Sucker-Free Sunday

by von

At the risk of causing Hilzoy's head to explode (see also Lemieux), we return to the Blogosphere's resident aid-du-Kant, Chris Muir (click to see the panel).

(H/T Yglesias, Sullivan, who both note the evident homophobia)

Memo to Chris:  Sullivan does not have a "unique cant on Kant."  Sullivan has want we used to call (in pre-blogosphere days) a knowledge of Kant.  You do not.  Stop digging; you've hit bottom.

For all the fulminating in the blogosphere about the perniciousness relativism and/or the stupidity of a standardless society, the blogosphere has to be the single greatest proponent of the same.  No one is ever wrong as a matter of fact; there are only differing opinions.

Incidentally, this is one reason why Glenn Reynolds' calling the Blogosphere an "Army of Davids" annoys me to no end.  If you have a passing familiarity with the Bible, you know that there can't be an Army of Davids:  David was David because David was unique. He did something no one else could (or would).  He had, one could say, an expertise that everyone else lacked.

Talking about an Army of Davids -- suggesting that everyone is David (one envisions the scene at the end of Spartacus or, perhaps, Malcolm X) -- misses the whole point of what it means to be David, i.e., that not everyone can be him.  Indeed, almost no one can be David.  David is rare; he's special; he's unique.  It's easy to forget that; it's easy for me to forget that. 

And then, bless him, Mr Muir comes cruising along with a reminder.

Comments

[John]

Greetings from Idiot America

We're all in the bar now, where everybody's an expert, where the Gut makes everyone so very sure. All opinions are of equal worth. No voice is more authoritative than any others; some are just louder. Of course, the problem in the bar is that sooner or later, for reasons that nobody will remember in the clear light of the next morning, some noisy a**hole picks a fight.

[carib]

Why does thise two spend so much time talking when they should be getting it on :-)

I'd read the stupid thing then.

" A posteriori"?

How subtle! The man is a genius! ( sarcasm alert)

[KH]

An Army of Lilliputans?

[Delicious Pundit]

Why does thise two spend so much time talking when they should be getting it on :-)

Really. That woman's too hot to be listening to some goatee'd dude mangle Kant. Hot chicks hate that. It's like one of the leading characteristics of hot chicks, along with an unaccountable fondness for Joseph de Maistre.

And how is lying around in a bikini helping us win the War on Terror, anyway? Who does she think she is, Betty Grable?

The whole situation is unrealistic, if you ask me.

[Bernard Yomtov]

An Army of Davids?

Well, there are a lot of stones thrown, but the accuracy is less than Davidic.

[HankP]

Every man a hero. Here's http://www.tacitus.org/story/2006/6/5/201240/6306>my take on it.

[liberal japonicus]

Thanks for that link, HankP. Also, were you the one who did the parody front page of Tacitus? Mad props if it were.

[Jon H]

"An Army of Lilliputans?"

Not so much Lilliputians, but I do believe they were described in Gulliver's Travels.

[Chuchundra]

Is is against the posting rules to say that I think that Josh has really gone over the edge and into the abyss?

Spector was opposed because he is un-conservative. Lieberman is opposed because he is un-Democrat. (If we need to go further into the qualitative difference here, we can.)

[liberal japonicus]

Chuchundra, while that is pretty amazing, I found myself absolutely gobsmacked by this. Display it as nested to get the full impact.

[HankP]

l japonicus -

Yes, that was me. Thank you very much.

[CaseyL]

An excellent example of the self-answering question, lj.

I've noticed the same phenom over at RS. Their frequent feverish hymns to the sacredness of blastocysts and fetuses, particularly, are male-only - not only in terms of who's commenting, but in the near-total lack of any mention of women in the comments.

Since plenty of female wingnuts can be found commenting at other blogs (notably Maguire's), and there are plenty of female-wingnut blogs (notably Malkin and Althouse), the lack of same at Tac and RS must have more to do with the tone of those places.

[hilzoy]

CasyL: there's something about the tone of a lot of the commenters over there -- the lofty disdain, in particular, and the airy fact-free condescension -- that I wouldn't have thought would go over well with anyone, but I would suspect would be especially irritating to women. But hey; maybe it's just me.

[liberal japonicus]

pre-Scoop, I sometimes had an urge to comment over there, but the time difference meant that I would have been up at all hours (I've done that here, but only when I've had computer stuff that needed doing) However, the attitude is very much an all boys club, though there's nothing wrong with that (hey, boys will be boys) but it's a bit like a table of guys having a cutting contest about whose is bigger and then wondering why women don't want to sit down with them.

On the other hand, the impression they seem to draw of this place is one of pseudo intellectualism and faux civility, which is unfortunate because I don't like a situation where people are kept out just because they feel intellectually slighted or mistreated (had quite enough of that in graduate school, thank you very much)

[Jeff Eaton]

God help us. Day By Day.

I really, really hate that cartoon. The artist seems to think of his strip as a conservative Doonesbury, but forgets that cartoon was consistently funny for a long time.

Smug and self-congratulating is one thing.. Smug, self-congratulating, and gratingly-unfunny is hard to forgive.

[Jeff Eaton]

On the other hand, the impression they seem to draw of this place is one of pseudo intellectualism and faux civility

I've found that the less civil someone is, the more they suspect that others' civility is a sham.

[cleek]

there's something about the tone of a lot of the commenters over there

that tone is 100% of the reason i stopped visiting the site. it shows up here often enough, but isn't the default, the way it is there.

[socratic_me]

Jeff,
Funny, I was about to say:
"I've found that the less intellectual someone is, the more they suspect that others' intellect is a sham."

More and more often, when I see things described as "pseudo-intellectual", I take that to mean "those boys over there talk all purdy and are gettin' too big for their britches."

Also, I am not sure I even know what faux-civility is supposed to mean in this context. I rather took it as a given that "civility" concerns public social behavior. So if the behavior being evaluated is public, then I don't understand what would then falsify it.

[Christopher]

I must say, I had never heard of Day by Day until this Kant-mangling began.

So I guess its achieved the purpose, if notoriety for its own sake is the purpose. I know of it now. There are probably at least a few others for whom that's also true.

Still, it is sooooo stupid. Nihilism, as its etymology rather strongly suggests, is the belief in nothing. In ethics, that would be the belief that there aren't any duties, no right and wrong.

Kantianism is the belief that there are always duties, that I am wrong when I treat someone wholly as a means to my ends, and right when I treat someone as an end in himself.

So there is a shade of diff there.

[Jeff Eaton]

More and more often, when I see things described as "pseudo-intellectual", I take that to mean "those boys over there talk all purdy and are gettin' too big for their britches."

It's sad, because there's a legitimate place for calling someone on pretentious intellectual posing and a lack of real content. I'm reminded of the scene from The Squid And The Whale where a kid who's echoed his father's literary pretensions for years refers to The Metamorphasis as 'Kafka-esque.'

Now, though, it seems to be a way to dismiss anything you dislike that's too compelling or complicated to rebut.

[Jeff Eaton]

s/Metamorphasis/Metamorphosis. Ahem. Move along, nothing to see here...

[Doctor Science]

liberal j --

It's possible that my problem is just "insufficient caffeine for meaningful response", but how can

Which begs a question. Why so few chicks here.

*not* be an ironic rhetorical question? That is, does the questioner truly not realize that posing the question in those terms gives you the answer right there? Ditto for the posters in the rest of the thread?

Or is all terribly ironic, and they're all female really?

I must need more coffee. Out of cheese error, redo from start.

[Andrew]

Wouldn't Metamorphosis be Kafka-esque by definition?

I must confess that, when it's focusing on the interactions between the characters, I like Day by Day. It just tends to suffer when it gets overly political because that brand of humor is incredibly subjective. (Which is not to say I haven't found some of his political humor to be cute, just that it's not going to be remotely universally funny.)

What made Doonesbury great for so long was that it was fun to read regardless of your political persuasion.

[liberal japonicus]

Doctor Science,
I avoid the whole question of begging the question. Still, I would think that if it were an ironic question, the person wouldn't list examples. I think he honestly doesn't see why the place is keeping women away. I think HankP's comment immediately after it is ironic, but I think the original question is not meant to be ironic. And even if it were, travelling down the replies to see another regular complain about 'wymyn', well, if a bunch of women showed up and complained about male chauvinist pigs, I have a feeling that he'd be the first in line complaining.

[jaywalker]

Wouldn't Metamorphosis be Kafka-esque by definition?

Uuhm, no. I know it, I know it, let me answer this (even if I will not earn brownie points from Jeff). First of all, Kafka was a latecomer to the game. Pride of place goes to Ovid. The change motive was also quite popular among the romanticists. Secondly, the metamorphosis of Gregor Samsa is the starting point of the novella, whereas the usual metamorphosis is the result of some action (eg vanity in Narcissus' case). Thirdly, the adjective kafka-esque usually refers to an absurd and futile situation in which a helpless individual is placed, eg compare the Gitmo prisoners to the Strafkolonie (although we enter catch 22 territory here).

To sum up, an example of a non-kafka-esque metamorphosis is the story of Pygmalion who eventually marries his chef-d'oeuvre. Happy end and popcorn for all.

[socratic_me]

I agree, Jeff. There is a legitimate place for use of the term pseudo-intellectual. I generally associate this with lots of cute intellectual phrases used in such a way as to be devoid of content. I just find that not understanding the content is often confused with there not being any content.

[Doctor Science]

lj wrote:
I think HankP's comment immediately after it is ironic,

Not in the same way, surely. Because you conservatives are so mean! :) implies that women avoid Tacitus because we (women) foolishly (wimpily, in a typical womanly fashion) say conservatives are "meeeeean" (presumably while we paint our nails and braid each others' hair), refusing to face the rough-and-tumble of true intellectual discourse and be honored with the sobriquet "chicks".

So, no, I still see a total absence of clue in that thread.

[Slartibartfast]

Is blogspot down? I can't connect with HOCB or doctorscience.

[liberal japonicus]

It's been on and off all day. At the moment, I can't get into the control panel

[Francis]

speaking of pretentiousness, i will admit that i first read "chef d'oeuvre" as "hors d'oeuvres" and thought that there was something odd about marrying one's appetizer.

[Jeff Eaton]

I know it, I know it, let me answer this (even if I will not earn brownie points from Jeff).

Well... true. Metamorphosis isn't inherently Kafka-esque but The Metamorphosis is by definition Kafka-esque. It's like calling one of hilzoy's posts 'hilzoy-esque.'

And that was the point of the scene in the film, really -- the character in question was a kid rattling off phrases he knew were 'intellectual', but he hung himself with too much rope.

Which is how I feel about Day By Day a lot of times. As Andrew said, the strip is a funny-ish but average strip when it occasionalyl stops reaching for political told-ya-sos. The art's good, and has a distinctive enough style. On most days, though, it's a bit like reading a narcissist's livejournal.

[HankP]

Uh, Dr. Science, of course it was meant ironically, mostly as a dig at conservatives. I wasn't implying that women couldn't handle the discourse there, I was implying that many of the conservatives there are a pain in the ass to converse with. I post there and there are many threads that anyone would find boring and repetitious, not just women. You're reading far more into a throwaway line than is reasonable.

BTW, the civility there is often faux and skin deep. Try scratching it sometimes.

[socratic_me]

That makes me wonder whether anyone knows of any other sites out there where the populace is so involved in the policing of civility. One thing I really appreciate about ObWi is how people jump on your case pretty quickly when you cross a line, whether or not they agree with your content. If there were another political site with that dynamic in the great wide yonder, I would likely frequent it regardless of idealogical position.

[JakeB]

"It's like calling one of hilzoy's posts 'hilzoy-esque.'"

I dunno. Webster's gives for "-esque": "in the manner of, in the style of; like". That seems to imply imitation to me. (Now whether hilzoy could write a hilzoyesque post if she was pretending to be someone else imitating her, I'll leave to the philosophers.)

[von]

OT, but what the heck. It's my blog.

Slarti:

There's an excellent chance that I'll be in your area for a trial that may take up the entire month of September. Any interest in grabbing a drink?

[Slartibartfast]

Yes! Drop me an email, if you can recall what my address is. The yahoo address will work.

I'm assuming that the drink won't take up the whole month; I don't think my liver can take it.

[rilkefan]

Don't think my liver could take only one drink/mo - well, maybe more like my brain.

Last night while we were making supper Mrs. R heard me take out the ice cube tray and asked what I was up to. I said I was making myself a drink. She replied, "Oh, good."

[von]

Excellent, Slart. I'll drop you a line as plans firm up.

[Macallan]

BTW, the civility there is often faux and skin deep. Try scratching it sometimes.

Isn't that true just about everywhere?

[HankP]

Absolutely. Most places don't have multi-hundred comment threads about posting rules, though.

[liberal japonicus]

Actually, at the sites I like, beneath the surface, there is often a deeper sense of shared feeling. I'm obviously biased, but faux civility suggests that if one had a chance to make someone feel bad in a way that wouldn't be censured, they'd do it. While people do get caught up in arguments here, I don't get the impression that someone would try to spam someone's account, or set up conditions where they would fall on their face outside of ObWi. In fact, I think that same sort of camaraderie exists at Tacitus, but some seem to think that if ObWi is a success, it somehow detracts from Tacitus. I'm sure it has to do with shared history, just like a bartender might feel miffed if a loyal patron started hanging out at the bar down the street, but the formats have diverged sufficiently that this kind of jealousy is really bizarre.

[Macallan]

Not sure if that makes sense LJ since the "bartender" helped open the new joint, and a lot of the patrons, including this one, enthusiastically supported it when it opened.

I think it is the evolution of the two sites that you mention, and some other factors, but I fear it would be a boring meta discussion with little end purpose or agreement, so I won't open that particular can.

If you ever feel like posting there, please do, I'll keep my eye out for anyone who jumps you or crosses the line.

[liberal japonicus]

Thanks, but I have a big problem with Scoop and other non linear sites that, when coupled with the time difference, make it really tough for me to jump in.

I'll bit my tongue and hold up on the meta for now.

[HankP]

lj, I find Scoop makes it much easier to allow conversations to develop in a more natural way than a linear list. It may cut down on immediacy, but it allows more detailed conversations. Come on over, help me make the conservatives cry!

[John]

I never read such a bunch of shit.

[theo]

Day by Day isn't just part of the Army of Davids.

It's part of the MSM Goliath.

Syndicated by the Hemingford (Nebraska?) Ledger.

[liberal japonicus]

Hank, no thanks, the elbows are too sharp over there for me, though I watch from the bleachers quite often. Plus you are doing fine all by yourself.

[RWP]

If one takes the david story as a archetype to be followed, then everyone can be their own david to someone elses galieth. Maybe finding personal meaning in a universal theme is what was meant by the david story. Not the fact that david is unique. I doubt that God wanted us to take from the story- 'hey you can't beat the best so sit on it and wait for my david to save you.'

[liberal japonicus]

God might be wanting to tell us that everyone is a Goliath to someone else's David, so we better cool it on the hubris. Not saying that you need that lesson, but I do think Insty could do with a little of that.