I riff off an Other McCain Post, and now an angry man with his very own blog has decided to tell me off. Like, for real.
Let us savor the magnificence of Whiskey Fire (Fire…of…Whiskey…)!
To be clear: it is not the policy of this blog to make fun of horrible idiots. It is the hobby of the person who perpetrates this blog to make fun of horrible idiots.
Like guerrilla warfare, all political protests aim at substituting concentration and passion for actual numbers. The idea is to pretend that your opinions are entirely mainstream, even though they’re so far removed from the mainstream that you have to organize a protest to express them.
NOTES. Citations missing. Concept of “guerilla warfare” utterly puerile, pig-ignorant. Argument hilariously not informed by awareness of many people knowing and studying relevant history, and talking about their findings in public fora. Use of “all” in first sentence worth snickering over. Obvious bog-standard pompous dumbass.
NOTES. Citations missing. Concept of “guerilla warfare”…not explained at all. Sentence beginning with “Argument hilariously not informed…” seems to be lacking hilarity, and a style guide. Finds three-letter words “snicker”-worthy.
Of course, if your “protest” involves nothing more than saying Rape is Like, Seriously Bad You Guys while dressed up like a prostitute (because, post-structuralist ironic frisson!), then you must go he extra mile to pretend that anyone not totally on board with your project is just Terrified of Strong Women, Or Something.
NOTES. Link goes to RS McCain. Hahahahaha. “Post-structuralist ironic frisson” not actual joke involving knowing jack, or shit.
NOTES. Link still goes to RS McCain. That is probably still funny. You are invited to laugh at it.
Q: Why did the Post-Structuralist Ironic Frisson Cross the Road?
A: Jack, or Shit.
I think I screwed that up somewhere…
As for RS McRape:
What people used to mean by the word “rape” has been revised in recent decades because of college women complaining about date rape. The rhetoric of SlutWalk activists — “No means no!” — is obviously not directed at the lurking sociopath, the knife-wielding career criminal who pounces from ambush in darkened alleys. Rather, feminist harangues about the meaning and importance of consent are directed at otherwise law-abiding men who don’t cope appropriately with sexual rejection….
Nowhere is this problem more widely decried than at America’s colleges and universities. Date rape is an apparently common campus crime that usually involves two drunk young people, one of whom has an erect penis, and the other of whom is unable to avert what the erect penis typically does.
YES YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE, THAT IS RAPE.
If you are “unable to avert” an “erect penis” penetrating you… THAT IS TEXTBOOK RAPE.
As Myles used to say: GAH! GAH! GAH! (“it cannot be often enough stated: women are people.”)
ALLCAPS MEANS YOU DON’T HAVE TO READ OR USE A QUOTE IN CONTEXT, OR DEMONSTRATE AWARENESS THAT A MAN IS SPEAKING HYPOTHETICALLY OR WITH A CERTAIN LEVEL OF IRONY!
Anyone who says otherwise is puerile, and can’t tell any jokes about knowing Jack, or Shit, or when Jack left town.
The point of the SlutWalks is that women are, you know, sexual: and that’s great! Women can be as sexual as they please. Because women by and large like sex, because sex is great.
Oh, so if more men thought of women as being sexual beings, who enjoy their sexuality, then obviously it would be harder to justify having sex with a woman even if she claims not to be into it.
No rapist has ever tried the “Hey, she loved it!” excuse.
But men are still not allowed to rape women.
Oh, word? You’re not allowed to do something to someone that is by definition against their will?
How would we ever know that without Slutwalks?
Why any of this is complicated is beyond me….
It’s not. Learning that Rape is an evil thing comes with what we call socialization and moral education. That it happens anyway is why there are laws against it. What Slutwalks are contributing to this is at best unclear. They’re against rape. That’s good. Who’s for it?
“Strong Woman.” It bothers me how much I hate hearing these words. It shouldn’t. Women are perfectly capable of being Strong, and indeed, must be strong if they hope to have any kind of success in life. But strength is the child of Self-Discipline. You become strong by concentration, by endurance, by will. You do not become strong by making an idiot of yourself in public with fellow idiots.
NOTES. Well, pal, you’re churning on agreeably with the “making an idiot of yourself in public” program….
Hello, women? This young twit would like you to know that you are perfectly capable of being Strong! Ain’t he a peach?
No, I’m a Scorpio. I understand the confusion.
Although it’s interesting that you read the statement “Women are perfectly capable of being strong,” as some kind of self-advertisement, rather than a straightforward statement of an uncontroversial truth.
Strong is not the same as Loud. Strong is not the same as Rude. Strong is not the same as Agreeing With Every Other Persun in the Room With Ovaries (because, Solidarity!). And Strong is not the same as complaining about Esoteric Linguistic Oppression when…
NOTES. When you paraphrase a sexist link, you learn that sexism is grand!
NOTES. When you toss Petitio principii around, you get Non Sequitors for free!
My Lord, this dimwit publishes this picture:
You clearly can’t be trusted to handle your bits responsibly, so kindly keep the fuck away from my kids?
Thanks much, fuckface.
Discussing, in public, your sexuality and how much you enjoy it = Super Feminist Social Justice.
Referencing the Kid from Kindergarten Cop, who expresses (comically, in the context of the film) an entirely common, nonsexual, and taxonomically-accurate description of the difference between males and females = unable to handle “bits” responsibly.
Yeah, I got nuthin’. Following that particular path of logic would take enough breadcrumbs to feed Haiti for a decade.
UPDATE: Stacey McCain weighs back in. And Fire of Whiskey appends his initial post with some withering snark .