Amanda’s God-cums-in-Mary’s-ear joke

That’s so offensive, Amp! ;D
(and so terribly, terribly funny)
Also, well answered!

The best argument against flying the flag is that it causes deep injury and offense. Whether the flag ought to cause offense isn’t as relevant as the fact that it does. The banner’s history is less the issue than the hurt it still apparently inflicts.

Then Robert replied:

OK, Amp. Now reconcile this with your position on Amanda Marcotte.

The question I was discussing regarding Amanda’s post wasn’t whether or not it could legitimately be seen as offensive or insulting, but whether or not it was correct to interpret this as anti-Catholic bigotry on Amanda’s part. I was extremely explicit, in fact, about distinguishing between the concepts of “offensive” and “bigoted.”

If anyone had asked me if I think it would be better if Amanda — along with about a billion other rude bloggers — were more polite in their approach to political argument, I’d say: yes, it would be better. Everyone should be more civil, in my opinion. That’s one reason I try and model civility in my own blog writings, as best as I’m able.

But that wasn’t the issue under discussion. The issue under discussion, in the Creative Destruction thread I think you’re referring to, was if it’s fair to conclude that Amanda is an anti-Catholic bigot, and I’m quite certain that’s not a fair conclusion.

I’ve said repeatedly that I don’t think Christians are wrong if they feel offended by Amanda’s God-cums-in-Mary’s-ear joke. I also don’t think blacks are wrong to feel offended by the confederate flag.

But I do feel there are important differences between the two cases.

1) There’s a difference between implying “I think your ideas are wrong and should be mocked” and implying “I think it was cool that your ancestors were enslaved because they had skin your color.” The latter is legitimately much, much more offensive.

Christian theology is a set of ideas that can be legitimately disagreed with and even mocked by decent people. (As we’ve discussed on another blog, both you and I told blasphemous jokes at least as offensive as Amanda’s when we knew each other in college).

In contrast, agreement with the Confederacy’s ideas — specifically, its ideas about race — is not legitimate in our society, and never happens among decent people.

2) As Ezra wrote (and I quoted in a post last week):

So the question at hand isn’t whether group hatred can be condoned (it cannot, of course), but whether, for some reason, Catholicism should be protected against irreverent, and even over-the-top, rhetoric. That is a protection our society affords to certain groups — no white man can put on blackface and make jokes about rappers, though black men can put on white face and makes jokes about crackers. Dominant majorities are often strong enough to withstand parody, irreverence, and even attack on their traditions without requiring additional protection, while the same treatment, if deployed against weakened minorities, could enhance ongoing discrimination or cement negative stereotypes believed by the majority. So disrespecting the eucharist isn’t my style, but it doesn’t concern me in quite the fashion mocking the Black work ethic would.

Christians predominate this culture; frankly, the least y’all could do is learn to be good sports. I don’t expect blacks to feel the same way about slavery, however.

If you knew what meant, there was simply no point to your comment. Were you warning that if we provoke your side with our opinion, your side will retaliate by calling us asshats, etc.? Of course. You already do that. That is why the Overton window does not let our veiws in. Was there anything in my comments that suggested people like you would not resort to all of your usual tactics? Or that you had no right to them? I am saying that we are already on the outside of the window, we have nothing to lose.

There’s no room for principles in politics. The stakes are too high.

That’s what we love about the right wing; principles are useful as a club, but that’s about it.

1) Why was the target selected first and then the reasons to attack selected next? This is clearly the case, because they went through a series of baseless attacks, from the scrubbing thing to the not-hot thing to the screechy thing to finally the Catholic “bigotry” thing, which while untrue was just sexy enough a charge to stick? If it was WHAT I said not WHO I was, then how is it that the WHO proceeded the WHAT in their attacks?

I didn’t say that nobody went after you because you are who you are. I’m saying that, based on what you wrote in that Salon piece, it appears to me that you are presuming that those people who say that they are offended by what you’ve written about religion are lying about that being their motivation for their remarks about you and for any pressure they put on the Edwards campaign to get rid of you. I think you’re wrong about that. The right is no more monolithic than the left. There’s plenty of people who would be offended by the remarks of yours that I’ve seen quoted during all this, and those remarks would be sufficient for them to call for John Edwards to disassociate himself from them regardless of any of your other views or activities.

Look up who the spokespeople have been for successful candidates and officeholders. Now look up their personal publicly known statements on controversial issues and see what you can find (not counting what they said or wrote after they’d left their spokespersons’ jobs). You may find some exceptions, but overall you’re not going to find a lot.

If it wasn’t the young feminist thing, but WHAT I said, then why was Melissa hounded out of her job?

I have no idea what was going on with her. I was talking about what I’d heard about you and what I read in your Salon piece.

That’s how I phrase it in situations like this when I’m seeing a characterization of someone else’s remarks second hand (having not read them myself).

The “target” was John Edwards (still is), and any other Democrat.

See, here’s how it works. We’re Republicans. You’re Democrats. We fight over power. When one of us does something stupid, you guys go on the attack and try to exploit it as much as possible. When one of you does something stupid, we go on the attack.

John Edwards did something stupid. He hired someone with a paper trail of provocative comments that would piss off a bloc of voters that he needs. So we attacked. If he had hired a black male nationalist who’d said “kill whitey”, we’d have attacked that. If he’d hired a white communist who’d said “smash capitalism”, we’d have attacked that.

The facts that you’re a woman, a feminist, etc. couldn’t be less relevant to this case. It’s certainly a fact that some of the people attacking you are sexists and/or anti-feminists - just as it would be a fact that if Edwards had hired Malcolm X Jr., some of the people on the attack would probably have been anti-black or racist. But all of the people on the attack are anti-Edwards - because he, not you or Malcolm, is the real target.

2) If it wasn’t the young feminist thing, but WHAT I said, then why was Melissa hounded out of her job?

Guilt by association, pretty much. Unfair, but oh well.

I understood what you meant, and didn’t think you were alleging censorship.

After all, our shouting would be useless against censorship, but it is what is needed to open the Overton window.

So open it. But we get (”are allowed”) to push back, and to close it, or open it in another direction, etc.

1) Why was the target selected first and then the reasons to attack selected next? This is clearly the case, because they went through a series of baseless attacks, from the scrubbing thing to the not-hot thing to the screechy thing to finally the Catholic “bigotry” thing, which while untrue was just sexy enough a charge to stick? If it was WHAT I said not WHO I was, then how is it that the WHO proceeded the WHAT in their attacks?

Wrong Amanda . The target was left wing extremists and Donahue and his ilk are not the only ones who have been looking at them. Also, Democrats are not the only ones who are aware of the power of the Internet. Your Blog is popular for a reason and as such drew attention. Pandagon is far from the only Blog which has been actively captured via screen shots. The fact that you tossed such easy softballs and the timing of your joining on to the Edward’s campaign, simply played into Donahue’s hands.

2) If it wasn’t the young feminist thing, but WHAT I said, then why was Melissa hounded out of her job? She didn’t say what I said. However, she is a young feminist like me, so we were treated as a two-headed feminist monster in the media. Fascinating that Melissa was held responsible for WHAT I said, unless of course, you admit that it wasn’t my writing that was the issue but the fact that I do it

Melissa made her own comments which were considered offensive by some people. As for the media, they dish out plenty of the same to Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter . You both chose to practice your first amendment rights and were responded to in kind. What is the problem? As a feminist you should stop playing the victim role and accept the heat like a real trooper. If either you or Melissa lack the temperament to handle criticism you should step aside.

Having read many of your posts I do not find your explanation about scrubbing the Duke case missive to be credible. It seems much more likely that you chose a position which would play better in the media while allowing yourself to not make an actual retraction.

Now consider those comments coming back in the very near future when both the criminal charges against the Duke players are about to heat up as well as the case against Nifong .Note too the close proximity of Durham County to Edwards’ headquarters in the same state and you can imagine the media circus which would ensue.

Melissa, you might want to consider what one newspaper n Seattle had to say on the matter. Perhaps you simply fail to look at how your writing seem to other folks.

It’s too bad the brash-mouthed babes of John Edwards’ campaign blog resorted to gutter-speak to make their points because, in the resulting fracas, their points got lost in the right- and left-wing jabbing and parrying so prominent in today’s non-stop news cycle.

Vulgar, yes. Too vulgar to reproduce here. And counterproductive, I might add. Like sticking your chin out to your opponent, handing him a boxing glove and asking him to break your jaw. The Catholic League, a conservative advocacy group that, like all advocacy groups, makes a bid to grab media attention whenever the occasion arises, issued a call for the Edwards campaign to fire the bloggers. And the bloggers had given the League every valid reason to do so with their angry, vituperative denunciations of Catholics and faith.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/303892_erbe16.html

I considered using your own language in attacking feminists to show how it would feel. I guarantee you that it would have been lost on most and my banning would be immediate.
If you are going to play in this arena you need to take as well as you give. Consider it.
Best wishes.

It’s also a tremendous shame that the people on the right who make Amanda’s outspokenness look like absolute meekness don’t get given the same treatment.

I’m disturbed by the sheer volume of “she was asking for it” responses on this issue.

Especially since she was recruited out of the blue:

So it surprised me that my streak of luck would result in the John Edwards campaign calling and recruiting me for the position of campaign blogmaster.

To these idiots, accepting a job offer is asking for it.

And some of us want to wave our hands and say, “Well it’s national politics! What did you expect?”

My God, what is this country? Is this who we are?

It annoys me that you say “I’m sorry that she was apparently subjected to a bunch of sexist abuse.”

Why “apparently”? Why not “I’m sorry she was subjected to a bunch of sexist abuse?”

Next verse, same as the first…

1) Why was the target selected first and then the reasons to attack selected next? This is clearly the case, because they went through a series of baseless attacks, from the scrubbing thing to the not-hot thing to the screechy thing to finally the Catholic “bigotry” thing, which while untrue was just sexy enough a charge to stick? If it was WHAT I said not WHO I was, then how is it that the WHO proceeded the WHAT in their attacks?

2) If it wasn’t the young feminist thing, but WHAT I said, then why was Melissa hounded out of her job? She didn’t say what I said. However, she is a young feminist like me, so we were treated as a two-headed feminist monster in the media. Fascinating that Melissa was held responsible for WHAT I said, unless of course, you admit that it wasn’t my writing that was the issue but the fact that I do it.