5
Thanks for publishing this moron, WaPo
Ugh. Charlotte Allen’s chat over at the WaPo is bloody painful:
Washington: You write that you doubt women’s representation in such fields as law (the Supreme Court) and medicine (brain surgeons) will rise much in the 21st century. However more women than men currently are graduating from law school and medical school. Could you please comment on this apparent contradiction?
Charlotte Allen: That’s absolutely true, but the proportion of women at the highest level of these fields is going to remain relatively small, I predict.
In other words: sure, more women are graduating from law school and medical school, but they’ll only comprise the stupid doctors and lawyers.
In other news, I hear that light-skinned black people are smarter than dark-skinned black people.
This is great stuff, WaPo. Let’s keep it going:
Silver Spring, Md.: Yes, women’s reasoning is sometimes clouded by emotion, but so is men’s. Why is “swooning” so much worse than murderous rage? How are “Eat, Love, Pray” and “Grey’s Anatomy” any more self-indulgent and fantastical than “On the Road” and James Bond movies? Are romance novels a less realistic picture of male-female relations than “Big Butt Sluts #23″? In short, why do you consider men’s irrational distortions forgiveable, while women’s are a sign of lower intelligence?
Charlotte Allen: I agree that men do many dumb things, and many men have dumb tastes.
*Blink*
*Blink*
Then… like… why did you write an entire article dedicated to the notion that women are stupid? If you think both sexes do dumb stuff then what was the point?
Washington: Why did you write this piece?
Charlotte Allen: Totally for fun.
And I’m sure her next piece talking about how silly black people are for wearing their pants too low and eating too much fried chicken will generate similar laughs.
And now for the real kicker:
New York: In addition to writing here that women are “dim,” at the Independent Women’s Forum you’ve written that Hurricane Katrina might have been “the best thing” to happen to New Orleans, which is full of “whiners … chiseling us taxpayers” out of money. Is that supposed to be satire too? Your sense of humor sure does seem hateful.
washingtonpost.com: What Really Happened After Hurricane Katrina (Independnet Women’s Forum, Oct. 11, 2005)
Charlotte Allen: I said Katrina was the best thing to happen to New Orleans because it finally opportunity to a huge number of New Orleans residents living in passive dependency on welfare to get out of New Orleans and change their lives for the better.
Holy crap.
She didn’t. No. No she did not. I refuse to believe she really said tha…
Charlotte Allen: I said Katrina was the best thing to happen to New Orleans because it finally opportunity to a huge number of New Orleans residents living in passive dependency on welfare to get out of New Orleans and change their lives for the better.
…
…
Sigh.
Well, WaPo, I’ve got to hand it to you. You’ve given voice to a complete lunatic who believes that having your life completely ruined is a tender act of mercy.
My God.
Thousands of them did exactly that–which is why there hasn’t exactly been a huge flood of those former residents flocking back to live in passive dependency and do just that. New Orleans itself now has a chance to change into a more self-reliant city.
I… ugh…
THEY CAN’T GO BACK TO LIVE IN NEW ORLEANS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO BLOODY HOMES!!!!!! WHAT IN GOD’S NAME IS WRONG WITH YOU?????!!!!!! THEY HAVE NO HOMES!!!!!! NOOOOOOOOO… HOOOOOOOOOOOOOMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT LIVING IN A FEMA SHACK OR WITH RELATIVES MAKES SOMEONE MORE “SELF-RELIANT?!?!?!?!” ARRRRRRRRRRRGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Another one:
East Bridgewater, Mass.: You seriously don’t even know what year women got the vote? Who on earth hired you to write about women’s issues?
Charlotte Allen: Why is the exact year germane to anything?
The best part about Charlotte Allen’s argument is that whenever someone calls her out for being stupid, she can respond by saying, “Hey, I’m just a stupid woman.” I use the same line of argument to explain to people why my honky ass will never win Dancing With the Stars.
Someone at the Post needs to be fired over this. Badly.
Snort said,
March 5, 2008 at 22:31
She’s the quicksand of stooopid.
Proteus454 said,
March 5, 2008 at 22:38
*violent twitch*
Hoosier X said,
March 5, 2008 at 22:38
Why is it relevant for anyone to know anything about the things they comment on? If you are called on your shit, just say you said it for fun and imply that anyone who questions your shit is a humorless dick or beholden to the politically correct crowd. If anyone asks what you mean by “the politically correct crowd,” just say you said it for fun and imply that anyone who questions your shit is a humorless dick or beholden to the politically correct crowd.
Rinse and repeat. Season with circular logic, logical fallicies and heaping helpings of sophistry.
You just can’t have enough sophistry!
agc said,
March 5, 2008 at 22:40
I thought Butt Sluts #23-26 portrayed the relations accurately and with surprising sensitivity.
Ms. Allen could learn a thing or two.
Mr. Unhinged said,
March 5, 2008 at 22:43
Since she said bitchez were teh stupids in the first place, I feel comfortable saying that she’s one ugly, stupid bitch. What the fuck is wrong with her eyes?
Legalize said,
March 5, 2008 at 22:43
“Why is the exact year germane to anything?”
Wait. A. Second. Why does this sentence give me a severe headache? Never mind.
*does a bong hit*
Ahhhhhh, exactly, Charlotte. Having a functional knowledge of ANY topic upon which one wishes to expound is not germane to anything at all. In fact, having something intelligent to say about a topic is actually elitist and one of the many fascisms that liberals are known for - which I believe is central to your point.
Nuff Ced MacGreavey said,
March 5, 2008 at 22:44
Lets just change the paper’s name to WhaaPooh
Righteous Bubba said,
March 5, 2008 at 22:44
She would look better in pirate garb.
donnah said,
March 5, 2008 at 22:47
When I read the crap that she writes, and then I read the stupid things she says to justify the crap that she writes, I want to scream. My son is a journalism student with the intention of writing for magazines. I know for a fact that not only is he a good writer, but he could write absolute rings around Allen. Yet she’s getting paid for this so-called writing and talented young writers are searching for a shot at writing professionally. Ye gods!
Susan of Texas said,
March 5, 2008 at 22:48
Ooooh, the wingnuts got their talking points. This is Charlotte Allen on Univerities:
At Occidental, for instance, it seems nearly impossible to study any field, save for the hard sciences, that doesn’t include “race, class and gender” among its topics. Even the Shakespeare course at Occidental this semester focuses on “cultural anxieties over authority, race, colonialism and religion” during the age of the Bard.
The bigger problem is that too much of American higher education has lost any notion of what its students ought to know about the ideas and people and movements that created the civilization in which they live: Who Plato was or what happened at Appomattox.
Sound familiar? She is an editor for BeliefNet and seems to be your garden-variety Jesus! nut. I guess the idea of women as human beings is ungodly.
Blue Buddha said,
March 5, 2008 at 22:49
Is that seriously the picture she uses for her columns? (I can’t tell… need a subscription to look at original article) Because it really looks like shit. That’s the type of picture you use on photo IDs.
El Cid said,
March 5, 2008 at 22:49
What if she had just said “the womenfolk of today” instead of saying “women” in order to be clear that today’s women couldn’t hold a candle to the mid-19th century women she grew up with out on the pioneer homesteads? Would that have helped?
Susan of Texas said,
March 5, 2008 at 22:49
Or mug shots.
Snort said,
March 5, 2008 at 22:50
What Hoosier X said. Bravo!
PeeJ said,
March 5, 2008 at 22:50
She’s been hired to take Goeglein’s place at the WH. They figure she couldn’t possibly have plagairized that from anyone, anywhere, ever.
J— said,
March 5, 2008 at 22:52
Her 3/2/08 Washington Post piece lists only her email address. Her Comment Is Free profile is more informative.
Susan of Texas said,
March 5, 2008 at 22:53
Did they find him?
Blue Buddha said,
March 5, 2008 at 22:54
I would’ve said that, but not that many people smile in their mug shots (the only ones I can think of is Bill Gates and Tom Delay).
sophronia said,
March 5, 2008 at 22:54
Can we now officially say that journalism as a profession has reached its absolute nadir? I just don’t see how it can get much more inane and worthless than this, but I’ve thought that before, and they never cease to surprise me.
ploeg said,
March 5, 2008 at 22:55
They figure she couldn’t possibly have plagairized that from anyone, anywhere, ever.
Plus she reminds the boss of “his mom.
foreigner said,
March 5, 2008 at 22:59
Which appears to be not a total lump of crap: http://atheism.about.com/od/bookreviews/fr/HumanChrist.htm — no, Susan, they didn’t find him.
OTB said,
March 5, 2008 at 22:59
I don’t think it’s funny that you use a photo of a mentally ill homeless crackhead from COPS to make your point about charlotte allen. not funny at all.
GSD said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:00
I for one am very tired of these left wting politically correct people who are hypersensitive to everything and who just knee jerkily do whatever the liberal mainstream media asks them to do.
-Proud Lapel Flag Pin Wearing Conservative Ditto-Head Fighting the War On Christmas and Defending Christians Who Are Under Attack
Gundamhead said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:00
As I asked in a previous thread: why are all the anti-feminist women such losers? I mean K-load, Pam Geller, this person. Don’t any half way smart and accomplished women want to move gender relations back to what they were in the eighteenth century? I’m gonna guess no. Wonder why not?
PeeJ said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:00
Mathematics has this mathy thing called the Hamming Distance. It’s a measure of how far it is from one place to another in an particular kind of abstract space.
What the world needs is a Barking Moonbat Pundit Distance which measures the distance - number of pargraphs or words - between two contradictory claims.
So the problem is that that people hafta talk about all this cultural context stuff.
So the problem is that the big bad Unis don’t know there’s cultural context to be considered.
Charlotte Allen Distance: one paragraph.
Susan of Texas said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:00
Foreigner–it has to be a lump of crap, It was written by a silly dumb woman!
SenderC said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:00
I don’t blame Allen. Like Coulter, she just wants to be famous and will say any inflammatory/stupid thing to get that fame. All the Washington Post had to do was ignore her submission and let her shop it to Townhall, World Net Daily, etc. But I guess they couldn’t let the opportunity to get their very own Ed Anger go by.
ploeg said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:01
That is to say, she reminds the boss of his mom.
nick said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:01
Another quote worthy of ridicule:
Yeah - because it never gets hot or stuffy in a crowded room in the winter.
What a complete and utter pointy-headed nitwit.
ploeg said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:01
His mom!
J— said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:02
For those who might be curious:
From today’s chat at the Post.
gbear said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:03
OTB, Right across from my office it a billboard about what crack can do to your looks. She does look a whole lot like the ‘before’ picture, but even that picture looks like someone who’s about to run off and do a lot of crack. Same smile and eyes.
J— said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:05
But I guess they couldn’t let the opportunity to get their very own Ed Anger go by.
Ed Anger was funny.
Think Progress » Allen: Katrina was ‘best thing to happen to New Orleans.’ said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:08
[...] Sadly No) 4:08 pm | [...]
Robert M. said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:08
Via Susan:
The fact that Shakespeare wrote explicitly about conflicts of race (Othello), class (Julius Caesar), and gender (Taming of the Shrew) is probably central to her point. Those ivory-tower elite professors should stop forcing their students to understand the antecedents of modern Western policies and conflicts, and instead force them to memorize the number of Confederate soldiers that died in which battles on what date.
So, again with the dilemma: is she so stupid that she actually believes this, or so malevolent that she doesn’t care about the consequences of dialing back women’s rights to the 19th century?
PeeJ said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:08
This blog is seriously deficient in wine/whisky/cuisine posts!
A lovely slab of braunschweiger on a toasted english muffin slathered with mayo. Don’t forget to sprinkle on a good pinch of garlic powder. There, I feel so much better now. Dassa a good sammich, yessiree Bob!
Sagra said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:10
He should ask Mrs. Allen for a referral, since I’m sure she would agree that his maleness automatically makes him a much better writer than herself.
PeeJ said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:10
‘Scuse while I make another. What whisky goes with braunschweiger? It’s lunchtime already.
pedestrian said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:10
By her own logic she is too dumb to write her own article. Or is that too dumb to understand it? Oh, now I get it.
She should do a follow-up about how the ELF is doing all those rich people a favor by burning down their McMansions.
javafascist said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:12
I’d like to define the following unit of measure: a CA Unit
A CA Unit is equal to the number of glasses of scotch it takes to raise your IQ to human being level after reading a column by the odious and thoroughly stupid Charlotte Allen.
Going to take a lot of CA Units tonight…
K. Ron Silkwood said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:13
My violent fit of retching will end eventually.
Batocchio said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:14
They really need to can Outlook editor Pomfret. He’s been consistently godawful.
SenderC said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:16
Ed Anger was funny.
Yeah, Allen is no Anger. But I think the Post felt that Allen could be their own lovable crank. Unfortunately, she’s not a parody of a lunatic (like Anger was), she’s the real deal.
moondancer said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:18
Looks like one of Nick Noltes DUI mugshots…
Candy said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:19
Brad owes me a new laptop. When I read the Katrina thing my jaw dropped off my face and smashed the little latch thingies that hold my notebook shut.
Seriously, WTF IS WRONG WITH HER? I know Brad asked that question, and apparently a lot of commenters asked her that question, but I really want to know WTF IS WRONG WITH HER? I think we should keep loudly asking that question of the WaPo until we get a satisfactory response.
Pass that bong, Legalize.
Smut Clyde said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:19
So the problem is that the big bad Unis don’t know there’s cultural context to be considered.
You have missed the point, PeeJ, which is that universities are teaching cultural context, but not the context that students ought to know.
————————
She is author of The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus.
Why is the exact year germane to anything?
Snort said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:20
I thought she looked familiar
J— said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:21
Yeah, Allen is no Anger. But I think the Post felt that Allen could be their own lovable crank. Unfortunately, she’s not a parody of a lunatic (like Anger was), she’s the real deal.
Yes, this sounds right. A resident or at least visiting troll in the Outlook section. It certainly has generated attention. In instances like these, I, like you, get more frustrated with the editors and publishers. Kooks can write whatever they want to write, but that doesn’t mean they have to be published.
Jay B. said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:23
At Occidental, for instance, it seems nearly impossible to study any field, save for the hard sciences, that doesn’t include “race, class and gender” among its topics.
Yeah I betcha “biology” never even touches gender issues.
t4toby said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:23
What we really need is a picture of GrandPaw next to this picture.
Raving lunatics, unite!
BTW- No one should get fired for this. This is way too much fun. I mean, look at her for G-d’s sake! (h/t Rottweiler)
You can’t make things like her up. She looks like a cross between Jesus fever and a hefty dose of Zanex.
Jesus feels like…pillows…
J— said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:27
For all of you interested in further right-wing reflections on What Is Wrong with Academia, she also has an essay on Antioch College, published last November by The Weekly Standard. I’m going to try to read it tonight.
Jay B. said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:27
And in an extra special double irony, an idiot who happens to be a woman writes about women being idiots and then complains that Universities include too much ‘race, class and gender‘ issues in their coursework.*
* Since Bob Somerby complained that few mention the idiotic “women are fickle” companion piece, I’d also like to say that Lisa Hirshman is also an idiot who just happens to be a woman.
Charlotte Bickle said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:29
Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets.
t4toby said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:30
The ghost of Joe Strummer speaks!
Professor Illuminata said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:34
How do you construct a whole university-level class around who Plato was or the facts about what happened at Appomattox? How could that take up 15 weeks? I mean seriously — “I am supposed to teach you students who Plato was, and nothing else that might help you understand what he said. So… Plato’s just zis guy, you know?”
pedestrian said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:34
Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets.
It’s true, a hard rain is gonna fall. If it is like most rains though, it will mostly just drown people who are poor, nonviolent, or have any sense of decency.
Alec said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:38
Anti-feminism is pretty consistently rooted in class warfare. A lot of its most visible figures have made a nice little cottage industry out of cranking out books and speaking deals for themselves doing it. For that matter, they take abundant advantage of the very things they stridently insist are Unwomanlike or Immoral - that is, they tend to be high-powered, independent professionals with strong family planning resources and skills. And they’ll get their own daughters birth control and abortions when it comes down to it, and won’t let some dumb-ass boy plant his flag on her virgin soil.
Upper-class women chiding lower-class women for working (or, for that matter, for acquiring seniority - any woman who demands maternity leave or doesn’t have kids long enough to get benefits is some kindofa dyke) is pretty simple to the kintergarten Marxist in all of us - it all boils down to one small group of rich assholes trying to force the majority out of posing a threat. Dig through any woman screeding about ungodly pants-wearing Hitleryoids and you’ll find a GOP delegate with a 401K, a prenup, and not a skirt to her name. The difference, of course, is that the women she helps create a culture of contempt for would be competition if they were allowed to achieve what their abilities dictate.
OB-GYN Kenobi said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:47
Bring back the hawt-but-stoopid chix.
Blue Buddha said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:48
I used to live 10 miles south of Yellow Springs, and that town is dying a slow death. Antioch shutting down might be the final nail in its coffin.
Did PCness kill Antioch? Maybe… maybe not. But what definitely killed it was that the faculty got extremely lazy around ten years ago: they didn’t bother to do anything to draw in new students, and they started becoming no more than a degree mill by letting the students write their own curricula and grade themselves.
We Love America More Than Anyone. » deep thinkers. said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:49
[...] sadly no has more. and for disclosure, i wrote my “ugh” before reading theirs. Filed under: [...]
PS said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:50
If anyone does wade through the article on Antioch, which I just failed to do, instead skimming with some desperation to find the end, would you please explain the ending:
“No, Antioch College certainly doesn’t need more political correctness du jour. What it needs, in order to save it from turning into the ghost campus of Yellow Springs that it nearly is today, is a few more liberals.”
Since it’s in the Weekly Standard, I would have thought that libruls is bad. And libruls is PC, innit? But … this is too hard for me, clearly.
Zuzu said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:51
This is the hack whose last piece for the WaPo advised people to forgo advance directives because they were the product of a conspiracy of the “intellectual elite” to get us all to die when they “think it is appropriate for you to die.” A piece that was also full of misrepresentations of scientific studies and just plain bad information.
Allen’s previous nutball rant
Even though the piece got a similarly outraged response (if not in the 1000 comments range), the WaPo STILL decided to keep publishing her pap.
And they act surprised?
Blue Buddha said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:51
You talkin’ to me? Then who the hell else are you talking… you talking to me? Well I’m the only one here.
Anne Laurie said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:52
Shorter Allen: There’s always an easy dollar to be made slagging the Not-White-Males for being insufficiently Male and/or White. Sure, you might have to trade in your self-respect first, but I’ve got yeeeeaaars of pratice at that.
Back in the 1970s, feminists tried to come up with a label equivalent to “Uncle Tom” or “house Negro”. Never did find one that worked, possibly because (it was suggested at the time) there was just too great a percentage of women with the power to spread such a meme who were already deeply committed to being “good and faithful servants” of the existing White-(Heterosexual)-Male-based power structures. After thirty years, there’s been some progress made — the number of people calling Allen on her shit proves that — but obviously the people writing the checks at the WaPo will never stop fighting a rearguard action.
Southern Beale said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:52
Isn’t Charlotte Allen the one who wrote an op-ed entitled “Why Are Flight Attendants So Ugly”?
Why, yes she is.
I’m working on an op-ed entitled “Why Does Charlotte Allen Hate Women?”
MrWonderful said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:53
“I used to live 10 miles south of Yellow Springs, and that town is dying a slow death. Antioch shutting down might be the final nail in its coffin.”
Splendid! This will get the citizens of Yellow Springs off their passive dependency on Antioch and inspire them to change their lives for teh better.
Zuzu said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:53
Okay, trying the link again:
Allen’s previous nutball rant
Brandi said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:53
I’d call her a cunt, but she lacks the depth and the charm. –William Styron.
Girl from UNCLE said,
March 5, 2008 at 23:59
Why is “swooning” so much worse than murderous rage?
At least I can get things done when I’m in a murderous rage, which I am in now because I’ve read more crap from Charlotte Adams.
I usually believe in that “respect your elders” and “respect other viewpoints” stuff but lately I’ve been wanting to punch these wingnuts in the face.
t4toby said,
March 6, 2008 at 0:01
I didn’t think this issue was funny until I saw her picture.
t4toby said,
March 6, 2008 at 0:07
This is the face of the woman who wrote the article about flight attendants being ugly.
LOLzers!!!1!
social_invalid said,
March 6, 2008 at 0:08
Just to lower the discourse a little bit lower…She is almost as stupid as she is ugly. There I said it; it had to be said.
pedestrian said,
March 6, 2008 at 0:09
Frankly, even as a woman, I miss the old sexist days, when stewardesses were stewardesses: pretty young things in cute mini-suits and little heels who oozed attention onto everyone–because who knew? They might end up marrying one of the passengers. Why does feminism have to mean the triumph of the ugly and the surly?
She seems to think that she would have been a wealthy man in the old sexist days.
sophie brown said,
March 6, 2008 at 0:14
God, I remember a lot of these stupid and inflammatory pieces. Yet I never bothered to connect them with a writer. While it’s fun to take digs at Charlotte, and no one is more deserving, I am sorry that she has become a little less anonymous. She must be loving all this, because she’s finally succeeded in being outrageous enough to get on the rader. We need some Vulcan mind meld so we can erase her from memory when the ranting is done.
SomeNYGuy said,
March 6, 2008 at 0:16
Holy shit. I’m guessing her face was on fire, and some good samaritan tried to put it out with a baseball bat.
She looks like what a flight attendant might dress as for Halloween.
Susan of Texas said,
March 6, 2008 at 0:18
The woman is a serious scholar when she feels like it, but is a “I’m just a little ol’ snow bunny” when she wants to make women seem stupid. She doesn’t mention her real point–women like obama, women are stupid, so liking obama is girly and weak and stupid. She makes no overt mention of religion or politics while trying to impose her religious and political beliefs on everyone else. A fake, a liar, a hypocrite, and a panderer.
Zuzu said,
March 6, 2008 at 0:19
Actually, she didn’t say anything of the sort in that article. In fact, the Michael Lewis excerpt she quoted says pretty much the opposite:
Susan of Texas said,
March 6, 2008 at 0:21
“And it’s a nice riposte to all those Mainstream Media journos who were so busy congratulating themselves for working themselves into a moral lather of Bush-bashing over Katrina that they failed to get the story.”
I don’t think anyone can honestly misinterpret her message.
melpomenh said,
March 6, 2008 at 0:26
A Vulcan mind meld? You seem to favor the methods of a more civilized species. But since this case seems to involve the honor of group identities, I would prefer a good old Klingon battle to the death. If, in fact, her rants are the result of a delusion mind, rearranging her personality subroutines might be in order. There’s also the option of throwing her out the air-lock, a la Battlestar Galactica.
Sniper said,
March 6, 2008 at 0:31
If you think both sexes do dumb stuff then what was the point?
The point is that because some women do dumb stuff, all women should be barred from public life, but men can do dumb stuff because they’re human.
As I left, I thought about what an oddly characteristic thing it would be if it was a flood that saved New Orleans.”
Except for all the people it killed. And rendered homeless. And the buildings that were destroyed. Other than that, totally saved!
Heartless. Idiotic. In a sane world she would be unemployable.
Smut Clyde said,
March 6, 2008 at 0:31
Why does feminism have to mean the triumph of the ugly and the surly?
If it does, I’m all for feminism.
PeeJ said,
March 6, 2008 at 0:33
You have missed the point, PeeJ, which is that universities are teaching cultural context, but not the context that students ought to know.
Au contraire mon ami! I saw that ought and gave it some thought. I stand by my analysis. As Susan (?) pointed out above, she complains about focusing on the cultural context that is part and parcel of the subject at hand. The context that She then says it is the cultural context, part and parcel, that ought to be the focus.
ought to know about the ideas and people and movements that created the civilization in which they live.
“Who was Plato?”
Definitely self contradictory.
Kathleen said,
March 6, 2008 at 0:34
at first I was annoyed at the idea of the “Chat with Charlotte Allen” as it seemed to legitimize her piece (i.e., there was something to “chat” about.) But given her responses, it is just more extreme embarassment to the WAPO, and I can only be in support of that.
fuckers.
PeeJ said,
March 6, 2008 at 0:35
I really really really want a do-over on that one.
Mulligan!
actor212 said,
March 6, 2008 at 0:36
But you know, it’s all about the shoes.
PeeJ said,
March 6, 2008 at 0:37
Au contraire mon ami!
I saw that ought and gave it some thought. I stand by my analysis. As Susan (?) pointed out above, she complains about focusing on the cultural context that is part and parcel of the subject at hand.
She (Allen, that is) then says it is precisely the cultural context, part and parcel, that ought to be the focus.
[...] ought to know about the ideas and people and movements that created the civilization in which they live. Who was Plato?
Definitely self contradictory.
Randy Owens said,
March 6, 2008 at 0:41
I think that Holy Hand Grenade might have had something to do with it. Let’s ask the detectives investigating the death of A Famous Historian what they think….
William Godwin said,
March 6, 2008 at 0:41
I never hit a lady. So I’ll just introduce her to my radical socialist feminist Welsh mother and she can do it instead.
melpomenh said,
March 6, 2008 at 0:44
PeeJ.
I was under the impression that you called mulligan for:
“I saw that ought
and gave it some thought.”
…a sentence that I find at once delightful and retarded. :)
Carry on.
Anne Laurie said,
March 6, 2008 at 0:45
If, in fact, her rants are the result of a delusion mind, rearranging her personality subroutines might be in order. There’s also the option of throwing her out the air-lock, a la Battlestar Galactica.
Or into the jet intake, if you prefer Firefly. Or marmelade.
Note to concern trolls: I did the serious, constructive comment already, back around 23:52.
J. Hill said,
March 6, 2008 at 0:46
This is the same hack that wrote a hit piece on the green movement published in the LA Times a few weeks back. Moaning about the changes the Democrats made to the Hill cafe, using it as a springboard to deride organic/sustainable farming.
Marita said,
March 6, 2008 at 0:49
I think we need to hook this lady up with
Grampa SimpsonCarey Roberts from RenewAmerica. Then they can spend all their time hating women together!PeeJ said,
March 6, 2008 at 0:51
melpomenh,
That’s exactly how I felt about the sentence. Go with what you got, I always say.
melpomenh said,
March 6, 2008 at 0:58
I think Allen is actually just privileging one cultural context over others. Her concerns related to the perception of women begins and ends during a time when women in the West have already achieved their rights, and are already recognized as being equals (legally). Hence her underappreciation for any historical context or significance that are related to women’s plight. She also undervalues the significance of context within context; she seems to be ignorant of the possibility of women being exploited in localized situations, or that a perception of women as inferiors could exist even while the society formally accepts them as equals.
Sniper said,
March 6, 2008 at 1:18
Her concerns related to the perception of women begins and ends during a time when women in the West have already achieved their rights, and are already recognized as being equals (legally).
Tell that to rape victims who brave the court system or women who try to sue for sex discrimination in the workplace.
another jim said,
March 6, 2008 at 1:24
Lovely unintended call-and-response between the last line of this Sadlyno article on the front page, before the jump:
“If you think both sexes do dumb stuff then what was the point?”
And the title of the next article:
“To Get More Stupider.”
:) :)
It really does answer the question quite nicely.
OneMan said,
March 6, 2008 at 1:26
Nice insight, Susan.
Candy said,
March 6, 2008 at 1:45
I usually believe in that “respect your elders” and “respect other viewpoints” stuff but lately I’ve been wanting to punch these wingnuts in the face.
Thanks. I thought it was just me.
Isn’t Charlotte Allen the one who wrote an op-ed entitled “Why Are Flight Attendants So Ugly”?
That’s a mighty thin-paned glass house you’re living in, Charlottle. Throw them stones, girl.
Bill S said,
March 6, 2008 at 1:50
She complains that college students aren’t being properly educated, yet can’t remember a historical fact that every kid in grade school learns?
And that’s the LEAST stupid thing from that chat.
The rest just made me want to find a huge pot, slap it over her head (the better not to look at her), and just start banging it with a wooden spoon, Bugs Bunny style.
Righteous Bubba said,
March 6, 2008 at 1:51
C’mon. Make her a pirate.
melpomenh said,
March 6, 2008 at 1:52
Um…Sniper.
but I did say this:
…which speaks to your point.
Krassen said,
March 6, 2008 at 1:57
The story is so offensive and got so much publicity, I feel that it affected yesterday’s primaries. Both TX and OH had close to 60% female turnout, much higher than previous primaries. Many women got outraged and mobilized by Ms. Allen, and Sen Clinton benefited.
When you couple this with the loud appeals by Limbaugh for people to vote for Hillary, one has to wonder if that piece was not a deliberate provocation to help Clinton.
Whatever the case is, the end result is that the Dem race is going to go the distance, get even bitter and I fail to see any upside in that…
Righteous Bubba said,
March 6, 2008 at 1:57
PIRATE!!!
Righteous Bubba said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:00
She could say “Yo ho ho” and like mean it and stuff.
Candy said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:02
Whatever the case is, the end result is that the Dem race is going to go the distance, get even bitter and I fail to see any upside in that…
I’m starting to get really worried about this fall. I really didn’t think there was any way the Dems could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, not this year . . . I should have known better. One thing’s for sure: If McCain is elected president because all the pissed off Clinton supporters refused to vote for nominee Obama, or vice versa, I am outta this country. I’m going to try to go to Europe. I don’t think Canada’s far enough away.
John said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:03
HAHAHA
Why am I laughing?
This is sick.
Why isn’t she gone?
Candy said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:04
Righteous Bubba, I like to play pirate. Every time I pass a Menard’s, I say, “Aaaarrrrrrrrr, Me nards!” It’s fun.
JoshA said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:05
Charlotte Allen says women are stupid.
Charlotte Allen is a woman.
Hence, Charlotte Allen says she herself is stupid.
I don’t agree with Charlotte Allen about women’s stupidity as a whole. I do, however, agree with Charlotte Allen that Charlotte Allen is stupid.
Random Observer said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:05
But guys, come on, she’s totally just kidding! Can’t you tell?
justcorbly said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:10
>>”Someone at the Post needs to be fired over this. Badly.”
Firing a journalist because you don’t like what they published is censorship. Direct your wrath at Allen, not at the newspaper that exposed her crudities of thought.
foreigner said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:11
Pirate?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3017/2312653397_cc2de6f502.jpg
Righteous Bubba said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:12
Heh. It works perfectly.
Righteous Bubba said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:13
Firing a journalist because you don’t like what they published is censorship.
No it is not.
Thus endeth the lesson.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:13
“>>”Someone at the Post needs to be fired over this. Badly.”
Firing a journalist because you don’t like what they published is censorship. Direct your wrath at Allen, not at the newspaper that exposed her crudities of thought.
Fred Hiatt, for one, has given a plethora of reasons why he should be fired.
fascistphil said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:14
I knew I’d seen her before.
Lakeesha Shaidle said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:18
What is WaPo short for? Washington Pantload?
Matt T. said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:22
Firing a journalist because you don’t like what they published is censorship. Direct your wrath at Allen, not at the newspaper that exposed her crudities of thought.
No, the government demanding a writer be fired because they didn’t like what s/he thought would be censorship. Demanding the Post remove this waste of space from their paper is the marketplace reacting to a pitifully poor product. The hell are we supposed to do with Allen, throw eggs at her house? You write for a living and you write mundane, insulting idiocy and then when you’re called, you pathetically try to pass it off as “Oh, just joking, bitches”, you have not earned a position with a prestigious newspaper, end of story.
justcorbly said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:26
You can legitimately question the editorial judgement behind the WaPo’s decision to publish this piece, but contending that Allen’s article shoud have been rejected because you disagree with her assertions is, in fact, censorship.
PR said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:27
When did the WaPo become a prestiious paper?
American Street » Blog Archive » Jeebus H. Koresh On A Crutch said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:27
[...] thing that Sadly, No! is on the case. The WaHoPo seems to have stepped in it this time. I wonder if there will be any [...]
Daphne Chyprious said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:28
That’s “seriously” a photo of Charlotte Allen? Looking, presumably, her BEST for the camera, if only to compensate for being inherently stupid? Then for God’s sake let’s pity her. She has much bigger problems than writing the most self-destructive essay of the century thus far.
Righteous Bubba said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:30
contending that Allen’s article shoud have been rejected because you disagree with her assertions is, in fact, censorship.
In fact, it is not.
D. Sidhe said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:31
But guys, come on, she’s totally just kidding! Can’t you tell?
I’ve said it before. If you’re gonna try to get a laugh out of “Jane, you ignorant slut”, we need to actually believe that this isn’t the sort of thing you routinely say to every woman you meet. Charlotte’s “For fun”? Fail.
J— said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:38
I don’t think Doubleday should have published Liberal Fascism. Hey, I just censored Random House! I had no idea I had such powers!
justcorbly said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:39
>>”Demanding the Post remove this waste of space from their paper is the marketplace reacting to a pitifully poor product.”
The way the marketplace deals with something it doesn’t like is not to buy it. When you stop buying the Post because you don’t like what they publish, that’s the marketplace. When you assert the right to tell the Post what they should and should not publish based on what you do not want other people to read, that is obviously censorship.
Allen is obviously a fool, but people who want to control what people read are a threat.
Righteous Bubba said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:40
I had no idea I had such powers!
You are a veritable He-Man.
Johnny Coelacanth said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:42
Is that really Charlotte Allen in the pictures? Mein Gott in Himmel. Talk about poor bilateral symmetry.
Righteous Bubba said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:44
When you assert the right to tell the Post what they should and should not publish based on what you do not want other people to read, that is obviously censorship.
You really need to work on constructing sentences that say what you mean. Also, sentences that aren’t stupid. Why I would go so far as to say that you shouldn’t have clicked that submit button.
Snorghagen said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:45
Contending that you have a clue what you’re talking about is, in fact, stumphumping buttdrizzle.
tb said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:46
Guys, it’s really not cool to post the picture of some random, obviously-mad old hag and claim that it’s Ms. Allen.
And yes, you have to publish every wingnut in the world and pay them a lot of money or it’s censorship.
justcorbly said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:48
That sentence says exactly what I want it to say. The Post is free to print whatever it wants to print. You are free to stop buying the Post if you don’t like what it prints.
another jim said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:48
“…people who want to control what people read are a threat.”
I disagree that wanting this woman fired is censorship. She can write or say anything she wants. I think wanting her fired is more like wanting accountability. She has said some ridiculous, baseless things from what is actually (somehow) still a prestigious soapbox. Wanting her removed from that soapbox is a legitimate desire. She can still find a crappier soapbox (i.e. Fox, National Review), or build her own by boiling the blood and flesh of the innocent (i.e. Coulter).
justcorbly said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:51
>>”…you have to publish every wingnut in the world and pay them a lot of money or it’s censorship”
Wrong. Deciding an article doesn’t merit being published is an editorial decision. Deciding an artcle should not be published because you disagree with its politics is censorship.
People who want to tell newspapers they can’t publish articles I think are rubbish are much greater threats than the articles.
Matt T. said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:51
justcorbly,
No, it is not censorship in any form or fashion. It’s not because, frankly, the Post doesn’t have to listen to anyone with regards to how much they pay Allen. Now, if the Post’s editors and publishers demand the silencing of Allen for whatever reason or if the U.S. government tries to silence her, that is censorship. A bunch of yay-hoos ranting about how the silly jackass should be canned for writing such drivel isn’t. Nobody’s advocating “controlling what you read”. The’re just wondering why this obvious hack and pitiful excuse for a thinker has this sweet gig.
Actual censorship against media voices from actual entities of power is an actually serious business, even here in the U.S. of good ol’ A. It’s far too serious to be wasted with the trivial definition you seem to want to give it.
Smiling Mortician said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:53
Censor
1. forbid the public distribution of ( a movie or a newspaper) [syn: ban]
2. subject to political, religious, or moral censorship; “This magazine is censored by the government”
Censure
1. strong or vehement expression of disapproval: The newspapers were unanimous in their censure of the tax proposal.
2. an official reprimand, as by a legislative body of one of its members.
3. to criticize or reproach in a harsh or vehement manner: She is more to be pitied than censured.
4. to give censure, adverse criticism, disapproval, or blame.
There’s going to be a quiz on this stuff, kids, so take notes.
Righteous Bubba said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:55
That sentence says exactly what I want it to say.
Then you’re a dope.
When you assert
First of all an assertion is an assertion and nothing more. If you believe that saying something is in itself censorship then STOP CENSORING MEEEEEE!!!
the right to tell the Post what they should and should not publish
Yes, Virginia, you do have the right to tell the Post what they should and should not publish. This is called an “opinion” and you can find many of them on the intertubes. The Post need not pay attention, although sometimes they publish controversial documents demanding they not publish X or Y such as - you may have heard of these - LETTERS TO THE EDITOR - which - and get this - THEY ENCOURAGE!!!
based on what you do not want other people to read,
Nobody has said people should not be able to read Charlotte Allen. She is widely published.
that is obviously censorship.
Oh obviously.
Fingal said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:55
All this brouhaha is kind of silly. We’re talking about an article in a newspaper, as a result of which nobody has died, or is likely to. Your emotional hot buttons are being pushed, Dave — why don’t you take a stress pill and like down for a while…
I don’t recall any similar attacks of the vapors in response to Richard Pryor’s or Eddie Murphy’s riffs on blacks, largely because it’s OK to make fun of a group of which you are yourself a member.
Why does this particular one bother folks so F’ng much? It’s not as if women were right now being lynched at the rate of one a week, the way blacks were down South in the early 20th century. It’s not as if Ms. Allen were denying the Nazi holocaust.
I think it’s highly unlikely that someone writing a similar article about how stupid men are, however much it might exaggerate and overgeneralize, would be able to trigger such a storm of pissing and moaning.
justcorbly said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:55
>>”I disagree that wanting this woman fired is censorship…”
That is not censorship. Every newspaper has a right to hire and fire employees and puboish or not publish articles. But, when someone insists that a newspaper should not have published an article because they disagree with it, that’s advocating censorship.
Fingal said,
March 6, 2008 at 2:58
…take a stress pill and lie down for a while… (HAL 9000)
Smut Clyde said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:01
Pirate?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3017/2312653397_cc2de6f502.jpg
Arrr, me thinks she needs morre Parrrot.
Today I have learned that if I stop buying a newspaper on account of its shite correspondent, that would amount to putting pressure on the editors to fire the correspondent, which is c*ns*rsh*p.
How about if I send the newspaper an anonymous donation, to compensate them for the drop in income? Would that make it OK?
People who live in glass houses should not smoke rock. That is all.
justcorbly said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:01
>>”It’s far too serious to be wasted with the trivial definition you seem to want to give it…”
No, it isn’t, Matt. Venting is one thing, telling a newspaper that they should not have published an article that expressed opinions you don’t like is wrong. The press is free to print what they wish and any assertion to the contrary is morally invalid. Those in this thread who argue that the Post should not have run the Allen piece because they don’t want other people reading it are advocating censorship.
tb said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:01
What about if I decide an article shouldn’t be published because it’s a fucking bilious insult to my intelligence?
another jim said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:03
Well in all fairness justcorbly, I really think that’s not actually censorship.
I mean, if we think a reality TV show sucks so bad it shouldn’t have been released, is that censorship? If we think a movie, such as oh I don’t know any goddamn romantic comedy released in the past year, is so egregiously bad that every person involved should be fired, is that censorship?
I disagree.
Now if what you’re saying is that’s *wanting censorship*, that’s different from *committing censorship*. I still don’t think it’s wanting censorship, even; I still think it’s just wanting accountability. No one’s saying *all people* should be prevented from making crappy reality TV shows or stupid-ass romantic comedies.
Righteous Bubba said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:03
People who live in glass houses should not smoke rock.
Stop censoring me.
Matt T. said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:03
Fingal,
Question. Were Eddie Murphy’s and Richard Pryor’s riffs funny? This is an important distinction I think you’re missing, especially if the defense of jackassery is “Hey, folks, it’s just jokes!” Also, I think you need to relisten to at least Pryor’s older stuff, because I think his point is evading you.
Also, if people are not allowed to get irritated at obvious, blatant mysoginy, from a woman or no, in a major newspaper, what are they allowed to get miffed at? Should stuff like that just be allowed without comment? What’s the limit, then? What’d make you go, “Hey,wait…”?
tb said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:04
Yeah, what is the big deal? It’s just about bitches.
Snorghagen said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:04
I am indeed a powerful threat to the freedom of ugly wingnut journalists everywhere.
God, you’re a fucking idiot.
Righteous Bubba said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:05
telling a newspaper that they should not have published an article that expressed opinions you don’t like is wrong.
It’s so wrong that newspapers…hire people to be wrong at them.
another jim said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:05
I mean really, justcorbly, that’s like saying that telling someone they said something wrong and stupid and they shouldn’t have said it, is violating their free speech rights.
It’s not. They can still say whatever they want, just like the person who told them to shut up.
Matt T. said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:07
justcorbly,
Okay, I give up. I’m not engaging you after this because it’s obvious you have absolutely no clue as to what censorship - real, honest censorship - actually means to a thriving press. I also don’t think you have any clue as to how the newspaper business works. So good luck to ya. This is not an “agree to disagree” sort of thing, mind; you are objectively wrong and, thus, arguing from a imaginary position. I’m just too tired to go around with someone who will obviously not listen. My advice is to read up on actual censorship cases in the media. FAIR’s a good place to start, so’s the Censored List put out every year.
tb said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:08
At the risk of censoring you again, I like the first way better:
justcorbly said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:10
>>”What about if I decide an article shouldn’t be published because it’s a fucking bilious insult to my intelligence?”
Well, obviously, that’s an editorial decision.
As I’ve said, if you decide not to print an article for the sole reason that you don’t want other people to read the political opinions it expresses, that’s advocating censorship.Deciding not to published something you think insults the readers’ intelligence is one thing. Deciding not to publish something only because you don’t want your readers exposed to its opinion is another,
Allen’s opinions are ludicrous and insulting, and hardly a threat, but anyone who would claim the right to decide what a newspaper can and cannot publish is a real threat.
Righteous Bubba said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:12
I am getting censored all over the goddamned place here. Look, a nipple at the Super Bowl is just not that big a deal!
thepoliticalcat said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:13
Hey, Nuff Said McGreavey,
Wouldju just not steal my lines? Thank you.
This has been your satirical comment for the day.
Smiling Mortician said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:13
Justcorbly is justconfused, which is justfine unless justcorbly has any sort of position that requires knowledge of laws or rules or definitions. That would be justafuckingshame.
Righteous Bubba said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:14
anyone who would claim the right to decide what a newspaper can and cannot publish
Ooo, a sentence that comes close to what censorship might actually be. Keep working on that. Oh wait, didn’t finish it:
anyone who would claim the right to decide what a newspaper can and cannot publish is a real threat.
Self implosion.
justcorbly said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:16
Matt, all I know is that some people on this thread say the Post should not have published an article because they disagree with it. I hope they never run a newspaper.
Arguing that a article didn’t merit publication because it is specious, or poorly researched, or factually incorrect, is fair game. Arguing that other people should be prevented from reading an article only because you disagree with it is wrong.
El Cid said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:17
All of you doing all this expression of opinions which are not mine is exactly like 4,000 Hitlers sending all of us to the gas chambers while making young children read over megaphones that free speech is wrong.
And I don’t like to engage in any hyperbole, either.
Righteous Bubba said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:19
justcorbly said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:16 (kill)
Matt, all I know
Quite possible.
Sniper said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:22
…which speaks to your point.
Yeah. I wasn’t so much arguing with you as pointing out that technical equality before the law doesn’t mean a damned thing in many cases. Black people have had the vote for decades - doesn’t stop disenfranchisement efforts.
But, when someone insists that a newspaper should not have published an article because they disagree with it, that’s advocating censorship.
Censorship is done by institutions - governments, churches, and the like. Calling someone an idiot who shouldn’t be published is not censorship. Nobody has the right to be paid for their opinions… or you owe everyone here $10.
Heretic said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:23
Um.
Charlotte Allen: I said Katrina was the best thing to happen to New Orleans because it finally opportunity to a huge number of New Orleans residents living in passive dependency on welfare to get out of New Orleans and change their lives for the better.
Am I the only one who thinks that this was originally written in Chinese, and then run through BabelFish or something? It ‘finally opportunity to?’ That’s worse than ‘Pimp Stick, Wet Goods,’ as the name of a tobacco and liquor store, and even approaches ‘Make the pie higher!’
justcorbly said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:24
So nice to know, Bubba, et al, that you’re all so smart that you can decide what the rest of us should read.
PeeJ said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:24
I just want to say censored and what’s more, censored further fnord
Matt T. said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:25
RB,
Maybe I’m reading that wrong, but I don’t think I’m comfortable with the idea of being the complete sum of someone’s knowledge, much less when that someone isn’t fucking paying attention. You ever argue with someone convinced that evolution/atheism/science is a religion? That shit drives me slap up the wall.
Jesus, people. Books are your friends. Read up on shit before you start running your damn fool mouth.
PeeJ said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:25
Nah, I didn’t think the blink tag would actually work.
Righteous Bubba said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:26
So nice to know, Bubba, et al, that you’re all so smart that you can decide what the rest of us should read.
You are forbidden to read the internets as of April 1 2008. Thus saith the Grand Censor of Censure.
El Cid said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:26
The Washington Post’s failure to publish this very comments page is proof of their anti-free speech censorship. We all have an innate human right to have our columns prominently published in the Washington Post whenever we want, that’s why each issue each day is 300 million pages long.
Righteous Bubba said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:27
Maybe I’m reading that wrong, but I don’t think I’m comfortable with the idea of being the complete sum of someone’s knowledge, much less when that someone isn’t fucking paying attention.
There is so much fucking censorship going on on this thread that my pet may die.
Jay B. said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:28
Allen’s opinions are ludicrous and insulting, and hardly a threat, but anyone who would claim the right to decide what a newspaper can and cannot publish is a real threat.
So the editors and the publishers are the real threat then, eh champ?
By the way, here’s how your “if you don’t like it, don’t buy it” theory would work — by avoiding purchase you are hoping to object to its content through market means (a boycott, say) and, hopefully, inflict damage on the paper, which will make it change its idiotic behavior in the first place — which is just a longer, more convoluted way of saying “don’t publish this”!
I know this is tough because you probably have to finish a midterm, or crayon in your Happy Meal map or something, but opining about the fitness of what is in a newspaper (threat or no) is also called “criticism”. You don’t need a license to practice it. Nor is criticism particularly in line with censorship.
By coming down against pap and stupidity in a newspaper, you are NOT engaging in censorship — they can, after all, try and get their piece published somewhere else, or even self-publish it on the Internet — you are engaging in criticism and imploring the newspaper to take responsibility in what they publish. This is what’s called a “dialog”, or responding to what is published.
Or do you think the Post puts out stupid and inflammatory articles for the sole reason to scream into a void? If no, then, realistically, the only thing you’re engaged in is trying to silence one side of this ‘debate’. And that, by your own definition is censorship.
Silver Owl said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:28
At her age the fact that her only achievement is being a fucking non-thinking piss poor excuse of a human being is the definition of waste of a lifetime.
justcorbly said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:29
>>”Calling someone an idiot who shouldn’t be published is not censorship.”
No, it isn’t. But arguing that newspapers should not publish an article only because you do not want others exposed to the opinions it expresses is, in fact, expressing a desire to censor.
Sniper said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:30
So nice to know, Bubba, et al, that you’re all so smart that you can decide what the rest of us should read.
Jesus tapdancing Christ. Do you really think that saying someone is an asshole who should be fired is the same as firing that person?
A demonstration:
Justcorbly should get the fuck off this thread and read something about what censorship really is.
Have you done that? No? Then what the hell are you complaining about?
Matt T. said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:31
RB,
Well, look on the bright side. Dead pet = new recipe.
Snorghagen said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:33
No, that’s Fred Hiatt’s job. And insects like myself dare not object to his decisions.
Zuzu said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:36
A first-rate smackdown, in the WaPo of all places:
Jay B. said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:37
But arguing that newspapers should not publish an article only because you do not want others exposed to the opinions it expresses is, in fact, expressing a desire to censor.
So brave, sticking up for the right for some idiot to be paid to express the forbidden “women are stupid” sentiment.
Say goodnight Gracie.
Snorghagen said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:37
Arguing that newspapers should not publish crap is, in fact, crazed monkey ultra-Nazism.
justcorbly said,
March 6, 2008 at 3:37
Read what I say, Jay. I think Allen’s piece is idiocy. I also think that’s merely my opinion, because I dont agree with the political opinions as expressed in the piece. However, I don’t think