The TSL: Representing "Professional" Journalism Since 1889
What's the difference between the TSL's sex columnist and a prostitute?
A prostitute doesn't have to write up her encounters before she gets paid.
It appears the oldest newspaper in Southern California continues to support the oldest profession.
Zoe Yang, who now holds that venerable position at that venerable paper, has rebuffed Charles's defense of her freedom of speech, complaining on her blog recently that "those bloggers are conceivably the only people on campus whose support of my First Amendment rights does more damage to my social standing than good."
Of Charles's support, she said, "I need it like I need an asshole on my elbow."
Don't be surprised if she's being genuinely grateful. After all, I'm sure by now she could use a new orifice.
Subscribe in a reader
90 comments:
Dan,
I wonder what "position" she had before she started working the TSL.
When you say "venerable" did you mean "venereal"?
Wow, way to take something way too far. You two are nothing short of pathetic, making crass attacks against Ms. Yang. Way to fill your blog with actual substance. Bravo.
Dear Patrick,
You help confirm my suspicion what distinguishes liberals from conservatives is a sense of humor. Glad you keep reading.
Yours,
Dan
Patrick,
We're the ones that are "crass"?
Pomona College really needs to start teaching English again.
Daniel,
Did I ever say that I was a liberal? Who are you to make such assumptions? I was merely commenting on your lowbrow attempt at humor that did nothing but needlessly humiliate and attack a fellow student from the 5C's. Humor or not, it's inappropriate to degrade a fellow member of the 5C's in such a manner. If you have a problem with her column, by all means express it. But there is no justifiable reason (humor included) to compare other members of the 5C's to prostitutes and sluts in a public forum.
Charles,
crass: 1a: having or indicating such grossness of mind as precludes delicacy and discrimination, b: being beneath one's dignity c:used as a pejorative intensifier
taken straight from Merriam-Webster's. Given that you are a blog that claims to "entertain a truthful and honest dialogue with the students", I think it's highly irresponsible and well beneath your dignity to be making these vaguely libelous attacks on Ms. Yang
Patrick,
You seem to fail to understand libel law almost as badly as you fail to understand so-called "hate speech."
Have you read her blog or her column? I think that's very much beneath one's dignity to talk about what to "expect" if you "f--k" her.
All of her posts are crass by any objective sense of the term. You also use a secondary definition. I'm referring to the first.
But as to whether it's "beneath my dignity" to call conduct that is downright promiscuous, downright promiscuous, I haven't a clue.
I do know that it's kind of disgusting that Pomona College pays Ms. Yang via TSL to write about her various sexual exploits.
She has ever right to write them, but we have ever right to call that conduct what it is.
Charles,
I was not attempting to imply that you were actually committing libel. I hoped that by using the word "vaguely" before libelous, you would understand that I was trying to say that you words were slanderous and unwarranted. And let's go ahead and try to limit the ad hominem, saying I don't understand something adds nothing to the conversation. Try telling me why you think I misunderstand something.
As for her column, I would hope that given the fact that you're now (probably) at least 18 and living on your own in college that you would not resort to making the argumentative equivalent of "well she did it first." Yes, her blog and her column are often times crass, that doesn't justify you being the same. If you want to "entertain a truthful and honest dialogue with the students" then resorting to such tactics will never work.
As for me using the secondary definition, it is nonetheless a definition of the word crass, one that is in common usage. I know the English language well enough thank you.
(By the way, it wasn't a secondary definition, it was a sub-section of the primary definition. The secondary definition was guided by or indicative of base or materialistic values)
And you weren't merely calling her promiscuous when she was being promiscuous. You were comparing her to a hooker, saying that she probably needs a new orifice because all her others have been used so much, and suggesting (albeit in an oblique manner) that her promiscuity has caused her to contract STD's.
You're right that she and you both have every right to say the things that you have said so far. It is well within protection given the 1st amendment (and Leonard's Law). But if you want to live up to the standard you have set for yourself - one which I have quoted 3 times for you - then you ought not to make such frivolous and crass attacks on Ms. Yang.
It's one thing to critique issues, ideas, or policies. It's an entirely different thing to personally attack one of your peers -- especially with false information. This blog entry was unnecessary and just plain cruel.
A new low for the Claremont Conservative! Fucking disgusting.
This is just sad, you poor misogynistic creatures. I feel so sorry for you. To personally slander another student and call her a skank is ugly and unacceptable. How would you feel if someone called your mother a skank whore? This labeling of sexually liberated women as sluts is sexist and harmful. You should be ashamed of yourselves. The Claremont Conservative may rival Ann Coulter for most useless blog in existence.
Why is it that when your posts often generate complaints that you were crass or that your below-the-belt attacks got a little personal, you defend yourself by saying that you're being funny? Is anybody here laughing?
I find you all insufferable, and rather ugly to boot. Haha. See? I can be funny and say entirely non-constructive comments too. YAY!
Say what you will about Charles and me, but I can't honestly believe you find Aditya ugly.
What I find amusing is how many of you posters come on here totally lacking a sense of irony and yet still try to use sarcasm to your advantage. Such is the defense of lesser minds who can barely contain themselves as they shriek with outrage.
Then you make the same damn complaints, again and again: we are too personal, and our posts lack substance! So let me spell the point out for you so you can stop peeing on yourself and slip back into bed the with boring drunk you hooked up with last night.
You people think that some judgments are unacceptable. You think it's awful to say some sexual behaviors are bad. So when something like the TSL champions promiscuity and casual sex (and whatever else you call what Ms. Yang engages in), I think it's a ripe time to bring back some good old-fashioned judgment and good sense that you people seem oblivious to. You find it intolerable that someone might challenge the celebration of "sexual liberation." So I go ahead and say the intolerable, to remind us all what it's like to live in a society with some sensible prejudices about good and bad, and about what behavior leads to true happiness.
Now the fact that you can judge me with scorn and yet find Ms. Yang's public filth acceptable is remarkable. Indeed, you find my judgment of her public promiscuity out of bounds. This bespeaks the glaring paradox at the heart of your extreme toleration. But again, we've established that understanding irony is not one of your strengths.
So if I can rattle your relativism, I'm happy to do it. If I can't remind you of the joys of decent living, fine. I'll settle for at least trying to remind of you of the joys of wit.
Of course, some of you are too dense to make it of your cocoon of sensitivity. You have wasted the wonderful opportunity to learn in college and instead have spent your time walling yourself off in your own humorless world. You somehow think that what I say is sexist--as if I'd praise a Mr. Yang's bragging about his cheap exploits. You people are clueless, and I will continue to mock you--if not for your own good, than at at least for the satisfaction of myself and others.
Have I made many unfair assumptions about my critics? You betcha. And I'll keep doing it.
Here, here.
It's true I have a face that only a mother could love...
I demand sensitivity training for all beautiful people.
It's certainly not out of bounds for you to disagree with Ms. Yang's attitudes/views on sex, but there is NO EXCUSE for you to harass her and call her a prostitute in a public forum like this. I am absolutely disgusted.
Daniel,
According to your logic, it's alright to make personal attacks. If this is true then I offer the following:
Get some fucking help. If it's acceptable to personally attack others for the sake of argument then your mother is a crack-whore bitch who should have swallowed instead of bringing your evil ass into the world.
Perhaps that was too personal? Did I make unfair assumptions? Do you appreciate the irony?
I was going to apologize for calling you misogynistic earlier, but that was before your remorseless defense. I was going to say that your mother should have raised you better, but...the pipe is just too alluring.
Perhaps you're angry because you can't get any. Are you upset because no one is working your orfices? Jealous much?
Fortunately, I would never seriously say those things because I believe we should address substance rather than harassing people. You should simply understand, however, that ad hominem diatribe serves as a double edged sword. Just because your post and misogynistic language (skanks) indicates severe pre-natal brain damage doesn't mean that your mother is a crack-whore. In fact, it's entirely possible that she's a wonderful person who would be ashamed that her adult son is engaging in harassment of a fellow student.
Grow up.
I thank my critics for (a) offering themselves up as evidence of the stupidity and viciousness of liberalism, and (b) for showing us all why we need the First Amendment, which surely shields me from their hallow attempt to label my words as "harassment." Here we have a good example of zealots trying to hush up political speech they don't like. And my comments were directed, no less, at the public activity--writing--of a public figure.
Charles, your blog has reminded me many times of that immortal scene from Huckleberry Finn, when Colonel Sherburn faces down the insane and hypocritical mob after he kills the town drunk. Here comes the mob...
Now the fact that you can judge me with scorn and yet find Ms. Yang's public filth acceptable is remarkable.
The difference between you and her is that the only person she might defame in the process of writing is herself, whereas you don't seem to have a problem outing other people. There's a distinct difference between saying that Pomona students' fees should not go to pay someone to write about various sexploits, especially considering that promiscuity can lead to problems x, y, and z; and calling a specific person a skank and suggesting she might need a new orifice.
Except for anonymous #2, no one here defended her ideas, simply her right to not be publicly linked with prostitution when, as far as we know, she's not selling herself. I'm not going to pretend that I think most of what she writes about is healthy or a great idea, but I don't think that gives me the right to call her names. After reading a number of your posts, there are a number of negative names and assumptions that have come to my mind, but I'm courteous enough not to use them. I think the only thing name-calling accomplishes would be to make you angry and make me look bad. Meanwhile, having never met the freshmen and only knowing you, Dan, superficially, I don’t think I have a right to really be expressing any assumption about you guys personally because they wouldn’t be educated opinions, just the musings of someone who's a little pissed off. Other than that you have a blog and I don’t, can you explain why you’re so different that calling names is ok for you? Is it really because you'll declare yourself to be funnier?
There are a number of serious, substantive discussions that you can have as a result of Ms. Yang’s column. I don't think any of it involves suggesting she needs a new orifice. Ironic suggestion given her critique of Charles? Sure. Funny? I’d say not, but you’ll disagree. Mature suggestion that contributes to a meaningful discussion? Not at all. Unless you meant to re-spark this blog’s favorite debate: what exactly does constitute a personal attack? Somehow, I doubt it.
(Done peeing and am back to snuggling up with last nights’ hook-up. I’m sure you’ll be glad to know he’s sobered up.)
I love it when you guys piss off the hypersensitive liberals. Keep it up.
Orifice is one of the most hilarious words in the English language.
oh noes, what is our world coming to?
BAWWW, grow up kiddies. everyone is gonna get put down sooner or later
Dan,
At least they're not burning us at the stake.
KWalker10,
If you go and have sex with everyone and his cousin, that's your business, but when you start writing about it in a public forum like Ms. Yang, expect responses. She writes on her blog some of the most vulgar things ever and yet we're the ones who are bad because of some "personal attacks."
She's effectively building a writing career (and she's even been on television) promoting herself as someone who likes to have lots of sex. If that isn't vaguely approximating prostitution, I'd like to know what it is.
Thanks, Charles. That's the point. If you write a crude column (or any column) you are open to criticism, fair and square (even "personal criticism").
Getting paid for what she does is very similar to prostitution.
Regardless about how you feel about promiscuity, having lots of sex and admitting to it isn't the same thing as prostitution. But let's not argue semantics.
And as I said in my first post, I'm not defending what she's writing. What goes on between two people should stay that way. Simply because "she started it" or "she's worse" doesn't mean what appeared on your blog isn't bad. We comment on your blog to hold you, and we can hold her accountable on her blog if we choose to do so. There's no point in doing that here. In any case, personal attacks are generally considered bad. You regularly denounce them yourself. Just like posters here accomplished nothing by calling you guys ugly or pathetic beings who are just jealous that you're not getting laid, Dan accomplished nothing by calling Ms. Yang a skank who might need a new orifice, and you accomplished nothing by suggesting she might be diseased. It's really that simple.
*to hold you accountable. Not to hold you. But that would be amusing, no?
I think my point was better made with wit than with an open and honest discussion on the merits of casual sex.
And yes, haha, that's quite the Freudian slip that throws this whole conversation in a new light. Amusing indeed!
I don't really see a connection between saying that this is taking things a bit too far and someone who thinks so being liberal. I'll be happy to introduce you to people I know who are conservative, and would find it just as offensive.
This has nothing to do with politics.
Actually, I believe there is a Conservative you can take a good lesson from-- Justice Antonin Scalia, saying "when I critique someone, it is never personal, I only critique their ideas--for good people can have terrible ideas"(60 Minutes interview).
You could easily have critiqued the blog without personal attacks against her. Incredibly unnecessary.
Speaking of personal attacks without substance: What about Ms. Zang's post?
Again, Brian, I am talking about her ideas and how she expresses them in print. My jokes, if you'll notice, followed from things she said.
For a point of reference, you might read any of Scalia's furious dissents.
"I need it like I need an asshole on my elbow" is an allusion to The Rules of Attraction.
Eh, to the many anonymous commentators, we're not going to agree on this one.
I deleted the first version since it was not up to snuff.
The discussion has lost all perspective and seems to reduce itself to "liberal" and "conservative" stereotype bashing. How sad !
1) Charles's initial joke is not really crass as it is lazy and not funny. It has the hallmarks of puerile humor and thus does not interest me.
2) I find it peculiar this need to judge Ms. Yang's sexuality. I was attracted to libertarian thought in order to find group of people who did not find the need to seek to impose labels and judge the personal, non-destructive behavior of others.
3) Dan, this conversation and four years at CMC has taught me that "stupidity and viciousness" are common among people of all political perspectives. When I seen people throw such labels in the face of the "opposition," it marks a turn in their own behavior. I would also like to that your point about Yang's work prostitution is based on the same logic used by a number of American feminist about sex in marriage. I do know how you feel about sharing ideological space with Gloria Steinem.
4) What is wrong with prostitution? If a woman or man freely choses to receive money in exchange for sex, who cares? Sex work should be legal. America has bigger problems that people paying for sex.
5) I want to be on the record for my unequivocal support Zoe Yang's journalistic and personal project. Each person should be free to talk about (or not talk about) their sexuality in public. Her prise de parole (there is not cool way to say this in English - it means more or less "willingness to speak") allows others to think about their own sexuality and challenge the hegemony of the concept of "sexually deviant behavior." I am also pro-Yang because I am pro-sex work. While I agree Yang's article and blog are not traditional sex work, but for me, she seems to be a part of the movement to rethink sexual mores and our ideas about sex work.
Jarod,
1) Humor, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I find Dan's jokes hilarious. I learn at the knee of the master.
2) You have a very different understanding of libertarianism. Libertarianism doesn't mean no judging. It simply means no coercion by government. Its chief tenets are political and economic freedom, not moral freedom. There's a difference.
3) Also, the comparison with Gloria Steinem is unfair. While Dan and her may agree on the same ends, they disagree wildly on the means. The means, I've noticed, makes all the difference.
4) I personally don't have anything against prostitution being legal, but to suggest that we need to somehow be comfortable with it is another thing entirely. There are a great many things that are legal that I would not indulge. Ms. Yang's sex column and behavior comes at a steep price and it is of course hers to bear, but likewise, I am able to criticize the newspaper that has a sex columnist as evident of its own debauchery. In my opinion, there really is no such thing as consequence free sex.
5) Duly noted. You are on record.
I of course disagree with Steinem on many things, but Jarod I am a bit confused by your comment. Could you please clarify what you mean and what the logical connection is. Then I can respond.
You boys are unbelievable.
The sheer piggishness of your comments about Ms. Yang, and by extension about any woman who dares to enjoy an independent, autonomous sexuality, and then express that joy in writing, just blows my mind--I am outraged and disgusted.
In fact, I don't have words to adequately express what I feel after reading this, so I'm going to leave it at that.
Dear Bloggers and Commentors,
I'd just like to point out that caution should be used in throwing around comparisons to prostitution. I direct you to two quotes from the above comments:
4) What is wrong with prostitution? If a woman or man freely choses to receive money in exchange for sex, who cares? Sex work should be legal. America has bigger problems that people paying for sex. -- polyjarod
and
"The means, I've noticed, makes all the difference." -- Charles Johnson
For the following reasons, Charles, I agree with your statement above, and polyjarod, I cringe a bit at yours, and of course at the original post by Daniel.
It should be well-known by now that the majority of prostitution that occurs around the world is hardly conducted "freely," independent of coercion, abduction, child-abuse, and general human rights horrors.
We could go into an extended argument about whether or not legalization would fundamentally solve these core issues within prostitution, but perhaps not here. The point I wanted to make was that the means and motives indeed make all the different here in making the post [although intended to be flippant and humorous, as the author has stated] and comments troubling, as far as I'm concerned.
The following can hardly be said of all or even most prostitutes. Ms. Yang is clearly having sex [and writing about it] of her own free will. She does what she does fairly clearly because she wants to, with the people she wants to do it with. And she does not get paid, apparently [borrowed from her blog]:
"...And I'm sorry to say I don't even do the prostitution label justice - I have yet to see a cent from TSL or Google Adsense. As I happily fuck/write for free..."
Please do not even presume that prostitutes always get paid for their work [Pimps are not the most honorable lot in this and most other regards, I hear]. Please do not assume that all prostitution is conducted out of free will, or a guaranteed marker of the purveyor's morality.
Excuse me, polyjarod, I did not catch this in your post during the first readthrough:
"...While I agree Yang's article and blog are not traditional sex work..."
Okay, cool. I'm glad you noted that after all. Anyhow, the point I wanted to make in the post immediately above still stands in general.
This has nothing to do with Ms. Yang's sex column/blog and everything to do with The Claremont Conservative bloggers' insecurities and deep seated jealousy. As a matter of fact, this also brings Charles's position on CMC parties as "overrated" into perspective.
I have seen you all around campus and noticed your poorly defined facial features, slouching shoulders, and downward awkward glance as you scurry around campus like roaches, undoubtedly seeking new people to annoy and bully. Obviously, your poor looks and generally poor physical condition disqualify you from ever attracting reasonably attractive young women at parties or other social events. So you, in retaliation, decide to publicly call them sluts and whores because you can't stand the fact that other people are getting laid while you are constantly rejected. Newsflash Charles, just because you can't dance for shit and couldn't attract a girl's attention to save your life doesn't mean a party isn't fun. Your insecurities also don't make the girls who decide to sleep with other guys sluts.
Well, apparently Yang doesn't get paid. I assumed she did. This of course doesn't letter her off the hook, considering what she writes and the attention she receives.
I of course oppose prostitution because I find it degrades both parties in loveless sex, and because it has a horrible impact on family life.
The previous poster is correct that many prostitutes don't do their job freely (though it's also true that many do--and I think there's too high a tendency among feminists to deny responsibility on behalf the prostitutes themselves in many cases).
Jarod's post is rather telling because he says what a lot of the posters here vaguely think but don't articulate. He supports prostitution, which he is happy to compare Yang's work too (I get in trouble for the same thing).
He also sees her as changing sexual mores and liberating us from a "hegemony" that says what is and what is not "sexually deviant behavior."
One wonders that if there truly aren't any limits, sex can have any dignity. Does Jarod see it like eating? I suppose he'll come back and say the meaning you take from sex is what you bestow on it--but it doesn't take long to realize how ultimately pointless and hallow this is.
Instead of simply busting up sexual mores, I would ask what's actually good for people and what's good for society. I suspect it's not in seeking endless pleasure before you die. How inspiring!
I would also point out that if there is a "hegemony," it's the idea that you can't pass judgment on certain types of behavior. It's the idea that individual sexual practices are completely autonomous, and woe to us who try to put limits (like shame) on them. It's all just a private matter. The problem is that people like Yang represent this shameless culture. So I'm going to attack her for it.
So Jarod wants to liberate everyone to express themselves creatively, which rests on the assumption that you can't know the truth on these matters. But without any basis in truth, there really is no grounds on which to condemn me (except your own self-assertion against me). If there is truth about healthy and good relationships, we should explore it rather than simply say judgments are out of bounds and let everyone creatively express themselves as they please.
(And note, I am referring to how people mostly think about and talk about these things, not to governmental action for the most part.)
To the previous poster,
You frankly don't know a damn thing. Charles and I are both in very happy relationships with very wonderful and beautiful women. We have learned through thought and experience what makes a relationship good. I encourage you to try to do the same. We experience a satisfaction that you probably do not.
This claim of yours--that we're just jealous because we aren't getting laid--keeps coming up and up again. Of course, you make people who think the way you do sound like morons. You indicate that you can't possibly explain people's views without suspecting there is really some pent-up repression going on. This is ludicrous, and it bespeaks a remarkably shallow understanding of the world around you. You look dumber for it. I encourage to you reflect a little bit on human nature before you trying writing again.
So when you condemn how Charles and I look (you, know like students who actually care about their work), are you really just trying to suppress your burning passion for amazing sexiness? I apologize for the insecurities this may cause you.
Not that I blame the bloggers for starting this one, but does anybody (bloggers or commenters alike) really need to get into looks as a measure of how intelligent or hard-working a person is? I've had more than one interview where I've talked about a lot of personal achievements (let's just say there are many, and none of them are related to modeling or pageants), and then after the interview the only comment would be something like "You are such a beautiful girl," or "You have a gorgeous smile." (I know it's a compliment, but, seriously... wtf?)
If I or anybody else is not as smart as you are, fine, but don't chalk it up to a matter of personal attractiveness. Sometimes not-so-beautiful people need sensitivity training too.
And to everybody else... grow up. Their ideas have nothing to do with their attractiveness, and you do absolutely no justice to your cause.
After reading this dialogue, the only conclusion I can reach is that both sides are rather vicious, self-righteous, and not funny; and it's completely ridiculous to put the blame entirely on one side.
OR all of you guys go out with selfish cunts who just want your money because you guys come off as rich white kids?
Gee, Mister Anonymous. Ugly? That's the worst you can call my boyfriend of two years?
You can pummel Charles's ideas on this blog. You can attack his arguments, you can destroy his rhetoric, you can even question his sanity. I'm not stopping you from doing that.
But when you call him ugly and desperate to get laid, I'm compelled to step in. Forgive me if I take this a little personally, seeing as I'm Charles's girlfriend and all, but you are absurdly incorrect. (By the way, we're both perpetually broke, so there goes your "selfish cunt" theory.)
Please, carry on this ridiculous ad hominem attack. I need no prompting from Chuck or anyone to further prove you wrong.
Come on, you can be nicer than that. Personal attacks should be above you guys. Don't be so judgmental of how other people live their lives. You guys are funny enough to not have to make jokes at others expense.
I'm sure that you can, instead of condemning this woman for her column, find how you're too much like what you hate about her ideas and try to change yourselves. I'd love to read a blog entry about that.
No, "Aspasia". You, being Charles' girlfriend, really have no place in stepping in. In stepping forward in "ad hominem" attacks against Miss Yang, the writers of The Claremont Conservative more than opened themselves to ad hominem attacks.
You're quote that "You can pummel Charles's ideas on this blog. You can attack his arguments, you can destroy his rhetoric, you can even question his sanity. I'm not stopping you from doing that".
However, your point is rather hypocritical. For if Charles and Dan had limited themselves to that in their attack on Miss Yang in the first place, they would have drawn much less fire in the first place.
Your devotion is admirable. But nice try.
Brian, let's make one thing clear: I am not throwing myself in front of Chuck to save him from ad hominem attacks on his own person, nor am I trying to protect the rest of the Conservatives. I don't even
attend Claremont. If Dan (who wrote the post, by the way), Charles, or the other writers want to say anything on their own, then they're taking the respective fallout.
When someone implies that Charles is an angry loner and THAT motivated the post, however, then that's an insult to me. That's an insult to the time and energy I've spent in keeping our relationship together over a long distance. When someone says our status is so horrible that Chuck even thinks of cheating on me(even if he's getting
rejected), that is personal.
So yes, it was "in my place" to step in then, and it's certainly "in my place" to step in now. Frankly, your patronizing characterization makes me look like Madame Butterfly destroying her honor for Pinkerton. I am devoted. It does not mean I'm dumb.
I've read through these comments with great interest. You all are making too much of a very simple topic. There's really nothing academic or philosophical about it - someone writing a crude sex column will eventually be attacked, and deservedly so. If she didn't expect that then she should have selected a different hobby. It would be incredibly naive to think otherwise.
And oh, what's wrong with name calling? It intensifies the debate. Name calling is certainly more noble than lies and mistruths. Think about it.
Dan O'Toole wrote
"So Jarod wants to liberate everyone to express themselves creatively, which rests on the assumption that you can't know the truth on these matters. But without any basis in truth, there really is no grounds on which to condemn me (except your own self-assertion against me). If there is truth about healthy and good relationships, we should explore it rather than simply say judgments are out of bounds and let everyone creatively express themselves as they please."
Bravo! I only hope that all can understand the seriousness of what you say here.
We are going to delete the post from the commenter who has the proud honor of being the first person to drop the "c" word on this blog (hey, is that a hate crime?). And of course, it came from a liberal--who reveals his own insane world-view by suggesting that our girlfriends date us because they are selfish and want to milk Charles and me as rich white boys. Way to wear your ignorance proudly.
I'm also amused how few people became totally indignant and high-minded after he made such a comment. Brian Nadler for instance, in a remarkable show of stupidity and moral equivalence, somehow believes Tina deserves to be called that word just like Charles and I went after Zoe Yang.
Legions of self-righteous liberals can't seem to tell the difference between satire of the public actions of public figures (like the Daily Show, folks) on one hand, and the outlandish and spiteful things said by their friends in these comment sections. This distinction is lost in all the hand-wringing people do about "ad hominem" attacks. I don't really think it's that tough to distinguish fair criticism--however mean and crude--from the enraged emoting that goes on here. I will continue to engage in the former, and unlike my opponents, I will keep my comments smart and clever.
And Mike, your compliments are heartening. I have a bad tendency to bury my more serious arguments in the depths of these comment sections. Maybe I should highlight them at some point in an actual post.
All of you are ridiculous. The comment directions on YOUR board say
"We encourage you to post, but have respect for yourself and us by posting with your name. We will delete any post that do not add to the conversation, especially anonymous, ad hominem attacks on us. Address the substance of the post."
How does calling Zoe Yang a whore add to conversation? Didn't you break the very rules you established at the outset? As people who think we should be autonomous and determine our own fates without the interference of other people or the state, I'm frankly surprised that you all would attack her so harshly for embracing something she finds fulfilling, her sexuality.
What is even more infuriating is that none of you cowards would ever say anything like this in real life or in her presence. You use the shield of your blog in order to make terrible remarks about someone's character with no remorse or shame. I can't believe that Tina, or anyone's girlfriend, would actually defend him after the immature and frankly, chauvinistic comments made about Zoe.
Actually, Dan, you need to be a little bit brighter, for you show an enormous amount of stupidity in your comments.
Nowhere did I say that Tina deserved to be called that. Quit trying to put words in my mouth to suit your twisted views.
I merely said that if she's trying to prevent people from retaliating to you and Charles in a similar manner for calling Zoe Yang, it's rather hypocritical.
Quit acting like you are some superior being. Because what you write on this blog makes you seem otherwise.
The anonymous poster should understand that I don't think anybody is free to do whatever he feels. And I definitely don't think anybody should be free from criticism from others--if only because this limits another's freedom to criticize. Should I accuse the poster of trying to limit my "autonomy" to say what I feel?
The more important point that is lost on him is the public nature of the criticism I have lodged against Yang. Charles and I argue that ad hominem attacks are bad when they are unrelated to the public behavior in question. So if Ms. Yang had written something on environmentalism and I called her a slut, yes, that would be inappropriate. This style of attack is well exposed in people who are calling our girlfriends names on this blog.
But if someone chooses to do something publicly or write something publicly, I think it's okay to tie their public action to their character. Hugh Hefner publicizes his lifestyle for example, and I think it's okay (in fact healthy) to criticize and mock what he does and what it says about his character.
Ms. Yang has decided her amoralism will be a part of her public person, and I see know reason why not to make jokes about this. This is a commonly accepted standard of decency. If a politician does something you don't like, you can call him an idiot. Likewise, I see no problem in somebody reading my stuff and saying "Dan is an arrogant, mean-spirited crank." This is quite different from saying I'm ugly or something like that. Of course I would still caution my critics to make a point and to be witty about it.
And Brian, I didn't used to feel superior, but you've done quite a bit to encourage it.
"Ms. Yang has decided her amoralism will be a part of her public person, and I see know reason why not to make jokes about this."
How is sex immoral? Sex is good. I've already posted anonymously and your subsequent posts were non-responsive. There is simply no way to evade the fact that calling a Zoe a skank just because she likes and writes about sex is misogynistic. You can criticize her, but name calling of that degree simply goes too far. Also, there is never an explanation of HOW or WHY sex is bad or how Miss Yang is dangerous--unless we agree with the sexist label of whore. Like Jarod, I think that sex work should be legalized, so even if Ms. Yang were an actual sex worker (WHICH SHE IS NOT) I wouldn't have a problem with it.
I don't know Daniel, but I've known Charles since the first semester. We disagree on most issues, however, he has always been kind, intelligent and respectful. Imagine my surprise when HIS blog is so disgustingly nasty as to degrade other members of our community. This is inconsistent with what I know Charles is capable of and I'm sure that y'all can all shape up and keep it professional.
Best,
Gerald
Thanks for the kind words, Gerald.
I must say though that we did not "degrade" Ms. Yang. Her conduct did that itself. When someone decides to engage in promiscuous sex, they leave themselves open to this kind of criticism.
I think it's very troubling indeed that somehow she thinks I lower her social standing by defending her speech rights, but her decision to have lots of sex doesn't affect her reputation in the slightest. In fact, it enhances it!
I just wanted to point out what I consider a glaring inconsistency.
A is still A, after all.
Charles (and the other Claremont Conservative bloggers), you are dodging Gerald's legitimate questions.
You keep parroting the same talking points:
"I think it's very troubling indeed that somehow she thinks I lower her social standing by defending her speech rights, but her decision to have lots of sex doesn't affect her reputation in the slightest. In fact, it enhances it!"
Why are you troubled Charles...where in that fact-void statement do you explain "HOW or WHY sex is bad" or "how Miss Yang is dangerous"? You are all begging the question, but I'd like to hear what your justification is without more undefined assumptions.
And you, anonymous, keep parroting the same talking points of sex being just a bodily function.
Sex outside of a committed relationship trivializes the act and reduces us to our most base instincts.
Sex ought to be more than a hamburger, indulged whenever we feel the pangs of it.
Ms. Yang might be able to decrease the odds that she'll get a virus or pregnant, but those odds still remain. I would stipulate that it is a public health risk.
Ms. Yang might not agree, but I would submit that there are more people on my side on this issue.
I can make an ought statement just as easily as you can Charles. I thought you were at least a little smarter than you have revealed yourself to be.
To address your meager "points," no, we don't have access to any objective command that tells us not to enjoy sex, or vice versa. It is up to the individual to decide what is best according to his or her own preferences. Live and let live right? You are really betraying your "supremacy of the individual" sensibilities when you attack this girl you don't even know for enjoying sex.
Anonymous,
Whose attacking her? I was merely having fun with someone who insulted me after I defended her speech (and sex rights.)
I think promiscuous sex is deplorable (and most research indicates that it doesn't make us happier.) I don't think it makes the world a better place.
I've pointed out that promiscuous sex can lead to disease, misery, and pregnancy. Why should we just believe you that sex is good in and of itself when the natural state of humans isn't to go bonking whomever we want.
I, of course, believe she should be free to have as much or as little sex as she wants. But there are always social consequences for behavior. By posting some of those comments, I'm making it very clear what I think those consequences are.
As for the whole "live and let live" philosophy, I'm not a moral libertine as I've explained countless times. I believe in political, economic, and religious freedoms. As for moral freedom, I believe that there are limits to behavior, but I don't believe the state should enforce them. I think the community is just as capable (and more effective) of issuing reprobations.
Take care,
Just to throw a random question out there, but how do you even know that she's being "promiscuous"? Say it's just one sexual partner she's had for a while now, and thats basically the experiences she writes from? Does that make her promiscuous?
Promiscuous, after all, is defined as "having many indiscriminate or casual sexual relationships"...
Brian,
Read her work (and her blog.) She admits to casual sex and trying to find people to have sex with her on craiglist.
What would you call it if not promiscuous?
I'm not a prude, but I'm just saying, "come on, now."
This is satire, right? I refuse to believe that anybody claiming any affiliation with any institution of higher learning, save perhaps the venerable University of Phoenix Online, could be so willfully and pervasively dense.
Promiscuous sex can lead to those myriad (and overblown, by the way) issues you mentioned, but for you to make a moral pronouncement about the consequences of a person's actions with no regard at all to their individual agency is, to borrow a phrase, nonsense on stilts.
Your arguments are overwhelming in their sheer and utter wrongness. I apologize in advance for cherrypicking, but it's far to Sisyphian of a task for one lowly man to address all the logical holes at once.
"vaguely approaching prostitution" is stupidly inflammatory. You know what else vaguely approaches prostitution? The institution of marriage. Movies with sexy stars. Magazines. Certain brands of ice cream. Chewing gum.
Everything you're saying about morality belies either an intellect or a rhetorical acumen of the very lowest order.
Sorry, a couple more potshots:
"Why should we just believe you that sex is good in and of itself when the natural state of humans isn't to go bonking whomever we want."
Really? You're going to go with this? You're using "the natural state" as your argument against casual sex? That's like dropping a pencil and smarmily proclaiming, "well, the natural state of gravity is that things go up."
I hate to break it to you, but nothing I've read yet has been particularly witty. I think it's super cute that you guys are trotting out the bored "you guys just don't understand our humor" line, but we get it. Repeatedly defending the fact that you're witty despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary doesn't make what you say any more palatable or less offensive.
Let's be clear, on this issue. I don't particularly care what you think or write about Zoe. I'm just offended and pained that you would dare to sully the good name of humor with your drivel.
Being right and being funny can be really hard.
Hows about getting one of those things down?
From my blog, because you people clearly don't read it yet insist on talking about it like you know everything:
"People are always confusing my column and my blog, which is annoying but understandable. More importantly, they also seem to keep confusing promiscuity and sexual literacy. Accusations that blur my mostly tame fucking with my society-poisoning writing only make me want to have extra raunchy sex with my boyfriend and record every play by ass-slapping play. I mean, if you're going to call me names, at least be accurate. Let me make it easier for you:
My very first column was about my moratorium on sex because of the harm casual sex has caused in my life. My later column on sexual literacy also cautioned against the type of promiscuity college students often engage in (drunk, reckless, and self-harming). Here on the blog, I've made no secret of wrestling with my insecurities and sexual pathologies. I have never said "go forth and fuck like bunnies;" I simply believe that if more people talked about sex openly and shamelessly, it would be easier for everyone to figure out why, when, whom, and how they're ready to fuck.
Since people are determined to label me a slut, it's probably fruitless for me to point out that all but one of the sexual encounters I've described here - and even the infamous one in my column - have taken place within trusting, communicative relationships. In fact, 90% of the sex I've had has taken place within trusting, communicative relationships, and 9% more has taken place with trusting, communicative, safe fuckbuddies. I'm not very good at being promiscuous; I prefer relationships because frankly, sex is a lot better if I can keep exploring it with my partner."
Come on now, boys, what happened to the journalistic accuracy you care so much about? I'm ok with being called names, I just think it's funny that after all is said and done, the basic assumptions from which you take your moral high ground are just not true. After all, the Craigslist post was part of RESEARCH for a TSL column and I never seriously considered following up any of those responses (if I did, I wouldn't have posted such a ridiculous ad to begin with).
Now that that's out of the way, have at me.
Perhaps you don't read your own post. I quote where you left off.
"When I write, it's from the recognition that casual sex happens in college whether I condemn or champion it, and as such, it would be more helpful for me to relate and commiserate than to judge. I've had casual sex; I'm ashamed of certain incidents but not of the concept as a whole."
Ugh, do we really have to go over verb tenses and sample sizes? This is basic to the point of boring me.
Saying "I've had casual sex" is NOT saying "I currently and consistently engage in casual sex."
Just like having been drunk isn't the same as currently being an alcoholic.
At least make it interesting for me.
You do realize there are some people who are neither liberal nor conservative and somewhere in between?
Yes, your quoting my blog back at me really showed me that you know more about my lifestyle than I do. You're basing your judgments on 1% of all the sex I've had, which happens to be "casual" by some loose definition of the term (because the 1% weren't even one-nighters, substance-induced, unprotected, or numerous, but now we're arguing semantics.) They also happen to be the experiences which I don't even write about, aside from how they were pointless and generally bad for me. Gotcha, I am skanky.
But I thought you all were trying to address "my ideas and how I express them in print." It's true, I'm not anti-casual sex as a concept, but does that really have to do with my being a prostitute skank? After all, you say that your anti-casual sex stance doesn't make you a prude (and I agree), even though one could argue that YOUR "public person" makes you seem rather like a prude. Why are my lifestyle and ideas necessarily correlated when yours aren't?
In other words: "What scares you more? That I'm a possible vector of disease or a definite vector of transgressive ideology? Let's agree that it's the latter and leave the actual sex I'm having out of the debate (or I shall be forced to call you a prude prude virgin)."
We can play this game all day.
Here's another quotation. Shall we?
From one of your columns.
I guess my problem is that sex stopped being a big deal after May 2004. I have a good friend who only has sex with someone after she knows they’ll be in a relationship. Other friends go by the sex-with-love rule, or the sex-with-trust rule. Most people have a rule, but my rule, the sex-if-we-have-chemistry rule, is one that negates the existence of emotions completely—negates the right of sex to mean anything at all."
I guess the real difference between us is that I pity you and your desire to turn sex into something almost mechanical rather than something almost spiritual. You write on your blog "what to expect if we f---" without realizing that the very person you may be hurting is yourself. You set up guidelines, printable for all to see, and you do it without any shame at all.
I see your column (and your blog) as nothing more than someone looking for attention in all the wrong places and for that I don't condemn you, but feel a genuine sense of sadness for you. I think you must feel that sense of sadness yourself. After all, you used a fake name when you went on Next and have hoped that there weren't copies of the TSL lying around on parents weekend.
I have this sadness even though I defend your right to say it. And for that, you say we lower your social standing!
Do you really want to be known for the sex you have? Do you want the tennis team to remember you from your blog print outs?
You've already shown that your casual attitude towards sex -- a subject that is by its nature intimate -- deeply hurt a lot of people. Witness the debacle over your roleplaying.
I'm not against you offending people for some higher principle. God knows I do it quite often, but I have to ask if you sincerely believe what you are doing.
When you look back at the time you spent at Pomona, is this really how you want to be remembered?
I also never called you a "skank," by the way. Nor did I say you were a prostitute, though I do believe using the craft of writing to boost something you call "sex literacy" is problematic. Who gave you that self-appointed role? Many of us were just as happy to either be educated on our own or to wait on those issues until the right person came along.
On and for the record, safe sex may not even make us happy. (See this study from the New Scientist.)
The philosophy you espouse has consequences, even if you say it doesn't.
I must say though that we did not "degrade" Ms. Yang. Her conduct did that itself. When someone decides to engage in promiscuous sex, they leave themselves open to this kind of criticism.
You called her promiscuous and you were wrong; simply engaging in casual sex doesn't make one promiscuous. You also ignore the fact that these were incidents in her past.
I see your column (and your blog) as nothing more than someone looking for attention in all the wrong places and for that I don't condemn you, but feel a genuine sense of sadness for you.
I genuinely feel like you are being a condescending prick you purports to speak to the motives of others without providing evidence. And there is a huge difference between being ashamed generally of something and not wanting your parents to see it.
The link you provide is not only suggestive and not correlative, it's riddle with hidden variables.
And for the last time, simply because a behavior doesn't guarantee happiness for people in general doesn't mean that it doesn't make some individuals happy. Is that really a difficult concept?
Fine, I'll make it even easier.
Americans, by and large, prefer watching football to watching curling. The happiness index of the average american watching football would be higher than that same american watching curling. Does that mean that nobody likes curling? Or that curling is less fun for everybody? No, it simply means that there is a smaller niche for it.
You've already shown that your casual attitude towards sex -- a subject that is by its nature intimate -- deeply hurt a lot of people. Witness the debacle over your roleplaying.
The roleplaying debacle was about race, not sex. If it were some other fantasy, it would have been barely a blip.
And why is sex naturally particularly intimate?
From the same column:
"Sex doesn’t lose meaning once you lose your v-card. Rather, the meanings change and deepen as your experiences expand. Sex means one thing with a boyfriend, something else entirely with an occasional booty call, a friend who has a crush on you, with a hookup buddy you’ve developed feelings for, and all collegiate shades of gray in between.
Anaesthetized as we may be by drink, drug, or heartbreak, we are not as capable of separating our emotional response from our biblical response as we think. Good, bad, messy, prim, dirty, rough, gentle, kinky, traumatizing, clumsy, casual, life-changing, or barely remembered, sex leaves an insidious yet indelible mark. As it takes at least two to tango, we should also be a bit more aware of what sex means to our partner(s).
For me, there have been too many moments that sting unexpectedly and too many awkward situations that don’t become funnier with time. I’m giving my head some time to catch up with my legs by self-imposing a sexual moratorium. I’ll have sex again when the right person in the right context presents himself, which was exactly my rule when I was 16. It’s so simple, yet so easily compromised."
Yes, I clearly believe sex is mechanical and without consequence. Way to take something out of context.
My name is Zoe Yijing Yang. I changed my name to Zoe when I became a US citizen in 2005. Before that I was Jing and still go by Jing among friends. It's not a "fake" name, and your assumptions are getting tiring to correct.
How I will be remembered is my business, not yours. I don't much care if you pity me, because your pity and sadness comes from a moral high ground that I don't agree with.
We both espouse philosophies and take on self-appointed roles (are you happy to let people educate themselves politically? If your blog doesn't aim to educate, or at least inform people of what you believe in, what does it do?).
While your sense of morality allows you to judge others' lifestyles, my own sense of morality keeps me from "joking" that people I don't know have venereal diseases. In the end, we simply operate by different moral standards.
When I said your comments were a danger to my social standing, I meant that given your unpopularity on these liberal campuses, your defense of me was not helping my case with certain "women of color," not that your blog is disreputable. But just as I may easily be remembered for sex, you may be remembered for having half-baked, knee-jerk beliefs. I'm not saying your beliefs are such, just that we will both inevitably leave a bad taste in certain people's mouths. But as you are comfortable with your legacy, I am comfortable with mine.
You got it right the first time - I am just a sexually active woman trying to make sense of the world around me. I do it publicly because I believe some people may find it helpful (as it was once helpful to me). For that I have no shame.
citizenX, don't waste your time...Charles J is a master of the hidden predicate and he doesn't even realize it. In fact, I'd go so far as to say he isn't so much a "conservative" as he is a knowingly ill-informed and pigheaded child.
Citizen X,
Here's the definition of promiscuous that I'm using. Note the synonyms between promiscuous and casual.
pro·mis·cu·ous (pr-msky-s)
adj.
1. Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.
2. Lacking standards of selection; indiscriminate.
3. Casual; random.
Of course the use of the word "promiscuous" is a value judgment, but I've explained how I've come to my values in previous comments. Ms. Yang doesn't advocate against promiscuous sex. At best, she's neutral on the topic. I'm not.
Further, we have different senses of shame. I'm not ashamed of anything I do. I encourage my friends, my family, my parents (and even my grandparents) to read my blog. I'm not ashamed of anything I write.
No matter. Perhaps you'd like to explain to us why the article I provided is riddled with "hidden varriables"?
I concede that the study I cited may not hold true for all people. (Hence the reason we have uncertainty in the scientific method...)
I'm not really sure how to respond to your football stuff because there's no scientific basis for it as opposed to the study I cited.
It may well be true that the issue was over race, but I don't think you can say that the sex and race issues are divorced in this matter. She wrote the issue on fetishization, after all.
Given that my girlfriend is ethnically Vietnamese, I am more than a little upset with how Ms. Yang handled the situation. I have to deal with those people out there who believe that I have some kind of fetish because of the relationship I have with her. It's annoying.
Is sex particularly intimate? You bet it is and that's a silly question. If it were not, why would people feel shame or hurt when their affections are betrayed?
Zoe,
Thanks for responding to the comment section. I appreciate you explaining some of my comments and I apologize for the assumption I made about your name.
As for the rest of the statements, I pretty much stand by them. We certainly operate by different moral standards.
Thank you for explaining yourself with respect to the asshole for an elbow statement although your suggestion that this blog isn't read and appreciated by "women of color" is patently false. You probably just had an encounter with the self-appointed race types.
As for the half-baked, knee-jerk, I don't think that's entirely fair, but I'll let the accusation stand.
Anonymous,
Don't make me laugh. I've been conservative for quite awhile now and gotten my lumpings for the beliefs I hold.
As for pig-headed, hear is the definition of that word.
pig·headed (pig′hed′id)
adjective
stubborn; obstinate; mulish
Stubborn is in the eye of the beholder and might be the same as "principled."
Obstinate means "not easily subdued or ended."
Mulish often means "intractable."
I thank you for your compliments!
Yevgeny Yevtushenko, one of my favorite poets and one of the first to speak out against Stalinism, once said that "time has a way of demonstrating that the most stubborn are the most intelligent."
His words, not mine. I assure you that all of my family and most of my friends think I'm pigheaded.
As for calling me a "child," I promise you that I am past the age of consent. As my favorite teacher once said on my eighteenth birthday, "if I kick your ass, it won't be child abuse."
I wised up. He didn't kick my ass, though I suspect he wanted to.
Is sex particularly intimate? You bet it is and that's a silly question. If it were not, why would people feel shame or hurt when their affections are betrayed?
It's not fun when you leave the most important words out; I asked if it was natural. It's possible to infuse meaning into any particular action; why do people get angry when a flag is burned? Why does your money mean anything? Once again, you're letting your moralistic notions dribble into a discussion of what's natural and what isn't. I don't know how I can say it any more clearly:
Morals aren't natural.
But enough about my personal philosophies. You've still conveniently ignored that she's no longer even having "casual" sex. Furthermore, you're completely butchering the connotation of the word, and then hiding behind dennotive semantics. Promiscuous and casual aren't synonyms, and they're not interchangeable. For you to suggest something this silly hurts me as somebody with an appreciation for word usage.
Really? You don't see how it's a huge leap in logic to assume that the only difference is the semen? You can't need that explained. I don't even know why you cited that research; if you examined it more closely, you would see that it directly contradicts your premise.
(No? Can't see it? Fine, I'll spell it out. Gallup's premise is that it's the semen qua the semen that causes the happiness. Thus, such factors as the committedness of the relationship are necessarily unimportant to his findings. Here:
But is it really the semen that affects women's mood? The researchers say they looked at alternative explanations such as whether women who seldom use condoms took oral contraceptives, how often they had sex, the strength of relationships, and the possibility that having a certain type of personality influenced the decision to use condoms. But none of these factors can explain their findings, they say.)
I.e.: Casual semen-filled sex is just as happiness causing as relationship semen-filled sex.
I'm not talking about what you write. Hell, I've written worse stuff than Zoe, and I don't particularly care who reads it. But would you want your parents watching you in the shower? While being intimate with your girlfriend? While picking your nose? If you're contending that you always act in a manner around your peers similar to the way you act around your grandparents, well, bravo on your morals and let's never hang out.
Do I really need to provide support that football is more popular than curling? Fine.
You've already conceded that something that works for the majority of sexually active people doesn't work for all of them. So why are you being so priggishly moralistic about Zoe's sex life in the complete absence of outside detail?
Dear Citizen X,
1. Morals are natural and hardwired.
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2007/05.03/15-hauser.html
2. Promiscuous and casual sex are synonyms. It's incombinant upon you to show how the definitions I used aren't applicable.
3. You couldn't make the argument against the scientific data so you had to reside to some kind of non sequitur about curling and football.
4. Then you bring up the whole public/private debate. Writing on a blog or in a column is by its very nature a public act. If you're not comfortable writing public things that your parents might see, don't write.
I'm not being "piggish" -- great way to elevate the debate, by the way -- I'm questioning her neutrality on the topic of casual sex.
Citizen X,
If there is nothing natural about moral or intellectual virtue, then the enthusiasm with which you defend your position and with which you condemn our crude humor is entirely groundless.
Dan
Here we go!
1. Your link didn't work, and I think that that's an entirely different argument, one that's ultimately going to come down to a semantical distinction.
2. Casual sex in the sense that Zoe used it refers to sex outside of the context of relationships. Promiscuity implies randomness, as the very definition you cited indicates. It's not that hard. Words have connotations. You're not an english major, are you?
3. Nonsequiter? Jesus, man, focus. All I'm saying is that just because something is enjoyed by most people doesn't mean it's for everybody, and it doesn't mean that people who deviate from the norm are wrong for expressing themselves. Do you really not understand analogies?
And if you read any followup at all, you would know that the scientific community is nearly universally dismissive of Gallup's bold conclusions. I was just pointing out that you chose an incredibly bad study to prove an incredibly bad point.
4. Balderdash. Nobody is suggesting that her parents be banned from seeing it, but it's entirely reasonable to have parts of your public persona you don't want your parents to see. Or should we ban all sex scenes in movies, books, plays and music? People have different relationships with their parents.
Focus Chucky:
Priggish
(having the qualities of a person who displays or demands of others pointlessly precise conformity, fussiness about trivialities, or exaggerated propriety, esp. in a self-righteous or irritating manner.).
If I were going to call you piggish, it would only be in reference to your delightfully porcine cheeks that I just want to squeeze.
Condemn your crude humor? I've written way, way cruder things than anything on here. I'm just saying you failed. It wasn't a moral judgment, it was a comedic one. Fuck, you could have launched into an eighteen page transcript of the Aristocrats, and I wouldn't have been offended if it were intelligent and witty. Swing and a miss, Danni.
You're also completely missing my point. Simply because something is artificial doesn't make it any less worthy of enthusiasm or debate.
I ask you seriously,
Do you have trouble getting through chapter books? Do you find yourself getting frustrated after a long night of reading, and saying "fuck I wish Nancy Drew had more pictures?"
I'm not judging. Reading comprehension can be super hard. Here, have some Lego instead. If you do it just right, they stick together.
Here's a pat on the head. You've earned it!
/rex
I started out seeing both sides of this debate. That is until citizenx weighed in. It's now advantage Charles and Dan.
Citizenx, have another whiskey.
Should we have a prize for the 100th comment?
CitizenX, I think Lego bricks interlock, not stick.
Winner gets Zoe
I think Citizen X should get a prize simply for having the courage to write a statement like this:
"Simply because something is artificial doesn't make it any less worthy of enthusiasm or debate."
The "artificial" something is morality, or human nature, or maybe truth itself.
And I'm the one who as a tough time reading chapter books?
Aditya, I was being overly simplistic for Danni's sake. Forgive me, I didn't think he could read a word as long as "interlock". Good vocab though. Fifth grade should be a breeze.
I was joking before about the chapter books before (kind of), but Danni boy, you're just backing up my point. See, I was pointing out your frightening lack of reading comprehension skills, a point which you...failed to comprehend. It has nothing to do with the nature of truth. Neither do chapter books. You might know if you'd read one.
I guess one wouldn't go to CMC to read, though.
Are you honestly positing external truth? Because if you offer up a salient proof that such a thing could exists, I will personally pay for both of our plane tickets to Descartes grave, where we can dig him up together just to write nyeah, nyeah on his forehead.
No...? You mean you were just talking out of your ass and didn't even really understand what I was talking about?
I'm hurt. Conservatives are never like that.
I don't drink whiskey. I don't drink anything. I don't smoke, frolic, have sex, laugh, joke, smirk, smile, snort, chortle, deride, mock, mimic or dance. I'm trying to get into heaven here. I hear there are virgins there.
Here's hoping they all look like Charles.
I think it takes a type of skepticism that borders on religious fanaticism in order to posit that nature itself doesn't offer a guide for the best ways to live. Try Plato or Aristotle, chief.
Oh, because Plato and Aristotle posited it, it must be true? That's the weakest proof I've heard you endorse on this blog, and that's saying a lot. Socrates would be very ashamed of you.
You haven't come close to addressing the issue of perception, or the vague and misleading notion of inherence, or the fact that Plato's proof rested on some spiritual notion that we retain knowledge a priori.
Nature is, amoral Danni. If Nature itself provides the template for how to live, complex systems of morality and retribution are...
wait for it...
drumroll...
getting excited...
artificial!
Wasn't that fun?
It's ok, Danni. Understanding the difference between a thing itself and our perception of a thing isn't easy. Have a juice box, instead.
It's not that easy, CitizenX.
Cf 1134b18 ff
This CitizenX is one crude shrewd and lewd dude. Perhaps he needs anothe 'lude.
Are we up to 100 yet?
no... this is 89
Hi, I'm new here. Wow, the picture of Ms. Yang (at least I assume that's who she is) makes her look like a real skank.
Post a Comment