The other has to do with Dreher's idea of life in general. He's alarmingly sympathetic to plural marriages between/among nymphets and middle-aged men in a religious context. But the notion of sexual fantasy nauseates him. With God, all things are possible indeed: if a grown man picks the right faith he can live like Humbert Humbert minus the guilt, but if he or anyone looks at Miss November not only is he doomed, but so is society.So too does this gentleman:
Rod Dreher irresponsibly drags the "problem of pornography" onto his blog and then attempts to hide the mess behind a few utterly boring "essay" questions. Typical Dreher. Bring up a problem that is at the root of the soul-annihilation of an entire generation, hope people will applaud you for noticing (and being "above it all, really"), and proceed to render the gravity of the problem vulnerable to the most basic statistical and narcissistic critiques.Why yes, thank you for guessing, smart person!
It's again!
LATE-BREAKING BUTTDATE!!!
A dynamic logo for a dynamic personality:
39 comments:
Um.
Is the narcissistic critique fatuous and indestructable?
Because otherwise it's kind of hard to get all twiste...
Hey, he said "hard"!!!
Is the narcissistic critique fatuous and indestructable?
Ooh, good catch, which I take all the credit for as I twiddle my Kirsanow moustache in the mirror.
Roy and Rod, they are like inseparable.
Totally, also.
~
Holy seacow!
There could well be something wrong with having this kind of fun.
Oh the huge manatee.
That seals it, I shan't be back
There are times when I think of the lowly Homo erectus, who could only dream about the technology required to make asslicking jokes about other bloggers.
Many out in Consumerland considered Larry Flynt and Jerry Falwell as mortal enemies but really they're cousins. The failed baptist preacher often turns to pimping of some sort (or in more extreme situations, serial murder). Or used car sales.
One must perceive Flynt's 20 story pad on Wilshire, and some of his girlies coming and going from their limos to like appreciate his great accomplishments as Hustler-Pimp-in-Command (or, his "boutiques" and casinos)
Many out in Consumerland considered Larry Flynt and Jerry Falwell as mortal enemies but really they're cousins.
There are many ways to make money off sex.
Get a talste and you're hooked.
Hooked on sphonice, apparently.
Incomprehensible comment from Camille Paglia deleted.
a coward, Bub.
Sad to say. Not to say mistaking the usual cyber-porn zone for progressive politics.
Please feel free to take issue with me, but attacking everybody here makes it less of a fun place to, you know, have fun.
What, specifically, do you take issue with?
A certain liberal-moralism which depends more on ad hom (however clever) and defamation instead of substance--not always, but often. The graphix (sort of D-KOS like really) reinforce that Defamation chic. It's to be noted on many soi-disant leftist sites, ah contend. You suggest a Simpson or Hallowell's not wrong for some specific point or argument, but because they are like whitey, not-democrats, gun-lovers,xtians, Palin supporters etc . People, even conservatives should be considered guilty for specific acts, not just because they arent in same club.
When Demos suggest that their GOP foes are wrong simply because they are in wrong par-tay, more or less, I reach for my Constitution (or Nietzsche if you like). Dick Cheney's no more guilty than a Di Feinstein (and their records about the same).
Well, the graphic is obviously scurrilous, but I like limericks too. No apologies required there.
I don't think you're catching the gist of the post though, which as the writer, I guess, is my fault.
So: Roy quite rightly points out that Orthodox (!!!) ninny Dreher is more comfortable with old guys fucking teenagers in practice than fantasizing about it.
Rimwell (Catholic) attacks Dreher from the perspective that Rod blogging about pornography is irresponsible. Which he blogs about.
That is funny.
Not sure how that fits into your narrative that I've attacked so-and-so for being part of a particular group.
Porn doesn't necessarily lead to Bundy's. But that doesn't mean we should just agree with the cyber-libertarian's who insist porn (or prostitution, gambling, liquor, dope, etc) is just another business, and should not be censored, or regulated in any way. Dreher engages in the usual moral chitchat, but again that doesn't mean there are NO moral issues relating to porn. It's just that biblethumpers have sort of taken command of the discussion. You just trashed Dreher without really dealing with his points--whatever, but some might say there is at least some debate there, even if we don't agree with the fundies' solutions (though I don't completely disagree with Dreher's assertion that porn does have negative consequences, especially on teens)
I'm not actually required to deal with what you want dealt with when I write something.
who suggested porn or drugs or prostitution should not be regulated?
Besides, I mean, the goofy Libertarians, who don't seem to be hanging around here.
dreher is just an old fashioned moral scold in new Intertubes clothes. He's not even very good at, remember Cal Thomas? Npw THERE was a pencil necked geek moral scold.
Capcha concurs, suggesting we look at each other's crorchi.
sorry. can't spell so good with all this straw around here.
straw brains are not very filling, regardless of what L Frank Baum says. If he's so great, why isn't he here commenting?
Dreher's texas tone isn't the greatest--especially for the usual online gonzo libertarian accustomed to endless fart jokes and punk rock --- but Dreher writes fairly clearly--brings up a somewhat important issue , though we might not agree with his conclusions. Not exactly Cal Thomas.
As far as heads of McStraw go, well-------
And actually I am a bit puzzled about RB's POV: are you disagreeing with all (Dreher, Rimwell, and the commenter?) That's what it looks like. Now that I've read Rimwell, I believe he has a legitimate point as well--that Dreher sort of trivializes the issue, or reduces it to some predictable biblethumper sound-bite, whereas Rimwell suggests it's rather more sinister and complex (catholic perdido rather sublime compared to mere prot. perdition....). Regardless, Dreher outsores the R-well on the Cal Thomas meter.
Just suggesting they're wrong because they're bloody f-ing wankers not that responsible, izz it. Cue thunderstruck.......
I agree with Roy that Dreher's really weird calculus on practical vs. imaginary exploitation - among other hangups - is no place from which to start a porn debate.
I disagree with Rimwell that you cannot speak about pornography on your blog, as he proves. My excerpting of the whole bit was more because I was interested in the I-shall-faint quality about the language with which he should not have been blogging about pornography. If you agree that "soul-annihilation of an entire generation" is apropos I don't know what to say.
What I think about pornography is neither here nor there to to those points, but it's interesting that you've ascribed positions to me based on your perceptions of... what? My belonging to some group?
Hang on. Lemme just go check something.
Yep, this blog is called "Righteous Bubba". That being the case, he can write what he wants here. On a blog called J-- he can write what he wants. The only question outstanding is whether we want to read it.
I'm going to take the position that if you don't think RB's living up to his social responsibilities, and by engaging in pointless humor or not taking positions you actually agree with, you probably should find sites you prefer to read rather than castigating him for, well, not being YOU.
To take a particular blogger to task for violating YOUR rules seems both futile and unreasonable. I don't think you get to make the rules...
Not about rules: RB's diss of Rimwell seems Limbaugh-like (jus' change the targets slightly)--merely defamation, not really substantial. We might disagree with Rimwell's condemnation of porn, but I don't think Rimwell's quite a Roody Guilani like papist. It's obviously a serious issue to him (tho' not to the RB crew).
Dissent means even allowing non-democrats (or non-marxists) to voice their opinion, however troubling it might be to par-tay regs. Even Noam chomsky agrees with that
Keep in mind that there is J and there is J—. Exceedingly important!
But, but, but.
Waitaminute. For Bubba to write what he finds interesting or amusing about the topic is NOT in any way to disallow or prevent the targets of his mockery from having their say. He is having his, in his way.
To claim that he is somehow not allowing them "...to voice their opinion" appears equivelent to sarah palin sobbing that the newspapers were violating her rights to free speech. It's all equal until you get to the people who actually have the power to stifle speech...
Mikey, I do have the power to stifle speech and I stifled some on this thread. My reason: I'd prefer an argument with me rather than refereeing arguments between others.
I have a lot of appreciation for the entertainment and diversion people bring to me here.
I get that.
I hope you didn't see my comments as arguing. I got no dog in this fight. No reason why everybody should enjoy what you do. Sometimes it's completely over my head. But when it is, I just go read something else.
My observation was simply that calling you names because I don't like what you've written is kind of futile...
Not about rules: RB's diss of Rimwell seems Limbaugh-like (jus' change the targets slightly)--merely defamation, not really substantial.
It is slightly more than defamation, but I can cop to insubstantiality as I do this for my own amusement.
We might disagree with Rimwell's condemnation of porn,
Here is where no opinion has been expressed.
but I don't think Rimwell's quite a Roody Guilani like papist.
Here is where even less opinion has been expressed, outside general asshole atheism in other posts.
It's obviously a serious issue to him (tho' not to the RB crew).
These are more assumptions.
Dissent means even allowing non-democrats (or non-marxists) to voice their opinion, however troubling it might be to par-tay regs. Even Noam chomsky agrees with that
You have your own blog. I don't see why I have to ensure you create an argument based on misperceptions here where I have fun. Be here, observe and commment freely. I'm gonna delete things that will inhibit my fun, but it's much less likely that I'll delete things that take me on rather than others.
I hope you didn't see my comments as arguing.
Nope, don't worry about it.
I'm not being clear here: argument's fine, a poke in the eye with a stick to people here is less fine.
You didn't really address any of Rimwell's points, and making fun of his name--no, really blaspheming his name--seems juvenile, sort of like those old TJ bibles with the priest--or pope-- in the dress, whore-nuns, etc. I haven't read that much of Rimwell, and sense he's a bit of a cry baby, but he's obviously not some raving John Hagee type. Stuff a crucifix up the virgin mary's v****a if you want, but about like Hustler-mag level wit, Bub. bad form.
You didn't really address any of Rimwell's points, and making fun of his name--no, really blaspheming his name--seems juvenile
At this point I have to say we agree about my attack on Rimwell.
When Demos suggest that their GOP foes are wrong simply because they are in wrong par-tay, more or less, I reach for my Constitution (or Nietzsche if you like). Dick Cheney's no more guilty than a Di Feinstein (and their records about the same).
7/16/2009 01:17:00 PM
Suggesting that a near-republican Democrat is also bad doesn't come close to letting the republicans off the hook.
It emphasizes their essential badness, as a matter of fact.
~
LATE-BREAKING BUTTDATE!!!
You mean late-cracking, of course.
Wind-breaking?
That Rimwell graphic cracks me up on the new site too.
Post a Comment