Bloggers Fighting Back
This elitist and tacky behavior by The New Republic writer Christopher Orr makes me glad we let our subscription to the magazine run out a couple of years ago. What I love is the comment section at TNR where almost all of the comments are supportive of Orr--and there are almost no comments supportive of Prof Althouse--except Prof Althouse. Looks fishy to me--I wonder if Orr's elitism extends to editing out comments that disagree with his position? I guess Ann is correct when she states:
I second that Ha.
Ha! You'd prefer to slam people and have them silently take it, right? Bloggers don't do that. The comfy old days of MSM are gone. Thanks for admitting that you can't handle the new situation where the people you attack have a way of fighting back.
I repeat: Ha!
I second that Ha.
posted by Helen at 9:06 AM
23 Comments:
Is "Ha" the new "Heh"?
Pretty obvious why the only commenter supporting Althouse is Althouse herself -- the New Republic doesn't allow comments except by subscribers.
I would have liked to comment myself, but it wasn't worth subscribing to the New Republic.
Like I said before, I'd rather be an amateur producer than a professional consumer. News is no exception.
Triticale,
Yes, I was going to add the "Heh" but thought that might be a copyright infringement.
Anonymous:
No, not worth it all all--I used to read and enjoy TNR but over the past couple of years the tone changed and it has too much of a lefist slant for me.
It is interesting to me that this Orr fella either misconstrues or misrepresents Ann writing that she knew some people would disagree with her psychosexual interpretation of the piece, turning that statement into an admission that she only wrote it to cause a stir. Her interpretation is valid, it is obvious, and one opinion.
I tried it out on my wife, I asked her to watch the video with no background except for the Sopranos tie in. She did not come up with the carrot and rings interpretation on her own because she was stuck on the quality of the acting. But when I shared the interpretation she giggled and said she missed it but that it was obvious. Because it is. Unintended, unconscious, take your pick, but there it is.
So did Orr write that to just cause a stir or did he have trouble understanding the written words or psychosexual theory? None of the above is flattering. It is ironic that he may be committing that which he "misunderstandingly" decries, but that is another defense mechanism entirely.
What he writes seems to me to be in line with the response pattern that meets critiques of the Clintons with (often vicious) personal attacks and mudslinging. I do not know how well or IF the attacks are orchestrated, but I have seen them happen many times on different blogs.
For the record, I do not hate the Clintons, I voted for Bill the first go around. But the interpretation is there for the making and the pattern of responses(Orr's included) is there to be acknowledged.
Trey
Looks to me like yet another indicator of the increasingly & dangerously extreme incivility between the feminist-marxist influenced ultra-left & the fundamentalist driven ultra-right.
I can't say I agree with Ms. Althouse that often but I scrounged the piece & I thought it was at least civil & fairly well-argued.
Some of the comments about her were just so uncalled for. Glib & rude.
I'm not saying that I haven't been guilty of scribbling some pretty nasty things on the Internet. It happens--what time is it?
But I at least take my lumps & try to apologize (publicly) when I look at the boards later, realize I wrote something inappropriate & can't find a "remove post" option.
Actually, my preference is usually to leave my original post, even when I can sneak away & just issue an apology.
But some of this stuff was 2nd grade sandbox rude.
Granted, I was sort of entertained by the reference to Ann "Skeletor" Coulter. ;)
But Coulter plays by a different set of rules then Ms. Althouse. When you suggest that all liberals should be shot & the NYT building out to be blown up, well, "Skeletor" is not only pretty mild but fairly accurate, if you know anything about Skeletor from those old He-Man cartoons.
Whatever happened to the day when Reagan & O'Neill liked to lunch together & joke around with each other?
I suspect the Internet is complicit in the destruction of civility & rational discourse. Hang around with people who agree with you all the time and you're just a goose step away from a pair of jackboots & a summer home at Dachau.
Hang around with people who agree with you all the time and you're just a goose step away from a pair of jackboots & a summer home at Dachau.
...or a little fur hat and a summer home in Siberia.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I third it: Ha!
Helen, I invite you and your readers to visit me at Provocateur:
http://provocateurjim.blogspot.com/
One of the many reasons for coming here is that open dialog is invited.
Both sides of a "story" are told with disagreement spoken to one by another who disagrees with them. A reply is expected, even waited for.
All I saw on what I just read was a bunch of people throwing pen knives in ann's back before she came in, and after she left. Screw 'em.
Admittedly, I'm not an Althouse reader. And I only go to any left leaning site when something like this thread pops up. I decided long ago, I don't agree with them. No need to go to any sites to fortify that fact. It only raises my blood pressure. I deal with it in the voting booth.
I didn't read this brouhaha to any depth, but I too let my TNR subscription lapse because I didn't like the direction it had taken of late.
Eh, not so much because of the direction, as it always tended left, but the writing seemed, well something, but not enjoyable anymore.
Anyway, I'm writing because Orr writes a great movie review; the only critic I can think of that I agree with almost all the time. So I'll miss reading those.
Helen, you're such a sycophant.
Tsk,
Isn't it always the way.
Assign some liberal arts flack to do the intern gofer work, just by attrition give them the obits or movie reviews, where the "season to taste" of all important controversy
can be harmlessly practiced.
When a serious, seasoned, writer recognises their real worth and demands renegotiation, fire them and give the "In depth" assignment to the (now familiar with political spin) movie wonk.
Strangely, the original aim of the
whole house seems to be reduced to agenda tainted "movie reviews". Kinda like the NYT!
Bah! I can't imagine why I get called "retro-grouch" by my friends.
As to the Clintons and fighting back, dirty, according to Dick Morris, in his book on her, that is entirely Hillary, based on her training by her father when she was young. And it has apparently kept them in good steed ever since.
Bill is the lover, and Hillary is the fighter. Morris recounts multiple cases where things would go wrong, and then Bill would go into a funk. Hillary would then step in, kick him in the rear, and start attacking their attackers by whatever means available, often questionable.
When a Clinton scandal has erupted over the years, it is inevitable that if it is about sex, it is Bill's, and if it is venal or the abuse of power, then it is Hillary's. She is the one who started the Bimbo patrols, sicced PIs on their political enemies, pulled a hundred or so FBI files on Republicans, and sent the IRS after other enemies.
Yes, despite that, which is even more scary when we are talking the Commander in Chief, with all that power in his (or in this case her) hands, I would be much more comfortable with Hillary in charge than Bill right now, waging the War on Terror (or, if you prefer, Islamofascism). I have little doubt that she would hit back when provoked, unlike what her husband did when in office, often seeming to lack decisiveness when it was most required with our enemies.
So, right now, if I had to pick a Democrat for president next election, it would be Hillary. I would lock up the silver, and work very hard to get a Republican Congress to rein in the worst of her transgressions. But it would be Hillary. So far, none of her opponents show anywhere near her level of deep down being a fighter.
TMink - "It is interesting to me that this Orr fella either misconstrues or misrepresents Ann writing that she knew some people would disagree with her psychosexual interpretation of the piece, turning that statement into an admission that she only wrote it to cause a stir."
Um, Trey, she admitted that when she watched the commercial, she thought they represented communion wafers. Plus she says inserting the phrase about 'other bloggers would/n't agree' was bait.
You can't make the claim that certainly the Clintons would know that anything that could be construed sexually would be, then claim (as a blogger) that writing anything that explosive wouldn't cause a stir, or vortex as she perfers.
Writing the piece certainly wasn't a serious psychoanalytical exercise, so what's left?
I'm making zero excuses for asshats who commented about her in the manner they did.
Anonymous 11:23:
"Helen, you're such a sycophant."
What an insightful wonderful commenter you are! I am so lucky to have an amazing troll such as yourself stop by on my lowly blog. Thank you so much for taking the time out of your oh-so-important life to come by and pay me a little attention. What a treat.
Olig, maybe I am missing something here. I thought Ann was saying that she knew not everyone would agree, not that she was making a statement merely to stir up the hornets.
I thought that Orr accused her of the latter. Did I get it wrong?
Trey
anonymous 11:23 PM
Hey, come on back in, kick your shoes off and stay a while. Explain how you feel and why. Here, folks will listen and give you your space. As many posts as necessary.
Or is that what you are really afraid of, tootsie?
Trey -
Well, she did claim the onion ring interpretation wasn't what she really thought.
From her blog.
"Ah, ha ha ha ha ha! Good lord, is it really this easy? Now, I'm laughing, but starting to feel a little sad."
Italics not mine. You'd have to read the thousands of words in the multiple articles on the commercial to get a feel.
I don't go there anymore.
Thanks Olig, I missed that entirely.
Trey
From someone who prior to this had never heard of either Althouse or Orr, I have to say that Althouse has yolk all over her face. The onion ring sexual dimestore-psychoanalysis is completely lame and isn't even funny. It's worse than the jokes on an episode of Full House. The jokes are so bad that she has to point out which lines are jokes in her subsequent defense comments. Thank god psychology pretty much looks at this psychosexual stuff now with embarrassment. The Clintons could have been in just about any scenario in their commericial and you could pull something sexual out of it. Her fried calamari comment shows this. That's why this stuff carries no weight anymore. I find it really strange that someone who has been in academia for over 20 years never caught on to this.
But, Althouse further just comes out looking pathetic in her defense, grasping for anything out there that can save her. It's parody and people don't get it... but she's standing by it. Putz is another term for "small" penis....it isn't, it's just a term for a penis in general.
But let's even assume that she is right and their is sexual connotation in this. Why would the Clintons (who have the impression on the right of being poll-driven masterminds with tons of handlers) put this ad out? Would they not see the sexual connotation?
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
彩虹免費av影片777成人區aaa片免費看短片ShowLive影音視訊辣妹聊天網18禁成人網成人交友禁地成人kk視訊影音視訊聊天室0401成人bt成人sexdiy影城ut 聊天室aaa片免費看豆豆聊天室視訊聊天室18成人網聊天室尋夢園sex情色聊天室找一夜視訊情人高雄網情人視訊網視訊辣妹080avhello成人電影院
Post a Comment
<< Home