucked already, Coulter. Every time some wingnut tries to tell me about The Hypocrisy of Teh Left, about how Leftists Do It, Too, it’s your racist, sexist bullshit I’ve got to tapdance around to argue with ‘em. With friends like you I don’t need enemies.

    Besides, Chris is right: You can’t write for shit, honey.

  96. JackGoff
    JackGoff February 28, 2007 at 8:05 pm |

    So, summing it all up, you’re using the same bullshit right wingers do to feminists. “You aren’t fighting the Islamic fundamentalists but us, even though under Islamic fundamentalist governments, women enjoy fewer rights than they do here. Quit complaining!”

    Please. “You know there’s no atmosphere on Mars! Be glad you don’t live there! Quit saying we should be fighting global warming here! You could be living where there isn’t enough oxygen to sustain life!” Bullshit. I’ve been idiotic about this in the past as well, and what becomes necessary is that we see how people are affected by our actions. You want a real comparison?

    Callousness. Sheer contempt for people who are hurt by our actions. Wingers have it in abundance. And they usually try to find a good tu quoque to mask it. I should hope we progressives attempt to lose that horseshit and work a little on empathy. [crosses fingers]

  97. JackGoff
    JackGoff February 28, 2007 at 8:06 pm |

    “You” = the S,N! crew and TRex

  98. Luna
    Luna February 28, 2007 at 8:08 pm |

    If you think that calling Rush Limbaugh a pork tuba is a priori defamatory toward fat people, I’m simply not there on that wintry peak with you.

    So if someone called Obama a licorice stick (skinny and black), that’d be okay?

    Just checking. I haven’t decided where I’m falling on this argument. :)

  99. evil fizz
    evil fizz February 28, 2007 at 8:08 pm | *

    Way to seize the moral high ground there, girls! Keep up the good work! You’ve nearly ideologically cleansed our side of any and all less than pure political thinkers. Excellent, excellent work. I know that Bill Donohue must be insanely grateful for your help neutralizing and silencing your fellows on the Left.

    We appreciate that you come down from your cloud-shrouded mountain top to impart your wisdom like this. Really, we do. Where would we be without the soft drip, drip, drip of disdain and patronization?

    After all, now that there is such silence coming from Sadly, No! and FDL, the void must somehow be filled.

  100. Mnemosyne
    Mnemosyne February 28, 2007 at 8:09 pm |

    I’ve never said this and don’t agree with the sentiment at all. Of course abortion rights aren’t expendable.

    Considering that even Kos has said it, it’s not as unusual a stance among men on the left side of the blogosphere as you’d think.

    Has TRex argued otherwise?

    No. He just argues that women’s concerns are boring and pointless, and that only the women he personally knows have anything interesting to say. The rest of us are just “Lovely Ladies” and “girls” who can be safely ignored. And once you realize that a blogger that you read has no interest in your point of view, why should you continue to read him?

  101. HTML Mencken
    HTML Mencken February 28, 2007 at 8:11 pm |

    Come on. I’m sure you can imagine a fat joke hateful and vicious enough that it qualifies as advocating torture, and even, given that fat is an aspect of a number of racial stereotypes as well, genocide.

    I really can’t, Chris. I think it’s a leap of faith to say any fat joke I can imagine making can qualify as advocating policies of torture and genocide, sorry.

    As for the racist equivalence, well now I’m offended.

    Christ, even Ampersand admitted my post made him laugh.

  102. Marked Hoosier
    Marked Hoosier February 28, 2007 at 8:13 pm |

    Well it seems our side of blogtopia don’t all walk in line…

    are you all getting different orders from Kos than one another?

    (Does that joke still work?)

  103. Ilyka Damen
    Ilyka Damen February 28, 2007 at 8:28 pm |

    And once you realize that a blogger that you read has no interest in your point of view, why should you continue to read him?

    Exactly. I’m often told by former right-wing friends that I only switched sides because of all the sexist bullshit on the right-wing blogs. Not so, but I’d be lying if I said the sexist bullshit didn’t speed my departure. Only so many times I can read “show us ur titz & we might link u (but probly not cuz u gotz cooties)” before I give up.

    Not that TRex cares about any of that, because what are the wittle wadies gonna do, vote Green and throw the presidency to Republicans again? Being a shithead because there’s no practical incentive for him not to be a shithead, however, just makes him an especially vile shithead. I suppose that’s one way for him to distinguish himself.

    I think it’s a leap of faith to say any fat joke I can imagine making can qualify as advocating policies of torture and genocide, sorry.

    I’d have to agree, unless it was along the lines of advocating torture and genocide . . . for fat people! Then, I’d be a little upset.

  104. Lesley
    Lesley February 28, 2007 at 8:34 pm |

    Shit, piny writes a post that ends with examples of how making fun of people based on their looks enables the right-wing xenophobic torture advocates to bring down liberals and progressives based on superficialities. What do we get? People whinging about How We’re Wasting Time By Not Fighting Against The Right Wing Xenophobes And Torture Advocates!

  105. Maureen
    Maureen February 28, 2007 at 8:35 pm |

    Piny points out that ragging on a complete asshole for being fat is probably not the way to go and now, apparently, people will die as a result. How dare she put the world in such jeopardy? And on her own blog, too!

    I thought Piny was a dude.

  106. anna
    anna February 28, 2007 at 8:49 pm |

    Piny is a “queer twenty three year old transguy” according to the bio posted above.

  107. owlbear1
    owlbear1 February 28, 2007 at 9:13 pm |

    Ouch.

  108. owlbear1
    owlbear1 February 28, 2007 at 9:24 pm |

    My comment is in response to piny’s post not the comment above mine.

  109. Sniper
    Sniper February 28, 2007 at 9:26 pm |

    Piny is a “queer twenty three year old transguy” according to the bio posted above.

    Yeah, I remembered that half-way through my exercise class. Sorry, Piny. I also called my husband by the dog’s name, so I’m probably approaching the Sadly No guys in terms of pure human evil.

    Do I need to add a sarcasm tag?

    Speaking of things that don’t make sense, what is the nonsense about a circular firing squad? Does anyone think that someone with progressive leanings is going to say, “Hey, some lefty guy I’ve never met doesn’t get the fat thing. I think I’ll support first-strike against Iran!”

  110. Henry
    Henry February 28, 2007 at 9:29 pm |

    I guess I’m the enemy, so I don’t know whether my opinion matters here, but criticising those “on your side” who act like jackasses is perfectly acceptable whatever your political persuasion. Having a commitment to being decent in your personal behavior is every bit as important (if not moreso) than fighting your ideological opponents.

  111. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services February 28, 2007 at 9:34 pm |

    Are you kind of getting the point here, or do you need a few more examples?

    If I were a worse person than I am, I’d underscore my point by pretending to agree, and then make a rude comment about big vaginas and wait for teh fireworks.

  112. M
    M February 28, 2007 at 9:42 pm |

    ooooh, I am so totally happy my friend and I just decided to have McDonald’s for dinner tonight.

    It’s like when people start talking about how eating meat is wrong/unhealthy/immoral and I immediately want a steak.

    Hmmm…..

  113. Lauren
    Lauren February 28, 2007 at 9:50 pm |

    If I were a worse person than I am, I’d underscore my point by pretending to agree, and then make a rude comment about big vaginas and wait for teh fireworks.

    I was going to send out a request for bets on when the “don’t be a bunch of pussies” tripe would break out, but nevermind.

    Reading this one gathers the biggest beef here is not that somebody made a fat joke and was called out on it, but that someone is offended at being called unfunny.

  114. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services February 28, 2007 at 9:59 pm |

    I was going to send out a request for bets on when the “don’t be a bunch of pussies” tripe would break out, but nevermind.

    We were talking about how small-penis jokes are wholesome fun, but fat jokes are…uh, what Chris Clarke said: “Alan Keyes is an overeducated porch monkey,” et al.

  115. The Sadly, No! Body Image Category
    The Sadly, No! Body Image Category February 28, 2007 at 10:01 pm |

    someone is offended at being called unfunny.

    Words HURT, Lauren. They’re especially hurtful to comedians, who are an especially sensitive people. I can’t believe you don’t understand that!!!

  116. JackGoff
    JackGoff February 28, 2007 at 10:01 pm |

    If I were a worse person than I am, I’d underscore my point by pretending to agree, and then make a rude comment about big vaginas and wait for teh fireworks.

    You know, “when in hole, stop digging” would be good riiiight about now….

  117. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services February 28, 2007 at 10:04 pm |

    You know, “when in hole, stop digging” would be good riiiight about now….

    …Said ‘JackGoff.’

  118. JackGoff
    JackGoff February 28, 2007 at 10:07 pm |

    Which is my name.

  119. Peter Wacker
    Peter Wacker February 28, 2007 at 10:10 pm |

    This nameism is offensive and must cease.

  120. Lauren
    Lauren February 28, 2007 at 10:11 pm |

    We were talking about how small-penis jokes are wholesome fun, but fat jokes are…uh, what Chris Clarke said: “Alan Keyes is an overeducated porch monkey,” et al.

    Actually, dear, the thread is about Sadly, No!’s pernicious use of fat jokes to prove a lazy point about others’ character traits. Telling that T-Rex came along to shut the little ladies down.

  121. Heraclitus (Jeff)
    Heraclitus (Jeff) February 28, 2007 at 10:13 pm |

    Mmmmm…big vaginas…

  122. Lauren
    Lauren February 28, 2007 at 10:13 pm |

    When in big vagina, stop digging.

  123. ilyka
    ilyka February 28, 2007 at 10:17 pm |

    …Said ‘JackGoff.’

    Dude, stop. Just because you can’t hear irony scream while you bludgeon it to death doesn’t mean it hasn’t got feelings.

  124. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services February 28, 2007 at 10:17 pm |

    When in big vagina, stop digging.

    See? That’s funny.

  125. Marked Hoosier
    Marked Hoosier February 28, 2007 at 10:18 pm |

    Big Vagina… isn’t that a town in Montana?

  126. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke February 28, 2007 at 10:19 pm |

    When in big vagina, stop digging.

    However, nothing could be finer than to be in that location where one should stop digging, especially in the morning.

  127. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services February 28, 2007 at 10:21 pm |

    Nothing could be sweeter than to pull a sweaty wiener, once again, in the morning.

  128. Marked Hoosier
    Marked Hoosier February 28, 2007 at 10:22 pm |

    While visiting Big Vagina, be sure to check out The G Spot!

  129. HTML Mencken
    HTML Mencken February 28, 2007 at 10:23 pm |

    I guess I’m the enemy

    What? How? You mean, you’re a genocidal, torture-cheerleading wingnut? Psshaw! You’re not the enemy, pal. The enemy are those who hate genocidal, torture-cheerling wingnuts but make a rare fat joke at said wingnuts’ expense. THOSE people are awful!

    criticising those “on your side” who act like jackasses is perfectly acceptable whatever your political persuasion.

    Sure. To categorically oppose that can even be considered Stalinist. OTOH, it pays not to equate those on your side with your enemies. Further, it double-pays not to act as if those on your side are *worse* than your enemies. Thus a happy medium between Stalinism and stupidity.

    Having a commitment to being decent in your personal behavior is every bit as important (if not moreso) than fighting your ideological opponents.

    Wrong. Fantastically wrong. Clinton was an adulterer. Should he have been better by his marriage? Yes! Does it really matter though in the context of his Presidency? No. H.L. Mencken said many nasty things in private and semi-private about Jews. Is it good that he was an anti-Semite? Emphatically, no! Does his mostly-private anti-Semitism really matter much when one takes into context that he, almost alone, loudly advocated that the U.S. took in *all* Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany, while notably kinder, more sensitive people like FDR turned a blind eye to the refugees’ fate? No!

    This isn’t about ‘decency’; it’s about ‘civility’. It’s about the inability of some people to perform moral triage.

  130. Big Vagina:  The Musical
    Big Vagina: The Musical February 28, 2007 at 10:24 pm |

    However, nothing could be finer than to be in that location where one should stop digging, especially in the morning.

    If you can’t do something clever with “There’s a bright golden haze on the meadow,” no one can.

  131. HTML Mencken
    HTML Mencken February 28, 2007 at 10:27 pm |

    the thread is about Sadly, No!’s pernicious use of fat jokes

    Lauren, respectfully, no.

    One joke. One, from months ago. Then one more, to Ampersand, for reasons I explained upthread and which he even found funny.

    Two fat jokes in a blog’s history does not constitute ‘pernicious use’, and this sort of exaggeration is what has generally pissed me off in the first place.

  132. JackGoff
    JackGoff February 28, 2007 at 10:27 pm |

    It’s about the inability of some people to perform moral triage.

    Wow. Well, have fun missing the point, I guess. It really isn’t any use when callousness is deemed a virtue, true. Rock on into the night, guys!

  133. Mnemosyne
    Mnemosyne February 28, 2007 at 10:28 pm |

    If I were a worse person than I am, I’d underscore my point by pretending to agree, and then make a rude comment about big vaginas and wait for teh fireworks.

    Given that the only guys I’ve ever heard complain about big vaginas are the ones with small dicks, I’d quit while I was ahead if I were you.

    No pun intended.

  134. JackGoff
    JackGoff February 28, 2007 at 10:32 pm |

    This nameism is offensive and must cease.

    Well, if you want to go disingenuous, then I guess saying that “John Goff” is, in fact, my name. Been that way for a while. Idiots have since discovered through their genius calculations that John => Jack.

    Hence, my cognizance of the fact that my name sucks royally. I don’t really do pseudonymous blogging, so I decided to go tongue-in-cheek with the handle while cutting off the asinine insults. Of course, as you so beautifully show, it won’t work with the worst of them.

  135. JackGoff
    JackGoff February 28, 2007 at 10:33 pm |

    I guess saying that “John Goff” is, in fact, my name.

    Shite. Should be “I guess saying that “John Goff” is, in fact, my name will do no good.”

  136. Red Queen
    Red Queen February 28, 2007 at 10:33 pm |

    I don’t believe that ‘being offended’ is a political litmus test or a mark of virtue. I’m plumb fed-up sick of intercycling lefty ‘offense’ and the inexorable need among some people to focus on language and speech-policing, to point out ‘insensitivity,’ when there are, right now in the world, lunatics running around trying to whoop up a possibly nuclear attack on Iran — among other things

    I really hate the “but there are bigger problems than your feeeeeeeeeeellllliiiinnngggss” argument, because that is not what this is.

    It’s basic human decency- do not insult an entire group of people who have nothing to do with the person your insult is aimed at. My 11 year old knows that lesson. Why don’t you? And if you don’t have that small amount of decency, what moral high ground do you get to take on big issues like Iran or torture?

  137. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke February 28, 2007 at 10:40 pm |

    This isn’t about ‘decency’; it’s about ‘civility’. It’s about the inability of some people to perform moral triage.

    Oh, bullshit. I never said your joke even came close to being the moral equivalent of Tacitus on his BEST day. I said “overlap,” and you read “exactly the same as.” I said “imagine a joke exists,” and you read “HTML Mencken would tell a joke that advocated genocide.” I said “you’ll understand how ridiculous your arguments sound if I cast them as racial” and you read “HTML Mencken is teh Klan!”

    You want me to come out and say it straight? Glad to.

    I think the people at Sadly No are nowhere near as bad as torturers and practitioners of genocide.

    Hell of a standard to insist on, but there you go.

    But here’s the thing: the fat jokes — even they do not waterboard or electrically shock a single person — probably don’t hurt ab Hugh. They do hurt people you claim to hold as allies, some of whom have told you so. And not “your religion is stupid” hurt or “your writing would be better if you cut the meth with prozac” hurt, but “you are worthless” hurt.

  138. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke February 28, 2007 at 10:43 pm |

    And I agree with you! It’s two jokes. (Which is why I was surprised to be described as “angry” and cetera.

    It’s just this: please don’t do it again. That’s all.

  139. Lauren
    Lauren February 28, 2007 at 10:46 pm |

    the thread is about Sadly, No!’s pernicious use of fat jokes

    Lauren, respectfully, no.

    Fine. You make fat jokes, I exaggerate. I still win.

  140. Lauren
    Lauren February 28, 2007 at 10:47 pm |

    Piny, Jill, Zuzu, Chris, I know you’re probably irritated as hell with all this right now, but I had to jump in. The deliciously fitting defense from TRex was just too good.

    I do love a flame war.

  141. ilyka
    ilyka February 28, 2007 at 10:50 pm |

    Further, it double-pays not to act as if those on your side are *worse* than your enemies.

    You mean like so-called sensible liberals? Yes yes I know, not the same, sorry, cheap shot, long day at the office.

    Anyway. This whole thing reminds me of the three-legged dog joke. This three-legged dog joke, the one that’s not there anymore because someone objected to it as being ableist? When that happened, I kind of thought, you know, if you’re identifying with a hypothetical three-legged dog, maybe you have bigger problems than ableism? But then I thought a little more, and I thought, “Maybe it says something about how society treats the disabled if they’re so readily offended by three-legged-dog jokes. Maybe they’re sick of three-legged anything jokes. Maybe they hear too many of them as it is?” Although it’s also possible that the disabled are just a bunch of touchy assholes, as a group. We shouldn’t rule that out either.

    Anyway, note how long that thread is. And note how Jill handled the “ableist” charge. Because she’s a total sellout pussy, you know, and I hear she has a really big vagina besides.

    So. You gave offense. You didn’t mean to; you’re vastly better, kinder, smarter, and handsomer than any wingnut; fat jokes != genocide; possibly the offended are being too sensitive about this; possibly you are being defensive and obstinate; etc. and so on. In any motherfucking case, a simple acknowledgement that this wasn’t exactly a high point from you guys would get us that much closer to being back on track to fighting the real enemy blah blah.

    Hand to God here, your egos will live. And you’ll still be funny. But right now, it’s like you’re mad that someone wants you to retire “Take my wife, please.”

  142. Sadly, No! » Dialing The Frenchy On the Left-Hand Side

    [...] rry. He doezhn’t live here anymore! S,N!: Damn. Well, see, we need an umpire over at this thread, which is, like, totally out of control now. WPE: [Looking] Merde! [...]

  143. HTML Mencken
    HTML Mencken February 28, 2007 at 11:30 pm |

    I said “overlap,” and you read “exactly the same as.” I said “imagine a joke exists,” and you read “HTML Mencken would tell a joke that advocated genocide.” I said “you’ll understand how ridiculous your arguments sound if I cast them as racial” and you read “HTML Mencken is teh Klan!”

    You want me to come out and say it straight? Glad to.

    I think the people at Sadly No are nowhere near as bad as torturers and practitioners of genocide.

    Hell of a standard to insist on, but there you go.

    Yes! Finally! Recall that this is exactly what pissed me off at Ampersand — *not* that he was pissed for us telling a fat joke.

    But, yes, I do insist and I don’t think I misread where you were going because of that ‘surely you can imagine where a fat joke would approach torture and genocide advocacy because blah blah blah’ thing you did. I do reject it. Wholesale. Our fat jokes, one of which was a funny photoshop and the other being a silly pun that the object even thought was funny, did not approach such levels as Tacky and Volokh. It’s bad faith to assume that if we ever did another, it would ascent the peak of Mt Outrage to that level. It’s also bad faith (not to mention nasty) to equate our extant fat jokes, and our potential for new ones (being ‘pernicious’ offenders, and all that), to us saying hypothetically that Alan Keyes is a ‘porch monkey’. Jesus Christ, man. Photoshopping food into a fat guys hands could never be equivalent to calling a black person of whatever politics a ‘porch monkey’.

    You wanna be pissed at my fat joke? Fine! And Ilyka and Lauren both have conveniently missed or forgotten where I admitted upthread that, yes, I am an asshole. Yes, I made a fat joke! *Because* Ampersand said something so stupid that *he* warranted being offended again through the proper context. But you guys want to ignore that, and why, because the true point of this thread is to retreadingly complain about the original S,N! photoshop of Daffy. Which is fine. What’s not fucking fine is complaining about it in the same manner as Ampersand, or ignoring the context of Ampersand’s post.

    ‘Fat joke qua fat joke is bad’! Fine. I don’t agree but fine. But this is apparently such an important point to make that everyone wants to ignore the moral context of both fat jokes, which is not fucking fine. And pardon me Chris, but after starting off well, it seemed like getting this concession out of you was like pulling teeth.

    I don’t want to fight with you guys, but then I never did. My problem was with Ampersand and he even admitted I had a point.

  144. zuzu
    zuzu February 28, 2007 at 11:33 pm | *

    Who farted?

    TRex Says:

    Ah.

    That’s quite the persecution complex you got there, HTML. Yes, we’re a bunch of Auntie Joes here at Feministe, with our putsches and ideological litmus tests.

  145. zuzu
    zuzu February 28, 2007 at 11:36 pm | *

    Yes, I made a fat joke! *Because* Ampersand said something so stupid that *he* warranted being offended again through the proper context.

    What you’re still not getting is that by insulting a physical characteristic that is irrelevant to the actual dispute, you’re insulting others who might otherwise be on your side in the dispute.

    And again, what’s the proper context for a fat joke when there are so many other things to pick on?

  146. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke February 28, 2007 at 11:39 pm |

    But, yes, I do insist and I don’t think I misread where you were going because of that ’surely you can imagine where a fat joke would approach torture and genocide advocacy because blah blah blah’ thing you did. I do reject it. Wholesale. Our fat jokes, one of which was a funny photoshop and the other being a silly pun that the object even thought was funny, did not approach such levels as Tacky and Volokh.

    If you think that’s what I was implying, then you did in fact misread my intent. I may have expressed myself unclearly: wouldn’t have been the first time.

    And pardon me Chris, but after starting off well, it seemed like getting this concession out of you was like pulling teeth.

    As soon as I realized you honestly didn’t know I thought that, I said it.

  147. nate-dogg
    nate-dogg February 28, 2007 at 11:43 pm |

    This thread was really boring and pedantic for a while, but then it got funny at the end.

    Isn’t all humor at someone’s expense? I have a little brother who was in special ed, and he rode the short bus to school, literally. Every time I read a short bus joke, I cringe a little, inside.

    But I laugh at other jokes that are probably hurtful to other people. I guess I’m a hypocrite or something.

  148. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke February 28, 2007 at 11:44 pm |

    but this:

    Jesus Christ, man. Photoshopping food into a fat guys hands could never be equivalent to calling a black person of whatever politics a ‘porch monkey’.

    indicates that you still don’t get what I’m saying.

    because I’m saying they are equivalent. Not precisely the same thing, mind you. Not as likely to win you outraged letters in the WaPo, not as likely to spur immeidate and widespread outrage, and certainly not with the same depth of historical hatred behind it.

    But cut from the same cloth? Absolutely.

  149. Random Lurker
    Random Lurker February 28, 2007 at 11:49 pm |

    Holy damnit Christmas this is the most retarded dogpile I’ve ever seen on the internet.

    Dang man getting all suckyfaced over a picture, bringing your years of liberal arts education to bear.

    Massive salvos of “we’re all special”.

    Tears running down your poo-dread faces.

    This is why Democrats cant have nice things.

    DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU

  150. Jill
    Jill February 28, 2007 at 11:50 pm | *

    Oh wow. I think this is a sign to stop while we’re ahead.

  151. Anon
    Anon March 1, 2007 at 12:03 am |

    Feministe’s logo offends men, who like me, were once boys who were terrorized by girls brandishing pump-action shotguns.

    And every time I stumble across Pandagon’s logo, I’m reminded that I’m an overweight, slovenly alcoholic. Why must you feminists be so insensitive? Don’t you realize that you insult and ultimately drive away many fellow progressives who have suffered terror at the hands of loaded lasses and drown their residual fears in cheap canned beer?

  152. The Highest order
    The Highest order March 1, 2007 at 12:08 am |

    So I’m wondering, Sadly No folks: where, exactly, is the cut-off weight beneath which I’m still a full-fledged human being?

  153. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 12:09 am |

    Jill, it isn’t over until someone posts a YouTube video of Yakety Sax.

  154. GoatBoy
    GoatBoy March 1, 2007 at 12:09 am |

    Neslon Muntz is a fatass.

  155. The Highest order
    The Highest order March 1, 2007 at 12:12 am |

    So I’m wondering, Sadly No folks: where, exactly, is the cut-off weight beneath which I’m still a full-fledged human being?

    Easy. Right at the point when you cant fit into an airline seat without hanging over. If you can squeeze in there without dropping flab over the armrest, you are still a viable member of society, if you cant, you are selfish, rude and should go stand outside with the smokers. HTH.

  156. ice weasel
    ice weasel March 1, 2007 at 12:23 am |

    This thread must be why I don’t go to protests in other cities. I’m afraid that I might run into some of you assholes.

    And having dropped that shit-bomb let me add this.

    This circular firing squad on the lefty blogs is pathetic, just pathetic. I don’t see how any rational, semi-intelligent adult that really read what’s going on here can be so shitty to the S,N! crew. It’s a fucking joke and, if you bother to look at the image, a fairly well deserved one. The guy is fucking slob. I’d go further and predict, if he was skinny, he’d still be a fucking jerk and slob (daffy is he of whom I speak). Dropping a fat joke here or there about daffy isn’t the same as hating all fat people. Get over yourselves.

    Not all that long I did some work for a California fat acceptance group. Chances are, I’m bigger than most of you but you know what, I wouldn’t be caught dead with a red, ronnie ray-gun t-shirt, tucked into my ill-fitting pants and spouting a bunch of racist, xenophonic shit while hiding behind my Doom books.

    I guess I’m out of the mainstream here but the point of equating, in any way, what S,N! does and what the wingnuts do is just fucking out of control.

    Oh, and Trex, you bore the shit of me. Why Jane keeps you is beyond me. You’re one of the reasons I go there half as much as I used to. Just saying, your shit stinks too but I love for you when we’re headed in the same direction politically.

    I’m nowhere near eloquent enough to compete further in this and even though S,N! gets on my nerves at times, they’re always funny. They’re always on the proper side of the issue and I’m not going to look for reasons to take potshots at them because of a fat joke.

    But maybe that’s just me.

  157. zuzu
    zuzu March 1, 2007 at 12:33 am | *

    I guess I’m out of the mainstream here but the point of equating, in any way, what S,N! does and what the wingnuts do is just fucking out of control.

    Who’s equating?

    This has all been an exercise in “Watch where you aim that thing, son. You never know who you’re gonna hit.” Not justifying torture or self-published Doom books.

  158. Bruce from Missouri
    Bruce from Missouri March 1, 2007 at 12:42 am |

    I’m a fat guy, and I really can’t get worked up about that joke. It’s simple, his fatness is part and parcel of a larger nerd stereotype that he squarely fits into, while all the time blathering macho bullshit that he could never follow up on himself. When you add in the silly faux-welsh way he spells his name, it’s almost impossible to pass up a joke about fat pasty basement-dwelling Magic The Gathering nerds. It’s almost required.

    Enough with the offensensitivity already. Other bloggers are espousing Glennocide and were are wasting 156 comments on this?!?

  159. ilyka
    ilyka March 1, 2007 at 12:43 am |

    This thread must be why I don’t go to protests in other cities. I’m afraid that I might run into some of you assholes.

    Relax! We’re all too big to get out the door to protest. Besides, we like it just fine here in Big Vagina. Stop by anytime, cupcake.

  160. zuzu
    zuzu March 1, 2007 at 12:49 am | *

    Enough with the offensensitivity already. Other bloggers are espousing Glennocide and were are wasting 156 comments on this?!?

    “You girls just don’t talk about anything important!”

  161. zuzu
    zuzu March 1, 2007 at 12:50 am | *

    Also, Bruce, you seem to be new here. We can talk about more than one thing at a time.

  162. Tempest In A Teacup
    Tempest In A Teacup March 1, 2007 at 12:55 am |

    “It’s unnecessary collateral damage, like taking out mosquitos with an RPG. Pick on Rush for being a dirty old impotent child molester, for fuck’s sake–and if the dirty old impotent child molester blogs remove you from their blogrolls, bonus.”

    Like the unnecessary collateral damage of refering to male impotence? Or being old? Child molesting… well no complaints about that; it’s vile and a criminal offense. Dirtiness? In the eye of the beholder that one. Aren’t we liberals supposed to be into a lot of dirty stuff? And I’d be into even more of it if I didn’t have psycological scarring which sometimes left me impotent as well. You know, stuff like being abused, and finding my body is unable to respond sexually because of fears now so subconscious I can’t even locate them myself mentally to address anymore, let alone find the right telephone line to call up Mr Floppy and remind him just how much this is something he placed an order for earlier.

    Of course, the same scarring also gives me the outer shell which means I don’t take stupid misfiring jokes like Sadly No’s! seriously either… hard world, and you need a hard skin to survive in it, and a joke, well that’s nothing more than a pinprick comparitively. And likewise, I don’t take YOUR stupid comments that would wound a great many other loving caring men who suffer from what is basically a complex ailment… basically it’s mocking the disabled in fact. But here you all are, ripping into each, with clumsy rhetorical innaccuracy… and for what? Because SN! reacted with a little less grace than perhaps they should have done, because they made the idiotic argument that “Hey, you made a joke about fat people! I’m keeping genocidal and racists comments on my blog roll… but not you!” …? And how to react? By piling even more stupidity on with the exact same lack of sensitivity about things like flacid penises and old men who still dare to want to be sexually active, because those are things YOU think it’s ok to joke about?

    The answer’s really simple… You feministas, acknowledge SN! had a basic point, that they were right to go “What the fuck?!” to the original complaint considering where it was coming from and the comparitive standard that was being made to other approved of Blogs. And SN!, give a nod of the hat towards the fact that your humor won’t be to everyone’s taste, and perhaps acknowledge that some people might have a genuine reason to be a little edgy around your humour. And then we can all stop exaggerating an exercise that is really rather trivial but is fucking demeaning to us all. See that? I said “Fuck”… Fuck fuckity fuck; and if you aren’t going to line up alongside people who say things that are occasionally shocking to someone, even if that someone is occasionally us ourselves, because their throwaway words are more important than whether their heart is in the right place, then you aren’t on the side of liberalism and liberty for all at all. So fucking stop it. Shake hands and acknowledge and celebrate what is nothing more than a difference in humor.

    And yes, when you’ve finishes spraying your hurt invective about, we can get back to dealing with the real problems. Yes, sometimes, we just aren’t as good as we aim and hope to be; Like how sometimes the answer to the question of “Don’t you find me attractive” isn’t “Yes, but I can’t seem to feel it”… Feeling guilty for that particular choice of words yet? Guilt is an easy card to play though, but ultimately an unimportant if you want to keep moving on to better things. “I know what you meant, it’s ok, let’s work on what really matters…” is the BETTER answer. So give it. And stop fucking up the relationships that should bind all liberals together too.

  163. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke March 1, 2007 at 12:57 am |

    Sometimes in one thread!

  164. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke March 1, 2007 at 12:58 am |

    Mmmm cupcakes.

  165. Tempest In A Teacup
    Tempest In A Teacup March 1, 2007 at 1:01 am |

    “because they made the idiotic argument that “Hey…”

    Should have been “because their critic”, didn’t see that typo. And just in case anyone cares, throw away user name, but long time lurker on progressive blogs… Used to post on Atrios rather alot pre Iraq War and up to the 2004 election, a few of the regulars would know my old ‘nymn there, still occasionally make light hearted posts here and there… but yeah, I’m serious about the dysfunction dickie, so throw away name for today. What, you want me to show it you? It doesn’t do much I’m afraid :P

  166. Marked Hoosier
    Marked Hoosier March 1, 2007 at 1:03 am |

    Cupcakes??? Where???

    Please share! :)

  167. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 1:03 am |

    I believe this may be the point at which something happens which was mentioned by myself previously.

  168. JackGoff
    JackGoff March 1, 2007 at 1:03 am |

    his fatness is part and parcel of a larger nerd stereotype that he squarely fits into

    Because stereotypes are what we want to perpetuate ’round here! In fact, we rarely do anything that isn’t about placing people into pre-defined bins.

  169. JackGoff
    JackGoff March 1, 2007 at 1:04 am |

    Gavin, wanna cupcake, hon?

  170. JackGoff
    JackGoff March 1, 2007 at 1:05 am |

    Gavin, wanna cupcake, hon? All the fatties are hitting them up. You could work it into a post, or something. Experience is the genius teacher, after all…

  171. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 1:10 am |

    Gavin, wanna cupcake, hon?

    Ok, I know there’s been some talk about such things lately, but here it is: I’m watching the cupcakes. I don’t look like my picture anymore in terms of abdominal surfeit.

    So laugh, laugh. Let the balloons drop from the ceiling and sound the party-horns.

  172. ilyka
    ilyka March 1, 2007 at 1:11 am |

    “You girls just don’t talk about anything important!”

    “And you don’t appreciate our efforts to preserve your maidenhood from Teh Wingnut Menace! We’re like the thin blue line between you and real oppression, bitches! Don’t make me turn this car around and take you back to the Independent Women’s Forum!”

  173. Henry
    Henry March 1, 2007 at 1:21 am |

    And you don’t appreciate our efforts to preserve your maidenhood from Teh Wingnut Menace!

    Well, they certainly seem to be on the rampart.

  174. wonderzombie
    wonderzombie March 1, 2007 at 1:31 am |

    I can’t really get offended about this.

    This is not because of a double-standard re: insulting the crazies versus insulting the normals. If you insult fat people, you’re an asshole, and that’s not a matter anyone should be disputing. The S,N! guys certainly aren’t. Indeed, they proudly lay claim to the title, and frankly, that’s what’s entertaining about them.

    But come on. I get that making jokes about fat people is bad. I get that there are overweight liberals that might be offended. What I don’t get is why this take precedence over the absurd proposition that being an asshole is worse than endorsing genocide. This guy’s next door neighbors are drop-kicking infants, and as their little bodies are sailing by, dude is delivering a lecture about how it’s not nice to call someone a doodyhead.

  175. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 1:31 am |

    No. Not even sadly, no! Hell, no.

    We aren’t talking about her, remember? We’re talking about your behavior. Your behavior cannot be excused by hers.

    Sexism is always wrong. It’s wrong when Phyllis Schlafly suffers from it. It is never justified to insult a woman because she is a woman. Moreover, it is…

    Except that’s not what I said.

    Also, ‘we’re talking about your behavior’ is a way to control the conversation such that no contrary arguments can impede the flow of criticism from you toward me.

    You don’t need me around for that, do you?

  176. Steve
    Steve March 1, 2007 at 1:56 am |

    I’m overweight, and kinda sensitive about it. And when someone makes a fat joke about someone else, it sorta bugs me, because they could be talking about me.

    But this S,N! joke didn’t bother me one bit. Why could that be? A little introspection reveals that while I’m somewhat fat, I’m not the sort of fat guy who goes around acting like he’s a valiant defender of the Western World with his broadsword held high. And so, when someone makes a joke that is not really a fat joke, but rather a fat guy who thinks he’s a valiant defender of the Western World joke, it doesn’t bug me.

    Actually, a lot of people had a lot of good points in this thread… except the person who tried to argue that fat jokes are somehow different from small penis jokes. That argument made no sense.

  177. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 2:00 am |

    Well, yeah, it is. You argued that someone’s arguments against sexism are invalid if they harbor prejudice themselves.

    Not what I said. You have to read that statement more carefully; it’s quite plain and literal.

    People who seek the empowerment of themselves are of no special moral stature. It’s not terribly difficult or enlightened to want power and comfort for people just like oneself.

  178. ilyka
    ilyka March 1, 2007 at 2:11 am |

    It’s not terribly difficult or enlightened to want power and comfort for people just like oneself.

    . . . says the man who came over to a feminist blog to enlighten its readers and writers as to what they should care about, and how much, and when, and why, and relative to what, based on what he and people just like him want for themselves.

    Sweet Moses on toast! NOW it’s time for Yakety Sax.

  179. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 2:21 am |

    . . . says the man who came over to a feminist blog to enlighten its readers and writers as to what they should care about, and how much, and when, and why, and relative to what, based on what he and people just like him want for themselves.

    I think it’s late and people are getting a bit hazy.

    I came over here because my Sitemeter was volcanoing with this referral:

    http://www.feministe.us/blog/a…s/2007/02/28/go-fuck-yourself/

    I guess the title got changed at some point. I’m still not sure what to make of all that yelling about Dick Cheney.

  180. JackGoff
    JackGoff March 1, 2007 at 2:24 am |

    Oh! I get it. We were supposed to start playing “Entrance of the Gladiators” at 2:00AM.

    Man, those guys at Sadly, No! never miss an opportunity for comedy!

  181. Mnemosyne
    Mnemosyne March 1, 2007 at 2:38 am |

    What I don’t get is why this take precedence over the absurd proposition that being an asshole is worse than endorsing genocide.

    Sigh. I really, really don’t want to walk you through the entire thread all over again. But if you think our complaint is that making a fat joke is just as bad as endorsing genocide, I think you need to work on your reading comprehension.

    We’d like to reduce friendly fire. That’s all. I realize that you guys are under the impression that if we tell you to stop bombing your own side, that of course means that we’re telling you to ignore everything the other side is doing, fold your hands, and take a nap. I’m not sure how you got that impression, but you sure seem to have it.

  182. ilyka
    ilyka March 1, 2007 at 2:52 am |

    I’m still not sure what to make of all that yelling about Dick Cheney.

    We’re all hot for him, see, because we don’t care about torture and genocide–only fat-bashing. Oh, sure, we’d like to care about torture and genocide, but it just isn’t possible right now, because we’re only allowed to have one issue on the table at a time and fat-bashing, as you may imagine, is a bit of a space hog. When it sits around the conference table, it really sits around the conference table.

    I realize that you guys are under the impression that if we tell you to stop bombing your own side, that of course means that we’re telling you to ignore everything the other side is doing, fold your hands, and take a nap. I’m not sure how you got that impression, but you sure seem to have it.

    Mmmmm, nap.

  183. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke March 1, 2007 at 2:54 am |

    and fat-bashing, as you may imagine, is a bit of a space hog. When it sits around the conference table, it really sits around the conference table.

    I am *hugely* offended by that.

  184. Roy
    Roy March 1, 2007 at 3:00 am |

    It’s not terribly difficult or enlightened to want power and comfort for people just like oneself.

    And it’s not terribly difficult or enlightened to make fat jokes about someone when there are plenty of legitimate criticisms that could have been raised.

    It’s not terribly difficult or enlightened to attack the messenger instead of the message.

  185. Lesley
    Lesley March 1, 2007 at 3:18 am |

    The neocons have Gitmo and the ubersensitive “make fun of fat and perish” liberals would have re-education campz. This comment thread is enough to give any reasonable person a fucking migraine.

    I cannot believe any regular reader of SadlyNo believes for a second they are mean bullying insensitive creeps on a par with Malkin meanness, for example. The humour I find there helps me cope with the utter insanity going on in the world today, and by insanity I mean not just the usual corporate gluttony, but the madness of King George and the very real cruelty he inflicts on a daily basis. Sometimes I can’t even laugh at the funnies I get so depressed and upset thinking about it.

    Maybe we need to develop more of a sense of humour about ourselves. I’m pulling on my stomach roll right now and mocking it. Really, get over it.

  186. Innocent Bystander
    Innocent Bystander March 1, 2007 at 3:22 am |

    Would it be OK to point out that we like fat and skinny as well as median size Lefties a lot more than fat/skinny/median size Righties….can we reach common ground here?

    And you bastids from Sadly, No…..any jokes using the following descriptors: “balding”, “white”. “hearing impaired”, “blue-eyed”,”shortsightedness”, “ingrown toenails”, or “agnostic” could be grounds for immediate removal from my Favored Blogs folder links. Consider yourselves warned.

  187. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 3:22 am |

    It’s not terribly difficult or enlightened to attack the messenger instead of the message.

    Oh, try doing it for 5,020 posts. Tell me then how easy it is.

  188. marc page
    marc page March 1, 2007 at 3:26 am |

    At last. I have finished reading all the comments.

    Do I get a prize ?

  189. Sirkowski
    Sirkowski March 1, 2007 at 3:30 am |

    Don’t make fun of fat people.
    Fat people are important.

    Who else are we gonna eat during the nuclear winter?

  190. Roy
    Roy March 1, 2007 at 3:36 am |

    Oh, try doing it for 5,020 posts. Tell me then how easy it is.

    Why would I want to?
    I don’t think it’s clever or funny or helpful to make fun of someone’s weight, gender, race, sexual orientation. Using those things as ammunition when there are legitimate issues that you could be attacking isn’t difficult- it’s cheap. And it’s definitely not enlightening.

    Sometimes it is hard to focus on the issues. It’s not hard to call names.

  191. soullite
    soullite March 1, 2007 at 3:38 am |

    It’s not that we don’t get it. It’s that we don’t care. In the end, weight isn’t race, gender, religion or sexual preference It isn’t because it is not generally considered as such. You think this is a moral issue, clearly. We don’t care. Your morality is not our morality. We don’t care about it any more than atheists care about christian morality. Why should we? We don’t agree with it. You’re the ones pressing a crusade against us because we don’t believe as you believe. You don’t have the right to tell us what we can and can not think. You can try and shame us, but clearly as we’re not ashamed and most of us couldn’t really care less what amp, or anyone else on that whackjob site, says. Torture advocacy- Okay with amp. False rape accusations- okay with amp. Genocidal tendencies- Okay with Amp. Joking about the dorkiest man on the planet- BEYOND THE FUCKING PALE.

  192. marc page
    marc page March 1, 2007 at 3:40 am |

    Shorter Roy: Harrumph. Good day, sir.

  193. marc page
    marc page March 1, 2007 at 3:41 am |

    Moderate this –

  194. Pinko Punko
    Pinko Punko March 1, 2007 at 4:21 am |

    Once again it is impossible for anyone to have a clear discussion about anything.

    Not everyone agrees with TRex and conflating his take with everyone else’s or conflating everyone else with your history with him is not cool.

    Gavmo fucked up with his honesty in trying to communicate more deeply with how he feels. I think he should have just said “we apologized before and we don’t want to rehash it now, here are all the links regarding the previous discussions.” Then, he should have proceeded to photoshop a giant party sub onto the next 500 Sadly, No targets, skinny, purple, goodguy, badguy. This would have taken a frown and turned it upside down. This is why I am deeply disappointed in Sadly No.

    A lot of people fucked up wanting to take everyone out of context because it really seems everybody deep down secretly likes a flamewar. I mean, everyone is saying “you didn’t understand what I said” or “read it again” or “eat it” etc.

    How about this: if you say something that I don’t like, I say:

    You said:

    “quote”

    I think this means X.

    My response to X (X=my understanding of what you said, possibly not even what you meant) is Y.

    Then, in response you can either clarify whether X is even correctly stipulated before even dealing with Y.

    My personal disclaimer: I have previously made the argument that appearance based insults can differ within the relationship between the insulter and the insultee. The insulter can literally see a difference between a rotund force of evil and a rotund kindly grandfather, in such a case the former may be described as physically disgusting, but due to non-physical attributes, yet be literally true, while latter would not be so, even if physically similar. However, this does not address how a bystander to the insult may feel, or may choose to feel. Therefore, I would personally try to minimize these sorts of descriptions, even if they might be “true” to one’s feelings. Like being madly in love until dumped, an individual’s (the dumper) identical attributes may be perceived differently. It is not the attributes that are really being judged, even though the attributes are being reacted to.

    I personally draw the line at the insult “cobag.” While it is conceivable that someone could be offended due to their use of this implement, a person that uses a cobag is not a cobag, and a cobag is a bag of shit. I do not want to offend them, and can’t control their being offended. I can express what my intent was, and it is for them to decide if that is OK, or if they would never accept it, or if they could be convinced to not being offended. Hopefully we could have a reasonable discussion about it. I seem to remember that Amanda offended the shit out of a bunch of people, and we defended her to the hilt. Offense is real, and we have to deal with our actions and want to minimize hurting people for their existing, but offense does not have to be fossilized, and can be flexible. Or not.

    I’ll be pretty sad if someone takes from this comment:

    “Shorter Punko: totally inflammatory blah blah>”

    But then again, I have a 3 lb Pimped Take Five bar in my fridge and no one to share it with.

  195. marc page
    marc page March 1, 2007 at 4:25 am |

    Message received.

  196. ilyka
    ilyka March 1, 2007 at 4:30 am |

    Aagh, I don’t know if this was in moderation for awhile or if I just missed it earlier, but:

    And I’d be into even more of it if I didn’t have psycological scarring which sometimes left me impotent as well.

    You are right about my remarks, Tempest, and I’m sorry. I meant to reference only that Limbaugh took a bunch of Viagra with him to a location known for underage-prostitution, not to rag on impotence suffers generally–but obviously if that’s what I meant, that’s what I ought to have said. Again, I’m sorry.

  197. Zettaichan
    Zettaichan March 1, 2007 at 5:23 am |

    I’m plumb fed-up sick of intercycling lefty ‘offense’ and the inexorable need among some people to focus on language and speech-policing, to point out ‘insensitivity,’ when there are, right now in the world, lunatics running around trying to whoop up a possibly nuclear attack on Iran — among other things.

    Wow, it’s the classic wingnut “How can you be so petty as to worry about [domestic issues/Bush administration corruption/gay rights/etc.] when the Islamofascists want to kill us all?! Are you some kind of traitor?” argument, only turned around and tailored to the left.

    If we should all be worrying about more important things, then wherever did you guys find the time to Photoshop a big sammich into the wingnut’s hands?

    Wasn’t there something else going on in the world that day? CNN? Something?

    I think most of us are capable of holding more than one thought in our heads at the same time. I can be furious about shrinking abortion rights and Bush administration power grabs and the war in Iraq and the growing rhetoric against Iran and still get pissy about someone who’s supposedly on my side jumping into the mudslinging gutter just to make a lame fat joke. I am XX-large, I contain multitudes.

  198. Martin Wisse
    Martin Wisse March 1, 2007 at 6:57 am |

    For fuck’s sake, instead of whinging about how fat jokes hurt you deeply or how hurt you are that your fat joke offends people, get the fuck back to the things that matter people.

    Your country is quite possibly going to attack Iran with nuclear fucking weapons and all you can find to bitch about is fat acceptance?

    Who gives a fuck?

  199. S.A. Small
    S.A. Small March 1, 2007 at 7:33 am |

    And then we can all stop exaggerating an exercise that is really rather trivial but is fucking demeaning to us all. See that? I said “Fuck”… Fuck fuckity fuck; and if you aren’t going to line up alongside people who say things that are occasionally shocking to someone, even if that someone is occasionally us ourselves, because their throwaway words are more important than whether their heart is in the right place, then you aren’t on the side of liberalism and liberty for all at all. So fucking stop it. Shake hands and acknowledge and celebrate what is nothing more than a difference in humor.

    Several thoughts:
    1. They must be new here–people e-curse all the time at Feministe!….Or oblivious (see the actual title of the post).
    2. I have to say one of my pet peeves is the pseudo-rebel. You know, the idiots who think they’re (fucking) brilliant because they know some dirty words.
    3. The part after the “fuckstream” doesn’t really make any sense. Some grammar would be a good first step, methinks.
    4. It’s not terribly funny.
    5. None of the Sadly-No! defenders have acknowledged piny’s (brilliant) insight that all of this reproduces the same sort of politics of physical appearance that carried Bush in 2000 and ’04. Of course, a strawman that equivocates fat jokes and genocide is far more attractive.

  200. S.A. Small
    S.A. Small March 1, 2007 at 7:37 am |

    Your country is quite possibly going to attack Iran with nuclear fucking weapons and all you can find to bitch about is fat acceptance?

    No, we find plenty to *bitch* about. Perhaps you may have noted the plethora of other posts on the blog. Additionally, have you considered how unbelievably sexy “nuclear fucking weapons” sounds? Rrrrawl.

  201. Rhiannon
    Rhiannon March 1, 2007 at 8:40 am |

    I’m sorry Piny if I derail the thread but I just couldn’t let this go

    “It’s the awkwardness, the ill-fitting clothes, the belt pulled too tight under his gut, the scraggly moustache and the vacant expression….like a roleplaying nerd”.

    I AM a roleplayer and I’m a cute petite brunette female. All of the people I have roleplayed with look nothing like his description of a roleplayer and I am deeply offended with his gross mischaracterization and the homogenization of roleplayers everywhere. We have been maligned for too long as being ugly, awkward, socially inept, slothful, devil worshipping nuts!*

    And the first person I ever had sex with WAS the guy I played Magic the Gathering with in Highschool, FYI!!!

    *Add whatever other stereotypes of rpgers/trekkies/geeks/nerds etc.

  202. zuzu
    zuzu March 1, 2007 at 9:01 am | *

    Rhiannon, I don’t think it’s possible to derail this thread.

    Except that’s not what I said.

    Gavin, that’s rather disingenuous, given that you and your co-blogger have attributed to piny’s post and all the comments here that we’re somehow classing you as worse than genocidal wingnuts and/or we don’t care about genocide when there are fat people being mocked.

    No, what we’re saying is focus on the fucking genocidal wingnuttery and leave the fat jokes out of it.

    And alla you who have come over here to tell the little ladies what the Really Important Issues are: kiss my entire ass.

    It may take a while. I’m one of those fat people.

  203. Tapetum
    Tapetum March 1, 2007 at 9:07 am |

    By about halfway through this thread I was certain I would have nothing to say that hadn’t been said to death already. But here I am, and it appears that I do.

    On the “I’m an asshole” defense. Dude, there’s two ways that defense can go. a) is “I’m an asshole. That’s who I am, and if you’re going to hang around you just have to accept being collateral damage now and then because I’m an asshole.” b) is “I’m an asshole. My jokes tend to skirt offensiveness, and sometimes I slip and dump on people I’m not intending to. I’m sorry about this; I’ll try not to do it again, but I can’t make guarantees.”

    b) is pretty acceptable. Sometimes it’s pretty hard to realize where the fallout is going to be when you create something that tickles your funny bone. The difference between a & b is that a doesn’t care that he’s dumping on the people on his side. Unfortunately, the Sadly, No people are coming across as type a’s thus far, which is pretty pathetic.

  204. spencer
    spencer March 1, 2007 at 9:13 am |

    “Holy damnit Christmas this is the most retarded dogpile I’ve ever seen on the internet.”

    First day on the Intertubes?

  205. Random Lurker 2: Electric Boogaloo
    Random Lurker 2: Electric Boogaloo March 1, 2007 at 9:35 am |

    You have just devoted over 200 posts to discussing the theoretically hurt e-feelings of a wingnut who writes video game fanfiction and looks like he masterbates to anime.*

    THE INTERNET: SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS.

    *The tentacle stuff.

  206. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 9:40 am |

    I am deeply offended with his gross mischaracterization and the homogenization of roleplayers everywhere.

    I have an idea.

    Why don’t we fragment into small, homogeneous groups and focus intently on the deep offense we feel at other groups’ speech and language.

    Oh right, that was the entire ’80s and ’90s.

  207. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 10:06 am |

    Sometimes it’s pretty hard to realize where the fallout is going to be when you create something that tickles your funny bone. The difference between a & b is that a doesn’t care that he’s dumping on the people on his side. Unfortunately, the Sadly, No people are coming across as type a’s thus far, which is pretty pathetic.

    What you guys have to understand here, with all this talk of apologies and ritual self-abnegations, is that Mencken and I would certainly apologize if we thought we were wrong. But we don’t think we’re wrong.

    Most of the arguments here suggest one of two things:

    1) People haven’t actually read what we wrote — and write from day to day — but are instead reacting to Piny’s wild description of a nonexistent cavalcade of Fatty McGee jokes and Fat Bastard Dick Cheney critiques.

    2) I forget the second one, but it was good.

    Zuzu, et al: “That’s not what I said” is a factual statement, because some other argument entirely from the one I was making does not, in fact, constitute a true and just recounting of the argument that I had plainly written in the English language just previously.

    An example of this: Zuzu writes, “I like squirrels.” I say that Zuzu’s expressed hatred of chipmunks is offensive. Zuzu replies, “That’s not what I said.”

    Because you see, in the above example the one thing is not identical with the other thing. Therefore, Zuzu correctly identified a discongruity between the statement made by herself, and the non-equivalent statement which was not made by herself.

    I hope this is clear now. I fear it isn’t. Perhaps there’s something in the way I express myself in this comment that can be pried open to reveal an unforeseen ambiguity, given sufficient industry.

  208. Roy
    Roy March 1, 2007 at 10:07 am |

    I have an idea too:

    Why don’t we completely ignore the fact that we’re dealing with real people who might have real feelings, and that sometimes our words hit people in ways we didn’t expect?

    See, that way, when someone says “hey, that was really insensitive and offensive” we can alienate those people- who’d otherwise be our allies- by acting indignant- “How dare you take offense to the offensive thing I just said!”

    It’s not that we don’t get it. It’s that we don’t care.

    Thanks for making that crystal clear. If this is the case, I suggest a strong look at 212, because you’re really coming across as type a.

    In the end, weight isn’t race, gender, religion or sexual preference It isn’t because it is not generally considered as such. You think this is a moral issue, clearly. We don’t care.

    No, actually, I don’t. There were two aspects I was seeing.
    1. The logic issue- the message and the messenger are not the same. The message is right or wrong based on the message, not the messenger.
    2. The civil discourse issue- I think it’s really poor form to attack someone for things like weight, height, sexual orientation, disability status, sex, race, etc. Those things are not the reason you have a problem with him, right? If they’re not, I think it’s really lazy and insulting to use them as ammunition for precisely the reasons that have come up. It’s no a morality issue- it’s a “don’t be an asshole” issue.

    You don’t have the right to tell us what we can and can not think.

    You’re right. Nobody has, I think. We have every right to say “Hey, you’re acting too much like the people you’re against, and you’re coming across as an insensitive asshole willing to throw potential allies under the bus.”

    Torture advocacy- Okay with amp. False rape accusations- okay with amp. Genocidal tendencies- Okay with Amp. Joking about the dorkiest man on the planet- BEYOND THE FUCKING PALE.

    That’s not what is being said, and if you think it is, then you don’t “get it.”

  209. norbizness
    norbizness March 1, 2007 at 10:07 am |

    I heard that the most recent dictionary removed the words “gullible” and “impasse.”

  210. Mandos
    Mandos March 1, 2007 at 10:08 am |

    Why don’t we fragment into small, homogeneous groups and focus intently on the deep offense we feel at other groups’ speech and language.

    The problem is that it’s not just about offense. It’s about power and privilege, all the way down from the very large scale to the little scale. You’ve seized on the fact that fatness is something you have the power to mock, and that’s only because fat people are at a social disadvantage. This pattern repeats itself in the previous, larger-scale fractal iteration that is society.

  211. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 10:26 am |

    The problem is that it’s not just about offense. It’s about power and privilege, all the way down from the very large scale to the little scale.

    Hey, I didn’t actually mean that we should fragment into small, homogeneous groups and focus intently on the deep offense, etc., but that’s a good start, sure. That’s how it went last time.

  212. Lawnguylander
    Lawnguylander March 1, 2007 at 10:43 am |

    Piny and Zuzu, aren’t you the same people who wouldn’t accept any criticism over a post that mocked an 8 year old girl? And wasn’t Zuzu the one who in turn mocked the people who were offended by the post by saying “The air is already thick with eau de sanctimony.” Do you recognize that scent here? Jill stopped short of offering an apology but at least she acknowledged that it probably wasn’t right.

    I’m not really down with mocking people for being fat and if that was all Sadly, No did with the Daffyd posts I’d say that this whole thread was worthwhile. Daffydd IS a war monger but the picture in question makes it plain that he hasn’t exactly been preparing himself for real life battle. If he were being ridiculed for militant opposition to reproductive rights the picture would have been irrelevant and represented a gratuitous shot at fat people. Worst of all though it wouldn’t have been funny.

  213. soullite
    soullite March 1, 2007 at 11:02 am |

    Roy:

    Thanks for making that crystal clear. If this is the case, I suggest a strong look at 212, because you’re really coming across as type a.

    I’m not even going to bother. Like I said, I don’t care. We’re working off of vastly different moral systems here. You should recognize that I don’t care any more about your opinion of me than you likely do of my opinion about you. I view your morality as inferior to mine, as you most surely view mine. It’s not unnatural for us not to care. To me the protestations that being overweight (beyond a reasonable measure) is not unhealthy are no different than Pro-ana sites telling the malnourished that theres nothing wrong with starving yourself to the point of collapse. It’s medically harmful, and an attempt to resolve cognitive dissonance through the discarding of commonly accepted medical facts. That’s why this is a moral issue for me and why I’m even bothering to comment on it.

    No, actually, I don’t. There were two aspects I was seeing.
    1. The logic issue- the message and the messenger are not the same. The message is right or wrong based on the message, not the messenger.
    2. The civil discourse issue- I think it’s really poor form to attack someone for things like weight, height, sexual orientation, disability status, sex, race, etc. Those things are not the reason you have a problem with him, right? If they’re not, I think it’s really lazy and insulting to use them as ammunition for precisely the reasons that have come up. It’s no a morality issue- it’s a “don’t be an asshole” issue.

    Yes, being a prick about overwieght people is uncalled for. That’t why I’m not posting “OMGZ!!!!! You’re so fat!!!!1!!” If I’ve come across as actually caring if you’re overweight or not, I’m sorry. It’s your right, and it might not even be due to any behaviors on your part at all. You can be skinny as a rail and still believe the things you believe, and it won’t make you any better in my eyes. It’s not the fat that’s the issue here, it’s the denial of science that doesn’t agree with your beliefs. Have their been some studies that go against the prevaling medical opinion? Of course there were. But they are few and overruled by the remaining data on this subject.

    You’re right. Nobody has, I think. We have every right to say “Hey, you’re acting too much like the people you’re against, and you’re coming across as an insensitive asshole willing to throw potential allies under the bus.”

    Yes, you are free to ridicule me. I don’t really care. I care about this belief that’s clearly widespread that being fat heavily overweight does not cause stress on the skeletal, respiratory and circulatory systems.

    In the end, weight isn’t race, gender, religion or sexual preference It isn’t because it is not generally considered as such. You think this is a moral issue, clearly. We don’t care.

    I didn’t directly claim you did think of weight as race. I said many here do, and many here quite obviously do. If you don’t, than YOU don’t. Don’t pretend nobody else here does.

    That’s not what is being said, and if you think it is, then you don’t “get it.”

    Roy, yes it is what’s being said. Amp directly stated that the reason why Sadly, No is not on it’s blogroll and never will be is because of fat jokes. He links to people who advocate torture and genocide. He allows someone on his site to repeatedly deny that false rape accusations cause harm, either to the males accused or to the justice system over-all. I’m not pulling this shit out of my ass. Those are actual beliefs of people on his blogroll and his fellow posters. If Amp thinks fat jokes are a reason to be banned from a blogroll, and that torture advocacy is not, she is saying that fat jokes are worse than advocating torture. You can pretend that that doesn’t follow a direct chain of logic if you want, but it still does.

  214. Roy
    Roy March 1, 2007 at 11:04 am |

    Daffydd IS a war monger but the picture in question makes it plain that he hasn’t exactly been preparing himself for real life battle.

    Which matters… because?

    Criticize him for being a war monger, which is something that’s certainly worthy of critique, and leave his weight out of it, which has nothing to do with any actual intelligent criticism. His message- the war mongering- has nothing to do with his weight.

    It’s an ad hominem tu quoque argument, and it’s fallacious.
    It’s also lazy, and wrong, and- quite frankly- it detracts from the real issue anyway.

    If you found a really vocal war-mongering 80 year-old gay woman who endorsed the draft, would you think it okay to attack her for her age, sex, and sexuality? After all, an 80 year-old gay woman isn’t likely to be drafted or spend time on the front lines any time soon, is she?

  215. In Vino Veritas
    In Vino Veritas March 1, 2007 at 11:05 am |

    To point out the obivous, there is a difference between being racist and being a fatist. One has no control over their race, while one does have some measure of control over their weight. Some may be genetically preinclined towards being overwight, but obesity is entirely due to one’s lifestyle choice.

    I’m not really comfortable allowing obese people to be be included amonst the minorities who need protection from the majority, just as I would not agree if someone decided that smokers were due the same protections from harassment as blacks.

  216. Raijin
    Raijin March 1, 2007 at 11:12 am |

    Man– whatever you simpering oversensitives do, DO NOT go visit the Rude Pundit. There isn’t a fainting couch sturdy enough (and no, that’s not a reference to anyone’s weight, but to the sheer volume of fainting that will undoubtedly occur).

  217. Ryan
    Ryan March 1, 2007 at 11:35 am |

    Sadly, No! is a comedy blog. I like Feministe and read now and then (though I read Pandagon more regularly), but I hope the writers won’t be going on a crusade against every comedian who makes a fat joke or a gay joke or a black joke or a white joke or any other kind of joke about anything potentially offensive.

    God, that would make Comedy Central and Adult Swim boring.

    There’s nothing wrong with ridiculing ridiculous people.

  218. Thomas
    Thomas March 1, 2007 at 11:39 am |

    IVV, point to a peer-reviewed study that shows a statistically significant weight loss over a five year period for any diet.

    (It’s a trick question. There isn’t one.)

    We could argue a lot about how people get fat. But once they are fat, an empirical claim that they can become not-fat relies exclusively on isolated examples which most people try and fail to replicate. If years of research show that only 10% of fat people can become and remain thin, then would you support discrimination against the other 90% because they either failed or didn’t try?

  219. Mithras
    Mithras March 1, 2007 at 12:01 pm |

    [A]ll of this reproduces the same sort of politics of physical appearance that carried Bush in 2000 and ‘04.

    We may be getting down to the nub of the stupid here. Do people really believe that “the politics of physical appearance” led to Bush getting elected? Was the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore motivated by the conservative justices’ liking Bush’s appearance more?

  220. Lawnguylander
    Lawnguylander March 1, 2007 at 12:03 pm |

    Roy,

    I’ve already explained why I think Daffydd’s physical condition is relevant and the picture therefore funny but if others do not see something ridiculously callow about a guy who is in no shape to fight in a war but is hell bent on others doing so then we’re not going to agree on whether there was any humor in the photo. Much love to all my overweight peeps out there. Except the war mongers among you. To them I say, get your fucking asses in shape and down to the recruitment station.

    If you found a really vocal war-mongering 80 year-old gay woman who endorsed the draft, would you think it okay to attack her for her age, sex, and sexuality? After all, an 80 year-old gay woman isn’t likely to be drafted or spend time on the front lines any time soon, is she?

    I’ve actually been looking for that woman but sadly, she doesn’t seem to exist. If she did exist no I wouldn’t mock her for any of those attributes. I might say that it’s pretty brave of an 80 year old to be volunteering young people for war duties but not as a means of mocking her age and not as a slam against old people in general. Just her cavalier attitude towards other people’s ambitions to one day also be 80. Her gayness and gender would be irrelevant to me.

  221. Evan
    Evan March 1, 2007 at 12:04 pm |

    Haven’t we already established that Al Gore is unfuckable?

    One is “lighthearted humor,” and the other is clearly not kosher, apparently. I’m having a hard time sorting it out, so I’d appreciate it if anyone could let me peek at the answer key.

  222. Henry
    Henry March 1, 2007 at 12:07 pm |

    So your whole argument is the silly “chickenhawk” label? Really?

  223. Mithras
    Mithras March 1, 2007 at 12:09 pm |

    … the silly “chickenhawk” label?

    *headdesk*

  224. Lawnguylander
    Lawnguylander March 1, 2007 at 12:12 pm |

    ab Hugh wasn’t attacked because he’s a member of NAAFA. He was being attacked because he’s overweight

    That’s just not true. Do you really think his weight was what drew S,N’s attention?

  225. owlbear1
    owlbear1 March 1, 2007 at 12:14 pm |

    We all look into that mirror and bring a great deal of ourselves to that reflection. Most are lucky to pair thier reflection with reality. Or close enough. Sadly, millions have died from misjudging that reflection.

  226. In Vino Veritas
    In Vino Veritas March 1, 2007 at 12:31 pm |

    then would you support discrimination against the other 90% because they either failed or didn’t try?

    No, not support discrimination, but not necessarily support legal protection from discrimination.

    There is a fundamental difference between discriminating against someone because of race and discriminiating against someone because of a lifestyle choice. Again, I am making a distinction between being simply overweight, which, you are right, is difficult for most people to overcome, and being medically obese, which is a lifestyle choice.

  227. Raging Moderate
    Raging Moderate March 1, 2007 at 12:32 pm |

    This has all been an exercise in “Watch where you aim that thing, son. You never know who you’re gonna hit.”

    I agree with this. You shouldn’t push away those who could be persuaded to become your allies.

    I said the same thing about those who were claiming with certainty that the Duke accused were racists and rapists (since false accusations never happen). If it turned out that they didn’t rape the accuser, the credibility of those who claimed otherwise would suffer, it could drive some people away from the feminist movement, and hurt future rape victims (crying wolf as it were – “you were wrong last time, so why should I believe you this time?”). Ironically, I was called a rape apologist.

    The same thing happened when I suggested that we shouldn’t tar all Christians who oppose abortion as “woman haters”, but instead try to persuade them that they are mistaken in their views (as I do with my Christian family members regarding abortion and gay rights). Again, my suggestion was not received favorably (except for a couple of Christians who agreed with me). This time I was dubbed a concern troll for wanting to change their minds rather than demonize them.

  228. Mithras
    Mithras March 1, 2007 at 12:35 pm |

    “[S]uperficiality plays directly into the hands of the people who need us to pay attention to anything other than massive corruption and incompetence.”

    Superficiality has nothing to do with it. It’s ideology. The people who agree with Ab Hugh don’t care what he looks like. They didn’t care when Rush Limbaugh was massively overweight. They attack liberals on appearance when they can because it resonates with people instinctively. If that didn’t work, they’d use something else. Humans could be completely enlightened on appearance and still harbor the same prejudices and stupid beliefs that conservatives have.

  229. Karl Rove II
    Karl Rove II March 1, 2007 at 12:39 pm |

    Someone needs a hug, or some new meds…probably both.

  230. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 12:40 pm |

    They attacked him for being fat. They did not call him a coward or a chickenhawk or a warmonger or a torture-lover. They called him a lardass. See the difference?

    Piny, is that true?

    Did you really read the posts, or just skim them?

  231. soullite
    soullite March 1, 2007 at 12:44 pm |

    Piny, I never see them making fun of fat NON-Neoconservatives. If they attacked people just for being fat, they wouldn’t be discriminating on the basis of politics. You’re basicaly reading the mind of the “Sadly, No” staff without even explainging WHY you think you can determine their motives. Ironically, you tell me I can’t determine amp’s motives despite the fact that I have explained the logical chain leading to that conclussion. It’s like a scientist explaining evolution, and some creationist says “It’s not true because I say so and god is with me.”. You deserve about the same level of consideration.

    And no, amp doesn’t have to come right out and say” Torture is okay, fat jokes are evil” for you to get that from what he did say. You don’t seem to understand the concept of connotation. The idea that the words you choose and the way you apply them carriy a meaning over and above what the outright dennotative meaning of a statement is. In that, you have a problem with the the structure of our language. I don’t need marty peretz to say “I hate arab dogs” to know that’s how he feels. He makes it clear in every post he writes on the subject without saying it even once. He has said that fat jokes get you banned from her blogroll. He allows torture advocates on her blogroll. It follows logically, and it that fat jokes are more offensive to him than torture advocacy. Probably because he knows someone might make a fat joke about him, but he’s unlikely to be tortured. You see, that last bit was supposition. The rest of it is analysis.

  232. soullite
    soullite March 1, 2007 at 12:46 pm |

    Hmm, an improper use of He above, only the sentence directly applying to Marty Peretz is describing him as the “he”. The rest of that paragraph refers to Ampersand.

  233. soullite
    soullite March 1, 2007 at 12:50 pm |

    And yes, I fully believe this is related. It goes to Amp’s credibility on the matter of morality and justice. I believe he is being selfish because he only cares about issues that immediately affect him. He has no right to judge the morality of others if this is true. As such, the related issue is one of hypocrisy. He’s claiming a position of moral superiority without any credible claim to that position. Roy believes a message can be true even if the messager is not credible. I think it matters immensely how credible a messager is if you’re going to bother hearing his message.

  234. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 12:51 pm |

    Criticize him for being a war monger, which is something that’s certainly worthy of critique, and leave his weight out of it, which has nothing to do with any actual intelligent criticism. His message- the war mongering- has nothing to do with his weight.

    It’s an ad hominem tu quoque argument, and it’s fallacious.
    It’s also lazy, and wrong, and- quite frankly- it detracts from the real issue anyway.

    Ab Hugh: Muahaha, Eric Boehlert. Since you write about the war, I suppose you have a military background. Furthermore, you must spend a lot of time in the war zones of Iraq or Afghanistan. Muahaha.

    S,N!: [photo of ab Hugh looking like veal]

    Explain about the tu quoque again; I’m not understanding your use of the term, ‘fallacy.’

  235. Mithras
    Mithras March 1, 2007 at 12:59 pm |

    If you think that ideology is distinct from superficial focus, then you’re a really lazy reader.

    Okay, so you moved the goalposts from the superficiality of caring about appearance to the superficiality of a lack of rigorous thinking. You’re right that I am much too lazy to be that dishonest.

    [I]f you think that prejudices … do not predispose people to paying more attention to mannerisms than political positions, you’re a naive one.

    Mannerisms are not appearance, so again you shift the goalposts. In any event, you’re saying prejudice causes the superficial focus on appearance, not the other way around. I think prejudices cause people to invent ways to discriminate, whether through appearance or otherwise. Remember when the Irish weren’t white?

    What would they use?

    Off the top of my head, how about accusations of immorality, weakness, and disloyalty? You know, the same stuff they already use that has nothing to do intrinsically with appearance.

  236. JackGoff
    JackGoff March 1, 2007 at 1:01 pm |

    Goff’s Law: The longer a thread at any feminist website continues, the probability that someone mentions the Duke rape case approaches one.

  237. Lawnguylander
    Lawnguylander March 1, 2007 at 1:03 pm |

    ab Hugh wasn’t attacked because he’s a member of NAAFA. He was being attacked because he’s overweight

    I think that they hate him because he’s a wingnut

    (sigh)

    Do you see the difference between these quotes? Maybe you were just imprecise with your language in the first quote but it was pretty clear to me based on the S,N venue and the links to Daffydd’s posts that his chickenhawk warmongering was the issue that earned him their scorn even if it was left unsaid. Did you really not understand that?

  238. Lawnguylander
    Lawnguylander March 1, 2007 at 1:08 pm |

    ab Hugh wasn’t attacked because he’s a member of NAAFA. He was being attacked because he’s overweight

    I think that they hate him because he’s a wingnut

    (sigh)

    Do you see the difference between these quotes? Maybe you were just imprecise with your language in the first quote but it was pretty clear to me based on the S,N venue and the links to Daffydd’s posts that his chickenhawk warmongering was the issue that earned him their scorn even if it was left unsaid. Did you really not understand that?

  239. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 1, 2007 at 1:09 pm |

    Since the entire population of Left Blogistan seems to be here — hi people! — I might as contribute to this endless, numbing thread as well.

    1.) I am fat. I am Lardacus!

    2.) I thought the sandwich was both mildly funny and mildly offensive to fat people, but I pretty much shrugged it off and went about my day.

    3.) I thought the celery was more funny and more clever than the sandwich, although dependent on the sandwich for context. The pro- and anti- fat discussion in the threads soon became tiresome. No one wanted to talk about Art Frahm.

    4.) I appreciate that people’s feelings get hurt and all, and I am totally down with not making fun of people’s irrelevant characteristics (e.g. I have a big problem with the misogynist anti-Coulter stuff), but calls for ideological purity hold no charm for me. Offensensitivity is an aspect of the progressive movement I could really do without. I guess I have, as some dude said, “other priorities.”

    5.) I feel really bad that a bunch of people I like are all yelling at each other. Bush is trying to provoke war with Iran and the issue of the day is a throwdown between Chris Clarke (among many, many, many others) and Sadly, No! ??? I mean, look, I get that until the size of a man’s pants is of no more significance than the color of his eyes, there gon’ be war — but can we move on now?

    6.) Does this mean we can’t make fun of mustaches anymore? Tom Friedman and Michael Medved are malignant idiots, but their mustaches are begging for it.

    7.) I have a mustache. I am Mustachicus!

    (repeat as needed)

    crossposted at S,N!

  240. Raging Moderate
    Raging Moderate March 1, 2007 at 1:21 pm |

    This is not about strong language.

    Agreed. It is about consistency.

    In this case, many are saying “don’t make fat jokes because it will alienate fat people who could be sympathetic to our cause”.

    In the “should heteros not get married until gays can” thread, many said that we shouldn’t castigate those heteros who choose to get married because it will alienate them and make them less sympathetic to our cause.

    In the Duke case, I said we shouldn’t call all those who think the accused are innocent racists, misogynists, or rape apologists because it would alienate many people and make them less sympathetic to our cause. I was called a rape apologist.

    In the “abortion opponents are woman-haters” thread, I said we shouldn’t call them all woman-haters because it will alienate them and make them even less sympathetic to our cause. Again, that suggestion didn’t go over well.

    Why the inconsistency? Why is alienating one group of people (the overweight) less acceptable than alienating another group (those who disbelieve the Duke accuser)?

  241. Lesley
    Lesley March 1, 2007 at 1:22 pm |

    America is phat! There, all better now?

    Jesus murphy, this thread and the other one at SadlyNo reminds me of the ideological indoctrination sessions of the left in the 1970s, from which some of us barely escaped with our lives. Seriously, I’d rather live with the trailer park boys than have to live near the rightwingnutbars or some of you PC lefties who think SadlyNo should cease and desist with the subway sams on photos of genocide-loving mutants.

  242. Lesley
    Lesley March 1, 2007 at 1:35 pm |

    I would very much like to point out that the Lesley who posted above is not me, the regular commenter here at Feministe. To date we mostly haven’t commented on the same blogs, except once at TBogg where I don’t normally comment anyway. Therefore, I haven’t yet added a distinguishing mark to my handle. Should this situation change, I will do so. For the moment, if there’s a URL linked to the handle, it’s me. If not, it’s the other Lesley.

  243. ice weasel
    ice weasel March 1, 2007 at 1:36 pm |

    All I know is it’s a goddamned good thing S,N! didn’t call Daffy a fucking retard. That would have raised a real shitstorm.

  244. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 1:37 pm |

    Pliny says:

    They attacked him for being fat. They did not call him a coward or a chickenhawk or a warmonger or a torture-lover. They called him a lardass. See the difference?

    Sadly, No!: replies:

    Piny, is that true?

    Did you really read the posts, or just skim them?

    Pliny replies:

    Yes, you complained about his politics; I didn’t deny that.

    Sadly, No! stands baffled.

  245. Lawnguylander
    Lawnguylander March 1, 2007 at 1:37 pm |

    You’re right. I should have been more careful and read through the original quote that you were commenting on so I understood your context. But the comment you were responding to was just too stupid to read the first time around as are many of the comments that have been left at S,N on the issue of weight. Still I don’t see how a misunderstanding of your point makes me a reactionary asshole. A dipshit maybe, but not a reactionary asshole.

  246. Ledasmom
    Ledasmom March 1, 2007 at 1:43 pm |

    Goff’s Law: The longer a thread at any feminist website continues, the probability that someone mentions the Duke rape case approaches one

    If you don’t mind a slight rewrite: As the length of a thread at any feminist blog approaches infinity, the probability of the Duke rape case being mentioned approaches one.
    Or one could rewrite the second part to, “the greater the probability that someone will mention the Duke rape case”.

  247. JackGoff
    JackGoff March 1, 2007 at 1:46 pm |

    Call it the Ledasmom-Goff Law. :)

  248. Mithras
    Mithras March 1, 2007 at 1:49 pm |

    Superficiality is a lack of rigorous thinking.

    Oh my god, you have so moved the goalposts. Your post started out this stupid thread (which I’ve read all of, thanks very little) saying that a visual joke about some warmonger’s weight making him unfit for military service was insensitive to all fat people (along with the supremely idiotic implication that S,N! was more troubled by Dick Cheney’s weight than his politics.) Then it metastisized into where you are now, saying that “the politics of appearance” elected Bush and that criticizing someone’s appearance “supports” (causes?) prejudiced ideologies. Along the way you try some sleight of hand by equating appearance with mannerisms and a focus on looks with a lack of intellectual rigor. You’re just jumping from one leaky boat into another.

  249. Tempest In A Teacup
    Tempest In A Teacup March 1, 2007 at 1:53 pm |

    “Several thoughts:
    1. They must be new here–people e-curse all the time at Feministe!….Or oblivious (see the actual title of the post).”

    Not new, as I pointed out later. Just a lurker using a different name from the one I was known as at Atrios. And indeed they do curse here, as well I know; You can hardly miss it from the article previous. I thought I’d be a little subtler and use the above as a deliberate reference to the right wing generated controversy over the Edwards blogger “Scandal”, and the use of that oh so shocking word that we all know Ladies should never say, “Fuck”. And we all defended them even though they did, didn’t we? Because we know that although the scattergun attacks weren’t precisely accurate, their hearts (and minds) were in the right place on the important issues.

    But when it comes to a comment from SN!, such as a misfiring joke about a certain issue of body shape, that we don’t appreciate… Well, here we all are, suddenly unable to understand context because that one hit us personally. Yes, collateral damage is bad… but look how much worse it’s all becoming as more and more rhetorical guns are wheeled out. And for what?

    “3. The part after the “fuckstream” doesn’t really make any sense. Some grammar would be a good first step, methinks.”

    I’d be really interested to know what you think the more correct grammar is, and how that paragraph could have been better formatted? Maybe it’s just a problem with your understanding of the concept it’s expressing? By the way, I’m not an American, so I don’t use American spelling or grammatical construction.

    Also, if you’ll note VERY carefully, all the “fucks” are in that particular paragraph, and are thus part of what is an illustrative point, within an article which itself is called “Go Fuck Yourself” based playfully upon that same point itself in fact. So whilst I may indeed use lots of foul language in real life, or I may not, your second point about the Pseudo-Rebel isn’t applicable on the basis of my two prior posts alone, because I haven’t used it except to make a point, see?

    “5. None of the Sadly-No! defenders have acknowledged piny’s (brilliant) insight that all of this reproduces the same sort of politics of physical appearance that carried Bush in 2000 and ‘04. Of course, a strawman that equivocates fat jokes and genocide is far more attractive.”

    And no one, bar for the lady whom I quoted, and who had the decency to provide an apology (even though none was required as I hoped to make clear, but it is appreciated that you can give one) has noticed either that everyone here is doing exactly the same thing. I simply pointed out that the same scattergun approach was being applied, often with the same reliance upon either physical or character assaults. And this is demeaning us all. And again, why? Does anyone here actually think SN! deliberately meant to offend feminists? They just screwed up a joke when someone who wasnt the intended audience heard it… And we forgave Kerry for doing exactly that, why not SN? And yes, it’s hard for SN to just outright say “Look, I’m sorry, I didn’t think about the wider consequences” because that would challenge their comfortable sense of carefree self admitted assholism. But neither side of what is a frankly unimportant debate is prepared to step back… and as a consequence, you are both feeding the exact Republican politics of personal destruction that you claim to abhore. Which was probably what Amper was hoping for when went to SN! to raise the issue of civility in the first place. How little we seem to learn when we listen only to our own feelings…

  250. Lesley2
    Lesley2 March 1, 2007 at 1:56 pm |

    Look: it is okay to alienate people. …It is stupid and wrong to alienate people for no good reason by attacking something that isn’t bad.

    If putting celery on a wingnut is bad, the “just a mint” sketch by Monty Python deserves some heavy duty punishment. It’s a good thing Python’s dead because they were repeatedly wrong and stupid.

  251. Felwith
    Felwith March 1, 2007 at 1:59 pm |

    Say you have a wingnut blogger, who you know is going to write a post supporting torture sometime within the next 24 hours, and the only way to stop him is to make fun of his weight. Would you?

  252. Mithras
    Mithras March 1, 2007 at 2:01 pm |

    Better get a bucket, I’m gonna throw up.

  253. Lesley
    Lesley March 1, 2007 at 2:02 pm |

    Ab Hugh: Muahaha, Eric Boehlert. Since you write about the war, I suppose you have a military background. Furthermore, you must spend a lot of time in the war zones of Iraq or Afghanistan. Muahaha.

    S,N!: [photo of ab Hugh looking like veal]

    Let’s pretend that a completely different warmonger said that. Call him Fred. Fred looks like George Clooney, but 15 years younger. Now, sure, you could take a photo of Fred and photoshop a 6′ long sub into it. But it wouldn’t be funny, because it wouldn’t play to people’s prejudices. The only way the joke works is if the object of the joke provokes people’s prejudices. So either you think those prejudices are justified or non-noteworthy, or you don’t care about playing to people’s prejudices. We know the latter isn’t true, because you’ve already said (rightly) you wouldn’t play to racial prejudice. You’d find some other way to point out Fred’s hypocrisy, one that you could probably just as easily apply to ab Hugh.

    Therefore, since you either think that prejudice against fat people is either justified or non-noteworthy, I submit you need to give up here. You’re not convincing anyone who didn’t already agree with you. As there are undoubtedly more important things going on in the world today, why aren’t you focusing on those?

    BTW, to be quite clear, torture is worse than fat-bashing. XOXO!

  254. Lesley
    Lesley March 1, 2007 at 2:04 pm |

    Pliny says:

    The elder or the younger?

    Look at his handle again. No L.

  255. anon
    anon March 1, 2007 at 2:12 pm |

    Why are we laughing at wingnuts when we should be making fun of the fat, impotent, angry, white misogynistic losers that we divorced?

    And we got all the FRA’s money too!!!!

    Bwa ha ha!

  256. Rhiannon
    Rhiannon March 1, 2007 at 2:12 pm |

    Hmph.. the only Monty Python I liked at all was MP & The Holy Grail. The rest were just obnoxious.

  257. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 2:21 pm |

    And now you’re pretending that I’ve never said umpteen times in the original post and in comments that, yes, he’s a reactionary asshole and yes, you obviously have some problems with that.

    And yet, you maintain that we attacked him because of his weight.

    At long last, which is it? You’ve gotta choose one. You can’t keep switching from one to the other.

  258. Roy
    Roy March 1, 2007 at 2:21 pm |

    Explain about the tu quoque again; I’m not understanding your use of the term, ‘fallacy.’

    My pleasure.
    Tu Quoque.
    You say (paraphrasing): “He’s a war-monger who is criticizing people who write about the war but haven’t been there.”
    Then you say (direct quote): He has no right to say such a thing.
    and: this person is a fool without principles who does not respect others.
    As evidence, you point out: “ab Hugh himself would never be admitted to boot camp.

    You’re presenting arguments, here. You’ve presented quite a few of them throughout this thread.

    Ultimately, from what I can tell, you’re critical of his war-mongering. You don’t like the guy, and you don’t like his views. You made a fat joke, by your own claims, as a means of discrediting his views.
    Otherwise “the joke” you reference in 28 doesn’t make a lot of sense, does it?

    That’s fallacious reasoning.
    Does endorsing a course of action that he isn’t in any condition to take himself make him a hypocrite?
    Sure.
    It doesn’t make him wrong, though.
    You can be a hypocrite and still be right. Calling him fat and making fun of his weight doesn’t prove your point that he’s wrong- it makes the point that you’re okay with picking on people’s weight.
    His weight has nothing to do with how right or wrong his opinions are.

    Roy believes a message can be true even if the messager is not credible. I think it matters immensely how credible a messager is if you’re going to bother hearing his message.

    You’re right. I do.
    Because it’s true.
    I’m sorry. I don’t mean to let pesky things like logic get in the way of a perfectly fun argument.

  259. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 2:28 pm |

    What? I didn’t imply that Sadly, No! cared more about ab Hugh’s weight than his politics. It was a wee bit of sarcastic hyperbole created to show how stupid it was to…

    Huh? My God, I just quoted you saying that. And now you’re doing the ‘I never said that’ opposite-thing again!

    Okay, fine: I’ll do that too. We never made any reference to ab Hugh’s weight. See, I’m saying that, and then you can prove that we did, and I’ll just be like, “I never said that we didn’t mention ab Hugh’s weight.”

    Jesus, it’s 2:30 and I’m starting to eye the liquor cabinet.

  260. Mithras
    Mithras March 1, 2007 at 2:29 pm |

    It’d be an improvement on your last contribution.

    Since those who claim to be the champions of reasoned discourse are falling back on mere insult, now, let’s just summarize:

    1. Making fun of someone merely for being fat is stupid.
    2. A warmonger who refuses to enlist and and is in no danger of being drafted is a hypocrite.
    3. A warmonger who is so fat he’d never pass the Army physical is funny.
    4. People who conflate 1 and 3 are boring.

    I have a job to return to, piny, but I’ll stick around long enough so you can get one more juvenile insult in. You’re welcome.

  261. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 2:33 pm |

    I’m sorry. I don’t mean to let pesky things like logic get in the way of a perfectly fun argument.

    No, you’re missing it too. I’ll simplify.

    Ab Hugh: People who don’t serve in the military and blog from war zones are cowards.

    S,N!: [posts picture of ab Hugh looking like a baffled meatloaf]

    Now explain again how this is tu quoque. Ab Hugh’s argument is tu quoque, is it not?

    So we’re talking tu quoquoquoque at minimum, aren’t we?

    God, that bottle of Meyer’s Rum is starting to look good.

  262. Mithras
    Mithras March 1, 2007 at 2:33 pm |

    Rhiannon-
    [T]he only Monty Python I liked at all was MP & The Holy Grail. The rest were just obnoxious.

    They were all obnoxious. If you were English and at all attached to the founding myth of your nation, you’d think that of Holy Grail, too.

    They were all funny, though. Especially Mr. Creosote walking around with his gut resting on a tea trolley. Hee!

  263. Mithras
    Mithras March 1, 2007 at 2:36 pm |

    S,N!-
    Meyers? I’ve got some Havana Club anejo. Want a clean glass?

  264. Kevin K.
    Kevin K. March 1, 2007 at 2:39 pm |

    I got here late and I’m too tired/bored to read this whole thread, but did anyone make a “roll Dafyydd ab Hugh in flour” joke yet? Because that would make me really, really angry and, lord knows, there’s nothing else to be getting really, really angry about right now.

  265. anon
    anon March 1, 2007 at 2:41 pm |

    Offtopic: does google not crawl feministe.us?

    searching for piny site:feministe.us (as an example) yields only one result.

    I have a withering retort complemented by an unimpeachable example, but Google won’t help me find that unimpeachable example, and I’m afraid I am going to have to make it up again.

  266. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 2:41 pm |

    Meyers? I’ve got some Havana Club anejo. Want a clean glass?

    I love you, Mithras.

    No, the dirty glass. I want the dirty glass.

  267. Lesley
    Lesley March 1, 2007 at 2:43 pm |

    Now explain again how this is tu quoque. Ab Hugh’s argument is tu quoque, is it not?

    If ab Hugh’s argument is that people who don’t serve in the military are cowards, that’s just ad hominem. For it to be tu quoque, it would have to be along the lines of “the actions of people who don’t serve in the military are inconsistent with their stated position.” Since anti-war types are against military action, it’s not a tu quoque to say that they’re not in the military. Nothing inconsistent about it.

    Your argument is a tu quoque because you’re saying that his actions are inconsistent with his stated position. While this is true, that in and of itself wouldn’t make his position false. If a murderer says that murder is wrong, he’s a hypocrite, but he’s still right. Ab Hugh’s argument falls down on other criteria.

  268. Mithras
    Mithras March 1, 2007 at 2:45 pm |

    I love you, Mithras.

    You just love me for my perfect 46 inch waist.

    I want the dirty glass.

    I knew you liked it that way.

  269. Roy
    Roy March 1, 2007 at 2:46 pm |

    Ab Hugh’s argument is tu quoque, is it not?

    So we’re talking tu quoquoquoque at minimum, aren’t we?

    Are you really going to argue “Well, he did it first!” as a defense for saying something that people found insenstive?

    Gods.

    You seem to think that my being critical of your actions somehow excuse his. I’ve no love for war-mongering idiots. Yes, he’s also guilty of logical fallacy. That’s hardly a surprise- I’ve found that a lot of people like him are.

    What does that have to do with your actions?

  270. Mithras
    Mithras March 1, 2007 at 2:46 pm |

    Like when you said mine were about to make you puke?

    I was talking to Lesley2. It’s a line from Monty Python’s Meaning of Life.

  271. Mithras
    Mithras March 1, 2007 at 2:50 pm |

    Your argument is a tu quoque because you’re saying that his actions are inconsistent with his stated position.

    This is getting to be like Tacitus in the bad old days. Isn’t tu quoque the fallacious argument that what I am doing is okay because you do it too? But that’s not what S,N! said about Ab Hugh.

  272. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 2:57 pm |

    Let’s pretend that a completely different warmonger said that. Call him Fred. Fred looks like George Clooney, but 15 years younger. Now, sure, you could take a photo of Fred and photoshop a 6′ long sub into it. But it wouldn’t be funny, because it wouldn’t play to people’s prejudices.

    That’s true; it would not be funny.

    But Photoshopping Fred into the sandwich held by ab Hugh…

    See, you think this is easy, but it’s not.

    The only way the joke works is if the object of the joke provokes people’s prejudices. So either you think those prejudices are justified or non-noteworthy, or you don’t care about playing to people’s prejudices. We know the latter isn’t true, because you’ve already said (rightly) you wouldn’t play to racial prejudice. You’d find some other way to point out Fred’s hypocrisy, one that you could probably just as easily apply to ab Hugh.

    Like ‘Ha ha, look at the, er, fascist warmongering reactionary?’

    I’ll be serious here again. Good large people aren’t subject to ridicule because there’s nothing wrong with their size.

    With bad fat people, their size — like any other attribute — is an expression of the specific evils they embody, the Deadly Sins, as it were. It ought to be unnecessary to name them

    I’m sorry if that seems glib, because it isn’t. That’s what we believe. Other people feel differently.

  273. Lesley
    Lesley March 1, 2007 at 2:58 pm |

    Isn’t tu quoque the fallacious argument that what I am doing is okay because you do it too?

    No, that’s not tu quoque. I suppose what you’re talking about is Two Wrongs Make A Right. Tu quoque is claiming that someone’s position is inconsistent with either their actions or a previously stated belief.

  274. Mithras
    Mithras March 1, 2007 at 3:01 pm |

    Lesley-
    Thanks, I was confused about that.

  275. Lesley
    Lesley March 1, 2007 at 3:06 pm |

    Good large people aren’t subject to ridicule because there’s nothing wrong with their size.

    Wow, you actually came right out and said that? Basically, you just said that if someone is fat but you like them, then they’re “one of the good ones.” You’ve just decided when appearance is mockworthy, and when it’s not based on your preferences. What were you saying earlier upthread about morality being easy when it’s someone you like? Dude, why not just put fat people up on the On Notice board? “Disagree with some arbitrary line I set, fat people, and I’ll mock your appearance! Stay on my good side, if you don’t want me to make fun of your size!”

    I’m sorry if that seems glib, because it isn’t. That’s what we believe. Other people feel differently.

    Obviously, which is why I also suggested you ought to give up here.

  276. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 3:08 pm |

    Tu quoque is claiming that someone’s position is inconsistent with either their actions or a previously stated belief.

    Such as, for instance, calling people cowards who have no military experience, while looking like a Level 12 gefilte fish elemental.

    I mean.

  277. Lesley
    Lesley March 1, 2007 at 3:11 pm |

    Thanks, I was confused about that.

    You’re welcome.

  278. Lesley
    Lesley March 1, 2007 at 3:17 pm |

    Such as, for instance, calling people cowards who have no military experience, while looking like a Level 12 gefilte fish elemental.

    Thank you for just reiterating why your post was a tu quoque. You’ve just explained, once again, why YOU think he’s a hypocrite. He isn’t saying that his appearance invalidates his claim that anti-war advocates are cowards. You’re saying that. You. Him. Not the same.

    He is committing a logical fallacy too. Just a different one.

  279. Lesley
    Lesley March 1, 2007 at 3:17 pm |

    Damn my lack of HTML skills.

  280. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 3:19 pm |

    Dude, why not just put fat people up on the On Notice board? “Disagree with some arbitrary line I set, fat people, and I’ll mock your appearance! Stay on my good side, if you don’t want me to make fun of your size!”

    Oh, I did that already, and so did Mencken. The line is starkly drawn at being evil, as defined by espousal of genocide, mass murder, torture, and other extremely freaking glaring things which you have somehow decided not to integrate into your analysis.

    Do I get to decide who meets that standard, or must I submit applications to the Standing Committee of People Who Judge What’s Offensive to People? Ho-ho. I know how I stand on that issue as well.

  281. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 3:24 pm |

    Thank you for just reiterating why your post was a tu quoque. You’ve just explained, once again, why YOU think he’s a hypocrite. He isn’t saying that his appearance invalidates his claim that…

    For the love of God.

    I’ll rephrase.

    Calling people cowards who have no military experience, while looking like a Level 12 gefilte fish elemental, means that according to his own reasoning, he is a coward.

    Here, I’ll try another one.

    I claim that people with blue eyes always lie. Since I have blue eyes, according to my own argument, I would be lying.

  282. Zack Woodson
    Zack Woodson March 1, 2007 at 3:39 pm |

    I claim that people with blue eyes always lie. Since I have blue eyes, according to my own argument, I would be lying.

    But…that would mean…you’re telling the truth…?

    This argument just got a whole lot deeper.

  283. Frederick
    Frederick March 1, 2007 at 3:39 pm |

    This is the sorryest thread I have ever read. No wonder the Right can continue the “Left has no backbone” meme. Toughen up people. Whining politicaly correct crap.

  284. Lesley
    Lesley March 1, 2007 at 3:43 pm |

    Dude, no, I understood you the first time. His argument is still not tu quoque. You can rephrase it as many times as you’d like. It still wouldn’t be a tu quoque unless you completely change the meaning.

    Again. A tu quoque is claiming that someone else’s argument is false because it is inconsistent with something they have said or done.

    His argument: People without military experience are cowards.

    For that to be a tu quoque, he would have to be claiming that people without military experience believe that having military experience is a requirement for bravery. That is not his argument, though. At least not as you’ve presented it. If it were, yes, he’d be committing a tu quoque fallacy as well. But it’s not his own hypocrisy that makes his argument tu quoque or not.

    His argument is straight ad hominem. He’s saying he doesn’t have to pay attention to anti-war advocates because they’re cowards. He’s invalidating the argument based on a perceived character flaw (other than hypocrisy). That is also a logical fallacy. It’s just not the same logical fallacy as tu quoque.

    You’re saying his argument is invalid because he’s a hypocrite. I.e., his argument is invalid because it is inconsistent with his actions (his own lack of military experience). While I agree that he’s a hypocrite, that doesn’t make his argument false. Again. Murderer claiming murder is wrong. Hypocritical, but right. His argument is false for other reasons.

    Seriously, though, this is the last time I’m going to get into this. It’s actually fairly unimportant in the scheme of things. I’m not even sure why it’s such a big deal to you if he were also committing a tu quoque fallacy, unless you want to delve into another logical fallacy – Two Wrongs Make a Right. If you still think he’s making a tu quoque argument, I hope you have a fine day for it.

  285. JackGoff
    JackGoff March 1, 2007 at 3:45 pm |

    Calling people cowards who have no military experience, while looking like a Level 12 gefilte fish elemental, means that according to his own reasoning, he is a coward.

    And thus worthy of derision for that argument. For being overweight? No. For arguing that people with no military experience are cowards? Yes.

    Then again, you’ve got the adoring public to think about, and what’s a few hurt feelings when the laughs are so cheap and easy, amiright?

  286. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 3:45 pm |

    So, the sandwich.

    What logical fallacy is it to add a sandwich to a picture where there was no sandwich before?

  287. Lawnguylander
    Lawnguylander March 1, 2007 at 3:46 pm |

    Wow, this is more thought provoking but arguing with righties is so much more fun. Easier too.

    I’m not trying to tell anyone not to be offended by the picture of Daffyd with a sandwich. If you are, you are and there is at least one idiot commenter at S,N who has confirmed the fears articulated by many of the posters here by running the wrong way with the ball and and bashing heavy people. But that poster is getting ridiculed effectively. What I disagree with is the assertion that posting or laughing at that picture is necessarily proof of disdain for heavy people. I don’t just see one hateful war monger in that picture but a stand in for a violent society that consumes a huge amount of the world’s resources and not just its dwindling supply of delicious six foot heros. We’re almost all guilty. Is it impossible to believe that someone could see that picture, laugh but still not hate fat people?

  288. Lesley
    Lesley March 1, 2007 at 3:48 pm |

    OK, I lied. If his actual argument is that anti-war advocates are hypocrites because they believe that pro-war advocates have to have military experience to back up their position, then he’s committing tu quoque too. That’s not what was presented, but I suppose it’s possible that’s his real point.

    OK. Good day, sir!

  289. Lesley
    Lesley March 1, 2007 at 3:50 pm |

    Was your argument only that he wasn’t eating a sandwich? I didn’t get that from the original post, but if that was the intent, sure, it wasn’t a logical fallacy. Although not particularly relevant to his position on anti-war advocates.

    What kind of sandwich do I want for dinner?

  290. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 3:55 pm |

    And thus worthy of derision for that argument. For being overweight? No. For arguing that people with no military experience are cowards? Yes.

    And for making that argument while looking like a pile of spite-flavored aspic. Otherwise, with you writing the jokes, you’d get this:

    “Dafydd ab Hugh argues that bloggers without military experience are cowards. THAT’S OFFENSIVE!”

    Then again, you’ve got the adoring public to think about, and what’s a few hurt feelings when the laughs are so cheap and easy, amiright?

    I keep telling you guys. Maybe it looks easy.

  291. Lesley2
    Lesley2 March 1, 2007 at 4:00 pm |

    Would pliny the offendee and sadlyno please shake hands and bring this insanely repetitive thread to an amicable close already?

    Really, you love each other, right? You’re both on the same side…

    where it counts. (ooops, I might have blown it right there.)

  292. JackGoff
    JackGoff March 1, 2007 at 4:00 pm |

    Yeah, because mocking people’s looks is so original and edgy. I forgot that that isn’t grade school-level humor. My mistake.

  293. Thomas
    Thomas March 1, 2007 at 4:07 pm |

    Again, I am making a distinction between being simply overweight, which, you are right, is difficult for most people to overcome, and being medically obese, which is a lifestyle choice.

    IVV, you’ve just moved the goalpost to make a slightly different claim that is still unsupported by empirical evidence. Show me evidence that most medically obese people can become long-term non-medically obese people. If not, then you’re still talking about a characteristic that people cannot reliably change, which means it isn’t a lifestyle choice.

    Legal protection from discrimination is a transparent red herring. We’re talking about supporting or opposing discrimination in the context of progressive bloggers and commenters ridiculing fat people. Are you okay with ridiculing people for their body composition even if they can’t change it?

  294. Lesley2
    Lesley2 March 1, 2007 at 4:07 pm |

    sheesh, not one of the SN advocates have suggested it isn’t grade school level humour.

  295. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 4:08 pm |

    Yeah, because mocking people’s looks is so original and edgy. I forgot that that isn’t grade school-level humor. My mistake.

    Ok, here’s an experiment.

    How would you approach this?

    http://sadlyno.com/archives/4473.html

  296. JackGoff
    JackGoff March 1, 2007 at 4:09 pm |

    So, Gavin, is grade school level humor hard for you to come up with? If so, I take back everything and proffer my pity.

  297. JackGoff
    JackGoff March 1, 2007 at 4:16 pm |

    Well, seeing as how I laughed at the copied text and not the graphics, I’m not sure. The fat guy pic served no purpose, the other pics, eh, somewhat serve to highlight that these are people living in a fantasy world, but the text shows that just fine.

    But I guess my humor is less about mockery of people than about mockery of ideas. I’m not going to write copy for you, but then again, I’m also not going to cheer what you write.

  298. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 4:16 pm |

    So, Gavin, is grade school level humor hard for you to come up with? If so, I take back everything and proffer my pity.

    I wish at this moment to point out that a ‘Jack Goff’ is accusing me of insufficient mastery of grade-school humor.

  299. Ampersand
    Ampersand March 1, 2007 at 4:16 pm |

    Here’s a post that I wrote on Sadly, No!:

    Regarding my linkage to Volokh and whatsisname, what can I say? You got me. The truth is, I don’t use my blogroll as a measure of any merit besides “this is interesting enough to me that I want to read it occasionally.” Furthermore, I hate it when people use blogrolling as a reward for virtue, or demand delinkings as a method of enforcing moral compliance or whatever.

    So yeah, the way I put my criticism was stupid. I was writing fast and trying to be a little tongue-in-cheek, but instead I just made myself into a hypocrite on the whole blogrolling issue. Point well taken.

    That said, I still think that the Sadly No! post I linked to was stupid, and that using lame anti-fat mockery to make fun of right-wingers is both needlessly hurtful and missing the point.

    I sincerely apologize to Piny, Zuzu, Chris and everyone else who’s been fighting the good fight here; I wince to see how my screw up has made your task here more difficult. I should have just linked to the “Sadly, No!” post with the line “Remember, fat bigotry is kewl when you don’t like the fat person you’re bashing” or something like that.

    Unfortunately, I didn’t; as a result, the “Amp thinks fat-bashing is worse than torture advocacy!” red herring is available for the Sadly, No! folks to hide behind. Endlessly. Even though I already apologized for giving that impression, and even though I’ve explained that’s not at all what I meant.

    Piny, the last three paragraphs of your post make a great point. (I mean, I liked your entire post, but the ending bit stood out for me.)

    And Soullite, you’ve sure got me pegged. In my entire life, I’ve never once gotten pissed off for any cause except that of direct offenses against fat, white, asexual, Jewish men. It’s very hard to find posts on my blog on any other subject, in fact.

  300. Lesley2
    Lesley2 March 1, 2007 at 4:18 pm |

    By this point it should be obvious that nothing SN says will make any difference to the people who’ve made up their minds that SN has behaved unconscionably.

    JackGoff – there’s plenty of brilliance, wit, originality and edginess in SN. You might want to head on over and read a few day’s posts.

  301. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 1, 2007 at 4:18 pm |

    As a fat person, may I ask:

    When exactly did fat people become a band of brethren? Am I supposed to feel solidarity with someone because we are both fat? I’m not going to make fun of a fellow fattie on the basis of fatness, but am I supposed to take umbrage when someone calls Rush a “pork tuba”?

    Am I supposed to feel like “collateral damage” — no offense to Chris Clarke, seriously — because I like to eat and I don’t like to exercise, and I apparently have this in common with noted dipshit Daffyd ab Hugh?

    Because, maybe I’m just unenlightened, but when I look at that Photoshopped picture I am not thinking, “despite our differences, wingnut fucktard, we are as brothers under our 48-inch Dockers.” I am thinking, “mmm…sandwich.”

  302. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 1, 2007 at 4:30 pm |

    Also, when a person of Daffy’s sendentary physique poses as a mighty DOOM-novelizin’ keyboard jingo and calls others cowards for for not being in the real actual Army, it would take a better man than I not to at least think, “yeah, right, Sir Loin of Pork.” The sandwich was the childish sight-gag version of that eye-rolling reaction. I decline to take insult at this. My bad.

  303. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 1, 2007 at 4:31 pm |

    Got an extra “n” and an extra “for” in there. Damn these pudgy fingers!

  304. Ampersand
    Ampersand March 1, 2007 at 4:34 pm |

    CS, you feel what you feel. If you don’t feel offended, that’s fine.

    However, that you don’t feel offended doesn’t in any disprove my or anyone else’s objections to fat-bashing humor.

  305. JackGoff
    JackGoff March 1, 2007 at 4:36 pm |

    I wish at this moment to point out that a ‘Jack Goff’ is accusing me of insufficient mastery of grade-school humor.

    You yourself said it wasn’t easy. I’m merely going off what you’ve said.

    And as I recall, I did say that I didn’t come up with my name.

    By this point it should be obvious that nothing SN says will make any difference to the people who’ve made up their minds that SN has behaved unconscionably.

    True, especially when all SN has done is foment further mockery against those they were originally called out for mocking. I’d say it would be best to end here.

    And I have read SN numerous times in the past, which is one reason why this has sort of shocked me. Especially the further obfuscation.

    Though I can’t really say I’m all that surprised now, thinking back on it all…

  306. Lesley
    Lesley March 1, 2007 at 4:40 pm |

    Oh, I did that already, and so did Mencken. The line is starkly drawn at being evil, as defined by espousal of genocide, mass murder, torture, and other extremely freaking glaring things which you have somehow decided not to integrate into your analysis.

    Whatever. I know where you draw the line. The point is, it’s still a line that’s completely irrelevant to physical appearance. You know, that freaking glaring thing you have decided not to integrate into your analysis.

    Do I get to decide who meets that standard, or must I submit applications to the Standing Committee of People Who Judge What’s Offensive to People? Ho-ho. I know how I stand on that issue as well.

    Have you been stopped from deciding what meets your standard? If so, it’s been remarkably unsuccessful.

    “What’ll we do tonight, Brain? Same thing we do every night. Plot to take over the world!”

    One day. One day I shall succeed! Mwahahahaha!

  307. HTML Mencken
    HTML Mencken March 1, 2007 at 4:46 pm |

    I should have just linked to the “Sadly, No!” post with the line “Remember, fat bigotry is kewl when you don’t like the fat person you’re bashing” or something like that.

    Yes, you should have, because while I disagree with your sentiment between inverted commas (and really, it’s not just a person ‘I don’t like’, it’s a batshit-insane wingnut), I wouldn’t have posted about it otherwise, and then piny couldn’t have dishonestly used my post as he has here.

    *You* fucked-up. But at least you acknowledge it. Piny’s still trying to excuse it (the ‘visceral’ vs ‘intellectual’ thing, ‘complacency’ really, how funny is that).

    You all think a fat joke is a significant moral crime ‘cut from the same cloth’ as racism, sexism, etc. I don’t. At all. But I can agree to disagree about that. It was *your* mistake, which you admit, of presenting the case that a fat joke is a moral crime beyond all others that made me post at all. If you think I’m a bigot for making a fat joke, have at it. I don’t care. But when you put the argument in such a way as you did, that it is worse than or equal to ‘godawful x’, then I reach for the keyboard and for another fat joke (thus making two, in total, evar in the history of S,N! — plainly demonstrative of our serial offensiveness and, umm, ‘perniciousness’).

  308. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 4:47 pm |

    So if ab Hugh happened to be gay, would you draw the line beyond making fag jokes if they happened to be scathing and (arguably) funny? Would “But he’s an evil cocksucker! Why are you good gays defending him?!” make sense to you then?

    I’m not equating the two kinds of humor, even–I’m just asking why that’s off-limits if this isn’t.

    It’s situational. Ok, I’m going to answer this in a technical sense, and not a moral one. The two are generally inseparable, but I can explain better technically.

    Anti-gay figures, especially of the closet persuasion, are fair game for that. Those who aren’t anti-gay are simply not interesting in terms of such treatment, because there’s no irony there, no frisson. It doesn’t make sense; they don’t even appear on the radar screen.

    Example:
    http://sadlyno.com/archives/4225.html

    This only makes sense because it’s Ken Mehlman. If it were any number of other people, it would be offensive. To me, I mean, and most likely to the other contributors — because the question would hang: Why are we making fun of [x person] for being gay?

    With Ken Mehlman, the ‘why’ comes pre-loaded.

    Does that make sense?

  309. Mandos
    Mandos March 1, 2007 at 4:48 pm |

    Hey, I didn’t actually mean that we should fragment into small, homogeneous groups and focus intently on the deep offense, etc., but that’s a good start, sure. That’s how it went last time.

    I do not, in fact, think that that’s “how it went last time.” It’s well known that certain kinds of American liberals have a tendency to imagine that cultural concerns and prejudices don’t matter to The Real Issues, and thereby alienate people who should be their allies—people who advocate for those who get the short end of the cultural and political stick.

  310. Troo Komedy
    Troo Komedy March 1, 2007 at 4:49 pm |

    I just want to point out that I’m the real victim here. Not fat people, torture-endorsing or otherwise. Me. It’s all about Me, the Holy Grail, the Troo Komedy.

    You know, the 80s and 90s were a very hard time for me. Punk died, not that I ever understood the concepts embodied by it to begin with. I thought it was all about empowering skinny white guys, you know. With British accents.

    Still, it was pretty sad when it died. It spoke to me.

    And then Teh Left, you know, Teh Left just went crazy. Insane. Patricia Ireland was elected President and she appointed all these fat dykes to the Supreme Court. Cable TV showed 24 hours of Oprah, seven motherfucking days a week.

    My testicles shrunk.

    You couldn’t say anything, of course. The fucking thought police were everywhere. You’d try to make a joke about how hard it is to find the clitoris on a ‘ho, and they’d throw you in jail without even giving you a chance to host Saturday Night Live.

    Dark days. Dark, dark days.

    But then, a ray of light appeared: The term “political correctness” came into being and the Right promptly swiped it away from the namby-pamby girlyass liberal who coined it. And they fucking ran with that shit! It was great. I mean, I don’t like right-wingers, you know, they’re bad people. But did I ride that train, that anti-PC train to freedom?

    You bet your bippy I did, sweetcheeks.

    A man’s got to be a man in order to be funny. Women, you know, they try and all, but they’re just not funny. Too hysterical. Too sensitive. Too shrill. Sure, I admit all that emotion is pretty all right when you’re in bed with them, but have you heard them the next morning? It’s all when-will-you-call-me, pick-up-that-used-condom-you-slob, does-this-dress-make-my-ass-look-fat, blah blah blah until you could just puke. And you can’t even be honest with them–you can’t tell them, “No, honey, that dress doesn’t make your ass look fat. YOUR FAT ASS makes your ass look fat. Whyncha do something about that, huh?” Do that, and they turn ugly on you. I’ve never been able to figure that out. I mean, fat ass jokes are funny, am I right?

    It’s not easy being me. Especially now that you’ve killed me with all your factionalism, all your identity politics, all your endless mountain-making out of molehills.

    Hey! That reminds me. You know what a mountain looks like? Your fat ass, baby! Ba-da-bump!

    Ah, well. I had a good run there from about 1995 ’til now. Guess I’ll go Tivo some good shows before we elect some other fat feminazi and we go right back to 24/7 Oprah programming. Christ, Oprah. You know something? She used to be fat, too. Definitely a pattern here, guys. Definitely a pattern.

    I sure miss me sometimes.

  311. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 1, 2007 at 4:50 pm |

    You can’t prove or disprove anyone’s reaction to humor. People have been trying to nail the jello shot of humor to the dorm room ceiling of objectivity since forever, and it always falls onto the funky carpet of subjective perception.

    I’m just questioning the assumption underlying the whole concept of “fat-bashing,” which is that fat people are some kind of fungible group, if that’s the word I want. Am I missing the meetings? Was there a parade? Was it catered?

    Admittedly I have never been much of a “joiner,” but this just seems absurd to me. I have never once in my life looked at, e.g., Rush Limbaugh, and thought, “a fellow fat person!” What I think is “what an asshole.”

    Just not getting the Kumbayah thing with the overweight wingnuts. Evidently I am a traitor to my height-to-weight ratio.

    (I am aware that this is a separate point from the whole formal logic to quoque thing that’s been going on. I was under the impression that a toquoque was a Canadian knit hat. I’m just nonplussed by the “as a fat person, I am offended” thing. As a fat person? Really? That’s a tribal identifier? Is it just me or is this odd?)

  312. sophonisba
    sophonisba March 1, 2007 at 4:50 pm |

    Am I supposed to feel solidarity with someone because we are both fat?

    You are comprehensively and throughly missing the point. When someone calls Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin a cunt — or even Amanda Marcotte, lest you misunderstand me — and I take offense, do you think it’s because I feel “solidarity” with her as a woman? Because we are sisters under the skin?

    I mean, is that really what you think is going on? For real? Is the only basis for being bothered by offensive things that you can think of some kind of childlike emotional “identification?” Sorry, there are actual principles here. Self-congratulatory bigotry is really-and-for-true wrong. You can feel however you want about the stupid fat-bashing; what matters is what you think. And you damn well ought to think it’s wrong, whether you’re fat or not.

  313. Mandos
    Mandos March 1, 2007 at 4:51 pm |

    You all think a fat joke is a significant moral crime ‘cut from the same cloth’ as racism, sexism, etc. I don’t. At all. But I can agree to disagree about that. It was *your* mistake, which you admit, of presenting the case that a fat joke is a moral crime beyond all others that made me post at all. If you think I’m a bigot for making a fat joke, have at it. I don’t care. But when you put the argument in such a way as you did, that it is worse than or equal to ‘godawful x’, then I reach for the keyboard and for another fat joke (thus making two, in total, evar in the history of S,N! — plainly demonstrative of our serial offensiveness and, umm, ‘perniciousness’).

    If you’re not willing to grant that argument At All, you are seriously missing the point about any progressive politics. One of the ways in which The Man keeps us down is by encouraging us to hurt each other and remain disunited.

  314. Kali
    Kali March 1, 2007 at 4:51 pm |

    You know, I kind of enjoyed this thread. I suspect a lot of people found it depressing so I wanted to say that. I mean, the S,N guys are smart, sincere(ish), well-intentioned, and defending their position just about as well as anyone could; but the more they post the more it becomes apparent that they are just blindingly obviously wrong. And if they’d just apologised and the thread hadnt gone anywhere, it wouldnt have had anywhere near as powerful an effect on me.
    If I was more sensitised to fat issues I would have found this thread depressing– if it was a misogynist joke being defended like this I’d be depressed by it. So maybe it helps, if you’re in that position of feeling depressed, to know that seeing things being argued out like this actually helps to change people’s minds and educate them, if they hadn’t thought about the issue much. At least it did with me. You’re not just shouting into a vacuum. Thank you.

  315. Leonard Pierce
    Leonard Pierce March 1, 2007 at 4:54 pm |

    Let us say. Just for the sake of argument. That you are a fat person. Let us even speculate further that you are a fat person who enjoys reading science fiction about video game heroes, and who is prone to speculation about the mating habits of Japanese cartoon characters, and who has been known to take an occasional toot of coke.

    Let us say that you, this tubby crackhead RPG/hentai enthusiast, are nonetheless morally outraged at police brutality, torture advocacy, and the sexual exploitation of minors. And one day, you come across a website of comedic intent that portrays a public figure — a public figure who, like you, is an overweight, ‘caine-sniffing, Halo-fanfic-downloading sketcher of naked Urusei Yatsura characters, but who, unlike you, has gone on record as cheering the use of torture by US soldiers against Iraqis, has taken a sex tour of Thailand, and has said “three cheers for those cops who sodomized Abner Louima with a plumber’s helper!” — eating a big sandwich.

    You laugh at this picture. Why? Is it because they are making fun of a fat man? No. You are fat, and you know the stink of mindless fat-bashing. You laugh because they are making fun of someone whose beliefs and behaviors make him reprehensible to you, and because of that, he is a figure of fun. He is a clown, an evil toad whose entire makeup, physical and mental, is repellent. Those qualities you may share with him, from his nationality and his haircut to his weight and his taste in console-game-themed high art, no longer seem to make him part of your commonality; rather, they make him a subject of mockery, because his self-made behaviors have removed him from your shared traits, have alienated your sense of shared experience.

    At this point, you have discovered a tiny functioning flywheel of the ineffable machine we call humor. You are a lucky man today. A lucky, fat man.

  316. sophonisba
    sophonisba March 1, 2007 at 4:56 pm |

    But when you put the argument in such a way as you did, that it is worse than or equal to ‘godawful x’, then I reach for the keyboard and for another fat joke (thus making two, in total, evar in the history of S,N! — plainly demonstrative of our serial offensiveness and, umm, ‘perniciousness’).

    Oh, yeah.

    “See what you made me do, bitch?’

    Classic.

  317. HTML Mencken
    HTML Mencken March 1, 2007 at 5:00 pm |

    One of the ways in which The Man keeps us down is by encouraging us to hurt each other and remain disunited.

    There’s hurt and there’s ‘hurt’. cf my comment upthread about the inability of some people to perform moral triage.

  318. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 1, 2007 at 5:00 pm |

    If Ann Coulter is not a cunt, the word has no meaning. Someone in this endless thread from hell said that the Rude Pundit’s site would make a lot of y’all spontaneously combust. Word.

    Is the only basis for being bothered by offensive things that you can think of some kind of childlike emotional “identification?” Sorry, there are actual principles here. Self-congratulatory bigotry is really-and-for-true wrong. You can feel however you want about the stupid fat-bashing; what matters is what you think. And you damn well ought to think it’s wrong, whether you’re fat or not.

    I love being self-righteously lectured on Correct Thought. It’s my favoritest part of being on the Left. I cannot get enough of it. Condescend to me some more! I’ve been bad!

  319. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 5:01 pm |

    I do not, in fact, think that that’s “how it went last time.” It’s well known that certain kinds of American liberals have a tendency to imagine that cultural concerns and prejudices don’t matter to The Real Issues, and thereby alienate people who should be their allies—people who advocate for those who get the short end of the cultural and political stick.

    …And end up dividing into little identity-politics interest groups whose chief activity is squabbling over who deserves a bigger bite of the single piece of pie they’ve managed to acquire.

    And sometimes there’s a big march and everybody gets together for an afternoon.

    Yeah, that worked out really well for everyone.

    Another great idea was ditching Enlightenment ideals and embracing Foucault, Lacan, and Judith Butler. That really got things moving.

  320. HTML Mencken
    HTML Mencken March 1, 2007 at 5:03 pm |

    Oh, yeah.

    “See what you made me do, bitch?’

    Riiight. That’s exactly what I said. Er, it’s exactly the same thing! Or something.

    The point being that no one pushing the ‘fat joke = always awful’ argument could ever be wrong no matter how they do it. Sloppy, but that’s the Feministe consensus, apparently.

  321. Leonard Pierce
    Leonard Pierce March 1, 2007 at 5:05 pm |

    Another great idea was ditching Enlightenment ideals and embracing Foucault, Lacan, and Judith Butler. That really got things moving.

    Derrida would be laughing his sack off at this thread, I know that much. As would Barthes, who was both fat and a homo.

  322. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 5:06 pm |

    Oh, yeah.

    “See what you made me do, bitch?’

    Classic.

    Funny, that same exact argument was made the other way around upthread. We ‘made’ people criticize us, so the ensuing controversy was ‘our fault.’

    This is where Judith Butler’s agency-is-a-social-construction argument leads, I guess.

  323. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 1, 2007 at 5:11 pm |

    Leonard Pierce above just said what I’ve been trying to say much better than I apparently did. Thanks, dude. I refer sophonisba to that post.

  324. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 1, 2007 at 5:11 pm |

    Leonard Pierce above just said what I’ve been trying to say much better than I apparently did. Thanks, dude. I refer sophonisba to post 343.

  325. ako
    ako March 1, 2007 at 5:16 pm |

    Okay, I get why people who think this is important are spending so much time and energy arguing that it’s terribly important and needs to be addressed. That makes sense.

    The thing I don’t get is why people keep coming back for hundreds of comments to make deep, intense arguments that this is all trivial and a waste of time? If you want people to stop focusing on this, wouldn’t it be more effective to either apologize or just let it drop? The only reason the thread’s run on this long is that there’s two sides trying to fight it out.

    Did I misread it? Is it really about why it’s terribly important and good to mock fat people (or just the bad fat people) for their weight, and it’s wrong to criticize someone for doing that? Because I kind of skimmed the thread, but I saw a lot of people repeatedly insisting over and over that this didn’t matter, and we all had better things to put our energy in. And these seemed to be the same people putting a lot of energy into the debate.

  326. Troo Komedy
    Troo Komedy March 1, 2007 at 5:17 pm |

    This is where Judith Butler’s agency-is-a-social-construction argument leads, I guess.

    Unbelievable. In the time it took me to get out of moderation, you actually made me obsolete by going beyond parody.

    That’s got to be good for some sort of prize. Piny?

  327. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 5:19 pm |

    Funny, that same exact argument was made the other way around upthread. We ‘made’ people criticize us, so the ensuing controversy was ‘our fault.’

    Well, no. It’s more like, “Don’t go making fat a moral issue and then complain when people debate whether or not it is.”

    Trans.: “Don’t go making me make fat a moral issue, and then participate in a long debate explaining your position.”

    Because, you know, if there’s one thing we’re not doing here it’s making fat a moral issue. That’s what you’re doing.

    We have to be clear about these things.

  328. Luna
    Luna March 1, 2007 at 5:26 pm |

    It all comes down to this:

    Sadly No! is saying:
    Fat people are people too. But when fat people are war mongering bastards who could never actually fight in a war because of their weight, their weight becomes fair game for mockery.

    Piny, et.al.:
    No, it bloody doesn’t.

    Right? Right?

    Oh, and is calling someone “sweetie” when arguing with them (unless of course it’s your s.o.) not just a little sexist?

  329. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 5:30 pm |

    None of this even makes sense if his fat is irrelevant to anything, remember?

    I think it’s relevant to the specific tenor of his calumnies against others.

    You think it’s relevant in that it classes him as a subaltern of some sort — that it makes him a symbol of the category, ‘fat people.’

    We don’t disagree on its relevancy. We disagree on the implications.

  330. Mandos
    Mandos March 1, 2007 at 5:36 pm |

    …And end up dividing into little identity-politics interest groups whose chief activity is squabbling over who deserves a bigger bite of the single piece of pie they’ve managed to acquire.

    And sometimes there’s a big march and everybody gets together for an afternoon.

    Yeah, that worked out really well for everyone.

    So like, if this is true, who is at fault for that? Who are you asking to capitulate? Do you understand what you’re asking of them? You see, the flip side of the complaint is that some groups got consistently blown off. So they had no incentive to work with you and Your Really Important Issues. If you don’t want fragmentation, don’t stubbornly blow people off. That’s, like, the story of the Democratic Party in that period, or something.

    Another great idea was ditching Enlightenment ideals and embracing Foucault, Lacan, and Judith Butler. That really got things moving.

    This is completely ridiculous. I owe almost nothing to these people.

    Look dudes, I love Sadly, No!. I’ve been reading it since it was only Seb’s blog, and I was cheering Seb on as he took down David “Lion’s Share” Frum. I still read it. I know that it has offensive humour. This could have ended with “Yeah, we’re really sorry we made people unhappy, we’re a fratboyish comedy blog and we sometimes do that.” But instead it became a huge point of principle.

  331. Mandos
    Mandos March 1, 2007 at 5:37 pm |

    Gack, the stupid spamulator. I just had to whine about that. Carry on.

  332. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 1, 2007 at 5:38 pm |

    Luna Says:
    March 1st, 2007 at 5:26 pm
    It all comes down to this:

    Sadly No! is saying:
    Fat people are people too. But when fat people are war mongering bastards who could never actually fight in a war because of their weight, their weight becomes fair game for mockery.

    Piny, et.al.:
    No, it bloody doesn’t.

    Right? Right?

    The missing piece is that Sadly, No! is specifically saying:

    Fat people are people too. But when fat people are war mongering bastards who could never actually fight in a war because of their weight, and yet those same bastards are insisting that other people have direct experience of this war or else their opinions are cowardly and irrelevant, their weight becomes fair game for mockery.

    Next time you’re wondering why the Right is so effective, remember that we have spent 361 comments and counting defending the enemy on principle. Very progressive. Such a thin line between a circular firing squad and a circle jerk…

  333. Leonard Pierce
    Leonard Pierce March 1, 2007 at 5:42 pm |

    I think it’s relevant to the specific tenor of his calumnies against others.

    You think it’s relevant in that it classes him as a subaltern of some sort — that it makes him a symbol of the category, ‘fat people.’

    Just so.

    Reaction A: Ab Hugh is a warmonger who mocks others for their alleged cowardice in not fighting; his own failure to fight must then be questioned and possibly mocked.

    Reaction B: Ab Hugh may or may not be a warmonger or a hypocrite, but he is also a fat man, and that commonality trumps anything else he might say that alienates his shared reality with other fat people. Mock him and you mock us all.

    Fair? How about this?

    Reaction A: While no one wants to be a misogynist, Ann Coulter deliberately makes her alleged physical attractiveness a part of her appeal and presentation. Pointing out that she looks like a junkie horse is therefore fair game, according to the rules she has set down.

    Reaction B: Ann Coulter may be an anti-feminist, a homophobe, and a vile spewer of the most reactionary garbage imaginable, but she is still a woman, and regardless of how she may or may not exploit her womanhood, we must take special care never to make rhetorical use of any referent to her femininity.

    Still unfair? How about now?

    Reaction A: Given that Ted Haggard made much of his reputation by preaching the eternal torment and soul-damnation of homosexuals and drug users, the image of him sucking the dick of some streetcorner trade in the back of a crank wagon is amusing to me.

    Reaction B: What, so gays are funny now?

    Any entirely subjective arguments about what’s funny or not aside, I think there’s a big problem with extending your ideological opponents the benefit of a doubt that never even shadows their conscience.

  334. Mandos
    Mandos March 1, 2007 at 5:45 pm |

    Next time you’re wondering why the Right is so effective, remember that we have spent 361 comments and counting defending the enemy on principle. Very progressive. Such a thin line between a circular firing squad and a circle jerk…

    No, what we’ve been arguing is a very important argument: whether it really serves the cause of humanity to attack the enemy using weapons that create a lot of collateral damage. I am not a saint and have laughed at this sort of humour from Sadly, No!, but I do at least think that it’s a real issue. Fat jokes aren’t just an isolated arrow that strikes the credibility of the particular wingnut against which they are directed. They also impinge on the credibility of non-wingnuts. They create a culture in which non-wingnuts who are fat aren’t credible. And they have further effects besides.

    At least a little acknowledgement of this fact would go a long way.

  335. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 1, 2007 at 5:45 pm |

    Leonard,

    Thank you.

    That one post made all this worthwhile. I’ma save that one for later use.

  336. Ampersand
    Ampersand March 1, 2007 at 5:46 pm |

    HTML Menkin wrote:

    You all think a fat joke is a significant moral crime ‘cut from the same cloth’ as racism, sexism, etc. I don’t. At all. But I can agree to disagree about that.

    Before we agree to disagree, I’d like to discuss it.

    On your blog, you said that there are some jokes you won’t tell:

    Off limits: physical violence, ‘outing’; making fun of a person’s gender, national origin, sexual orientation, ethnicity, race or handicap. Everything else is fair game, including physical appearance — especially when the physical appearance is so fucking cliche like Daffy’s.

    What I don’t understand is, what’s your criteria for deciding which traits go into “off limits” and which traits go into “fair game”?

    Here’s my criteria: Making fun of people for belonging to groups that suffer from widespread, unfair discrimination is wrong. It’s wrong because it’s hurtful to some (not all) members of the group. And it’s wrong because it contributes to, and helps normalize, bigotry against that group.

    (And it’s still wrong even if the person being made fun of for being Mexican, or disabled, or whatever, is an extreme right-winger.)

    If you disagree with my criteria, then I’d be interested to hear why you disagree. And we can discuss that.

    If you agree with my criteria, but still disagree with me that it’s wrong to make anti-fat-person jokes, then I assume it’s because you disagree with me that fat people suffer from widespread, unfair discrimination. And we can discuss that disagreement, as well.

    I’ve admitted I was wrong to bring up the blogroll stuff. Now let’s move past that, and discuss whether or not telling fat jokes is okay, and if so what criteria distinguishes telling fat jokes from telling (say) disabled jokes. Okay?

  337. sophonisba
    sophonisba March 1, 2007 at 5:50 pm |

    If Ann Coulter is not a cunt, the word has no meaning.

    Oh goodness gracious no. I didn’t realized you were so confused. “Cunt” actually has two very clear meanings. Meaning # 1: female genitals (e.g., ‘I like my cunt just fine.’) Meaning # 2: ‘I am a misogynist fuck’ (e.g., ‘Ann Coulter/Hillary Clinton/Barbara Walters is a cunt.’)

    You were using definition number two. Hope that helps.

  338. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 1, 2007 at 5:52 pm |

    Fat jokes aren’t just an isolated arrow that strikes the credibility of the particular wingnut against which they are directed. They also impinge on the credibility of non-wingnuts. They create a culture in which non-wingnuts who are fat aren’t credible.

    You mean there are people so impressionable that they will say, “I thought the people saying Michael Moore is fat were being unfair, but since Daffyd ab Hugh has also been mocked for being fat, I now believe that Michael Moore has no more credibility than Daffyd ab Hugh”?

    On what planet? And they are going to help us how?

  339. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 1, 2007 at 5:54 pm |

    “Cunt” actually has two very clear meanings. Meaning # 1: female genitals (e.g., ‘I like my cunt just fine.’) Meaning # 2: ‘I am a misogynist fuck’

    So when my wife calls her female boss a “cunt” she is being a misogynist fuck? Say that to her face; she’ll deck you ;)

  340. twf
    twf March 1, 2007 at 5:56 pm |

    So when my wife calls her female boss a “cunt” she is being a misogynist fuck? Say that to her face; she’ll deck you ;)

    Um, yes, yes she is. And fortunately she’s not within hitting range of me, or she would also be guilty of assault.

  341. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 1, 2007 at 6:00 pm |

    So when my wife calls her female boss a “cunt” she is being a misogynist fuck? Say that to her face; she’ll deck you ;)

    Um, yes, yes she is. And fortunately she’s not within hitting range of me, or she would also be guilty of assault.

    The level of humorlessness in here is like a parody of Liberals.

  342. sophonisba
    sophonisba March 1, 2007 at 6:01 pm |

    You mean there are people so impressionable that they will say, “I thought the people saying Michael Moore is fat were being unfair, but since Daffyd ab Hugh has also been mocked for being fat, I now believe that Michael Moore has no more credibility than Daffyd ab Hugh”?

    No, more like people who are so attentive that they will say, “I thought liberals who objected to wingnuts mocking Michael Moore because he was fat had a good point, but they turn right around and do the same thing to fat wingnuts, so what the fuck are they complaining about? What hypocrites.” And they’ll be right.

  343. Mandos
    Mandos March 1, 2007 at 6:01 pm |

    You mean there are people so impressionable that they will say, “I thought the people saying Michael Moore is fat were being unfair, but since Daffyd ab Hugh has also been mocked for being fat, I now believe that Michael Moore has no more credibility than Daffyd ab Hugh”?

    On what planet? And they are going to help us how?

    *sigh* It’s not just one instance, it’s encouraging a culture of such instances. I’m actually not that offended by the joke. You’re right to say that it’s a small thing in the big picture of things, but from the reaction it seems like its indicative of a larger problem; it’s the reaction to the criticism of the joke that’s really puzzling.

    You want to create an overall culture where everyone is on your side. Having a general attitude of humility towards these kinds of issues and objections will help. You don’t have to go around policing yourself constantly. You do have to avoid going ballistic when someone calls you out on these kinds of things.

  344. sophonisba
    sophonisba March 1, 2007 at 6:02 pm |

    The level of humorlessness in here is like a parody of Liberals.

    Some cunts just can’t take a joke.

  345. Ampersand
    Ampersand March 1, 2007 at 6:05 pm |

    You mean there are people so impressionable that they will say, “I thought the people saying Michael Moore is fat were being unfair, but since Daffyd ab Hugh has also been mocked for being fat, I now believe that Michael Moore has no more credibility than Daffyd ab Hugh”?

    CS, do you think telling racist jokes about non-white far-right conservatives is acceptable? If not, why not?

    To answer your question, no, no one will be effected in such a direct cause-and-effect fashion. But when we make jokes based on contempt for fatness — even when the fat person in question is (gasp!) right-wing — it adds to a cultural norm in which being fat is considered to indicate laziness, grossness, and general moral worthlessness. That cultural norm is not all-powerful, but it exists, and it shows up in things like employment discrimination against fat people.

    No one joke alone does all that, of course, But hundreds of thousands of anti-fat jokes and comments do make a cumulative difference. Why would we want to contribute to that?

    (Mandos and Ako, great posts. And Sophonisba, you are totally frigging brilliant.)

  346. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 6:06 pm |

    Here’s my criteria: Making fun of people for belonging to groups that suffer from widespread, unfair discrimination is wrong. It’s wrong because it’s hurtful to some (not all) members of the group. And it’s wrong because it contributes to, and helps normalize, bigotry against that group.

    (And it’s still wrong even if the person being made fun of for being Mexican, or disabled, or whatever, is an extreme right-winger.)

    To espouse extreme right-wing politics is, by definition, to forfeit any claim to special consideration based on the categories that extreme right-wing politics actively motivates against.

    For instance, and to evade Godwin for a moment, a Jew who joins the Nazi Party can no longer claim anti-Semitism as a personal issue.

    Further, and more realistically, a handicapped person such as Charles Krauthammer, who advocates nuking Iran, loses his otherwise valid claim not to be Photoshopped as Dr. Strangelove.

    This seems simple and intuitive to me. I’m having a hard time understanding the counterargument.

  347. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 6:09 pm |

    Ann Coulter’s womanhood is not the problem.

    Not since the operation.

  348. JackGoff
    JackGoff March 1, 2007 at 6:11 pm |

    Not since the operation.

    Foolish thing to say, asshole.

  349. Mandos
    Mandos March 1, 2007 at 6:12 pm |

    Thank you for demoderating 363! I think I shall make it my policy to thank people who demoderate me. Spamulators suck. Spam sucks for making us need spamulators.

  350. Mandos
    Mandos March 1, 2007 at 6:13 pm |

    In a bout of extreme irony, my post thanking someone for despamulating me got spamulated.

  351. HTML Mencken
    HTML Mencken March 1, 2007 at 6:13 pm |

    Ampersand –

    Ok. First lemme say my caveats are general — there are conditions, as per Leonard Pierce above, where exception occur.

    What I don’t understand is, what’s your criteria for deciding which traits go into “off limits” and which traits go into “fair game”?

    A congenital identity trait which has been historically used by others as a means of oppression — and I mean real oppression: being denied the right to vote, slavery outright and de facto, wide-spread murder; glass ceilings, too. ‘Being laughed at’ or ‘being made fun of’ doesn’t qualify as historical oppression — if it did, at least within Caucasian populations, redhead-freckle faces like me could just as well demand immediate cessation of all ‘beat like a redheaded stepchild’ type jokes. But then I wouldn’t do that, because I don’t buy into the anti-’Lookism’ bullshit. Please make fun of me! I’ve been shot with God’s freckle shotgun, like, over and over! You can trace constellations on my arms! Oh, I suppose that in real life, someone could make an anti-ginger joke that would truly offend me, but I doubt it. Because I don’t generally give a shit about petty things like that, feeling that I do that I’m capable of moral triage enough to know that that shit doesn’t matter compared to the ‘Let’s glassify the Sand Niggers’ shit that is endemic here, there, everywhere in America.

    ***

    Wingnuts frequently use the argument: ‘But why is religion fair game, if these things (race, gender, etc.) are off the table?’ The answer is, because it is not congenital. Sure, there are structural and cultural coercions which inform religious belief. But it cannot be said blanketly that one is born with such an identity: it is mostly made, and free will plays a part in making it. Sound familiar? Oh, sure, some of them were programmed with fairy tales and hatred from a very impressionable age, but there’s not much sympathy for that on the pomo Left, is there? And some, through their lack of formal education and because of their cultural milieu — which they can’t help without incredible effort, mind you — are religious bigot nutcases, godbags, and so on. Some are just pre-disposed to having to tickle that God Spot in their brains a little more vigorously than others. But still, we, rightly, go on making fun of the religious nuts; we reserve the right to do it even though we also believe one should respectful to the beliefs of others. Right?

    I’m not disagreeing with how religious nuts are treated, for the sarcasm impaired, BTW; I’m just saying, ‘ahhhh’.

  352. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 6:16 pm |

    For instance, and to evade Godwin for a moment, a Jew who joins the Nazi Party can no longer claim anti-Semitism as a personal issue.

    Okay, but does that mean liberal gentiles can go around calling him a kike?

    You assumed it was a man. This is a gotcha-moment.

    Now, we’re not talking about decorous speech for liberals at all, and never have been. We’re talking about humor.

    Would it be funny to call him Hylie Stormtroopowitz? You tell me what you think.

  353. sophonisba
    sophonisba March 1, 2007 at 6:19 pm |

    For instance, and to evade Godwin for a moment, a Jew who joins the Nazi Party can no longer claim anti-Semitism as a personal issue.

    Really? Not even when good liberal gentiles call him a kike, to show him how dumb he’s being? I think it would, in fact, be a personal issue for him at that point.

    Anti-Semites hate Jews. Not just ‘Jews who aren’t crazy.’ Not just ‘Jews with decent politics.’ Jews. If I, who am really honestly truly not an anti-Semite, call our hypothetical Jewish Nazi a kike, to make a point about how being a Nazi is bad, I do not get to claim innocence when I’m accused of unwittingly giving aid and comfort to anti-Semites. Because that’s what I just did.

    This seems simple and intuitive to me. I’m having a hard time understanding the counterargument.

    Likewise.

  354. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 1, 2007 at 6:21 pm |

    You want to create an overall culture where everyone is on your side.

    No, I want a sandwich, goddammit!

    it’s the reaction to the criticism of the joke that’s really puzzling.

    We attack people on our own side for attacking the enemy in a way that is really not nice and that nice people should all agree isn’t nice, and we expect to end up with everyone else on our side? Are we talking about the same species and culture here? Stupid me, I thought we were playing hardball to stop a war, not making a Coke commercial.

    No, more like people who are so attentive that they will say, “I thought liberals who objected to wingnuts mocking Michael Moore because he was fat had a good point, but they turn right around and do the same thing to fat wingnuts, so what the fuck are they complaining about? What hypocrites.” And they’ll be right.

    No, they will be people on the Right pretending to be shocked. The remaining nonpartisans in this country are not paying attention. That’s one thing Coulter is right about.

    People making fun of Michael Moore for being fat is stupid because it doesn’t have anything to do with Moore’s argument. Dafyyd is making a macho, physical-courage argument and that’s why his fat ass has a target painted on it.

    As Leonard Pierce puts it:

    Reaction A: Ab Hugh is a warmonger who mocks others for their alleged cowardice in not fighting; his own failure to fight must then be questioned and possibly mocked.

    Reaction B: Ab Hugh may or may not be a warmonger or a hypocrite, but he is also a fat man, and that commonality trumps anything else he might say that alienates his shared reality with other fat people. Mock him and you mock us all.

    Put me down for A.

  355. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 1, 2007 at 6:26 pm |

    CS, do you think telling racist jokes about non-white far-right conservatives is acceptable? If not, why not?

    Does Harry Belafonte calling Colin Powell a “house slave” count? Or Sharpton saying “Tom-Tom-Thomas”?

    In our culture, it seems to be acceptable only within one’s own subgroup. As a fat person, may I observe here that someone should offer Rush Limbaugh a wafer-thin mint?

  356. Roy
    Roy March 1, 2007 at 6:32 pm |

    Reaction A: Ab Hugh is a warmonger who mocks others for their alleged cowardice in not fighting; his own failure to fight must then be questioned and possibly mocked.

    Reaction B: Ab Hugh may or may not be a warmonger or a hypocrite, but he is also a fat man, and that commonality trumps anything else he might say that alienates his shared reality with other fat people. Mock him and you mock us all.

    Except that you’re forgetting Reaction C: Ab Hugh is a warmonger who mocks others for their alleged cowardice in not fighting; his position is patently ridiculous and wrong for a large number of reasons- none of which has to do with his weight- and his argument is open to criticism and ridicule.

  357. ilyka
    ilyka March 1, 2007 at 6:32 pm |

    Would it be funny to call him Hylie Stormtroopowitz? You tell me what you think.

    Someone already did that, remember? And you objected, because they’re not exactly identical to fat jokes.

    Neither are you exactly identical to a wingnut. But when every, I mean every, argument you’ve made here has been indistinguishable from the arguments wingnuts made to me when I asked them to please stop calling Jill a bimbo because that’s sexist, perhaps my confusion about whether you’re cut from the same cloth as a wingnut becomes more understandable.

    But I forget: This is about how political correctness cut your balls off, not about the advisability of using fat jokes. My bad.

  358. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 1, 2007 at 6:33 pm |

    Except that you’re forgetting Reaction C: Ab Hugh is a warmonger who mocks others for their alleged cowardice in not fighting; his position is patently ridiculous and wrong for a large number of reasons- none of which has to do with his weight- and his argument is open to criticism and ridicule.

    That’s true. Put me down for A, C and a Bloomin’ Onion.

  359. Ampersand
    Ampersand March 1, 2007 at 6:34 pm |

    Actually, if it’s true that AB Hugh is not in a physical shape that the armed forces would accept, then that puts him in a much better moral position than a thin non-soldier who nonetheless thinks that people who aren’t in the armed forces are cowardly.

    I mean, if you’re young and healthy, and you think the invasion of Iraq is the greatest fight for freedom in the world, then it’s legitimate to ask why you haven’t signed up. But “they wouldn’t accept me” is a legitimate answer to that question, it seems to me.

  360. Bruce from Missouri
    Bruce from Missouri March 1, 2007 at 6:36 pm |

    Of all the interesting posts about sexism, rape, and various other issues currently on the front page of this blog, none of them has 1/3 of the amount of comments as this thread about my fellow fatsos getting their feelings hurt by Sadly, No! (full disclosure, I weigh 245). Not to mention the thin people out there that are getting offended on my behalf…really, just don’t bother.

    Get a grip. just going by the amount of comments in each thread, it would seem that fat jokes bother people more than rape.

  361. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 1, 2007 at 6:39 pm |

    This is about how political correctness cut your balls off,

    Wait, when did balls get into this? I thought we were objecting to PC on the grounds that it stifles free expression and humor and makes us less effective in fighting evil, not on Freudian grounds. Did I miss something?

  362. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 1, 2007 at 6:41 pm |

    Get a grip.

    And a pony. Gawdhelpus.

  363. HTML Mencken
    HTML Mencken March 1, 2007 at 6:43 pm |

    Also, Ampersand, the original PC project, I like to think, was about rectifying the parts of the language which served as signifiers of oppression. Now I think this is sort of like cutting off a nose to spite a face, but then being familiar a bit with Confucius’s Machiavellianism, I’m naturally pre-disposed to being creeped-out by language-tampering projects. Whatever. I will agree that the PC heart was in the right place if the mind wasn’t.

    But all this is beyond that. It’s beyond rectifying the language or addressing historical greivances: it’s about totally annihilating all ingroup/outgroup judgements in perpetuity throught the universe — which assumes, wrongly and strawfully, that all ingroup/outgroup dynamics lead to oppression. It’s about eventually saying, ‘making a generalization or stereotype of any kind, regardless of context and intent, is, like, a billion times worse than Hitler, Pol Pot and Gilles de Rais, combined!’

    Fuck that. Hence my general antipathy to the ‘be nice to wingnuts or you’ll hurt me’ crap.

  364. Mandos
    Mandos March 1, 2007 at 6:46 pm |

    Well, I think the real issue is that a lot of us (still) enjoy reading Sadly, No! and this hits close to home. If a blogger we knew and loved turned around and posted about his positive experience as, say, [insert something horrible here, like alleyway rapist or something], I guarantee you that there would be at least 20 threads 500 each. It’s only one thread without about 400 posts in this case…

  365. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 1, 2007 at 6:50 pm |

    Will being a tireless warrior in the fight against Wingnuttery earn you a pass from the Sensitivity Cops?

    Sadly, No!

  366. Lesley
    Lesley March 1, 2007 at 6:51 pm |

    I also think that part of the issue is that no one on the other posts is commenting “Racism is totally OK if the person it’s directed against is bad!” It’s quite true that nothing stifles non-moderated comment threads as much as agreement.

  367. Lesley2
    Lesley2 March 1, 2007 at 6:52 pm |

    A man’s got to be a man in order to be funny. Women, you know, they try and all, but they’re just not funny. Too hysterical. Too sensitive. Too shrill.

    Christopher Hitchens, the unfunniest man alive, agrees with you. He wrote an entire stupid essay generalizing about women having no sense of humour and their inferiority as comedians.

  368. Roy
    Roy March 1, 2007 at 6:52 pm |

    Hence my general antipathy to the ‘be nice to wingnuts or you’ll hurt me’ crap.

    It seems to me that people aren’t having the same discussion, then, because I sure as Hell haven’t been suggesting “be nice to wingnuts.”

    I sort of felt like it was more “Attack the wingnuts for the shit that actually makes them wingnuts, not for the size of their pants.”

  369. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 6:52 pm |

    Actually, you keep talking and then refusing to talk about what qualifies as hateful bullshit.

    I talked at considerable length about that earlier in the thread. I’ll talk about it a bit more.

    And yeah, that would also qualify as anti-semitism.

    As I understand it, whereas once disliking Jewish people was the accepted criterion for anti-Semitism, the term grew in common usage to encompass criticism of Israel as a state actor — and now the use of the word, ‘neocon,’ can fall under such a definition.

    Do we draw the line at making fun of a hypothetical Jewish Nazi in the manner above, or do these definitions keep expanding?

    Because I see these definitions as expanding, sometimes not in a progressive direction, but in a reactionary one.

    This has been a problem in identity politics since the beginning: There’s an ideal of race-, gender-, and orientation-blindness that’s in constant conflict with an urge toward highlighting the experiences of subaltern groups. The result has invariably been a condition in which some people are allowed to say certain things, while other people are not — with a consummate struggle as to who belongs in which class of people.

    This is, of course, particularism, which is illiberal and anti-Enlightenment.

    The big problem comes when you realize that it’s Enlightenment values that guarantee our individual rights and freedoms. And if you look around even a little bit, you see that the right wing has wholly adopted the ethos of complaint and offense, of speech-policing and attacks on those who say what some people are not allowed to say.

    My small contribution to the dialogue here is that the right wing has always been like that, throughout modernity. It only lacked the mechanics of PC to make the resentment marketable during stable periods, rather than thriving purely on crisis like our old friends the NSDAP, aka Teh Nazis.

  370. Mandos
    Mandos March 1, 2007 at 6:54 pm |

    Will being a tireless warrior in the fight against Wingnuttery earn you a pass from the Sensitivity Cops?

    You are correct: Sadly, No. And that’s how it should be.

  371. Lauren
    Lauren March 1, 2007 at 6:54 pm |

    Wait, when did balls get into this?

    Seriously. We are all Big Vagina now.

  372. Lawnguylander
    Lawnguylander March 1, 2007 at 6:57 pm |

    Get a grip. just going by the amount of comments in each thread, it would seem that fat jokes bother people more than rape.

    Proving oneself more PC than thou is an opportunity too good for some people to pass up (in some cases the kind of people who publicly and unapologetically mock an 8 year old girl) and the opportunity is just not there when the subject is rape. Daffy is way more worthy of defense than an 8 year old apparently.

  373. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 1, 2007 at 6:57 pm |

    Wait, when did balls get into this?

    Seriously. We are all Big Vagina now.

    I thought We Are All Exploding Fireball Now.

    Does Big Vagina have a PAC? It sounds a lot nicer than Big Pharma.

  374. Mandos
    Mandos March 1, 2007 at 6:57 pm |

    This has been a problem in identity politics since the beginning: There’s an ideal of race-, gender-, and orientation-blindness that’s in constant conflict with an urge toward highlighting the experiences of subaltern groups. The result has invariably been a condition in which some people are allowed to say certain things, while other people are not — with a consummate struggle as to who belongs in which class of people.

    I’m sorry, but that’s analysis is bogus. It’s missing that fact that some groups have more power and influence and credibility in society. Your complaint here could easily be reread as an argument against affirmative action, for instance, which is a favorite wingnut theme.

    Class and privilege matter. Working it out matters. Enlightment and its opposite is a non sequitur.

  375. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 6:58 pm |

    Someone already did that, remember? And you objected, because they’re not exactly identical to fat jokes.

    Interesting. I didn’t write that.

  376. Lesley
    Lesley March 1, 2007 at 6:58 pm |

    I think it’s relevant to the specific tenor of his calumnies against others.

    Ah, so clearly Fred, the George Clooney look-alike without military experience, has more credibility on the issue of whether or not anti-war advocates are cowards. Right?

  377. Lauren
    Lauren March 1, 2007 at 7:03 pm |

    Lawnguylander, what the fuck are you talking about?

  378. Ampersand
    Ampersand March 1, 2007 at 7:06 pm |

    HTML Menkin,

    I think it’s okay to make fun of, or disagree with, religious ideas because they are ideas. But I think it’s possible to distinguish between attacking religious ideas and making fun of people for being (say) Jewish.

    Just because being Jewish is not congenital in our culture (you can always convert, although I admit that strategy wouldn’t have worked in Nazi Germany) doesn’t make it okay to call someone a kike. On the other hand, just because anti-semitism is wrong doesn’t mean that we can’t make fun of the misogyny inherent in the Adam and Eve story.

    So I don’t agree that if a trait is congenital, it must be fair game for abuse and mockery. It’s not reasonable to say that Jews who don’t like anti-semitic humor should just convert if they don’t like it.

    A congenital identity trait which has been historically used by others as a means of oppression — and I mean real oppression: being denied the right to vote, slavery outright and de facto, wide-spread murder; glass ceilings, too. ‘Being laughed at’ or ‘being made fun of’ doesn’t qualify as historical oppression — if it did, at least within Caucasian populations, redhead-freckle faces like me could just as well demand immediate cessation of all ‘beat like a redheaded stepchild’ type jokes. But then I wouldn’t do that, because I don’t buy into the anti-’Lookism’ bullshit.

    You seem to be implying that the reason you think that it’s okay to make fun of people for being fat is that anti-fat prejudice is too trivial to ever be concerned with. If so, then I think you’re in error; I think there’s a lot of reason to think that anti-fat prejudice, while not the worst thing in the world, is still a nontrivial concern.

    Well, I’m kind of a social science inclined person. If you can show me social science demonstrating widespread, significant effects of prejudice against freckled people, then I’ll see it as a problem.

    I don’t think pain has to be as bad as the pain of slavery to matter. When fat children are statistically far more likely to be bullied and ostracized than non-fat children, that’s objectionable even though it fails to rise to the level of slavery. When a woman earns tens of thousands of dollars less than her thin, equally-qualified peers, that’s objectionable even though it doesn’t rise to the level of Auschwitz. And the extreme self-hatred many fat people are taught is normal is objectionable. Not “trail of tears” level objectionable, but still a legitimate, needless social problem caused by prejudice. And still something that reasonable people shouldn’t want to contribute to, even if their contribution is very small.

    (By the way, the “but it doesn’t rise to the level of slavery” argument is used by right-wingers frequently to deny that anti-queer discrimination is a “real” civil rights issue.)

  379. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 7:06 pm |

    I think it’s relevant to the specific tenor of his calumnies against others.

    Ah, so clearly Fred, the George Clooney look-alike without military experience, has more credibility on the issue of whether or not anti-war advocates are cowards. Right?

    I like the other Lesley better.

    No, the George Clooney lookalike without military experience would be a yellow-bellied chickenhawk. Ab Hugh is a chairborne ranger in the 44th Cheeto brigade.

  380. Pinko Punko
    Pinko Punko March 1, 2007 at 7:07 pm |

    RE: 395,

    the argument is he is a hypocrite.

    RE: 398,

    the argument would be he was not committed enough to his existential dilemma to qualify himself by certain means for armed forces duty.

    This is no judgment about his weight. I think if the original photoshop were viewed as political cartoon would be, then most people would have been fine with it. For example, in such a visual medium, physical attributes are exaggerated. Like George Bush’s ears. I find this makes the picture possibly offensive, but somehow tolerable, whereas an incessant torrent of fat jokes would not be acceptable. This is my view. That a line most certainly exists, and that in this case the line was not intentionally crossed, even though unintentional offense was given. This unintentional offense level will never ever be zero, but for it to be low, I think is acceptable. However, you may flame on if you disagree. I’d rather have the conversation than not have it.

    I would be interested to know Amp’s take on editorial cartoonists, and how their oeuvre plays into this debate.

    PP

  381. Lawnguylander
    Lawnguylander March 1, 2007 at 7:12 pm |

    Lauren,

    This is what the fuck I’m talking about.

  382. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 7:15 pm |

    All salient points avoided, alas.

    I’ll pick this up here, with the new different topic that has parthenogenesized:

    You draw the line at making fun of a hypothetical Jewish Nazi by making fun of his Jewishness. Especially if you sound kinda, you know, stormfronty–the fake Jewish name is about as trite a trope of anti-semitism as the hook nose.

    Point in passing: A better name altogether would be Siggy Heilowitz.

    Just as Ann Coulter shemale jokes are transphobic, because the joke only works if it means, “Ann Coulter is so grotesque and repulsive that she might as well be a transsexual.” See what you just said about transsexuals there?

    Absolutely not the case. Mann Coulter jokes are only funny because she unintentionally resembles a drag queen. It’s accidental transgression — the universal Teh Funny.

    Transsexual :: Ann Coulter
    Figure skating :: Slipping on the ice and falling on your heinie

  383. HTML Mencken
    HTML Mencken March 1, 2007 at 7:17 pm |

    Ampersand –

    The Jewish identity is unique in the sense that it can denote a religion as well as an ethnicity. The religious part is fair game at any time; the ethnicity part isn’t.

  384. Lesley
    Lesley March 1, 2007 at 7:19 pm |

    I like the other Lesley better.

    Yeah, I didn’t think it would be otherwise.

    Big hug!

  385. Erin
    Erin March 1, 2007 at 7:26 pm |

    The Jewish identity is unique in the sense that it can denote a religion as well as an ethnicity. The religious part is fair game at any time; the ethnicity part isn’t.

    Which one is the christ-killing, using the blood of gentile children to make matzoh with, again? Are the devil horns religious, or ethnic? Controlling the banking system/entertainment world/Democratic party: ethnic, or religious? It’s okay as long as you stick to jokes about trayf, or is the Yiddish thing ethnic, and therefore not okay?

  386. Lesley2
    Lesley2 March 1, 2007 at 7:27 pm |

    Anyone want to start a betting pool on when the page will give out for the weight of the comments?

  387. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 1, 2007 at 7:30 pm |

    Anyone want to start a betting pool on when the page will give out for the weight of the comments?

    You leave the comments’ weight out of this!

  388. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 7:31 pm |

    This has been a problem in identity politics since the beginning: There’s an ideal of race-, gender-, and orientation-blindness that’s in constant conflict with an urge toward highlighting the experiences of subaltern groups. The result has invariably been a condition in which some people are allowed to say certain things, while other people are not — with a consummate struggle as to who belongs in which class of people.

    This is, of course, particularism, which is illiberal and anti-Enlightenment.

    The big problem comes when you realize that it’s Enlightenment values that guarantee our individual rights and freedoms. And if you look around even a little bit, you see that the right wing has wholly adopted the ethos of complaint and offense, of speech-policing and attacks on those who say what some people are not allowed to say.

    I think you’re full of shit.

    Ok. Settles that, then.

  389. Lesley2
    Lesley2 March 1, 2007 at 7:32 pm |

    what this thread needs is an after dinner mint.

  390. JackGoff
    JackGoff March 1, 2007 at 7:36 pm |

    Or less callous assholes who don’t give a damn. Or just maybe less practitioners of “moral triage”.

    For people who say they think this argument is worthless, you all do seem to hang around. You also further insult people, because that’s what it means to perform “moral triage”, it seems.

  391. Marked Hoosier
    Marked Hoosier March 1, 2007 at 7:37 pm |

    This blogwar makes me sad…

  392. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 1, 2007 at 7:40 pm |

    This blogwar makes me sad…

    It’s making me hungry.

  393. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 1, 2007 at 7:42 pm |

    For people who say they think this argument is worthless, you all do seem to hang around.

    It fascinates me because it reminds me of college, where the height of political sophistication was to guilt people for saying ‘black’ instead of ‘African-American,’ or whichever term white people where supposed to use that semester.

  394. JackGoff
    JackGoff March 1, 2007 at 7:45 pm |

    So it is about PC cutting off your balls. Pity proffered.

  395. Lauren
    Lauren March 1, 2007 at 7:46 pm |

    It fascinates me because it reminds me of college, where the height of political sophistication was to guilt people for saying ‘black’ instead of ‘African-American,’ or whichever term white people where supposed to use that semester.

    Ironically, that’s the funniest thing you’ve said all thread.

  396. Ampersand
    Ampersand March 1, 2007 at 7:48 pm |

    Pinko Punko wrote:

    This is no judgment about his weight. I think if the original photoshop were viewed as political cartoon would be, then most people would have been fine with it. For example, in such a visual medium, physical attributes are exaggerated. Like George Bush’s ears. I find this makes the picture possibly offensive, but somehow tolerable, whereas an incessant torrent of fat jokes would not be acceptable. This is my view. That a line most certainly exists, and that in this case the line was not intentionally crossed, even though unintentional offense was given. This unintentional offense level will never ever be zero, but for it to be low, I think is acceptable. However, you may flame on if you disagree. I’d rather have the conversation than not have it.

    I would be interested to know Amp’s take on editorial cartoonists, and how their oeuvre plays into this debate.

    I agree that the original photoshopping job was an editorial cartoon, of sorts. It was either a technically competent cartoon about how grotesque and nerdy fat people are and isn’t it funny that fat people eat grotesque amounts of food; or it was an incompetent cartoon about willingness to serve in the military.

    In either case, it was a pretty lame gag. But if it was the former, at least it was a technically competent lame gag.

    As far as exaggerating people’s physical traits in a cartoon, there are a lot of factors a cartoonist who gives a shit has to consider. There’s exaggerating traits in a non-hostile way just to make sure the audience recognizes the person being drawn; making Bush’s ears stick out a little, or making his eyebrows really thick, would be examples of that. Or the way Al Hirshfield drew Jackie Gleason, exaggerating the fatness and the roundness.

    Even at that level, though, I think the cartoonist has to start questioning herself. For instance, would a cartoon that exaggerated the size of Secretary Rice’s lips remind people of a long tradition of racist cartoons? If so, a conscientious cartoonist tries to find another way of establishing recognition. In my opinion.

    Then there’s the next level, which is exaggerating traits not just to establish recognition, but to suggest meanings. So, for instance, this cartoon, although it makes a good point about the Indian mascot controversy, also uses the white character’s fatness as way of conveying meaning. This cartoonist is obviously a skilled cartoonist – meaning, he knows how to draw well and to set up a gag. Even if he (she?) didn’t think through this consciously, it’s no accident when a skilled cartoonist draws a negative character with mounds of very fleshy, jiggly fat, with lots of hair tufts. The point isn’t just to gain space for lettering; the fat is supposed to help readers understand that this is a stupid, slobby, and gross person. The fat is one way the cartoonist indicates the low moral state of the character. (The beer in hand and the buck teeth serve the same purpose).

    I’m not going to picket the cartoonist’s home or anything, and I don’t assume he’s a bigot; maybe he just reached for the easy gag when he was on a deadline. But yes, I think the cartoon is bigoted, and I think it would be a better cartoon if it had made it’s point without anti-fat stereotypes.

    As a cartoonist, I consciously try to include positive depictions of fat characters and non-white characters and women; and when I draw negative fat, female or non-white characters, I try to do so in a way that doesn’t contribute negative stereotypes about fat people, women, or non-whites. But I’m sure I’ve messed up many times. Still, I’d rather try and mess up than pretend the whole thing isn’t an issue at all.

  397. HTML Mencken
    HTML Mencken March 1, 2007 at 7:50 pm |

    Good lord, now I’m an anti-Semite!

    ‘Which side does the blood libel fall on?’ Duh, the ethnic side.

    I don’t think pain has to be as bad as the pain of slavery to matter.

    I never said it had to be. I included, for instance, glass ceilings. Nice try, though.

    (By the way, the “but it doesn’t rise to the level of slavery” argument is used by right-wingers frequently to deny that anti-queer discrimination is a “real” civil rights issue.)

    Oooh, really nice try. But, no.

    still a legitimate, needless social problem caused by prejudice. And still something that reasonable people shouldn’t want to contribute to, even if their contribution is very small.

    There’s enough to it, barely, that people shouldn’t go all ‘Fatty fatty fat fat’ all the time. Or even maybe a lot of the time. But never, no matter the context? Because it’s ‘cut of the same cloth’ as racism, etc.? Fuck, no. Because on the whole, like religion and unlike race, etc., it is not congenital.

    Face it, you don’t like a fat joke (evar! no matter the context) not because it is morally objectionable in a way that can be substantiated ‘a la race (i.e., it is indecent), but because it’s *mean*. It’s ‘incivil’. *That* is pecksniffery, and while you’re entitled to it, I’m entitled to ignore it because I’d rather concentrate on shit that matters.

  398. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 1, 2007 at 7:52 pm |

    So it is about PC cutting off your balls. Pity proffered.

    Where are the balls??? What is this sexist shit about men being obsessed with their balls? No one on the receiving end of the PC scolding has brought up their balls that I have seen. Leave our genitalia out of it. Unless you’re calling us dicks. That’s cool.

  399. Pinko Punko
    Pinko Punko March 1, 2007 at 7:52 pm |

    I think the argument deep down is that if someone says “I fucking hate total chumps that wear black turtlenecks” and someone else shows a picture of that someone wearing a black turtleneck that they are actually wearing but maybe adds some flourishes or filigree to the black turtleneck within a post that says “what’s up black turtleneck chicken butt?” that some would argue that was OK. Or perhaps someone talking about military strategy claiming someone else was not qualified for such based on their lack of other military qualifications and then someone else said “what’s up unqualified?”

    This is calling someone’s “out of shapeness” evidence of their hypocrisy. I don’t know how that argument has been lost.

    Is it never OK to call someone a hypocrite? the problem with some hypocrisy is that the evidence will be based on the hypocrite’s person, actions or speech, and to call attention to it in blunt terms could possibly utilize that speech. In the case of Daff, the sandwich doesn’t add a lot.

  400. Lesley2
    Lesley2 March 1, 2007 at 7:53 pm |

    what this thread needs is an after dinner mint.

    Or less callous assholes who don’t give a damn. Or just maybe less practitioners of “moral triage”.

    There you have it. The Fat is sacred. It must not be toyed with, ever.

    Though I personally don’t give a damn, really, about your outrage at SN, it’s my impression that the SN fellows who’ve been commenting here do give a damn. Nothing but a grovelling apology from them will satisfy you.

    It’s sad, truly sad, but I’ve seen it before many times in many liberal places. It’s why I avoided politics until America elected that unconscionable asshole.

  401. ilyka
    ilyka March 1, 2007 at 7:56 pm |

    What is this sexist shit about men being obsessed with their balls?

    [whistling]

  402. Sadly, No! » Why I’m Coming to Hate Blogging

    [...] en the eff up. Specifically, I’m thinking of many of the people leaving messages on this thread. Holy mother of God. Let’s do a quick sample of the comple [...]

  403. JackGoff
    JackGoff March 1, 2007 at 8:00 pm |

    Grovelling? Please. Cutting their feet, then walking over salt will suffice.

    But seriously, you’re right about it all being sad. It’s completely sad when people feel so caught up in their mockery of other people that people speaking up about being offended by it is deemed to be morally reprobate and childish.

    Well, have fun with pointing and laughing at the excess lipids, because that’s what truly progressive people are all about. High five!

  404. Lauren
    Lauren March 1, 2007 at 8:02 pm |

    Re: the trackback in 445.

    If I’m guilty of exaggeration, somebody’s guilty of conflation.

    To recap, nobody here said fat jokes were responsible for the results of the 2000 election. Nobody said fat jokes were responsible for the Katrina aftermath. Nobody said fat jokes were responsible for civil war in Iraq. Nobody said any poster at Sadly, No! was responsible for any of those things either.

    But way to pass the buck.

  405. Lesley2
    Lesley2 March 1, 2007 at 8:02 pm |

    tell a man he’s got fat balls or a fat schlong and he won’t shit on you for it.

  406. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 1, 2007 at 8:02 pm |

    What is this sexist shit about men being obsessed with their balls?

    [whistling]

    No, that’s wanting to kick other men in the balls. It’s the “your objection to being lectured at is just sublimated castration fear” thing that is not germane here. We didn’t bring it up.

  407. Lauren
    Lauren March 1, 2007 at 8:04 pm |

    Also Re: trackback in 445.

    My God, one commenter on that thread said she was offended when people made fun of Ann Coulter’s Adam’s apple. Holy shit. For your own damn sake, lighten up.

    If you’re presented with the likes of Anne Coulter and all you can come up with is, “Holy shit, she looks like a dude,” somebody will probably call you a lazy critic, and chances are they’re right.

    See also, this entire fucking thread.

  408. Mandos
    Mandos March 1, 2007 at 8:05 pm |

    Is it never OK to call someone a hypocrite? the problem with some hypocrisy is that the evidence will be based on the hypocrite’s person, actions or speech, and to call attention to it in blunt terms could possibly utilize that speech. In the case of Daff, the sandwich doesn’t add a lot.

    The problem is not so much the calling out of hypocrisy (which is a double-edged sword and should be used with caution, as an aside), it’s the demand that those who worry about side effects and collateral damage stop worrying so that we can all get around to the Important Stuff. Other people’s Important Stuff gets shoved under the rug.

    Seriously, why does this keep happening? It’s been a fixture since the Kos pie fight. This is just a rehash of the Kos pie fight, where Kos clearly delineated that the important matters were those that help achieve the priorities of male mainstream liberals who might also be Latino.

    And everyone else’s issues were either peripheral or instrumental.

    That is seriously the problem with American liberal politics for a few decades. Gavin has repeatedly given the upside-down version of that.

  409. Lesley
    Lesley March 1, 2007 at 8:07 pm |

    *That* is pecksniffery, and while you’re entitled to it, I’m entitled to ignore it because I’d rather concentrate on shit that matters.

    If this is how you ignore it to concentrate on “shit that matters,” I’m just saying… You’re failing miserably at it.

    I know. Harsh. But tough love and all.

  410. Marked Hoosier
    Marked Hoosier March 1, 2007 at 8:09 pm |

    Can we take bets on how many comments/trackbacks this thread will get?

    I am saying 515.

  411. Lesley2
    Lesley2 March 1, 2007 at 8:13 pm |

    i’d rather estimate the weight of the thread. if each comment is a pound…

  412. ilyka
    ilyka March 1, 2007 at 8:17 pm |

    No, that’s wanting to kick other men in the balls. It’s the “your objection to being lectured at is just sublimated castration fear” thing that is not germane here. We didn’t bring it up.

    Hi, CS! I’m The Subtext. Pleased to meet you! Let’s do lunch.

    See, it’s like this: When you argue, as it is my understanding a lot of you have been, that you have to love and use fat jokes in order to fight the great wingnut menace effectively, because anything less would be weak and sissy, you–oh, let’s just quote you:

    Next time you’re wondering why the Right is so effective, remember that we have spent 361 comments and counting defending the enemy on principle. Very progressive. Such a thin line between a circular firing squad and a circle jerk…

    And:

    We attack people on our own side for attacking the enemy in a way that is really not nice and that nice people should all agree isn’t nice, and we expect to end up with everyone else on our side? Are we talking about the same species and culture here? Stupid me, I thought we were playing hardball to stop a war, not making a Coke commercial.

    And then there was the time SNIS quoted me semi-approvingly on this:

    No one’s sitting here talking about genocidal Dafydd. Everyone’s talking about that horrible, fat-bashing Sadly, No! blog. You could propose that this is because everyone’s being too sensitive, or because everyone’s being too much of a pussy (everyone needs to butch up and learn to fight dirty, the way the Rethuglicans do), or because everyone’s, ah, up on that wintry peak of Mount Sanctimony with me. But I’m proposing it’s because you took it that direction to begin with.

    So, the subtext: Stopping the war is serious business that requires Real Ballz, not this stupid pussy shit about fat jokes. Get some perspective, MORANS!

    See also: Brad’s latest post. Nice trotting out of the casualty pictures to make your point there, Bradrocket. Without those, I would never have known anything bad was happening at all.

    Maybe someday I’ll have the honor of having my bleeding body used to tell the hysterical fatty-fats to shut the fuck up about their stupid body image issues, and just fall in line behind the thin white men who will lead us to progressive victory. That would be pretty swell, huh?

  413. HTML Mencken
    HTML Mencken March 1, 2007 at 8:18 pm |

    The problem is not so much the calling out of hypocrisy …it’s the demand that those who worry about side effects and collateral damage stop worrying so that we can all get around to the Important Stuff. Other people’s Important Stuff gets shoved under the rug.

    But the whole original point is that fat jokes are objectively unimportant compared to genocide, torture, racism, etc. And they *are*. In fact, they’re objectively unimportant compared to a fucking Sears Catalog-sized list of shit that’s going on in the polity. So it’s not ‘other people’s important stuff’ but instead it’s ‘other people’s hypersensitivity and lack of perspective’ that we’re supposed to stop the presses for.

    f this is how you ignore it to concentrate on “shit that matters,” I’m just saying… You’re failing miserably at it.

    I know. Harsh. But tough love and all.

    But I love tough love! People should give more of it. You got me. What can I say? Ampersand, then piny, seriously pissed me off and it snowballed from there.

  414. Pinko Punko
    Pinko Punko March 1, 2007 at 8:25 pm |

    Amp, thanks for your response- you typed it while my seconds comment came out (so I am not ignoring you).

    I would add that in the case of the Daf pic, if his physical shape is the essence of his hypocrisy, does it make it different, only because he could actually change that if he actually cared about the existential threat he talks about?

    I will say that the counter argument seems pretty legit, that he of course could add to any debate in other ways, and that his physical shape should be meaningless, unless in a specific situation related to his ability, but since he seemed to making some sort of ableist argument, is it not OK to point out his hypocrisy under his rules? The difficulty here is if his own rules marginalize people of similar shape.

    I’m not belittling any side. I kind of wish that the kids at S,N! just said we’re sorry, we don’t agree, but we don’t want you to be hurt, so we’re using the sandwich now for everybody. Because a giant party sub just kind of seems unserious, I don’t know why- kind of like three bean salad. Or ballgame nachos. Or frisee.

  415. Dr Zen
    Dr Zen March 1, 2007 at 8:27 pm |

    Yeah, but ab Hugh is a fat cunt.

  416. Lauren
    Lauren March 1, 2007 at 8:28 pm |

    I say from now on we focus on the “important shit” and post ego-driven apologies aside pictures of war casualties.

  417. Xanthippas
    Xanthippas March 1, 2007 at 8:28 pm |

    Uh, it’s Sadly, No! I mean, do you guys ever read them? You know what they do right? It’s not like they’re breaking away from intricate on-the-ground analysis of the surge to do fat talk.

    Seriously…relax.

  418. ilyka
    ilyka March 1, 2007 at 8:35 pm |

    I mean, do you guys ever read them?

    Better than you read this comment thread, apparently. See #39.

    Then, go fuck yourself.

  419. Brad R.
    Brad R. March 1, 2007 at 8:38 pm |

    Maybe someday I’ll have the honor of having my bleeding body used to tell the hysterical fatty-fats to shut the fuck up about their stupid body image issues, and just fall in line behind the thin white men who will lead us to progressive victory. That would be pretty swell, huh?

    See, this is what I mean about people needing to take things a wee bit less seriously.

    Though ironically, it’s making me laugh my ass off.

  420. random_guy
    random_guy March 1, 2007 at 8:41 pm |

    Better than you read this comment thread, apparently. See #39.

    Then, go fuck yourself.

    That’s a totally appropriate way to respond in an argument about not offending people.

  421. jiggavegas
    jiggavegas March 1, 2007 at 8:43 pm |

    Mann Coulter jokes are only funny because she unintentionally resembles a drag queen. It’s accidental transgression — the universal Teh Funny.

    Don’t tell me: Michelle Malkin ping-pong jokes are funny because she unintentionally resembles a prostitute who shoots ping-pong balls out of her vagina.

    Gavin. Sometimes things can be both funny and offensive. That doesn’t mean it’s okay to a) repeat them or b) defend them. HTML says fat jokes are not that big a deal because there’s no history of discrimination, or whatever. (Although I challenge his claim that there’s no glass ceiling for obese people, but that’s another story.) There IS a pretty storied history of abuse and discrimination against transsexuals…and women, because misogyny is the ugly seed that sprouts the tranny hate. So what’s your excuse?

  422. Jillian
    Jillian March 1, 2007 at 8:47 pm |

    Holy cow….

    You guys made fun of the picture of Rick Santorum’s little daughter crying when her daddy lost the election?

    That’s pretty fucking sick.

    Strangely enough, it makes this place seem a whole lot more likeable.

    And I honestly do think it’s wrong to make fun of a crying eight year old. But the fact that you guys went there – someplace that I wouldn’t ever go – strikes me as endearing. Sick, but endearing.

    I like your sense of humor.

  423. Pinko Punko
    Pinko Punko March 1, 2007 at 8:48 pm |

    Brad, the problem is the “lighten up” argument has been historically used to OK a lot of SUPER BAD SHIT.

    I have been arguing that the original pic was borderline for reasons other than “lighten up”- there are cases where the argument is legit, but sometimes when you use it you just take a poop on people.

    I would say that a lot of the arguments have been above the Trexian “you cunt!”, which does make me happy, and I think we are better than that.

  424. ilyka
    ilyka March 1, 2007 at 8:51 pm |

    See, this is what I mean about people needing to take things a wee bit less seriously.

    Hey, you broke out the atrocity pictures over a fucking blog war. Don’t let’s talk about taking things less seriously.

    Honestly, though? This wouldn’t have flamed on as long as it did if one of your cohorts hadn’t come over here dripping snideness and condescension all over the new carpet. That shit stains.

  425. Pinko Punko
    Pinko Punko March 1, 2007 at 9:00 pm |

    I would attest to “snide” existing, but not condescension, unless Berube-esque wording is condescending. Maybe some people are just that way.

  426. jiggavegas
    jiggavegas March 1, 2007 at 9:02 pm |

    aargh. You know, I was being sarcastic about the “I won’t waste your time with petty shit” comment over at Bradrocket’s post on SN!, but now, I’m really done, for reals. You guys win, ok? Please just go be funny about something else for, like, a day so we can all forget this ever happened.

    oh, and ilyka is right about everything, pretty much always.

  427. Lesley
    Lesley March 1, 2007 at 9:07 pm |

    I would attest to “snide” existing, but not condescension, unless Berube-esque wording is condescending. Maybe some people are just that way.

    I think the condescension Ilyka refers to is the “I’m in Ur Thread, Focusing on Ur Important Shit” thing.

  428. Lesley2
    Lesley2 March 1, 2007 at 9:20 pm |

    even when there’s no absolute right to be had, she’s right which is why I hope she and others like her never rule the universe. A drab humourless gaol that would be, about as dreary and insufferable as the one we’re living in now.

  429. Erin
    Erin March 1, 2007 at 9:21 pm |

    Ilyka, I thought you were staying away for your own sake. And yet, I’m still here, so I can’t deny the mysterious, shipwreck-like magnetism of this whole thing.

    I think that part of it is that the Feministe regulars, at least, are sensitized to and tired of the arguments that people are entitled to use derogatory and hurtful stereotypes in order to make fun of people when there is agreement that the targets are Bad People Whom We Do Not Like. It happens all the damn time.

    See also:

    Why Can’t I Make Jokes About Michelle Malkin Shooting Ping Pong Balls Out of Her Vagina?
    Why Can’t I Use Blackface?
    What’s So Wrong With Saying Ann Coulter Looks Like A Botched Transsexual?
    Why Are You So Upset That I Called Rush Limbaugh a Cunt?
    If Harry Belafonte (Chris Rock, Beyonce, some black dude I knew once) Can Say “House Nigger,” Why Can’t I?
    You (women, black people, asians, fatties, queers) Are Trying To Keep Me From Bringing The Funny, Why Do You Hate (men, white people, skinny people, straight people) So Much And Why Are You So Angry?
    What’s Your Big Problem With Rape Jokes?
    If You’re Mad About Me Calling Mary Cheney A Big Fat Ugly Dyke, It Must Be Because You’re A Really, Really Big Extra-Fat SuperUgly Mega-Dyke, Huh? It’s True, Isn’t It? I’m Right, Aren’t I?

    Piny wrote a really excellent post a while back about reclaiming slurs. When you use hurtful stereotypes to support your position, EVEN IF you’re being funny, EVEN IF the target really, really, really deserves it, EVEN IF they killed your puppy and made you clean up the mess, it’s WRONG, and it’s the very opposite of progressiveness as long as your joke does nothing but affirm the hurtful stereotype. In this case, it’s not even that the joke was so far afield, but the response to criticism of the joke was venomous, and took the same old tired path of all of the other arguments we’ve heard in all of these other discussions.

    You may think it’s progressive and smashmouth, but it’s really schoolyard bullying and sucking the dick of the status quo. And maybe it’s not the important stuff, but how can I even get to a point of talking to you about the important stuff, if I think you don’t respect my opinions because I [am Asian/transexual/black/a woman/fat/ugly/queer] and Lord knows, those people are gross?

    We, the fat, the female, the Jew, the Muslim, the queer, the Other, are all used to having our differences thrown in our faces, and to having people make judgments about how good we are and what kinds of attention we get based on them. It’s a fact of fucking life, but that doesn’t make it any less of a disappointment, each and every time it comes from someone who is supposed to be on our side, especially when they spend hours and hundreds of comments defending their right to do it and telling us to shut up and take it.

  430. ilyka
    ilyka March 1, 2007 at 9:30 pm |

    It’s true. Every day I walk the earth, Troo Komedy dies another little death. It is very sad and wrong and everything, but I can’t help it. I kill it with my big fat oppressor’s feet, see. Squashed like a bug. Alas, Troo Komedy.

    I also cause global warming, Lesley2. Just so you know.

  431. ilyka
    ilyka March 1, 2007 at 9:34 pm |

    They suck me back in, Erin! They suck me back in!

    Piny wrote a really excellent post a while back about reclaiming slurs

    Hell yes he did. It’s piny who’s always right, jiggavegas.

  432. Erin
    Erin March 1, 2007 at 9:36 pm |

    Just when I thought I was out – thanks for finding that link. I went looking for it, and was having no luck.

  433. Tara
    Tara March 1, 2007 at 9:36 pm |

    Shit, piny writes a post that ends with examples of how making fun of people based on their looks enables the right-wing xenophobic torture advocates to bring down liberals and progressives based on superficialities. What do we get? People whinging about How We’re Wasting Time By Not Fighting Against The Right Wing Xenophobes And Torture Advocates!

    Word. I’m consistently amazed by the audacity of people, when confronted with their own ill behavior or their tacit acceptance of it, to blame those who call them on it. Here, the charge is that this is irrelevant, wasteful, and/or harmful to ‘otherwise well-meaning’ ‘comrades.’ Sorry, any injustice is worth calling out — because it does affect people. I would think this would be especially urgent for blogs that consider themselves leftist. Just because you may identify with some liberal or progressive values doesn’t automatically make you a good person and above being called out on the times that you reinforce the various -isms that structure our society. Speaking up about marginalization and trivialization is productive — and very necessary if a movement is to be viable and able to see itself, and be seen, as having integrity.

  434. Lesley2
    Lesley2 March 1, 2007 at 9:42 pm |

    you put the Soviet K in comedy!

    Political ideologues can be as nauseating as religious freaks. it’s why i abandoned politics altogether until Bush got elected. I just couldn’t stand the nitpicky petty “scour your brains out with soap for being incorrect” bullshit.

  435. etc.
    etc. March 1, 2007 at 9:42 pm |

    Wait, this is still, like, an actually, active, thread? Jesus fuck people!!

  436. M.Sphinx
    M.Sphinx March 1, 2007 at 9:47 pm |

    Ya’ll shouldn’t be calling others stupid. I have a brother with learning difficulties and your insensitive bullshit offends me.

  437. Leonard Pierce
    Leonard Pierce March 1, 2007 at 9:49 pm |

    Hi Piny! I heart comments directed at me:

    Sez you:

    Ann Coulter’s womanhood is not the problem.

    Agreed! Ann Coulter’s hideous politics are the problem. But part of the reason you and I know about Ann Coulter’s hideous politics, as opposed to the hideous politics of the guy who works nights at the White Hen, is that she is a very famous person whose fame rests on her alleged bombshell looks. Therefore, I don’t think it’s out of line – or, for that matter, misogynist – to say “Gee, Ann Coulter, for someone who’s supposed to be so hot, you sure are ugly”, any more than if I were presented with someone who was a famous intellectual but thought that two and two made five and I said “Gee, famous intellectual, you aren’t very smart.” You don’t see anyone going around saying Phyllis Schlafly is a dog, because Phyllis Schafly didn’t make being physically attractive part of her presentation. If you pick the gun, you can’t really complain if you get shot.

    Another part of Ann Coulter’s hideous politics is a virulent anti-feminism. This is jarring because she is a woman, and feminism largely cleared a cultural space for her success, so it’s upsetting to hear her talk about the way women should behave and act and think, because such talk is patently regressive and misogynist. But I didn’t make her a woman-hating shrew; she did. I didn’t set her up as an expert on the way women should behave; she did. Therefore, if I say her politics are less like those of a woman and more like those of a crazy Republican transvestite, I don’t feel like I’m attacking women or transvestites; I feel like I’m attacking Ann Coulter, who, unlike me, genuinely dislikes women and transvestites.

    It’s the same thing with Ab Hugh. His being fat isn’t the problem; his being a warmongering shitsack is the problem, and it would still be the problem if he wasn’t fat. But since he is fat, and since he gets off on acting as if he was a bold warrior all too eager to collect the heads of the vile Mahometan, it seems fair to me to say “Gee, Daffyd Ab Hugh, you sure do look a lot less like the Marine Corps killing machine you pretend to be and a lot more like the compulsively masturbating Twinkie-guzzler you actually are.” And, speaking as a compulsively masturbating Twinkie-guzzler, I don’t think this comment is out of bounds, because despite my own propensity for compulsive masturbation and guzzling Twinkies, I, unlike Daffyd Ab Hugh, do not pretend to be the Man of Steel.

    It’s often been asked – by you? honestly, the prospect of going back and checking fills me with dread – what the difference between the left mocking Ab Hugh for being fat and the right mocking Michael Moore for being fat is. Here’s the difference: the weight – pun only slightly intended – of Michael Moore’s arguments does not rest on whether or not he is fat, while arguably, at least part of Ab Hugh’s argument does. Example:

    MICHAEL MOORE: This war is unjust and destructive and we are doing more harm than good by continuing it.

    CONSERVATIVE: What right have you to criticize the war? You’re fat!

    Makes no sense. On the other hand:

    DAFFYD AB HUGH: People who criticize this awesome war but won’t go fight in them are cowards.

    LIBERAL: Why don’t you go fight in the war, then? Oh, that’s right: you’re fat.

    But beyond that – well, let’s sez you again:

    When you insult Ann Coulter for being a woman, you’re not disputing hatred of women.

    True enough! But, you see, no one here is insulting Ann Coulter for being a woman, and certainly no one is insulting her just for being a woman. They are insulting her for being an awful, bloodthirsty harridan. Oh and also for being a horse-faced junkie. Ditto Daffyd Ab Hugh: no one is making fun of him just because he’s fat. If he was just some random fat guy no one would ever have heard of him. He’d be our dad, our brother, our friend, he’d be us, as all the tolerance lessons have it. He’d be me! I’m fat! (Do I get a free pass on making fun of fat people? Or just fat people less fat than me?) But he’s not. He’s a rotten, devious, slanderous right-wing creep who bitches people out for things he’s not willing to do himself, and who supports the worst sort of moral double-standard. PLUS he’s fat!

    And this, I’m afraid, is where the that’s-not-funny comes into play. If you don’t think ANY fat jokes are funny, well, that’s the way it is, and nothing anyone can say will dissuade you. On the other hand, if you think it’s sometimes funny to make fun of people being fat in the context of other bad behavior, well, that’s something else altogether. Sadly, No! isn’t a forensics class or a presidential debate; it’s, by and large, a joke site, as is mine own. There are plenty of serious left-wing blogs in the world; I read a lot of them. But here’s the thing: sometimes you want one and sometimes you want the other. Example:

    SERIOUS LIBERAL: You, Ben Shapiro, are an odious liar, a distorter of facts, a slanderer, and a teller of lies which serve only to lead this wonderful country of ours on a path to destruction.

    FUNNY LIBERAL: You, Ben Shapiro, are an odious liar, a distorter of facts, a slanderer, and a teller of lies which serve only to lead this wonderful country of ours on a path to destruction. Plus you are a weedy little zit-faced nerd and you’ve never had sex with a lady.

    The former: hooray! Way to call out that dissimulating creep! Nobly done!

    The latter: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

    Which isn’t to say that I think there’s anything wrong with being geeky, or having pimples, or being a virgin: it is to say that I think Ben Shapiro is a jackass, and when I’m in a funny mood rather than a serious one, I don’t think it’s going to lead to especially dire consequences for the virginal, the nerdy, or the pimply to give young Ben the business in this fashion.

    Likewise, when comparisons of making fat jokes to making Jew jokes comes up – well, I don’t want to lean too heavily on “I cain’t define por-nog-ra-fee but I knows it when I sees it” territory, but the fact is, we – you and I both – know the difference between a liberal like Brad making a fat joke about Ab Hugh and a conservative like Ann Coulter making a fat joke about Michael Moore. We know the difference, because we know who they are as people and we know what their goals are as thinkers. We know their attacks are from vitally different angles: the former attacks the words and ideas of his opponent, and maybe throws in a cheap joke for laffs. The latter attacks only the appearance, only the surface, only the stereotype: how can you listen to that fat shit? It’s the difference between Spy magazine posting pictures of Louis Farrakhan’s ridiculous calypso get-ups and a white racist telling a nigger to get the fuck out of his way.

    One final sez you:

    The same with Ted Haggard. His problem is that he’s a hypocrite of the worst order…I don’t think it’s funny that he went down on another guy, on or off meth.

    But that was the form his hypocrisy took! If you don’t think that’s part of what makes the man a joke, what else is there? And, beyond that, what he did – blowing hookers in cars in aid of scoring cheap crank – that’s part and parcel of what makes it so awful, and so funny! He’s a living cartoon, an absolute fulfillment of the very stereotypes in which he traffics. If Ted Haggard would have been exposed as having a mature (albeit closeted), monogamous, loving, long-term relationship with another man of equal social stature, it would have been a scandal, for sure; and he’d still be a hypocrite, for sure. But there wouldn’t have been much of a joke there, because it wouldn’t have been so cheap, so tawdry, so predictable and trite. When you mock Haggard for sucking the dick of speed dealers, it has nothing whatsoever to do with homophobia or homosexuality, any more than Jerry Falwell paying cheap streetcorner whores to dance around naked while he jerked off is a referendum on heterosexuality. It’s a comment, rather, on the utter absurdity, the vileness, the cheap bottom-drawer cheapness of it all – the pathetic and hilarious revelation that he was not just a hypocrite, but the vilest, basest sort of hypocrite there is, the sort who is caught doing the very thing he teaches homosexuality leads to.

    Likewise with Ab Hugh: he’s not just a fat person. He’s not just an overweight man, who despite his physical condition (caused by sloth, gluttony, sickness, mental illness, who knows?) bears himself with human decency, dignity, and grace, who demands to be recognized as a fellow, who demands respect in the face of our prejudices. He’s a complete cartoon: not only fat, but with bad hair, bad clothes, stereotypically goofy hobbies, and a blowhard’s manner, a comically un-self-aware egomania that utterly transcends the sad, nerdy reality of his own existence. What makes him, and Coulter, and Haggard, and everyone else of their sort, fair game for fun and folly isn’t that they’re eating shit: it’s that they’re asking us to believe that it’s sugar.

    Anyway, that’s it. Thanks for listening.

  438. Tara
    Tara March 1, 2007 at 9:49 pm |
    In this case, it’s not even that the joke was so far afield, but the response to criticism of the joke was venomous, and took the same old tired path of all of the other arguments we’ve heard in all of these other discussions.

    Thank you for highlighting something I really agree with. What’s with this need to cast out the one who calls you (or those you consider like you) on your being discriminatory? When confronted with criticism, rather than stop and reflect, the urge is to deny completely that you did any wrong and then to try to turn the tables and gang up on those who challenged you (to discredit them, make them seem like traitors to the cause). There’s a real investment also in using all sorts of rhetorical maneuvers to make yourself look valiant, too. This is normalizing behavior, and it works to drive out dissenting opinions and keep the status quo feeling like they’re good people. I can’t give enough credit to those who do raise these issues (i.e., disrupt the preferred narrative that those in the dominant group want, that is, be silent, as usual), even though they will be met with a response often showing no thoughtful consideration of the issue or even an attempt at sympathy.

  439. Tara
    Tara March 1, 2007 at 9:52 pm |

    In rereading my post, I should have made more clear that the ‘you’ i was referring to was not the thoughtful poster who provided the quote that i excerpted, but the very people being addressed in her quote.)

  440. Xanthippas
    Xanthippas March 1, 2007 at 9:59 pm |

    Ilkya,

    Sorry that I didn’t have time to read in depth all 450+ comments on this thread. I was more responding to the person who actually wrote this and not to, well, you. Though I am now, which isn’t quite the same as fucking myself, though responding to your comments more than once might be the equivalent of fucking myself. In the eye.

    Anyway, please see # 460 on relaxing.

  441. Mithras
    Mithras March 1, 2007 at 10:01 pm |

    I’m back! What did I miss?

  442. HTML Mencken
    HTML Mencken March 1, 2007 at 10:11 pm |

    I hereby cede the remainder of my time to Leonard Pierce, who has comprehensively annihiliated piny’s BS.

    Thanks for being competent where I failed, man!

  443. dumpendebat
    dumpendebat March 1, 2007 at 10:22 pm |

    >Isn’t tu quoque the fallacious argument that what I am doing is okay because you do it too?

    Yes, that’s what tu quoque is. (It literally means “you also.”)

    >Tu quoque is claiming that someone’s position is inconsistent with either their actions or a previously stated belief.

    No, that’s wrong. If you accuse me of X, and I say “Oh, yeah? Well, you do X, too,” that’s tu quoque.

  444. oudemia
    oudemia March 1, 2007 at 10:55 pm |

    No, that actually is a form of tu quoque, which, ultimately, is a subset of ad hominem.
    So if someone calls me a drunk, and I reply by saying, “Well, really, that’s quite rich, since I haven’t seen you sober in 6 months.” That is most certainly a “tu quoque” argument, and “claiming that someone’s position is inconsistent with either their actions or a previously stated belief.”

  445. Mithras
    Mithras March 1, 2007 at 10:58 pm |

    Actually, you’re both right!

  446. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 2, 2007 at 12:01 am |

    Stopping the war is serious business that requires Real Ballz, not this stupid pussy shit about fat jokes

    I’m not the one using gender lines as a dividing point. You are the one with the unspoken assumption that aggressive attack is “ballsy” and handwringing is “pussy.” I didn’t say that; you did. You are laying a whole bunch of stereotypical gender-baiting bullshit on me, just like sophonisba did when she implied that I was calling the offended people on this thread “cunts.” You can’t make every argument about what dicks men are. If you want to identify with the likes of Ann Coulter because you share the same plumbing — or because you are so perishing noble — be my guest. I decline to defend Daffyd ab Hugh from the charge of being someone whose Photoshopped picture as a consumer of a comically immense sandwich — given his insistence that his critics go to Boot Camp — is mildly amusing just because I am carrying a lot of extra weight. Sadly, No! should continue to kick the bastards in the gender-neutral tender areas and if we on the Left want to spend all our energy policing ourselves for insensitivity, boo hoo for us.

    Fuck, we parody ourselves better than we parody the people we actually are against.

  447. zuzu
    zuzu March 2, 2007 at 12:14 am | *

    Another part of Ann Coulter’s hideous politics is a virulent anti-feminism. This is jarring because she is a woman, and feminism largely cleared a cultural space for her success, so it’s upsetting to hear her talk about the way women should behave and act and think, because such talk is patently regressive and misogynist. But I didn’t make her a woman-hating shrew; she did. I didn’t set her up as an expert on the way women should behave; she did. Therefore, if I say her politics are less like those of a woman and more like those of a crazy Republican transvestite, I don’t feel like I’m attacking women or transvestites; I feel like I’m attacking Ann Coulter, who, unlike me, genuinely dislikes women and transvestites.

    See, but when you attack Ann Coulter for genuinely disliking women and transvestites by insulting her womanhood and comparing her to a transvestite, it gets really, really hard for women and transvestites to believe you when you say that *you* really like women and transvestites.

    God knows I watch my back when someone who gleefully calls Ann Coulter a cunt tells me that they’re on my side. Especially when they get angry and defensive when I point out that maybe calling Ann Coulter a cunt is not exactly the best way to attack her anti-feminism.

    You know, kind of like when TRex got so, so very upset when I called him on calling various wingnuts cunts. He raised the very same arguments a lot of y’all are making here. And, gosh, wasn’t it funny that in the ensuing discussion on Firedoglake, comments kept getting thrown into the mod queue for using the word “cunt.” Why was that word moderated? Because some wingnut had chosen to attack Jane Hamsher’s ideas by calling her a cunt.

    Do you really not see how stupid and counterproductive it is to do the very same thing?

    Likewise, when comparisons of making fat jokes to making Jew jokes comes up – well, I don’t want to lean too heavily on “I cain’t define por-nog-ra-fee but I knows it when I sees it” territory, but the fact is, we – you and I both – know the difference between a liberal like Brad making a fat joke about Ab Hugh and a conservative like Ann Coulter making a fat joke about Michael Moore. We know the difference, because we know who they are as people and we know what their goals are as thinkers. We know their attacks are from vitally different angles: the former attacks the words and ideas of his opponent, and maybe throws in a cheap joke for laffs. The latter attacks only the appearance, only the surface, only the stereotype: how can you listen to that fat shit?

    And the wingnuts are saying the same thing about their fat jokes. See, it’s okay because we’re bashing fat people for all the right reasons! Those people over there, their fat jokes make fun of fat people, but our fat jokes just make fun of this fat person, whose ideas are abhorrent!

    Which, of course, is a crock of shit.

    Not that this is really going anywhere at this point.

  448. zuzu
    zuzu March 2, 2007 at 12:19 am | *

    If you want to identify with the likes of Ann Coulter because you share the same plumbing — or because you are so perishing noble — be my guest.

    Oh, for fuck’s sake. NOBODY IS IDENTIFYING WITH ANN COULTER OR DAFFYD AB HUGH HERE.

    All we’re saying is that you may think that you’re only insulting Coulter or ab Hugh, but the insult you use relies for its power on the idea that women or fat people or queers or what have you are disgusting and Less Than and worthy of mockery just for existing. And that your allies who happen to share those characteristics wonder why they’re being brought in for abuse when the characteristic has nothing to do with what makes Coulter or ab Hugh odious.

    THAT, for the love of Pete, is what people have been saying for lo these 500 comments.

  449. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 2, 2007 at 12:22 am |

    When someone calls Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin a cunt — or even Amanda Marcotte, lest you misunderstand me — and I take offense, do you think it’s because I feel “solidarity” with her as a woman?

    Honestly? After reading this whole entire thread — thank you very little, as Mithras says — with its endless PC backbiting?

    I wouldn’t have said so before, and I don’t enjoy saying so now, and doubtless I am a bad person for saying so, but y’all are so fucking bitter, so I am bound to say:

    Sadly, Yes.

    This reflects more on the society — the Patriarchy, even — than on you. But still. I would physically choke Rush Limbaugh on bloody handfuls of my own blubber ripped from my body before I would chastise someone on my own team for calling him a fat piece of shit. Priorities.

    On to Tehran!

  450. zuzu
    zuzu March 2, 2007 at 12:23 am | *

    Oh, and the Rude Pundit came up several times.

    The Rude Pundit, first off, is a persona. But more importantly, the Rude One owns his offensiveness. He doesn’t apologize for it, and he doesn’t tapdance around it and try to justify it as being perfectly okay when he does it to people he disagrees with. He doesn’t rationalize it.

    And he certainly wouldn’t be spending two days and 500 comments getting all defensive about it.

  451. Marked Hoosier
    Marked Hoosier March 2, 2007 at 12:30 am |

    I have comment 494, which means we only need 21 more comments to hit my prediction of 515!

    Together, we can make me look smarty :)

  452. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 2, 2007 at 12:37 am |

    All we’re saying is that you may think that you’re only insulting Coulter or ab Hugh, but the insult you use relies for its power on the idea that women or fat people or queers or what have you are disgusting and Less Than and worthy of mockery just for existing.

    If you think saying “Ann Coulter is a cunt” is the same as saying “all women are disgusting,” you are way outside the sphere of colloquial discourse into a deconstructionist theoretical academic realm that has very little to do with the effective shaping of popular opinion or real social change in the near term.

    Daffyd ab Hugh is a Communist.

  453. zuzu
    zuzu March 2, 2007 at 12:39 am | *

    One more thing (I apologize for the multiple posting, but I was on jury duty today and away from my computer):

    When we argue that a person’s weight, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., should be off-limits for cheap shots that are irrelevant to the scumsucking qualities that are really the issue with that person, our concern is not that person’s feelings but the feelings of our allies who have to put up with abuse because of that very thing you’re choosing to mock.

    And it’s not the job of the person who feels belittled to develop a thicker skin; it’s the job of the person making scattershot attacks to listen when an ally says that those attacks are irrelevant and offensive and to consider maybe focusing on the real issues.

  454. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 2, 2007 at 12:39 am |

    the Rude One owns his offensiveness. He doesn’t apologize for it, and he doesn’t tapdance around it and try to justify it as being perfectly okay when he does it to people he disagrees with. He doesn’t rationalize it.

    Go Thou, Leftists, And Do Likewise.

  455. zuzu
    zuzu March 2, 2007 at 12:44 am | *

    If you think saying “Ann Coulter is a cunt” is the same as saying “all women are disgusting,” you are way outside the sphere of colloquial discourse into a deconstructionist theoretical academic realm that has very little to do with the effective shaping of popular opinion or real social change in the near term.

    No, I’m saying that if you can attack an enemy with a term like “cunt,” you can turn that right around on me anytime you decide you don’t agree with me anymore. Because what you’re saying is that — right now at least — I’m one of the “good ones” who isn’t really, you know, a cunt or anything, not like those cunts like Ann Coulter.

    But that privilege of not being called a cunt — and it’s quite clear that you view it as a privilege — is subject to your whims of who you find acceptable.

  456. ilyka
    ilyka March 2, 2007 at 12:56 am |

    You are the one with the unspoken assumption that aggressive attack is “ballsy” and handwringing is “pussy.” I didn’t say that; you did.

    No, I said what you were too timid to come out and say directly. Instead, you couched it in code phrases like, “y’all are so fucking bitter,” and “PC-baiting.” And lemme tell you something: That makes you infinitely more tiresome than a wingnut. A wingnut will come right out and say it so I can go, “Huh–stupid sexist wingnut” and be done with it. But an ostensibly liberal dude will whine and scream and tantrum ’til the end of time about how dare I pick on him, he’s a progresssssssssive, I need him, he’s on myyyyy siiiiiiiiiiide, a house divided cannot staaaaaaand, why’s there all this infighting, this circular firing squad? Tellingly, he will never consider as a serious answer, “Because I just wouldn’t quit bringing the stupid, no matter how many times I was asked, no matter how many times it was explained to me why it was stupid.”

    And then he will helpfully re-orient me to the really serious issues, like Pastor Fucking Swank. Excuse me–war casualties. I meant war casualties.

    You know, no one here spent anywhere near this length of time and verbiage over at Sadly, No! lecturing the bloggers there about which issues to take seriously and which ones to just get over, relax, or stop being so sensitive about. No one. But you all felt free to come over here and lecture a feminist blog community about What’s Really Important Right Now. And then you wet yourselves when anyone suggests your solicitous concern-trolling isn’t really welcome, and you really lose your shit when it’s pointed out that this attitude stems from privilege.

    I neutered a cat today. He’s whining less, and he has more to complain about.

    No, give me a wingnut every time. I don’t read much Rude Pundit but the same can be said for a wingnut: He OWNS his offensiveness.

    And in a few years, mark my words, you’ll be one of them. Oh, yes. A lot of them are former progressives, you know. They all sing the same sad song about how they used to be down with liberalism, but then the gays or the transgendered or the feminists or the people of color or the fat police or Ye Olde Identity Politics in general forced them, just forced them, to have second thoughts. Yeah–second thoughts about maybe not acting like such an entitled asshole once in a fucking while.

    Thinking is so hard, though.

  457. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 2, 2007 at 12:59 am |

    No, I’m saying that if you can attack an enemy with a term like “cunt,” you can turn that right around on me anytime you decide you don’t agree with me anymore. Because what you’re saying is that — right now at least — I’m one of the “good ones” who isn’t really, you know, a cunt or anything, not like those cunts like Ann Coulter.

    But that privilege of not being called a cunt — and it’s quite clear that you view it as a privilege — is subject to your whims of who you find acceptable.

    Call me a traitor, defend Joe McCarthy, call for the murder of American journalists, insult Liberal women, and generally make yourself one of the most toxic influences on American public discourse in the 21st Century, all while trading on your alleged bombshell sex appeal, and I might well call you a cunt. You’d have earned it. I’m not capricious or unreasonable. And you’re always free to call me whatever you want. Knock yourself out. Really, it will be my pleasure. You are giving away far too much power with this victimhood shit. Cowgirl up.

  458. zuzu
    zuzu March 2, 2007 at 1:05 am | *

    Call me a traitor, defend Joe McCarthy, call for the murder of American journalists, insult Liberal women, and generally make yourself one of the most toxic influences on American public discourse in the 21st Century, all while trading on your alleged bombshell sex appeal, and I might well call you a cunt. You’d have earned it.

    Why? Why does all of that earn “cunt” and not something, oh, I don’t know, RELEVANT?

    You are giving away far too much power with this victimhood shit. Cowgirl up.

    In closing, because it is past my bedtime: fuck your overentitled ass and the cayuse it rode in on.

  459. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 2, 2007 at 1:05 am |

    No, I said what you were too timid to come out and say directly

    What a convenience that is for both of us.

    And in a few years, mark my words, you’ll be one of them. Oh, yes. A lot of them are former progressives, you know. They all sing the same sad song about how they used to be down with liberalism, but then the gays or the transgendered or the feminists or the people of color or the fat police or Ye Olde Identity Politics in general forced them, just forced them, to have second thoughts. Yeah–second thoughts about maybe not acting like such an entitled asshole once in a fucking while.

    This is an intersting reality check for me about the nature of this kind of anonymous text-based communication. Because clearly neither of us has the slightest fucking idea who the other person actually is. I feel much better now. It’s like being called a Trotskyite — a healthy “what the fuck?” from another random voice howling in the ether.

    I neutered a cat today. He’s whining less

    Can I do the adorable [whistling] thing now or would that be in poor taste?

  460. zuzu
    zuzu March 2, 2007 at 1:06 am | *

    Oh, and spare me your pretensions of being the defender of Liberal womanhood while using a vulgar and derisive term for women’s genitals to dismiss another woman.

  461. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 2, 2007 at 1:21 am |

    In closing, because it is past my bedtime: fuck your overentitled ass and the cayuse it rode in on.

    Thank you, finally! Now turn that real, un-PC anger onto your actual enemies instead of your friends and we might just have a prayer, podnuh.

    Oh, and spare me your pretensions of being the defender of Liberal womanhood while using a vulgar and derisive term for women’s genitals to dismiss another woman.

    Have I mentioned that Rush Limbaugh is a dick?

  462. random_guy
    random_guy March 2, 2007 at 1:31 am |

    If you guys are so generally concerned about the possibility of people being offended, what’s with all the “go fuck yourself”s and “asshole”s, and “you’re worse than wingnuts”s? These are all terms that cause actual offense to the person you’re throwing it at, and you seem to have no problem with that whatsoever, yet are still, after TWO DAYS, whinging about a 4 month old post which was directed at none of you.
    A bit of fuckin’ consistency would be good, is all I’m saying.

  463. random_guy
    random_guy March 2, 2007 at 1:32 am |

    (generally = genuinely)

  464. Xanthippas
    Xanthippas March 2, 2007 at 1:33 am |

    This whole argument is utterly ridiculous. Step back for a second, you who agree with piny, and realize that you are willing to royally piss off fellow liberal bloggers so you can defend right-wing bloggers and pundits from being called mean and naughty names. That in essence is what’s happening in this thread, whatever your attentions are about condemning anti-fat bias or whatnot.

    The guys at Sadly, No! betray no hidden biases or prejudices towards fat people, women, hispanics, blacks, gays or whoever, when they use nasty epithets against right-wing bloggers. They are responding with nasty and foul language against nasty and foul people who accuse all of us of being traitors to our country. We’re not talking high discourse here. You have to keep this all in context. They use the weapons the right-wingers give them.

    Lastly, blind-siding a fellow liberal is just sorry. That’s all there is to it. If I’m day in and day out taking it to right-wing bloggers who are dishonest, lying sacks of shit, and suddenly my supposed ally comes at me because I dared to call one of those right-wingers “fat”, then yeah, I’d be a little peeved too.

    And by the way, there is no moral equivalency between those lying bastards who deliberately spread lies about Gore, and someone calling a right-wing blogger fat. None. They’re not the same thing. Period. If you can’t see why, then I can’t explain it to you.

    The willingness of liberal bloggers to cannibalize each other over this kind of stuff is just ridiculous. Does anyone imagine that they tear into each other over at the right because one blogger uses fat humor?

    Finally, the lack of polite discourse on this thread is sorry. You defenders of piny who are wondering why the denizens of Sadly, No! came over here a little peeved, need to stop and think about it for a second. My very first comment, which insulted no one except to imply this wasn’t a big deal, got me a “go fuck yourself.” Sorryness, all around.

    Some of you need to relax. It was sorry to take a shot at Sadly, No! in the first place, and it’s sorry to take a holier-than-thou tone with people such as myself who don’t get why this is some kind of big deal. Since we’re all theoretically on the same side, it would be nice to be treated with a little respect.

  465. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 2, 2007 at 1:34 am |

    A wingnut will come right out and say it so I can go, “Huh–stupid sexist wingnut” and be done with it. But an ostensibly liberal dude will whine and scream and tantrum ’til the end of time about how dare I pick on him

    Am I in an alternate universe, or was this thread about “how dare we pick on a fat wingnut?” No one is picking on me, other than to call me a “fuck” and a bigot and generally an asshole, which I think I can probably handle. I do not recall any whining, screaming or tantruming on my part. I suspect this is yet more tiresome bizarro sexist projection based on your preconceived notion of what the agenda of any man who disagrees with you must be. Much more of this and I’ll have to become a wingnut myself! Because that would make so much sense, what with me being a man and all!

    Is this a Twilight Zone episode involving some sort of Progresive Blog Thread From Hell where we all eat each other and Grover Norquist gnaws on our bones?

    Ow, my balls!

  466. Pinko Punko
    Pinko Punko March 2, 2007 at 1:45 am |

    Maybe everyone should take a break. I mean are things supposed to go to the inevbitable “fuck yous” or is it supposed to get better?

    Who knows.

    Anyway, HTML said he was an “asshole”, which strikes me as the same as the Rude Pundit “owning” his offensiveness, and HTML has been by far the most denounced of the “no apologists.”

    I don’t do fat jokes. I thought the pic was much more than only a fat joke, but since it hurt some folks, I can say I’m sad you felt sad. And i didn’t tell the joke.

  467. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 2, 2007 at 1:51 am |

    Maybe everyone should take a break. I mean are things supposed to go to the inevbitable “fuck yous” or is it supposed to get better?

    Who knows.

    Anyway, HTML said he was an “asshole”, which strikes me as the same as the Rude Pundit “owning” his offensiveness, and HTML has been by far the most denounced of the “no apologists.”

    I don’t do fat jokes. I thought the pic was much more than only a fat joke, but since it hurt some folks, I can say I’m sad you felt sad. And i didn’t tell the joke.

    You are a genius. Let’s kill this fucking thing. In the spirit of Spartacus:

    I, CS LEWIS JR. (a pseudonym), AM AN ASSHOLE.

    I offer my un-ironic sadness to everyone who was hurt in this whatever-the-fuck-just-happened.

    If we can off this misbegotten thread by Comment 515, at least somebody wins.

    Peace. Out.

  468. ilyka
    ilyka March 2, 2007 at 1:53 am |

    If you guys are so generally concerned about the possibility of people being offended, what’s with all the “go fuck yourself”s and “asshole”s, and “you’re worse than wingnuts”s?

    See, because one can stop being an asshole.

    Really.

    Easier than losing weight, usually, too.

    The Very Simple and Obvious Point that keeps going missing here:

    “advocates genocide” = something one DOES
    “genocidal lardass” = something one IS

    “promotes misogyny” = something one DOES
    “a hatchet-faced cunt” = something one IS

    I don’t think at this point anyone’s hands are clean here regarding the distinction between what one DOES and who one IS, mine least of all. As you note, I have hurled a lot of fuckwits, shitstains, assholes, entitled pricks, and probably more I’ve since forgotten. These are lazy, sloppy shorthand for one simple request:

    Please quit trivializing concerns you don’t share just because you don’t share them.

    Fair:

    A commenter: I think this Photoshop betrays a little fat-phobia, don’t you?
    Another commenter: No, I don’t think so. I don’t hate fat people, I just hate this fat person. But the fat is incidental to why I hate him.
    A commenter: If it’s incidental, why use it at all?
    Another commenter: Well, truthfully? I like the cheap shots, and I thought he deserved it.

    THAT can end in agree-to-disagreement. This, on the other hand:

    A commenter: I think this Photoshop betrays a little fat-phobia, don’t you?
    Another commenter: Oh my God, are you serious? Isn’t there anything on CNN? I can’t believe this. You’re a PC-loon, is what you are.

    –gets you labeled a fucking tool. Excuse me: Gets me to wish most fervently that you would quit acting so much like a dismissive
    fucking tool.

    Extra credit:

    You can also quit parroting wingnut talking points–anytime, really–and bonus points if you also cease complaining that I compared you to a wingnut merely by noting that you are parroting wingnut talking points. Because seriously, every third post by SNIS in this thread should end with an exclamatory “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Go1dstein!” They’re the Parkay to his butter.

    Wanna stop being compared to ducks? Quit quacking like one.

  469. Rob G
    Rob G March 2, 2007 at 1:59 am |

    512 comments, and no-one’s used the tu quoquesucker fellacy. That’s gotta count for something.

  470. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 2, 2007 at 2:06 am |

    Have I mentioned that Rush Limbaugh is a dick?

    Either it’s misogynist but justified because it’s Ann Coulter or not misogynist, not both.

    So should I not call Rush Limbaugh a dick? Can I please be lectured at length about how terribly wrong it is for me to call Rush Limbaugh a dick when I could point out that he is also an idiot, and calling him a dick demeans all men?

    Sorry. Got sucked back in there for a second. I can quit whenever I want, really.

  471. Matthew Morse
    Matthew Morse March 2, 2007 at 2:10 am |

    Xanthippas said:

    This whole argument is utterly ridiculous. Step back for a second, you who agree with piny, and realize that you are willing to royally piss off fellow liberal bloggers so you can defend right-wing bloggers and pundits from being called mean and naughty names.

    No. We are willing to royally piss off fellow liberal bloggers so that we can defend everyone from being called mean and naughty names. Everyone. The whole world. No exceptions.

    It happens that everyone includes right-wing bloggers and pundits. That’s not because we care about them particularly. It’s because we care about everyone.

    Frankly, I thought caring about everyone was a core liberal concept.

    Before anyone gets confused:

    Torture: evil. War: evil. People who advocate preemptive wars: evil. Treating people who advocate preemptive wars like they are actually humans: liberal.

  472. ilyka
    ilyka March 2, 2007 at 2:13 am |

    the tu quoquesucker fellacy

    That’s the best thing I’ve seen in this thread since “big vagina.”

  473. Marked Hoosier
    Marked Hoosier March 2, 2007 at 2:28 am |

    Dagnabbit… why couldn’t the thread stop at 515?

    I am sad now. :(

  474. Matthew Morse
    Matthew Morse March 2, 2007 at 2:43 am |

    random_guy said:

    If you guys are so generally concerned about the possibility of people being offended, what’s with all the “go fuck yourself”s and “asshole”s, and “you’re worse than wingnuts”s?

    See comment 260, where piny said:

    In this case, many are saying “don’t make fat jokes because it will alienate fat people who could be sympathetic to our cause”.

    NO! Sadly, no! No, that is not what people are saying!

    Look: it is okay to alienate people. I just alienated the hell out of Sadly, No! I wish I could alienate Lesley right off my blog.

    It is stupid and wrong to alienate people for no good reason by attacking something that isn’t bad. We aren’t complaining because Sadly, No! has differing–potentially alienating–political views. We’re complaining because it’s bullshit to insult someone for being fat just because you want to hurt them somehow: immature, pointless, just plain stupid. We’re complaining because we were insulted even though Sadly, No! has said that they like most of us, don’t want to insult us, and don’t even dislike fat or fat people.

    The problem with a thread this long is that everything has been said, but specific statements are impossible to find because they’re buried in everything else. (I don’t want to think about how long it took me to track that comment down.)

  475. Matthew Morse
    Matthew Morse March 2, 2007 at 2:45 am |

    Oops. Apparently my nested blockquotes got screwed up. The last paragraph is mine. Everything else is piny’s.

  476. random_guy
    random_guy March 2, 2007 at 2:58 am |

    Yup, when someone calls me an asshole or tells me to go fuck myself, the first thing I think they’re trying to say to me is “Please quit trivializing concerns you don’t share just because you don’t share them.”

  477. HTML Mencken
    HTML Mencken March 2, 2007 at 3:25 am |

    Brad, the problem is the “lighten up” argument has been historically used to OK a lot of SUPER BAD SHIT.

    PP, you know I love you, but I gotta reply to this not because of you but because *some* other people are taking it, running with it, declaring us to be mimicking wingnut talking points, throwing in gratuitous PW references, then saying ‘no tag backs’. And that won’t fucking do.

    The *point* is that a fat joke is *never* super bad shit. Ever. Other jokes at the expense of a congenital identity traits can indeed be super bad shit, always depending on context. But never a fat joke. It is not the same thing. People would *like* for it to be the same thing, so they could ‘educate’ me into being nicer. But that doesn’t make it the same thing.

    ***
    PS — *What* do you guys read around here in the way of other liberal blogs? Roy just said ‘cunt’ a bunch of times today, so plainly he hates all women and should be blacklisted. Kos really is wrong on abortion, but I guess that means his site is shitlisted in total. TBOGG engages in gross ‘looksism’ when he posts Brent Baker’s photo to laughing derision and makes ‘elastic band Dockers’ jokes at the expense of ab Hugh-ish wingnuts, so obviously he too is beyond the pale. The Rude Pundit is ..well, rude. Someone has already said that TRex destroyed FDL, which apparently means that the rest of the posters there might as well be misogynists by association. Gavin and Brad and I are obviously awful in that we refuse to be re-educated. There’s Amanda and Shakes, and they are wonderful bloggers, and Ann Bartow, the PC Typhoid Mary, who is not, but, well, what are other acceptable sites that conform wholly to the demands of the Feminste politburo? Of the top 200 Lefty blogs, say? I’m curious.

  478. Jrod
    Jrod March 2, 2007 at 3:39 am |

    Well then. I assume piny and ilyka and their supporters have also posted on length denouncing the terrible fatophobia on The Simpsons, right? I mean, if Sadly, No! is to be utterly denounced, cast out of the liberal club, utterly untrustworthy even, for the crime of making a handful of fat jokes over the course of several years, then 20 years of continuous fat jokes on one of our culture’s most popular show must have merited a few denouncements. Please note, those were several years of 2-3 posts a day, most devoted to mocking wingnuts. Fat jokes came up only a few times. The times they were used were in reference to a man who is the Comic Book Guy brought to life and imbued with delusions of military prowess.

    One of my best friends weighs over 400 pounds. He cracked more fat jokes than anyone. It’s not that being fat didn’t bother him, he told me so himself. He had just learned to see the humor in his situation. People are funny. Everyone has something, you could be short, tall, fat, skinny, bugeyed, pockmarked, bucktoothed, a ginger, missing an eye, bald, hairy, impotent, missing teeth, waxy, wrinkly, unemployed, etc. I imagine Sadly, No has mocked all of these traits in one wingnut or another.

    As for the small handful of people who are built nearly perfectly by society’s standard, they get to be fantastically rich and hounded by paparazzi, with every tiny detail of their lives meticulously recorded for all to mock.

    All of these attributes can be very very funny. They can also be extremely cruel. Usually a joke is a little of both. If a person can’t handle that, then that person should not be rifling through the Sadly, No archives.

    The Rude Pundit, first off, is a persona. But more importantly, the Rude One owns his offensiveness. He doesn’t apologize for it, and he doesn’t tapdance around it and try to justify it as being perfectly okay when he does it to people he disagrees with. He doesn’t rationalize it.

    So viciously sexist jokes are ok, just so long as the person making the joke can be rationalized as possibly not really meaning it. Just so long as he doesn’t do it himself it’s just fine. I fail to see how the Rude One does not imply that what he says is perfectly ok by saying it, and no he wouldn’t try to explain himself, he’d tell you to fuck off. Is that really better than how the SN boys reacted? Their so-called rationalization was every bit as valid as RP’s.

    Do you honestly believe the SN crew truly hates fat people? You really think CSL Jr. hates women? A person who makes a fat joke or dares to call a reprehensible person a cunt is an enemy, even if they fully support abortion rights, fully oppose the Iraq War, support socialized medicine, and are by and large with you on every major issue? Because they have a higher threshold for offensiveness than you; because they have a meaner sense of humor, they are to be considered no different from those who actively seek to oppress everyone who’s not a rich white male I guess.

    We are willing to royally piss off fellow liberal bloggers so that we can defend everyone from being called mean and naughty names. Everyone. The whole world. No exceptions.

    That sounds horrible. A world like that sounds nearly like hell. I guess that’s the main disconnect here.

  479. Joseph
    Joseph March 2, 2007 at 3:48 am |

    Yup, when someone calls me an asshole or tells me to go fuck myself, the first thing I think they’re trying to say to me is “Please quit trivializing concerns you don’t share just because you don’t share them.”

    I think I can help: see, what happened was, at the beginning of the thread people were saying “Please quit trivializing concerns you don’t share just because you don’t share them.” After 250 (roughly) comments with their point being either dismissed or ignored, they started saying “Fuck off.”

    Understandable, I feel. YMMV

    To be more constructive, I think people really need to practice a little more sympathetic reading while on the Internet – it could head off a lot of misunderstanding. And by that I mean just considering that maybe they simply expressed themselves poorly or you read into their comment something they didn’t mean to put there. And I aim this comment at everyone, including myself.

  480. S.A. Small
    S.A. Small March 2, 2007 at 3:57 am |

    Dear Tempest in a Teacup (if you’re still reading, that is),
    I essentially baited you into a flame-war in the making. I’m sorry. But while we’re on the subject…

    And no one, bar for the lady whom I quoted, and who had the decency to provide an apology (even though none was required as I hoped to make clear, but it is appreciated that you can give one)….

    I’m definitely a male, and I certainly haven’t posted–or apologized, for that matter–till now. But whatever, easy assumption to make…

    I’d be really interested to know what you think the more correct grammar is, and how that paragraph could have been better formatted? Maybe it’s just a problem with your understanding of the concept it’s expressing? By the way, I’m not an American, so I don’t use American spelling or grammatical construction.

    Instead of insulting my reading comprehension, you could have simply restated your original point with the same clarity you used to insult me. I keep rereading it, and it’s still friggin’ unclear what you meant in that paragraph. (And honestly, “American grammar”? That sounds like a cop-out for sloppy writing.)

    Also, if you’ll note VERY carefully, all the “fucks” are in that particular paragraph, and are thus part of what is an illustrative point, within an article which itself is called “Go Fuck Yourself” based playfully upon that same point itself in fact. So whilst I may indeed use lots of foul language in real life, or I may not, your second point about the Pseudo-Rebel isn’t applicable on the basis of my two prior posts alone, because I haven’t used it except to make a point, see?

    I noted very carefully that you didn’t state what that point actually was. And my thing about the pseudo-rebels is that there are people who believe that simply shocking someone is somehow revolutionary and/or progressive, when it’s far more complex than that. You (1) seem to believe that the liberal use of “fuck” is shocking, and (2) you certainly think it helps you make whatever your point is. If (1) and (2) are correct, than by my standards you’re a pseudo-rebel.

    So again, Sorry. But I had to get that off my chest…

    P.S. I’m glad everyone was able to move past the whole fat jokes vs. torture part. Yeeesh.

  481. Stacia
    Stacia March 2, 2007 at 4:04 am |

    You sir, are no The Editors.

    Well, zuzu, Poor Man did once have an article with a Jaba the Hutt joke about how fat Candy Crowley was. They had confused Crowley with someone else, so the entire article got dismissed, but not before I asked how they could complain about the “Michael Moore is fat” winguttia while making fat jokes about others.

    Ah, yes, here’s the link:

    http://www.thepoorman.net/2006/11/02/wonkee-chee-sa-crispa-con-greedo/

    You’ll note The Editors didn’t respond. Interestingly, I got to this entry from a link on Poor Man… no, I don’t understand it.

  482. random_guy
    random_guy March 2, 2007 at 4:15 am |

    I think I can help: see, what happened was, at the beginning of the thread people were saying “Please quit trivializing concerns you don’t share just because you don’t share them.” After 250 (roughly) comments with their point being either dismissed or ignored, they started saying “Fuck off.”

    Understandable, I feel. YMMV

    Might I direct you to the URL of and original title of this very post?

    http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/02/28/go-fuck-yourself/

  483. Marked Hoosier
    Marked Hoosier March 2, 2007 at 4:27 am |

    This is the thread that never ends, Yes, it goes on and on, my friend. Some people started commenting not knowing what it was, And they’ll comment on it forever just because— This is the thread that never ends, Yes, it goes on and on, my friend. Some people started commenting not knowing what it was, And they’ll comment on it forever just because—This is the thread that never ends, Yes, it goes on and on, my friend. Some people started commenting not knowing what it was, And they’ll comment on it forever just because—…

  484. ilyka
    ilyka March 2, 2007 at 4:32 am |

    *What* do you guys read around here in the way of other liberal blogs?

    Of the ones you listed, quite a few–Roy, TBogg, Amanda obviously, Shakes, and yeah, Feminist Law Professors occasionally. No FDL, and not just ’cause of TRex, but I don’t need to write another novel here, so moving right along . . .

    Others (I don’t know if they’re all top-200 or not, but I’ll try to stick to the ones that seem biggish to me): Eschaton; Jesus’ General; Lawyers, Guns and Money; Majikthise; Feministing; Greenwald before he moved to Salon, anyway; The Poor Man.

    Wait, didn’t someone at Eschaton rank The Poor Man as a C-list blogger a few weeks back? Well, hell. Close enough. I need my talking dinosaur/shark videos. The worse they get, the more I love them.

    Roy’s cunt thing: I wasn’t too bothered by that, since one of the points was to use as many of the seven dirties as possible to show how ridiculous a standard for moral rightness “no cussing” is when the ideas you’re espousing are reprehensible. I wince every time I see the c-word, and Roy’s post was no exception to that, but I saw the joke, and Roy’s too hilarious for me to quit. Doubleplus hypocrisy alert!!!

  485. Joseph
    Joseph March 2, 2007 at 4:33 am |

    Might I direct you to the URL of and original title of this very post?

    http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/02/28/go-fuck-yourself/

    Actually, my take on that was that it was a reference to Cheney and his famous use of the phrase. I could be wrong. I’m not saying you should be happy about being told to shut the fuck up, but maybe a little understanding may be in order. Or not. It is, of course, up to you.

  486. random_guy
    random_guy March 2, 2007 at 4:43 am |

    I’m not offended by anything that’s been said, and no-one’s explicitly told me to go fuck myself or called me dirty names, and if they did I wouldn’t be offended anyway. I’m just pointing out that there’s a clear irony in the fact that the people lecturing the SadlyNauts for being offensive are being the more offensive party by far in this particular exchange.

  487. eugene
    eugene March 2, 2007 at 4:53 am |

    also cheney & bush can eat a dick

  488. Jrod
    Jrod March 2, 2007 at 5:01 am |

    (I’ll cheerfully go on record right now as saying that making fun of geeks and nerds is also pointless, immature, and really stupid. You’re writing on a blog to other bloggers. About government policy and media trends, no less. This all erupted over a photoshop funny. I hate to break it to you, but we’re nerds.)

    Some people can handle a joke that hits a little close to home. Other people start massive flame wars.

    The former might think a nerd joke is pretty funny, despite being a nerd. The latter thinks a nerd joke is proof of nerd-hatred.

  489. Leonard Pierce
    Leonard Pierce March 2, 2007 at 8:27 am |

    Whee! Let’s take this thing to 1000, what say?

    Sez Zuzu to me:


    See, but when you attack Ann Coulter for genuinely disliking women and transvestites by insulting her womanhood and comparing her to a transvestite, it gets really, really hard for women and transvestites to believe you when you say that *you* really like women and transvestites.

    I guess you could believe me when I say I like women and transvestites by my history of behavior towards them and my lifelong support of their political and social equality, marred by the occasional high crime of pointing out that someone is a woman or looks like an unsuccessful transvestite. As opposed to Ann Coulter, for example, who has a history of denigrating them, using them as exemplars of moral baseness, and opposing any legislation that would ensure them fair treatment under the law. If that’s not enough, then you’ll just have to take my word for it. It seems easy enough to tell who the bad guys are, I dunno.

    I missed the part in my post where I insulted Ann Coulter for being a woman, I guess. I also am claimed, as we well see, to have called Ann a cunt and Ted Haggard a faggot, which I’m pretty sure only happened in your minds. Since, as much as I love this thread, I can’t really be bothered to defend myself against charges of things I didn’t do, let’s move on.


    God knows I watch my back when someone who gleefully calls Ann Coulter a cunt tells me that they’re on my side. Especially when they get angry and defensive when I point out that maybe calling Ann Coulter a cunt is not exactly the best way to attack her anti-feminism.

    If you want this point addressed, you probably want to make it to someone who did those things. I’m just going to confine myself to responding to things I actually said.


    You know, kind of like when TRex got so, so very upset when I called him on calling various wingnuts cunts. He raised the very same arguments a lot of y’all are making here. And, gosh, wasn’t it funny that in the ensuing discussion on Firedoglake, comments kept getting thrown into the mod queue for using the word “cunt.” Why was that word moderated? Because some wingnut had chosen to attack Jane Hamsher’s ideas by calling her a cunt.

    Well, we’re three paragraphs into your response now, and I’m offered the unappealing option of defending the statements of people I don’t know in a discussion I wasn’t part of, but I appreciate you lumping a post I tried to make thoughtful and extensive in with theirs.


    Do you really not see how stupid and counterproductive it is to do the very same thing?

    Did I do that? Can you show me where?


    And the wingnuts are saying the same thing about their fat jokes. See, it’s okay because we’re bashing fat people for all the right reasons! Those people over there, their fat jokes make fun of fat people, but our fat jokes just make fun of this fat person, whose ideas are abhorrent! Which, of course, is a crock of shit.

    See, maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see it that way. That’s the whole thrust of the “Michael Moore is fat” joke employed by many liberal jokes: to me, it seems like a vast majority of conservative attacks on Michael Moore have very little substance beyond “Well, he’s fat!” Hollywood liberals are phony, Al Gore is a stiff, Ted Kennedy is a drunk, Hillary Clinton is a dyke, etc. There’s no there there, and that’s why their mockery is hollow and flat: it contains, as I tried to mention in my last post, nothing but the physical stereotype, nothing but the cheap shot, nothing but the baseness. Whereas, unless you’re exercising a massive degree of tunnel vision (which, I don’t wanna be a dick or anything, but…), that’s not happening with Sadly, No!

    For a perfect example, you only need to scroll up to the top of this very blog entry.


    You know what I can’t stand about Dick Cheney? It’s not the shameless corruption. I’m not all that annoyed by the whole war in Iraq thing, either. I’m pretty sanguine about his treatment of his daughter and her partner. In fact, the domestic and foreign policies he supports as vice president to the preznit are just fine with me in general. Tax cuts for the obscenely wealthy? Fetus fetishization? Surges? Bring ‘em on! Sadly, No! What really outrages me is that the guy is a big fat fatty fatass.

    See, it’s hard for me to understand why anyone would really believe that. I can’t speak for the Sadly, No! crew, but as for me, of course it’s the shameless corruption! Of course it’s the war in Iraq! Of course it’s the tax cuts for the obscenely wealthy! Those things form the very spine of my objections to Dick Cheney. If he didn’t believe them, and wasn’t in a position to make them reality, I wouldn’t even give a shit about him. I wouldn’t walk up to a guy on the street who looks like Dick Cheney and say “You’re fat.” Nor would Sadly, No!, I’m guessing, have a fucking word to say about the man if he wasn’t Dick Cheney. If you think the only reason they hate him is because he’s fat – or even that they hate him because he’s fat at all – you’re just seeing what you want to see. They’ve ragged on the guy their entire existence, and because once or twice, they addend “PLUS HE’S FAT!” to the list of real complaints to give it an ephemeral moment of laffs, that doesn’t make them part of the problem.


    Not that this is really going anywhere at this point.

    Uh-greed.

  490. Lesley
    Lesley March 2, 2007 at 8:31 am |

    PS — *What* do you guys read around here in the way of other liberal blogs? Roy just said ‘cunt’ a bunch of times today, so plainly he hates all women and should be blacklisted. Kos really is wrong on abortion, but I guess that means his site is shitlisted in total. TBOGG engages in gross ‘looksism’ when he posts Brent Baker’s photo to laughing derision and makes ‘elastic band Dockers’ jokes at the expense of ab Hugh-ish wingnuts, so obviously he too is beyond the pale. The Rude Pundit is ..well, rude. Someone has already said that TRex destroyed FDL, which apparently means that the rest of the posters there might as well be misogynists by association. Gavin and Brad and I are obviously awful in that we refuse to be re-educated. There’s Amanda and Shakes, and they are wonderful bloggers, and Ann Bartow, the PC Typhoid Mary, who is not, but, well, what are other acceptable sites that conform wholly to the demands of the Feminste politburo? Of the top 200 Lefty blogs, say? I’m curious.

    Ah, the pathos there would be so much more heart-wrenching if anyone outside of say 3 commenters had suggested they would stop reading you. What would make it truly, madly, deeply heart-wrenching is if anyone had suggested you be stricken from liberal blogrolls everywere! Cast out into the vast wastelands of non-liberalness like vile traitors! Told to toe the sensitivity line or else! And your little dog, too!

    However, that did not actually occur. I think it’s likely that you’re pretty young and haven’t yet had really major disagreements with friends that you put to the side while continuing to be friends. Either that or you just have no friends. I like to think it’s the former.

    So take heart! While you’ve been subjected to a lot of criticism and flames, you’re not being purged from the imaginary party rolls.

  491. Leonard Pierce
    Leonard Pierce March 2, 2007 at 8:50 am |

    Sez Piny to me:


    Well, yeah, you are. When you call Ann Coulter an evil fascist cunt, you’re using a misogynist slur.

    Once again, I am accused of calling Ann Coulter an evil fascist cunt, when all I did was call her an evil fascist with a horselike face who gets huffy if newsweeklies photograph her legs wrong. Anytime I’m called upon to defend something I really said, I’m the man to do it.


    You think that’s funny? I think I begin to understand.

    Boy, there’s a big fat guy worth of condescension in THAT remark! Anyway, I’m glad that since you now know me like a lover from a brief look at my sense of humor, we can move on to other things.


    This fat joke–just like the tranny joke–wasn’t actually all that funny.

    Ah, now we’re to some red meat! This is, as I tried to say in my post, the unarguable part of the discussion. If you didn’t think it was funny, you didn’t think it was funny. I did, and that’s that, and peace can rule the land without either of us calling each other ideological traitors. Hooray!


    Like I said, there are all kinds of ways to ridicule the guy and be funny without ridiculing his weight.

    And there are all kinds of ways to ridicule the guy and be funny while ridiculing his weight. “That’s not funny” only goes so far, you know?


    Zuzu skewers reactionary assholes all the time, and is way funnier than a photoshopped po’boy, and she’s never bothered with their weight.

    Eh, maybe. Humor is a pretty subjective thing, and I honestly think we could have ended it there. I am, as I’ve said, a big fat guy, and I can barely type the words “big fat guy holding a giant sandwich” without laughing. Shit, I’d even think it was funny if Ann Coulter pulled off a good fat-guy joke about Michael Moore if it wasn’t couched in a ball of hatred, racism, and blood-lust, but it is. If there’s something that you find morally reprehensible about words as words, ideas as ideas, regardless of their context, intent, audience or delivery, then that’s your right, but I’d suggest that you’re probably never going to be very happy, and will go through life in a near-constant state of low-level fury and opprobrium, because that’s the way Christian literalists think.


    What is, though? Calling him a faggot? Because that was the analogy. Does calling Ted Haggard a faggot attack his hypocrisy or the utter absurdity of the situation? Or do you just sound like the cocksucking was the issue here? Again: Ted Haggard, meth-addicted manslut: funny; Ted Haggard, cocksucker: not so much.

    Now, here, I’m just gonna have to drop the politely bemused act and say right out that you’re deliberately twisting my words to make me look like an awful homophobe. Did I call Ted Haggard a faggot? Nope. You did that, and attributed it to me. In fact, I took special pains to note that the act of cocksucking was not what made the whole situation so absurd and hypocritical – it was the context under which it took place. Did Ted Haggard suck cock? He sure did, and my mockery of him may well include the descriptive: “Hey, did you hear? Mr. Gays Are Bound For Hell Ted Haggard was caught sucking the cock of rent-trash in the back of a car for a handful of uppers.” But the direction of the barb isn’t at sucking cock: it’s at who’s doing the cocksucking, whose cock is being sucked, for what reason, under what circumstances, and under cover of what flagrant and genuine hypocrisy.

    If you think the mere presence of the descriptive makes it bad, well, I got news for you: you just did it yourself. “Manslut” implies that having multiple partners is wrong, which someone who enjoys multiple partners – of whom there are many – might take offense at, if they were thin-skinned and autofocused enough to zoom in on your use of that word, an only your use of that word. “Meth-addicted”? Christ, what’s wrong with that? There are millions of meth addicts, and a lot of them are horribly tragic figures suffering immeasurably under the weight of their sickness. But the fact that my father was an alcoholic and ruined his marriage and my childhood doesn’t mean I don’t get to call Pam Oshry an addled old drunk, because I’m not saying my dad sucked, or that all alcoholics are evil; I’m saying that the shitty right-wing racist loon who hosts Atlas Shrugs, among her myriad other failings, is further comical because she gets drunk and makes movies of herself. If some meth addict read your response, and was so shallow and tunnel-visioned as to completely miss that you are taking the thing you REALLY hate about Ted Haggard (that he is a moralistic, hypocritical swine) and adding a dash of mildly mean but still funny prodding of other qualities he happens to possess (that he is a speed-laced, promiscuous homosexual), they might well go on a lengthy tirade about your addiction-phobia and how you’re part of the problem. And they’d probably be missing the point, wouldn’t they?

  492. Xanthippas
    Xanthippas March 2, 2007 at 9:12 am |

    Matthew,

    Sorry, but that doesn’t fly. You may desire to defend the entire world from fat jokes, but you actually defend right-wing nutcases who don’t deserve the honor.

    And yes, it certainly seems to be very liberal to take cheap shots at your fellow liberal allies whose language is not as pure as yours.

  493. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 2, 2007 at 10:28 am |

    I see the problem here.

    Zuzu explains:

    The Rude Pundit, first off, is a persona. But more importantly, the Rude One owns his offensiveness. He doesn’t apologize for it, and he doesn’t tapdance around it and try to justify it as being perfectly okay when he does it to people he disagrees with. He doesn’t rationalize it.

    And he certainly wouldn’t be spending two days and 500 comments getting all defensive about it.

    We have apologized for nothing and owned everything we’ve said, but have made the mistake of engaging dialogically with you, Zuzu and Piny, explaining why we believe what we do.

    Since you have explained that this is the problem, in contrast to what the Rude Pundit does — which doesn’t bother you — we will certainly never attempt adult dialogue with you again.

    Cripes.

  494. zuzu
    zuzu March 2, 2007 at 10:50 am | *

    Since you have explained that this is the problem, in contrast to what the Rude Pundit does — which doesn’t bother you — we will certainly never attempt adult dialogue with you again.

    Oh, bite me, Gavin. That is not “the problem.” The problem is that you’re trying to have it both ways: make your fat jokes that have nothing to do with what’s really offensive about the target and still keep your liberal/progressive cred by coming up with some convoluted rationale for why it’s really okay because you only make fat jokes about bad fat people (or cunt jokes about bad women, or queer jokes about bad fags). And the larger problem is that you can’t acknowledge that.

  495. zuzu
    zuzu March 2, 2007 at 10:54 am | *

    Also, I never said that the Rude Pundit doesn’t bother me. However, because he is always consistent, I know exactly where he’s coming from at all times. Sometimes it’s not a direction I want to go, but I can always see the point he’s making.

    In any event, he had been brought up in this thread as an example of why what you’re doing is just peachy. And my position is that what he does and what you do are not comparable at all, so bringing him up doesn’t help.

  496. Mithras
    Mithras March 2, 2007 at 10:57 am |

    I’m back again!

    I just want to say, whether we’re just pausing for coffee or ending this thing here, this has been fun. The arguments have been of variable quality, but I do think I have a better handle on what piny and friends object to, not to say that I agree with them any more. And the S,N! guys should be credited – not berated – for coming here and trying to engage the criticism. My tentative conclusion so far is that, broadly speaking, the divide here results from differences over how to attack the same problems.

    Piny and friends are taking a strategic approach. They say language begets (or at least aids and abets) evil ideology. Attack that kind of language and social construct, they say, and eventually good will win. Or at least, don’t attack it, and good will never win.

    S,N! Amalgamated takes a tactical approach. They assume that in the short run social constructs are a given, and it’s particular political actors that need to be attacked. War is hell. You have to pick your battles, they say, and so can’t give equal effort to using language which doesn’t reinforce stereotypes and fighting to preserve life and liberty. (This view is reflected in the “moral triage” line of argument, too.)

    If this summary is incorrect in the details, I think it’s correct in the broad strokes. I am open to correction on that from the parties.

    Assuming for now I am right, this has been a good discussion. Clearly, there are merits and objections to both approaches. People should keep both in mind, whichever they prefer. This has not been a circular firing squad. It’s been an exchange of views among people who are working for very similar goals. If people look at this and think it shows weakness, they’re mistaken at best.

  497. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 2, 2007 at 11:04 am |

    Shorter Zuzu:

    The Rude Pundit and Sadly, No! are different because, uh, opposite. No backs, infinity.

  498. zuzu
    zuzu March 2, 2007 at 11:07 am | *

    Leonard, you do realize that if someone uses “you,” they’re not necessarily addressing you personally, right?

  499. zuzu
    zuzu March 2, 2007 at 11:10 am | *

    Gavin, the difference is that he’s not going to come over here and mewl for 542 comments about how those bad feminists are trying to cut off his balls for using bad language.

  500. Leonard Pierce
    Leonard Pierce March 2, 2007 at 11:32 am |


    Leonard, you do realize that if someone uses “you,” they’re not necessarily addressing you personally, right?

    I sure do! But, if not me, who WAS being addressed when a scolding was delivered about calling Ann Coulter a cunt or Ted Haggard a faggot? I didn’t do those things, so I don’t really understand why a post directed at me would include such a reference unless it was addressing me personally. The Sadly, No! crew, at whom this whole thread is directed, didn’t do those things either, so I don’t really think you were talking to them, right? So who were you talking to? If nobody around here called Ted Haggard a faggot, why talk about the damage “you” do by calling Ted Haggard a faggot? Why bring it up if none of the “yous” in the room did it? It certainly doesn’t seem relevant to any of the many, many, many points I made. So, I mean, why is it there unless maybe to create a certain misty guilt by association?

  501. CS Lewis Jr.
    CS Lewis Jr. March 2, 2007 at 11:35 am |

    Gavin, the difference is that he’s not going to come over here and mewl for 542 comments about how those bad feminists are trying to cut off his balls for using bad language.

    What is it with the balls? Why do you keep saying we’re afraid for our balls? Do you not see that this is a sexist stereotype that you are introducing into the discussion for the purpose of belittling your debate opponents via their genitalia? A little self-awareness, for Pete’s sake. Yeesh.

    We are willing to royally piss off fellow liberal bloggers so that we can defend everyone from being called mean and naughty names. Everyone. The whole world. No exceptions.

    That sounds horrible. A world like that sounds nearly like hell. I guess that’s the main disconnect here.

    I think that is a key, deep disconnect that no one is really addressing. As with this, from Mandos:

    You want to create an overall culture where everyone is on your side.

    To me that is just chilling. I want rational opponents, not universal Goodthink. A culture where everyone is on the same side sounds like living death.

  502. Sadly, No! Investor Services
    Sadly, No! Investor Services March 2, 2007 at 11:36 am |

    Mithras:

    I think you’re exactly right about the strategic/tactical distinction, although I hadn’t thought of that until you mentioned it.

    There was a group at my college formed to combat a tuition increase. A prime argument was that minority students would be the most affected, since this was a state school and many students were from lower-income households. This was totally reasonable, and I signed a bale of petitions supporting them.

    What happened was that the group became infiltrated (and I use that word very consciously) by aggressive PC warriors, who guilted their way onto the governing committee. And what happened was this: The bylaws and mission statement were amended and re-amended so that “Combat the proposed tuition increase” was crowded out by items such as (I am not exaggerating) “End racism, sexism, and homophobia.” Rallies were held, placards were printed, literature was typhooned all over campus. Ruckuses were raised, accusations of racism sexism and/or homophobia were intemperately flung, offenders were publicly criticized.

    Net effect: Less than zero. Disaster. Laughingstock.

    So in brief, that’s why I’m over