Thursday, December 01, 2005

Let me explain that whole "out of context" thing one more time.

Given the number of loose ends that we have hanging around, I figure we can take them one at a time, starting with the one in which a couple commenters suggested I was being somewhat misogynistic in my references to Crazy-Assed Bitch™ Michelle Malkin.

Back here, we have Polly Jones upbraiding me for, among other things, suggesting that Malkin likes her horse cock and that I spoke approvingly of Malkin having a "stalker" and of "slapping her around." Pete Rempel also jumps in with both feet and makes an ass of himself by getting weirdly excited about this whole "horse cock" thing, so let's settle this, shall we?

While Jones didn't give a link to the offending post, private e-mailer "Gabe" did the heavy lifting to track down this previous post of mine, which we can now examine in excruciating detail. Let's start with the title, " Hey! Michelle Malkin has her own stalker. Cool.", where, if one reads even just the first paragraph, it should be clear that, by "stalker," I mean someone who will be religiously following Malkin's postings and dissecting them. Given that the name of the blog in question is "Malkin Watch," I'm not sure how clearer this could have been. But it gets sillier.

One need only read the entire section related to the horse cock to appreciate that I was using it as an analogy:

Witness Michelle pointing over to Little Green Dumbfucks, where serious dumbfuck Charles Johnson writes:

Here’s the LGF post cited by the Journal: Jihad at the University of Oklahoma? The question mark is, of course, intended to signify that the story is questionable.

Ah, so it's the question mark that makes the most outrageous rumour mongering and speculation acceptable. Which means I can, in good conscience, ask, Does Charles Johnson molest Catholic altar boys? I'm not saying he does, I'm just, you know, asking.

Or, perhaps, does Michelle Malkin occasionally like some serious horse cock? I mean, when dating within her species just won't satisfy her cravings, does she need a trip out to the farm to get herself a little something something from Secretariat and the boys?

I'm not saying it's true, of course. I have no evidence whatsoever for this but, hey, I'm just asking. That's all right, isn't it?

See how that works? I'm not writing that Malkin likes horse cock; I'm writing that, by her own logic, I would be entirely entitled to ask the question, as distasteful as it is.

Not at all surprisingly, Pete Rempel can't help but embarrass his species in that same comments section, writing, "You actually said that CC? Oh boy, this will be fun!" Why, yes, Pete, it will, only because one can first point out that you jumped all over this without having a clue what it was all about, and also because one has to wonder why you get so disturbingly excited over a reference to horse cock, but I really don't think I want to know any more, thanks.

Oh, and Pete? About that snarky comment of yours: "Oopsies! Looks like CC has gone back and deleted that post. Say is ain't so CC?"

It ain't so, dimbulb. Next.

: Will some of you folks, like, get a grip? I'm pretty sure that, with loons like this one running around, you don't need to be throwing terms like "sexist" around on this blog, know what I mean?


RP. said...

See how that works? I'm not writing that Malkin likes horse cock; I'm writing that, by her own logic, I would be entirely entitled to ask the question, as distasteful as it is.

I guess the question is, of all the nasty things you could, you know, ask about but not suggest to be true, why you chose something sexual.

I've also thought about saying something about your constant calling down of Malkin as the CAB. It puts me in mind of all the sex-specific put-downs the Cons (and others) hurled at Belinda Stronach when she crossed the floor.

I can't remember why I didn't say anything before, I think it's because I figured that you weren't one to back down from things you've said. But now you appear to be asking, so...

CC said...

I guess the question is, of all the nasty things you could, you know, ask about but not suggest to be true, why you chose something sexual.

Because it's my experience that, if you really want to get an analogy across, then being as offensive as possible is typically a good way to get someone's attention.

Sorry if you don't like that particular analogy but, again, I'm doing nothing that the original posters didn't give me rhetorical license to do.

RP. said...

I'm also still wondering about why you call Malkin CAB? You don't think it's sexist?

(aside: ha ha "Can you call me a taxi?" "You're a taxi.")

Polly Jones said...

It's clearly sexist. But, apparently, sexism is readily accepted in the blogosphere, and the larger culture.

Look at the argument that went on between JC and RM. Can you imagine what would have happened if McClelland had a current post calling someone a "Crazy-Assed Jew"?

To be fair though, CC shouldn't be scapegoated for the sexism of the world. As I pointed out on my site, I've seen many instances of it on blogs...

(Seriously, CC, I'm not trying to attack you individually, just trying to challenge accepted male behaviour.)

Hopefully, some people will be receptive to this discussion and challenge their own thinking and/or reponses as you have done, RP.

Dave T. said...

Why do people respond to Peter Rempel? Honestly, why? If everyone just ignores him, he'll get bored and go away.

Polly Jones said...

Are you kidding me?

That's like saying that it's not homophobic to call someone a "faggot", only homophobic to support hate crimes against them. Don't you see how these things exist on a continuum?

You write that its cool that Malkin has a stalker. Have you ever known someone who has been stalked?

I'm glad you all find it so funny.

stellababy said...

I'm in full agreement with Polly and rp. Gendered insults aren't going away anytime soon, but using them (even in an innocent way) just perpetuates the problem.
And I know, CC, that youre just restating what someone else said, etc... but this just adds to your excessive use of insults in general and detracts from your often accurate argument.
To be honest, my respect for Malkin is pond-scum low, but I feel that way entirely based on her ugly political outlook, misinformed banter and partisan rhetoric. The fact that she is female is of no consequence, and should be left out of our criticisms.

Luna said...

Ya know, I just don't agree. I hear bitch being used more and more for bitches of both sexes.

Some people just are bitches. Michelle Malkin certainly qualifies. So does Rush Limbaugh.

It's not like CC goes around referring to women as bitches, as in "I was out trolling for bitches, and I ran into my ex". No.

And the example of faggot being homophobic, no. I don't buy that either. I know plenty of fantastic gay guys and a number of faggots. No overlap.

It's all about how it's used. CC is clearly not a misogynist bitch, so he gets to use the word without reproach from me, at least. You'd think that others might try to understand the concept.

RP. said...

CC, I understand that there are some really evil fuckers out there, compared to which, a progressive's latent anything-ism is nothing.

I still think it's worthwhile for a person to question themselves on it on what they're really saying or doing. I, personally, am not trying to stick anything to you. Rather, I'm wondering why I'm not, and I don't have a good answer. I guess part of the reason is, you're not the enemy.