Thursday, December 01, 2005
When you've screwed the pooch and need to back out gracefully.
I really hate it when I need to take serious blogging time to give remedial reading lessons but, apparently, this is one of those times.
Over here, the adorable Ms. Z summarizes what happens when someone completely, totally, spectacularly misunderstands something and, when it's explained to them what really went down, instead of just apologizing for being such an airhead, they desperately try to salvage the situation and only make things worse.
I refer, of course, to the recent idiocy of Conservative MP Jason Kenney who got all bent out of shape when he misinterpreted a reference to "OMNI" the now-defunct science magazine (best described as science porn for the socially-challenged) as a reference to "OMNI" the TV station(s).
And when someone quietly whispered in his ear what a total jackass he had just made of himself, rather than sheepishly admit that he had just pooched it, he tried to bluff his way out of it which, of course, just made him look sillier.
Another delightful example of this can be found here when, as some of you might remember since I linked to it, our favourite American fundamentalist loon Jinx McHue completely misinterpreted a journalistic reference to the "hand of God" as a slight against Commander Chimpy's religious beliefs, when it actually referred to the controversial goal in the 1986 soccer World Cup by Argentinian legend Diego Maradona.
Rather than just swallow his pride and admit that he made a dick of himself, Jinx naturally dodged and weaved and tap danced, writing, "seems a strange phrase to use in reference to President Bush, unless, of course, it is meant as a direct reference to his faith in God," even after having it explained to him that it had nothing to do with Bush's religious beliefs, it had to do with a soccer goal.
Which brings us finally to here, where some readers are taking offense to my writing gleefully about right-wing screech harpy Michelle Malkin having a "stalker," even after I slowly, carefully explained that, by "stalker," I meant someone who will be following Malkin's postings carefully and methodically and pointing out their various flaws and inanities. And yet, even after that explanation of my use of the word -- clearly meant as slang -- some readers are still upset. To those readers, a word of advice -- get over it. Seriously.
At this point, you know full well what I meant and how I was using the word. I don't really give a fuck if my usage upsets you because we now both know that it has nothing to do with the concept of sexual predation or anything of the sort. In fact, referring to someone as a "stalker" in the blogosphere is becoming kind of a standard when describing anyone who seems to spend an inordinate amount of time checking up on someone else.
In short, if how I wrote that article upsets you, tough shit. I'm always willing to apologize for writing something classless or offensive, but I'm not going to apologize to readers who deliberately choose to misinterpret something I wrote, especially after the actual situation has been explained to them. Put another way, feel free to bitch at me for what I write, not for how you deliberately choose to misunderstand what I write. There's a difference.
And if that's not good enough for you, hey, it's a big blogosphere out there. Knock yourself out. And while you're feeling all bent out of shape and are off somewhere sulking, we here at CC HQ will be dealing with actual topics regarding womens' rights, like discussing the misogyny of the Catholic Church or the evil that is the pro-life pharmacist movement. Any time you want to stop whining and join the discussion again, you know where to find me. Do we understand one another?
P.S. When I refer to someone as having "screwed the pooch," I don't mean that literally, of course. But I'm hoping you figured that out all by yourself.