I have been sort of disappointed with the internet for sometime, but nothing surprising. It is the idea that Twitter isolates and amplifies id, and does so in ways that are anti-ploverian, which is the ideal we have here at the mothership. I have been struggling with an idea about how someone can be simultaneously correct or have an important point, yet personal motivations or interests render those correct points as points being scored in some competition or “red meat” for a watching crowd. This is akin to the criticism that some discussions can have a disingenuous side in that part of the discussion is “performance” by one or other side. And, in a toilet bowl spiral, an allegation of “performance” will inevitably be used to rhetorically undermine the performer, and act as a side step for the issue at hand. Anyhow, I didn’t really know how to write whatever I was going to write without it being assumed I was taking some side in some internecine argument. I just read something that essentially captures everything I was going to say. It is worth a read. I don’t think what are described as “Social Justice Discourse Fallacies” are actually fallacies or linked to ideas of Social Justice, I think they are rhetorical landmines that relate to how people argue and the normal human desire to establish rhetorical advantage, be accepted by a group, and feel important as member of a team, and thus are universal.
Archive for the 'On Beyond Emus' Category
What an eccentric performance… (note: not safe for sanity).
And now for something that is actually not at all different but is, in fact, part two.
Five is not right out, as apparently there are going to be a total of six of these.
Libertarianism can be a lot like the divine right of kings — simple elitism dressed up in some of the moral language of the day. At least this lot admits they’re anti-democratic. Also: watch for the bit where the guy basically implies that assassinating the president would facilitate libertarian city-states seceding from the US, which somehow derives from a libertarian city-state which is effectively at war with the US being a good investment. This idea may disprove string theory as I think there are more curled up dimensions of delusion in it than can be accounted for by any physical theory proposed to date.
in the condiment wars: assertions that pepper spray is a food product will doubtless be mocked by wiser bloggers than your humble (and occasionally posting) Ombuds, but we may as well set the bar low.
Between Ms. Kelly’s cluelessness and the recent decision defining tomato paste as a vegetable, we can only conclude a conspiracy to discredit Herman Cain and his known association with DorD-worthy pizza companies, as if he needed the help.
That, or viral marketing for an upcoming episode of Chopped.
1. We welcome back our esteemed avian colleague plover, and eagerly await the inevitable returning salvos from Fishy McBiaspants.
2. Having not personally seen the new secret header (and being too lazy to refresh the page ad nauseam), we can only assume the presence of giant stone heads, and preemptively approve.
3. We make no apologies for our absence, accountability was specifically omitted from our contract. We have very good attorneys.
4. And they have suggested that this statement be redacted.
Any other business?
I heard an ad for this on the radio. I would like to sponsor a pledge drive for Prof. Ann Althouse to attend. The mix of likely 24 hour bar access, possible Norwalk virus and an emanated litany of grievances makes it an intriguing fantastia. Make it happen, friends. Make it happen.
Also, I heard Edgar Winter’s Frankenstein a few seconds later, and a connection between a hoary albino guitar legend and Edgar Winter was made.
There have been multiple complaints regarding this blog and the propensity for extensive arguments. The Ombuds collective acknowledges that arguments must be avoided at all costs as they have a tendency to make David Broder uncomfortable. It has also been noted that these arguments are taking place without the proper safety training as required by Article E, Section M, Subheading U. So before we continue, it is required that you all view this argument training video:
Fish stole the video. Let us proceed then. A rigorous statistical analysis of the argument phenomenon that is occurring in the greater 3Bulls(!) blogosphere revealed only one common causative modality with a P Value reaching significance (p=0.0): fish. Yes, it appears fish is a major root cause of argumentation. I am afraid that an intervention is required.
There is a problem however. How does one actually intervene with a chronic arguer? The first step is to recognize the signs of the arguing addict to be sure the diagnosis is correct:
1) Does the individual head into the bathroom carrying a copy of Debaters Weekly and mumbling something about becoming a “Master”?
2) Do you have to put parental controls on the TV to block The McLaughlin Group?
3) Must you never say the words “designated hitter” out loud in his or her presence?
4) Have you heard enough about salt already?
Given criteria such as those above, it is clear to the Ombuds that fish has a serious problem and runs the risk of making David Broder cry if he does not get the help that he needs.
This Ombud has a few recommended actions:
1) pick up apparatus; use apparatus, play video of Kennedy/Nixon debate while playing Rush at full volume.
2) mark fish’s IP as spam and then initiate an argument between Mandos and Plover on the post-modern theory as applied to the inherent sexism of Linux use in the movie Avatar.
3) Read Matt Yglesias’ justification for the Iraq War out loud and apply strong electroshock every time he audibly snorts.
4) Cancel his subscriptions to Z Magazine and the Utne Reader. Force him to subscribe to and read TNR, Slate, and The Nation. Refuse to discuss or consider any points of view other than David Corn’s.
5) Any time he brings up Chomsky, say that “Jonah Goldberg really has a more interesting take on this topic”.
6) Agree with everything he says. (this may be an unworkable solution)
I am sure with aggressive treatment, we can get fish to allow someone else to speak once in a while. If he continues on his current path, he is in danger of using up all the letters on the internets. Let’s get him re-socialized and ready to become a productive member of society again. Won’t you help fish instead of cursing him?(64)
A communiqué has been received, to the effect that our dear, dear friends at Pitchfork have noticed via Twitter our annual dismemberment of their end-of-year listings. They are, as you can imagine, less than thrilled.
So un-thrilled, in fact, that the Ombudsmoose has been roused from hibernation to address the matter.
Pinko has suggested that he might, surprisingly, maintain a certain modicum of civility during what promises to be a constructive exchange, but we are bound by no such scruples. It is, we hope, somewhere in the job description.
The crux is this: we have, more or less continuously, critiqued many writers, columnists, and bloggers for blanching at the idea that some of their readers might have tastes and opinions which differ from their own. It has become a holiday tradition in many corners to gripe about this at the outset of Pitchfork’s top 100 lists of all time (OF ALL TIME) or merely of each passing year.
Who are we to be unaware of all internet traditions?
Owing to the apparent urgency of the matter, we have no more to say at this time, and no loops to give you for the production of battle raps. This is where you come in. Need I say more?
Meanwhile, we look forward to the annual vivisection of the Pitchfork Top 100, and rest assured we will not be fazed, swayed, or otherwise discouraged by this development. Rather, I suspect, the opposite.
We also note, somewhat relatedly, that they are conducting their end-of-year survey, a potential source of much shenanigans.
In the meantime, Pitchfork will continue to EAT IT.
OTHER BUSINESS: This, from our esteemed colleague plover, deserves some kind of major award for service above and beyond the call of blogging. Truly, a classic for the ages.
Also, the excellent Ombudsentity Heritage Week from our many-headed co-blogger, which we hope has shed light on the strange ecosystems our ilk must inhabit.
All questions, suggestions, and beauteous battle-raps (or filks of any nature) may be entered below.
There are fish that reside in barrels.
There are other fish that provide temptation to shorebirds to shoot the fish in the barrels.
Apparently, this is just business as usual among fish.
My esteemed colleague Mickey Kaus was the first to break onto the scene with a stunning debut of Basque-Whackery- detailing the intricate and internecine workings of JournoList. Dangeral Professor exposed another group here. I am now here to share with you something even more contemptible. And equally horrific. This shadowy alternate internet is called “Facebook.” This exclusive club mirrors our public internet while providing an exclusive, secretive evironment for Scrabble, poking (some teenage sex thing) and probably tickle fights. This incredibly exclusive and selective club has almost 200 million members, and contrary to slanderous rumors, distortions and lies, not myself.
A source has revealed to me some goings on about this list. This source has risked their professional reputation for the sake of embarrassing some Facebook users. This source is a total bastard. I cannot confirm or deny whether this source is Jonathan Chait. On the advice of counsel I will say that this source is not Jonathan Chait.
Allow me so backstory.
Earlier in the week there appeared to be a popular uprising against Chuck Todd of NBC News.
Some comments included:
So what do I do, Chuck? When we’re living on the streets, will that be enough? Or should we set ourselves on fire, too? Should I kill my cat and eat her? I don’t think I can sell my blood, because I take a couple of prescription medications. Perhaps I should sacrifice my prescription drug plan in exchange for being allowed to participate in this economic recovery! Whatever that means!
Chuck Todd’s comment was so out of touch and self-serving I thought John Aravosis wrote it for him.
But there was some serious pushback, as if it had been orchestrated in a secret lair, with a hidden purpose:
You know, that was a *really* stupid question he asked. I mean, really stupid.
I wouldn’t say he’s a dick, though. I’d say he’s a simpleton. A dope.
To which the responses were entirely clear:
No, BG, Chuck Todd is a dick.
No, BG, Chuck Todd is a dick.
I agree. There didn’t even need to be a post, just the title.
Again with the full court press, as if it had been planned IN ADVANCE!@!
I so do not think Chuck Todd is a dick.
Finally, crazy man free spirit Pinko Pinko:
If Chuck Todd isn’t a dick, then Plato knows of now way to philosophize about the ideal dick.
Total dickbag on double coupon day for free dicks in a dick lottery where the is one number and one ticket, which he is holding in his prehensile dick-hand.
Where could BG have so carefully orchestrated her instant and well-planned defence of Chuck Todd?
I really started to wonder when I saw her blog. Screen shot below in case she inevitably decides to scrub the “evidence”-
This was indeed shocking. Not nearly as shocking as what my source claimed to reveal to me about the inner workings of “Facebook”- I haven’t verified the veracity of this document, but it would be irresponsible not to speculate.
Absolutely chilling. HNT? Kajillion babies?
Three B! certified non-partisan Wedding Planning and Entertainment Services Inc. are now inc.
We shall be denounced in certain quarters as collaborating with the enemy to pitch planning this fabulosity, but we counter such criticisms with the simple fact that one cannot collaborate with non-partisanship. One merely is. It is the world that conspires against our non-alignment.
If I might dip a toe into a serious sock for one nanosecond, I understand that it seems ever so easy to view those others amongst us who we might render hypothetically flightless akin to reality show characters in a broadly drawn, psychedelically colored cartoon. When their every action conforms simultaneously to what they consider performance art and what we consider performance art in the opposite way it makes it so much harder to consider such a person to be real. However, we shall do so. We shall not mock budding and unlooked for love/plot twists. Seriously, we’re just going to plan a wedding. The wedding we plan is essentially any wedding we would plan. We’d plan this wedding for anyone. This is the 3B one size fits all (what can be more non-partisan than that) wedding plan.
What we shall do is bid our services for newly flowering non-partisan Wedding Plannery market.
I ask you: are you with me?
Just throwing out some ideas here:
For the reception we’ll need several passed appetizers. I was thinking of appetizers with an amusing bloggery theme- we might consider those on both sides of the aisle, assuming we all shall be invited electronically.
Cheeze and Crackers:
Glenn’s Going Galtines with Protein Whiz-dom?
Sadly, No Meat!
I was also thinking mini-bacon explosions, although I realized that that is not an entirely made up thing. Golden Onion Wieners, natch.
Ann’s blogroll here might be good for suggestions.
For table favors we could have not cobags (gross) but chobags. Little bags of chocolates with initials of the couple. In non-partisan colors like red and redder, for love.
I was also thinking of a giant ice sculpture of El Snacktator.
The bridal headpiece will be extravagantly breathtaking. The finest emu feathers fanned into a stunning showstopper, colored just so to set off the light complexion of the bride to be.
I figure the first dance will be an 18 minute long Freedom Rock jam.
How else can the unique 3B experience be brought to bear on infinite and unending happiness?
I will be so pissed if this is all just a practical joke because I am looking forward to the gun cake. We can upscale it by calling it 2nd Amendment Cake.
Dinner music will be by Libertarian Nanobot Orchestra, if we can get them. Sadly, many of the vendors we are likely to have contacted will have gone Galt, which increases out inability to maintain strict non-partisan non-affiliation.
We dedicate this to Double-A, because we went loop-de-loop when we heard the news. We’d even say we were “happy” although we will not delve into incriminating specifics of our closely guarded dark hearts.
We certainly hope that the after party doesn’t turn out like this.