Wednesday, August 17, 2011

The Old and The Reckless

There's not a person among us who, if followed for a sufficient period of time, can avoid breaking some provision of some law. Parked that car without setting the handbrake? Illegal. Driving without a DOT approved litter control device? Busted! Failed to turn your wheels towards the curb while parked? Oh snap, guilty. And all of this is just detailing a trip, say, to the post office to send off an "I love you" card to one's dying mother.

Or an I hate you letter to Nanny Ophelia. For the sake of relevance to my point, I only used laws that bear directly on the progenitor of today's target:  the laws of Washington state. Seattle in particular as that's where Nanny Ophelia lives, and these are some of the laws she apparently feels free to disregard on a regular basis.

Anyway, the same holds true of offense. The most polite, sincerely friendly person one meets will say something that will be found offensive somewhere by someone.  And Ophelia is no different - there's no particular difference between her and any other group who mean to cause offense. She might not be as violent as the KKK, but she's no less offensive than the KKK.  And she's quite proud of this.

She lambastes religion and its adherents on a daily basis. She leads her life in utter fear or hatred of religion and for its practitioners. It's difficult for her to say that she hates religion, but not the religious. It's kind of like the church's dimwitted response to loving the sinner (the fag), but hating the sin (fags doing anything). She hates all that some random parishioner holds dear and everything they do because of it, but it's only the religion she hates - not the religious. Nonsense.  She hates religious people just as much as the religions they propagate.

At least the local clansman is honest enough to let you know it's not some vague, abstract idea of niggerarchy he hates; it's each and ever nigger. And Jew. And Catholic. And faggot. The KKK has a lot of people to hate even if they managed to off all the blacks.

Who will Ophelia hate if we got rid of every religion? The same people she hates right now - including her own dried up shell of a person. 
She's not racist such as I know, but she's very much not keen on people who are different than she is. It's not a matter of race that gets up her nose. No.  For instance, one of her most casually hated groups is people who aren't as close to being dead as she is. She just hates young people. Look, hag, it's not my fault you were born first and are thus statistically closer to dropping dead than I am.

I don't think that matters in terms of a person's value. I value old people as much as much young people. Ophelia thinks otherwise. How do I know? I read her intellectually bankrupt blog.  Let's take a non-random sampling of her bigotry. I bet I can find something in the last couple of days where she's bashing young people for being, you know, not old and sophisticated as she is. Well, she'll be partly right - I'm not as old as she is, but sophisticated? Well, we'll just see about that.

Ah, here we go!

I’m not fond of ERV’s infamous “Twatson” slur. Elevatorgate is a tricky issue for feminism in our community already, and to insert an inflammatory sexual insult into the discussion seems to me to be counter-productive at best. Then again, the ERV blog has a humorous, irreverent, youthful tone to it. ERV’s shtick is to blend serious topics like politics and gene research with the unfiltered language of youth culture. And I hate to break it to you, but the kids are still saying pretty much whatever they want whenever they feel like it.
That didn't take long at all. Get off my lawn, you kids!   What are the things that are important to Ophelia? Well, censorship and groupthink are held in high esteem. So is formality and style. For instance, what is entailed by this youth culture? What is it to be, say, a woman worthy of respect?  Apparently, being different than Abbie Smith (ERV) who is nearly finished with her PhD in virology, and immunology.  This is an impressive feat all by itself. My PhD is in mathematics, which people find impressive. But it's not all that impressive really. We have a luxury people in Abbie's field do not have: time. Lots and lots and lots of time.

In my field if we can't solve a problem, we can walk away from it and just let it hang for a few centuries until someone else gets around to figuring it out. No biggie. It's just math. If Abbie and her compatriots do that, hundreds of millions of people die in the most painful, unimaginable ways possible. They can't sit around and just wait it out.  No matter how hard of a wall they're up against, how confusing the problem, how impossible the task, she and her colleagues wake up every day undeterred by a lifetime of not solving the problem. These scientists have the kind of passion and desire for self-sacrifice enviable by all but the most dedicated of suicide bombers, which doesn't diminish over time for any reason other than a cure.

So, what is it that Abbie Smith does to make her lose esteem in the eyes of Nanny Ophelia?  She said bad words. She doesn't play the poor helpless damsel in distress. She doesn't put her own "image" as being more important than any potential issue.  This "youth" culture has a lot to do with not being so Victorian as Ophelia insists we must be.

Let's compare a response each our of test subjects have taken, as a matter of public record on topics they care about, shall we?

Nanny Ophelia cares an awful lot about tone (and tone trolling as it turns out). But for a substantive issue, she cares a lot about how women are treated, or appear in public (and she writes about these topics for a living, so we can conclude they're important to her to the point of deciding if she eats or not).

Abbie Smith (ERV) cares a lot about curing, in general, diseases that kill and harm people, and HIV in particular.  As such, she's working on that petty, crackerjack-easy PhD in immunology and virology (and writes a blog on these topics, as well as other issues of curiosity, concern to her).

Each test subject earns money from the her blog, and as such has some financial interest in these blogs being read - part of which is to make the blog unique and marketable. Drama does that. 

So, given the disagreement of some people over a topic very important to our test subjects, what happens:

Nanny Ophelia puts up the following post about those with whom she disagrees:


Anybody who posts supportive comments at ERV is likely to be blocked from posting comments here.
Note: this is not a genuine “rule.” It is an explanation for the ostentatiously obtuse, added in a spirit of levity. It won’t be here long.
Ha ha!  I'm only joking about all of the banning, editing, and censorship I've done and endorsed. Joke's on you for thinking I meant it! Hahahaha, but you still can't post here, or on any of the blogs I can bully into obeying me.

What does young, dumb, morally corrupt, intellectually vacuous Abbie do regarding addressing people who are antithetical to her lfe's work? She meets them on their own terms and removes all bullshit barriers they claim prevent them from taking her position seriously.
I think Ive figured out why youve been... unresponsive... to the Skeptical communitys efforts to educate you on vaccines.
All the people addressing you have been cranky old men.
Apparently you dont swing that way.
I hearby offer to give you a personal crash-course in immunology, virology, and why scientists are so 'into' vaccines.
In my bikini.
Skeptic community gets you to quit spouting anti-vaccine BS on TV (and 'Twitter'), you get an out for admitting youre wrong ('34D! Id believe anything she said!') and can put this topic behind you.
Ha ha - I have no self respect, so I want to strip naked and be ogled by an old white guy for no reason!  Or, maybe, just maybe, haha - what I'm wearing doesn't matter as my intellect and sense of pride in myself are strong. In fact, I can lecture standing butt-ass naked and the correctness, poise and dignity I have aren't diminished in the slightest.

Fucking youth culture, man! If Abbie were 150 years old like Nanny Ophelia, then she'd really understand how insulting to women it is for her to wear a bikini and talk about things other than getting airtighted. Why, if you talk about hard subjects without wearing this here virtual burka, you're a gender traitor who should be shunned! Don't you dare go off being attractive and smart.

It's not fair to people like me - I'm ugly and not as intelligent. Diminish yourself as I can feel adequate standing next to you.

Note to Ophelia - I'm going to call this all a joke so that you can't whine that you didn't know. You lied (unsurprisingly) about the tone and intent behind those of us as who debase ourselves being seen in publicly (online anyway) in the company of the ugly, ugly, stupid, bad and young Abbie Smith saying there is hatred and anger . . . of women.

You are so full of shit. We are angry at a couple of people. Being angry at your lies and fascism doesn't make us misogynists.  Indeed, the only way that's true is if your dumb, unlettered ass is hired to represent all women. As it is, like a couple of dozen in the entire world have seen fit to elect you as being smart enough to replace their own thoughts and decide for them what they think.

Resisting this doesn't make us hate women. It just means we don't like you. Stop conflating the two.  It has nothing to do with your having a vagina. It's because you're a liar. You have no value or values.

Also, it's good to know you've finally come out publicly and admitted how disgusting you think gay people are.  It wasn't hard to figure out, but thanks for finally admitting it.

Also, your claim that were this a "racial" issue instead of a "sexist" issue, we'd probably be all talking differently is trivially dealt with.

When one "race" of people start claiming superiority over other "races" of people, we generally put a stop to it. Something like 100 or million people died in the last big conversation the world had on racial equality.  Almost all cultures are willing to sacrifice a significant portion of resources, including the blood of its citizens, to drive home the point that no race is entitled to own other races.

We also see a fairly common response when someone cries racial oppression when they're dealt a bad hand and happen to be of a particular color. They are almost universally laughed at.  When the claim is meritorious, we here in the states have a very nagging habit of making that oppression extremely expensive for the agency/group doing the oppressing. See Rodney King verdict for a good price tag we place on actual incidents.

It's not perfect, and some people get lost in the shuffle. That's the problem of having so millions of people - we can't always perfectly deal with every single instance of something bad happening. But we do try.

Also, I don't see groups of, say, black people meeting with one another where the speakers attack the younglings for being stupid about what it means to be black. For being the cause of harm and discrimination befalling the blacks.

If that were the case, the same group I'm running with right now would be deriding the offenders just the same as we are doing with the hobby horse you're riding right now. Why? Because it's wrong.  Plus, we've demonstrated that neither nigger, nor kike, nor faggot, nor dyke, nor any other naughty word is beyond use and ridicule.

In short, you're just lying. You're a joke, and we'll continue laughing at the punchline you'd prefer to call "thoughtful" and "nuanced". It's claptrap. We recognize it as such. And that's why you're our whipping bitch right now.

11 comments:

ERV said...

Yeah, I really meant that. Its a really easy out for Maher on the issue and an easy PR plug for vaccination. Win win.

Justicar said...

I had no reason to think you didn't mean it. Unlike certain bloggers, you've given me no reason to think you're anything less than scrupulously honest.

Of course, that either means you are, or that just a very, very accomplished liar. Either is admirable in its own right - hey, being a good enough liar to escape everyone's notice that you're lying isn't easy I am told!

And I wasn't joking either. I'd show up wearing the same outfit as you - I'm just not sure of my 'cup' size.

But I've watched enough videos on ftm transsexuals to know some websites to get a good STP packer. =^_^=

dustbubble said...

I just realised what The Big "O", Greta C., Dreschler, their apprentice Watson, and all the rest of this miserable crew of opinion-mongers reminded me of. They're simply part of a continuum of absurd reactionary "lady" columnists d'un certain age (can't be arsed fossicking around in Char. Map for diacriticals).
And as far as I can see, they do nothing else, besides gob off at the workers (like Abbie, or DickieD).
As my old man would say, when notified of some firebrand's latest clarion-call, "Aye. But you never see them digging any coal .."

The british print and broadcast media are replete with these know-nothings, particularly the less overtly nasty "red-tops", and the Guardian always has houseroom for them. I think they labour under the misapprehension that "controversy" brings eyeballs. Burchill, 'Cardinal' Bunting, Mad Mel Phillips, even Benson and zombies like McEwan. And on the radio, Ann Atkins, a couple of extreme catholic nannygoats I can't remember (one at least is a Transatlantean, probably answers to "Mary", the other is or was Irish), some dreadful old gargoyle from Glasgow with a fright wig. The list of opinionated old bourgeois boilers is .. quite long.
Always women. Maybe the men have drunk themselves to death?

Yeh I know, TL;DR



Oh, Mr J. .. I bunged on a Johnny-Cum-Lately comment on an old, old but related post last night. Am I seeing things?

Verbose Stoic said...

Um, well, first:

"I’m not fond of ERV’s infamous “Twatson” slur. Elevatorgate is a tricky issue for feminism in our community already, and to insert an inflammatory sexual insult into the discussion seems to me to be counter-productive at best. Then again, the ERV blog has a humorous, irreverent, youthful tone to it. ERV’s shtick is to blend serious topics like politics and gene research with the unfiltered language of youth culture. And I hate to break it to you, but the kids are still saying pretty much whatever they want whenever they feel like it."

Was not said by Ophelia. It was said by James Sweet. Who has his own blog. And was ostensibly at least somewhat on your side (although not all that far). Ophelia's reply didn't address that at all, nor did this in any way demonstrate a "Get off my lawn" attitude even if she HAD said it.

Your fears of censorship seem a bit overstated as well, since I pretty much disagree with her on everything and haven't had a comment removed yet.

Ultimately, it's not a good idea to call someone a liar when you're being quite inaccurate yourself.

Justicar said...

Verbose Stoic:
I am somewhat confused by your comment here, particularly since you're accusing me of some intellectual crime and being possessed of fear. I'm not going to say you've implied I've been dishonest, or have misrepresented Nanny Ophelia since you didn't say as much. So, I'll leave it at the level of your going no further than to say that I am factually wrong. Therefore, I will address you on that level.

When a person endorses a particular quotation as representing their views on a matter, that quotation is rightly used as a sample of representing someone's thoughts/opinions.

The quoted passage was not originally said by Nanny Ophelia - this is true. What is simultaneously true is that she responded to it by saying that it was true. This would seem to fairly represent her views on the matter.

Further, I did not say the following quote was authored by her. I said I would for a non-random sampling of her ageism. I found one that fairly represents her thoughts on that matter, posted on her own blog, and cited to by her as being a true statement.

So, let's review - the above quotation is on her blog. Immediately in response to it she admits that it's true and further elaborates on its truth, and some of the contours of how and why it is true. Namely, she says that the "youthful" disposition can so easily turn into become bullying. This immediately followed her having said, "I like quality mockery, but not mere abuse."

So, she endorses the quoted section by saying that it's true, and then delineating the extent to which she sees it as true, explains that she thinks Abbie's blog on this has been not good in the respect of being harmful, worrying, inimical to liberal values and politically dubious. She then explains that such is rank abuse, and it's so easy for Abbie and her "youthful" culture to turn into bullying. One notes that to be "bullied" in this regard requires going to Abbie blog in the first place.

I fail to see how I've been at all inaccurate, particularly since I said I was going to look for a non-random example of her ageism, and in no way said "Nanny Ophelia came up with the following words." She agreed they're true, and thus their meaning fairly represent her thoughts and views.

I've done her no disservice, and I've not been at all inaccurate.

Ultimately, it's not a good call to call someone inaccurate in calling another liar for being inaccurate when you are factually wrong from the word go.

But that's your problem, not mine.

Verbose Stoic said...

Justicar,

Her reply to that quote was this:

"It’s true that ERV specializes in a rowdy, funny, raunchy, say-it-all style, which is one that I like a lot when it’s well done (and Abbie Smith does it well)."

She says nothing about that being a trait of the young or anything like that at all, and that's what your post is aiming at. The closest she gets is this:

"A humorous, irreverent, youthful tone can turn into a nasty bullying one all too easily."

Which at most simply references James' point, but doesn't actually imply that that sort of thing is only a trait of the young. Further to that, your post also tries to argue that this is implying that somehow the young are doing it wrong, and yet neither James nor Ophelia even implied that. The part where Ophelia talks about youth actually CONTRASTS that with the negative that it might turn into. You didn't say in your post that that was a quote from James, which is misleading at best.

In short, to say that this is an example of her ageism is specious at best, since she didn't say it herself, her comments on it don't imply ageism, and the comments themselves aren't actually ageist.

As for the "fear", you seem to love to take one word and translate that into a point, since I was simply referring to your comments on her somehow egregious censorship ... which may never have happened. That being said, if there are examples mentioning them as evidence would be nice. I'm skeptical, as I said, because she hasn't killed one of my comments yet and we agree on nothing, although on sober reflection there did seem to be some comment removal from people from ERV, so ...

Justicar said...

Verbose Stoic:
you are seriously contending that Nanny Ophelia disagrees with selection I took from the post she put on her on blog and began her response with "it is true"?

I did not say she has said it is a trait exclusive to the young. Where you get that from is not immediately obvious - well, other than just making it up.

I did, however, say that she says it is a trait of the young. Whatever other groups to which it might also be an attendant trait does no work in changing this fact, or her opinion.

You may call it specious all you'd like. However, if I'm talking to someone and that person says, oh, I don't know, "All niggers should be murdered" and then I follow up with "it is true . . ." and then go on saying something that isn't in opposition to that and then post that conversation on my blog and call it a good, nuanced conversation, people would be well-justified in thinking I might be of the opinion that niggers should all be murdered.

It wouldn't be material if I also think that all Mexicans should be too.

Not an ageist you say? For someone who isn't, she does make reference to people's youth debarring them from requiring her to take them as equals.

"As for the "fear", you seem to love to take one word and translate that into a point, since I was simply referring to your comments on her somehow egregious censorship ... which may never have happened"
No, I simply forgot to address it. I am medicated, you know?

Anyway, there is no "maybe" to it, since we've seen it happened, she's bragged about having done it. There is no maybe, what-if, perhaps wiggle room.

She's done it. She's admitted she's done it. It's a matter of undeniable public record.

Verbose Stoic said...

"I did not say she has said it is a trait exclusive to the young. Where you get that from is not immediately obvious - well, other than just making it up.

I did, however, say that she says it is a trait of the young. "

She doesn't. James does. Her agreement does not in any way include agreement on that point.

It's like someone saying that "Person X engages in exhuberent, youthful swimming, and the kids are all swimming these days." and someone else replying with "It's true that X swims exhuberantly, but exhuberent, youthful swimming can also turn into drowning all to easily." All the second person is doing is agreeing with their characterization of X -- without the youthful quantifier -- and then taking the other person's terms and saying that it can cause problems. It is highly specious to suggest that that is her agreeing that the youthfulness is directly relevant to the commentary, let alone that the youthfulness is what makes it negative or that it exhibits a negative trait associated with youth itself. And you need that link to get to ageism.

Again, the comment doesn't get you to ageism, so you're off even from the beginning. You may be right that she's ageist, but the argument here establishes that not at all and I don't see it myself.

As for fear, you started with this:

"...since you're accusing me of some intellectual crime and being possessed of fear."

The fear was not, of course, any such accusation, as I pointed out. That's what my comment was in reference to.

Justicar said...

It's hardly specious to make this point. If the youthfulness weren't an issue that bears on what it is making the conversation distasteful, then there's no reason to put it in.

He brought up it as one of the things that cuts against Abbie. Nanny Ophelia with that point, explicated on it and explains why the youth, in part, makes Abbie so unworthy of equal respect and standing.

Incidentally, to mention that young people are prone to drowning is actually meant to point out their inferiority in skill and ability to more experienced swimmers. This is done so that people will know to be on their guard to protect the children from their inferiority because they are, of necessity by their age, incapable of standing on their own and successfully negotiating things people of superior (and age!) are expected to handle with relative ease.

It's why there are rules at pools about *adult* supervision being required - children aren't our equals.

Anyway, you were saying something profound I'm sure . . .you imagine anyway.

Justicar said...

Um, as for your last point, it's irrelevant. I said you've accused me of two things, "I am somewhat confused by your comment here, particularly since you're accusing me of some intellectual crime and being possessed of fear"

The fear bit had nothing to do with with the intellectual crime bit - hence they're being separated by "and" as in "both of these things are true". That doesn't imply one is a subset of the other.

The intellectual crime was, as I explained, my being factually incorrect.

Verbose Stoic said...

"If the youthfulness weren't an issue that bears on what it is making the conversation distasteful, then there's no reason to put it in."

Unless it's a comment aimed at explaining why it shouldn't be seen as, in fact, making the conversation distasteful, and is instead as a reason to not take the strong stance Ophelia took towards it. Which, in fact, is what James was doing in the quote, and the side he was taking. He was using the irreverent and unfiltered youthful tone to essentially excuse it from that sort of restriction because of the benefits of such a tone. Ophelia agreeing with that, then, would be in some sense agreeing that with that sort of tone, it might be okay as long as it doesn't cross the line into negative things that aren't just unfiltered youthfulness.

"Incidentally, to mention that young people are prone to drowning is actually meant to point out their inferiority in skill and ability to more experienced swimmers. "

Not in the case I described, actually. That was aimed directly at the idea that things like horseplay are a lot of fun, but can go wrong if you aren't careful.