Now available at Bass Pro Shops: The Larry Summers lure
Larry Summer resigns as president of Harvard University.
I baited the hook and dropped it in the water. It was swallowed hook, line and sinker, rod and reel, up to the elbow, in a piranha-like feeding frenzy.
All I did was pen a bit of light extemporanea for this blog on the statistically demonstrable differences between the sexes when it comes to matters political. OK, I might’ve thrown a little chum in the water by flippantly suggesting the repeal of the 19th Amendment, the one granting suffrage to women. It was just a bit of free hyperbole.
The reaction was painfully predictable, swift and voluble. With a boarding house reach, umbrage was taken.
They bit on the Larry Summers lure.
Before Larry Summers was an adviser to the president, he was the president of Harvard University, until one day he committed a cardinal sin. He offered an off-the-cuff conjecture that the reason women might be underrepresented in math and science at elite universities just might be because there is an “innate” difference between men and women.
Whether there was even a grain of statistical, scientific or logical evidence to support such a statement was irrelevant. Also, never mind that during the same speech he promised to try to rectify this underrepresentation at Harvard. Never mind how he described attempting to be gender-neutral with his own daughter by giving her toy trucks to play with — though she named one “daddy truck” and another “baby truck.” Never mind that he said gender differences needed further study.
Summers spake heresy in the chapel of political correctness. There was no study needed. The learned academics of Harvard had read their inerrant bibles of political correctness and could quote the dogma chapter and verse. He was tarred, feathered and ridden out of town on rail. The Salem witch trials took longer and were more civilized. At least they put on a show of calling witnesses.
Thus it was when I went trolling with the tried-and-true, never-fail Larry Summers lure. I caught my limit. My stringer was full.
Just as I had anticipated, and in fact spelled out in a veiled reference in the second paragraph, my posting was judged by almost every commenter and e-mailer, not on any merits or demerits of facts in evidence or syllogism used, but on the basis of my age, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, disability, weight, sartorial choices, facial hair, writing ability, mental capacity, sobriety, sanity, political leanings and perversity — the very appellations the politically correct find so jaw-droppingly offensive.
The level of rhetoric was, to be kind, bombastic. Several of the several dozen writers and one caller suggested various means by which I might be dispatched from this earthly plane, sooner rather than later.
Without once addressing the fundamental postulate that men and women are delightfully different, I was called an idiot, an (expletive deleted) moron, an ignorant redneck male chauvinist, a racist, a sexist, a narrow minded and crude douchebag, unsophisticated, ignorant, a flat earther, a fool, a Neanderthal and a misogynist.
You’d’ve thought I had drawn a cartoon of Muhammad the way the torches and pitchforks came out. They went from zero to high dudgeon in 2.5 seconds. And you thought the Tea Party crowd was growling mad?
For a bunch that claims to embrace the concept of diversity, they sure are quick to sling a load of identity epithets, such as the one by someone going by the name of marko: “Clearly Tom's hat is too tight and squeezed what once may have passed as his brain out his nose to settle on his upper lip.” Diversity of thought is unacceptable if you don’t look like them? (You know, you can’t find wax for this anachronistic ’stache in the stores any more.)
Without a hint of irony, one person called for a 28th Amendment taking the suffrage from males, because, “Men are idiots and shouldn't be allowed the privilege of selecting the town dog catcher, let alone an important office like US Senator.”
The only legitimate argument was that I’m not a good enough writer to attempt satire. Apparently.
Thanks for playing the game. Here is a lovely parting gift: a mirror. Hold it up. Take a look.
—————
By the way, somebody thought it was funny:
This entry was posted on Saturday, Apr. 17, 2010 at 09:03 AM
and is filed under Thomas Mitchell.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response.
44
Responses
to "Now available at Bass Pro Shops: The Larry Summers lure"
Okay, okay, you can write satire. But you should have included a smiley face. :)
There are true and sincere misogynists that would like to see the 19th amendment repealed. Most of them are conservatives authoritarians. Many are right wing Christian republicans. Others are just plain stupid.
The notion that women and men are the same except for the plumbing is a straw man that was burned to ashes by scientific study over a quarter of a century ago. We now know that because of brain structure and hormones there are differences. Of course that is not to suggest that the sexes be subject to different treatment under the law.
Good satire usually gives the reader a clear hint about its nature. For example:
http://www.thespoof.com/news/magazine/confessions_of_a_closet_conservative_about_sarah_palin_3242.htm
Bad satire is written by trolls like you.
The notion that women and men are the same except for the plumbing is a straw man that was burned to ashes by scientific study over a quarter of a century ago. We now know that because of brain structure and hormones there are differences. Of course that is not to suggest that the sexes be subject to different treatment under the law.
Good satire usually gives the reader a clear hint about its nature. For example:
http://www.thespoof.com/news/magazine/confessions_of_a_closet_conservative_about_sarah_palin_3242.htm
Bad satire is written by trolls like you.
If we're going to discuss repealing constitutional amendments, let's start with repealing number 2.
Sour grapes, Michael Litoris! Did that mean old newspaper editor hurt your little itty, bitty feelings??
Just jump over to KOS and we'll make it all better.
Tom, thanks for the chuckle. (I still think we should repeal the 16th!)
Just jump over to KOS and we'll make it all better.
Tom, thanks for the chuckle. (I still think we should repeal the 16th!)
"Sour grapes, Michael Litoris! Did that mean old newspaper editor hurt your little itty, bitty feelings?"
Naw, not at all. I'm a big boy and (so I'm told) I write pretty decent satire. Tom doesn't. He looks like an ignorant partisan troll to me, and I call 'um like I see 'um.
BTW, my friends call me "Mike."
;)
Naw, not at all. I'm a big boy and (so I'm told) I write pretty decent satire. Tom doesn't. He looks like an ignorant partisan troll to me, and I call 'um like I see 'um.
BTW, my friends call me "Mike."
;)
Well Mike, where can we peruse these pearls of wisdom of yours? Don't hide your light under a basket, ok?
I wonder if MediaMatters will link to this blog. Nah, that would be fair, and we know better than to expect that.
Larry Summers is a poor excuse for a human being. And so is Cowboy Tom Mitchell. Mitchell's latest editorials indicate he hates women, children, and college students.
I hope progressives and liberals will have the discipline to begin boycotting Mitchell and Sherm today. I am. I won't post or even read a piece by Mitchell or Sherm for the next 30 days.
I implore all RJ blog readers to boycott Mr. Mitchell and Sherm for one month. You don't need to boycott the RJ entirely, just Mitchell and Sherm.
Read Jane Ann Morrison.
Better yet, look at Democracy Now and truthout--and Hugh Jackson for a laugh or two. Even better, pick up a college textbook--something Mr. Mitchell is unlikely to do.
I hope progressives and liberals will have the discipline to begin boycotting Mitchell and Sherm today. I am. I won't post or even read a piece by Mitchell or Sherm for the next 30 days.
I implore all RJ blog readers to boycott Mr. Mitchell and Sherm for one month. You don't need to boycott the RJ entirely, just Mitchell and Sherm.
Read Jane Ann Morrison.
Better yet, look at Democracy Now and truthout--and Hugh Jackson for a laugh or two. Even better, pick up a college textbook--something Mr. Mitchell is unlikely to do.
What Larry Summers learned was that if you want to suggest to an audience of female academics that perhaps fewer women have the innate capacity to succeed in academia, you had better do your homework first. His speculations looked amateurish compared to the careful work by experts in the field that preceded his remarks. Unfortunately, this wasn't the first time; Summers' habit of playing the amateur expert had already ticked off much of the faculty (I recall he asked the Divinity School during an otherwise friendly meeting to "justify their existence"), and his exit wasn't a surprise.
Compare Summers' bumbling insults with a true master of satire, Alan Sokal. Sokal, a physicist, exposed the intellectual bankruptcy of much post-modern scholarship by putting a bunch of physics terms and ideas into a blender, and getting the resulting nonsense published by the journal Social Text. His satire worked---and exposed a lot of naked emperors---because he was an actual expert in physics, and his marks knew it.
The moral is simple: don't throw "chum in the water" on a topic unless you really are an expert, and can back up your claims. Or at least be a decent wit.
Thomas Mitchell, you are about as far from an expert on political science or data analysis as I can imagine, and certainly no Jon Swift when it comes to satire. Leave this sort of stunt to the experts.
Compare Summers' bumbling insults with a true master of satire, Alan Sokal. Sokal, a physicist, exposed the intellectual bankruptcy of much post-modern scholarship by putting a bunch of physics terms and ideas into a blender, and getting the resulting nonsense published by the journal Social Text. His satire worked---and exposed a lot of naked emperors---because he was an actual expert in physics, and his marks knew it.
The moral is simple: don't throw "chum in the water" on a topic unless you really are an expert, and can back up your claims. Or at least be a decent wit.
Thomas Mitchell, you are about as far from an expert on political science or data analysis as I can imagine, and certainly no Jon Swift when it comes to satire. Leave this sort of stunt to the experts.
Once again a second-rate conservative editor demonstrates his complete inability to write satire.
Mr. Mitchell, for everyone's sake, please leave satire to professional writers. Satire is a tough genre, and you're just not that good.
Mr. Mitchell, for everyone's sake, please leave satire to professional writers. Satire is a tough genre, and you're just not that good.
I'm a woman strong enough to handle a gentle poke at the mysteries of my gender.
And I "got" the initial column. If the comments weren't such a pathetic display of thin skin and grievance-mongering, they would have been laugh-out-loud funny. Unfortunately, it's truly pitiful to see the mewling and whining over a light-hearted ironic musing.
Keep up the good work, Mr. Mitchell.
And I "got" the initial column. If the comments weren't such a pathetic display of thin skin and grievance-mongering, they would have been laugh-out-loud funny. Unfortunately, it's truly pitiful to see the mewling and whining over a light-hearted ironic musing.
Keep up the good work, Mr. Mitchell.
Let me see if I get it.You and Sherman are the only ones allowed to call people with whom you disagree politically vile names based on their age,race,creed,color,sex,sexual orientation,gender,identity,national origin,religion,disability,weight,sartorial choices?facial hair,writing ability?,mental capacity,sobriety,sanity,political leanings,and perversity.And if people respond in the same way when you write a blog that doesn't sound much different than your usual ones,you cry and snivel that you were only making a joke are being picked on.Any large paper that that wants to maintain any semblance of "fair and balanced" as the Fox news commentators say,should not have editors like you and Sherman on board,
http://www.harryreid.com/ee/index.php/news/article/the_review-journal_and_their_efforts_to_affect_novembers_us_senate_race/
Angela: You are a rare blossom of spring. Viva la difference.
Angela: You are a rare blossom of spring. Viva la difference.
You are about half-way climbed out of the hole. Grovel more!
Well hardee, har, har. The joke's on the libruls. Guess that they lost their sense of humor about conservative put-downs of women the Republican Party decided it wanted to criminalize abortion.
Or was it when it decided to allow bluenose pharmacists to make birth control less available to women? Or maybe when it embraced Bible-thumping fundamentalist loonies who think wives should be subservient to their husbands?
Here's a newsflash: You don't GET the benefit of the doubt when your little attempt at humor is 100% in line with the ACTUAL POLICIES of the party and ideology you subscribe to.
Duh.
Or was it when it decided to allow bluenose pharmacists to make birth control less available to women? Or maybe when it embraced Bible-thumping fundamentalist loonies who think wives should be subservient to their husbands?
Here's a newsflash: You don't GET the benefit of the doubt when your little attempt at humor is 100% in line with the ACTUAL POLICIES of the party and ideology you subscribe to.
Duh.
Follow up: I flunked at satire, wrote stuff calculated to anger people, and got an angry reaction. This somehow proves that Larry Summers is the victim of a witch hunt by narrow-minded people.
Writing that happens in Vegas should stay there, too.
Writing that happens in Vegas should stay there, too.
) "I hope progressives and liberals will have the discipline to begin boycotting Mitchell and Sherm today. I am. I won't post or even read a piece by Mitchell or Sherm for the next 30 days."
I stopped delivery of the R-J, if that's what you mean. I had always enjoyed sitting among the Lap Toppers at Starbucks and reading my local news. (My wife like the capons). But it wasn't an intentional boycott, as much as switching to another newspaper (NY Times) to get my unslanted news.
I know they make a buck here, running their blog - I believe they should - but I don't believe they make political converts, if that's their secondary motive. We get input and debate; educating them, as it were.
I stopped delivery of the R-J, if that's what you mean. I had always enjoyed sitting among the Lap Toppers at Starbucks and reading my local news. (My wife like the capons). But it wasn't an intentional boycott, as much as switching to another newspaper (NY Times) to get my unslanted news.
I know they make a buck here, running their blog - I believe they should - but I don't believe they make political converts, if that's their secondary motive. We get input and debate; educating them, as it were.
Mr. Mitchell,
I do not have a problem with your age, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, disability, weight, sartorial choices, facial hair, writing ability, mental capacity, sobriety, sanity, political leanings or perversity. This is a free country, and you are entitled to have and freely express whatever opinion you choose... in your personal time. However, as editor of the Review Journal, a publication for the greater Las Vegas area, you should take your job more seriously. Your readers deserve honest reporting of all sides of an argument, so that they may decide for themselves what to believe, not the one-sided word vomit you call "light extemporanea." Excuse some folks for not finding the joke in repealing the rights of millions of people, rights that took hundreds of years and inconcievable struggle. If your goal as a writer is to bait your readers into passionate knee-jerk reactions in order to make them look stupid...who would want to be your reader? I don't and won't be.
I think you are doing more harm than good. Perhaps you could take some basic journalism classes at UNLV, if the department doesn't get cut. Maybe you can put in a good word with our republican govorner, who's personal business is embarrassing, but not nearly as much as his flippant attitude towards education statewide. I also don't mean to demand that you give up your style of reporting, just that you find a radical publication to do it with, or stick to your job description.
no hard feelings,enjoy your journey,
Angelina ;)
I do not have a problem with your age, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, disability, weight, sartorial choices, facial hair, writing ability, mental capacity, sobriety, sanity, political leanings or perversity. This is a free country, and you are entitled to have and freely express whatever opinion you choose... in your personal time. However, as editor of the Review Journal, a publication for the greater Las Vegas area, you should take your job more seriously. Your readers deserve honest reporting of all sides of an argument, so that they may decide for themselves what to believe, not the one-sided word vomit you call "light extemporanea." Excuse some folks for not finding the joke in repealing the rights of millions of people, rights that took hundreds of years and inconcievable struggle. If your goal as a writer is to bait your readers into passionate knee-jerk reactions in order to make them look stupid...who would want to be your reader? I don't and won't be.
I think you are doing more harm than good. Perhaps you could take some basic journalism classes at UNLV, if the department doesn't get cut. Maybe you can put in a good word with our republican govorner, who's personal business is embarrassing, but not nearly as much as his flippant attitude towards education statewide. I also don't mean to demand that you give up your style of reporting, just that you find a radical publication to do it with, or stick to your job description.
no hard feelings,enjoy your journey,
Angelina ;)
Mr. Mitchell,
I do not have a problem with your age, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, disability, weight, sartorial choices, facial hair, writing ability, mental capacity, sobriety, sanity, political leanings or perversity. This is a free country, and you are entitled to have and freely express whatever opinion you choose... in your personal time. However, as editor of the Review Journal, a publication for the greater Las Vegas area, you should take your job more seriously. Your readers deserve honest reporting of all sides of an argument, so that they may decide for themselves what to believe, not the one-sided word vomit you call "light extemporanea." Excuse some folks for not finding the joke in repealing the rights of millions of people, rights that took hundreds of years and inconceivable struggle. If your goal as a writer is to bait your readers into passionate knee-jerk reactions in order to make them look stupid...who would want to be your reader? I don't and won't be.
I think you are doing more harm than good. Perhaps you could take some basic journalism classes at UNLV, if the department doesn't get cut. Maybe you can put in a good word with our republican governor, whose personal business is embarrassing, but not nearly as much as his flippant attitude towards education statewide. I also don't mean to demand that you give up your style of reporting, just that you find a radical publication to do it with, or stick to your job description.
no hard feelings, enjoy your journey,
Angelina ;)
I do not have a problem with your age, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, disability, weight, sartorial choices, facial hair, writing ability, mental capacity, sobriety, sanity, political leanings or perversity. This is a free country, and you are entitled to have and freely express whatever opinion you choose... in your personal time. However, as editor of the Review Journal, a publication for the greater Las Vegas area, you should take your job more seriously. Your readers deserve honest reporting of all sides of an argument, so that they may decide for themselves what to believe, not the one-sided word vomit you call "light extemporanea." Excuse some folks for not finding the joke in repealing the rights of millions of people, rights that took hundreds of years and inconceivable struggle. If your goal as a writer is to bait your readers into passionate knee-jerk reactions in order to make them look stupid...who would want to be your reader? I don't and won't be.
I think you are doing more harm than good. Perhaps you could take some basic journalism classes at UNLV, if the department doesn't get cut. Maybe you can put in a good word with our republican governor, whose personal business is embarrassing, but not nearly as much as his flippant attitude towards education statewide. I also don't mean to demand that you give up your style of reporting, just that you find a radical publication to do it with, or stick to your job description.
no hard feelings, enjoy your journey,
Angelina ;)
Tom, you're a moron. Deal with it.
Har -dee - har. Wow. So funny. What a wonderful wit you have Mitchell. I know, let's keep the 19th Amendment and instead, deprive dimwits like you the right to vote!
- Just kidding! Hope you got the joke. You're a big boy, right? Don't be a little thin-skinned, partisan troll. It's satire baby. You know.
- Just kidding! Hope you got the joke. You're a big boy, right? Don't be a little thin-skinned, partisan troll. It's satire baby. You know.
I love the way right wing bloggers always pull this "I was just baiting the libruls and they fell for it" line when they get caught saying something stupid.
Reminds me of my cat when he runs into a wall, looks around and gives me that "I meant to do that" look...
Reminds me of my cat when he runs into a wall, looks around and gives me that "I meant to do that" look...
"But, but, but! All I did was argue that men and women are charmingly different!"
Give me a break. Your column didn't once refer to any concept of neutral "difference." Every reference was to inferiority: "bias," "fickle," "shouldn't be allowed to vote," etc.
And you know it, because if your column had said, "hey, look, men and women sometimes vote differently!" you would have got as much attention as your pablum ideas deserve -- zero.
So you went with the controversial angle, and now you're crying victim that people called you on your grade-school chauvinism.
Give me a break. Your column didn't once refer to any concept of neutral "difference." Every reference was to inferiority: "bias," "fickle," "shouldn't be allowed to vote," etc.
And you know it, because if your column had said, "hey, look, men and women sometimes vote differently!" you would have got as much attention as your pablum ideas deserve -- zero.
So you went with the controversial angle, and now you're crying victim that people called you on your grade-school chauvinism.
See, the problem with your supposed explanation that it was sort of satire, is that satire is sort of meant to be funny. That's the problem with Jonah Goldberg and rightwing "satirists" is that they just aren't very funny. But I guess that really helps when you say something semi-serious and totally dumb-- then you can say, as you have, "It was a JOKE!" and aver that jokes don't have to be funny to be jokes.
You're kind of silly, and I suspect you say silly things because it gets you a lot of notice. Hmm. That's just like a thirteen-year-old boy! Have you tried belching? That always gets boys attention too! And it's actually sometimes funny!
I am frequently amazed at what newspapers pay for. I mean, really, you could get my little son to belch for you FOR FREE! Why are you paying this guy?
And btw, fella-- women have long since learned something that you might not know if you don't cook. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
You're kind of silly, and I suspect you say silly things because it gets you a lot of notice. Hmm. That's just like a thirteen-year-old boy! Have you tried belching? That always gets boys attention too! And it's actually sometimes funny!
I am frequently amazed at what newspapers pay for. I mean, really, you could get my little son to belch for you FOR FREE! Why are you paying this guy?
And btw, fella-- women have long since learned something that you might not know if you don't cook. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
"Just as I had anticipated, and in fact spelled out in a veiled reference in the second paragraph, my posting was judged by almost every commenter and e-mailer, not on any merits or demerits of facts in evidence or syllogism used, but on the basis of my age, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, disability, weight, sartorial choices, facial hair, writing ability, mental capacity, sobriety, sanity, political leanings and perversity — the very appellations the politically correct find so jaw-droppingly offensive.
The level of rhetoric was, to be kind, bombastic. Several of the several dozen writers and one caller suggested various means by which I might be dispatched from this earthly plane, sooner rather than later."
Ah, seems as though you fell for it all hook, line and sinker!
That was all just satire, you see - and you clearly didn't get the lighthearted jokes.
....
On a less sarcastic note - the original editorial was obviously not to be taken at face value, but the real point was not at all apparent, let alone "funny," either on its face, or as satire. And it still isn't, after your "gotcha!" followup.
Your point is...what? That people get in trouble when they say that men and women are different, regardless of the empirical truth?
I hope that something more clever was intended, because that's about as insightful as a high school civics 101 course. If something more interesting was intended, what's more likely - that everyone else is dense, and just proved your point...or you just didn't communicate the point all that well in the first place?
Communication is a two-way street, and an author has some obligation to make his rapier wit knowable to the audience.
The level of rhetoric was, to be kind, bombastic. Several of the several dozen writers and one caller suggested various means by which I might be dispatched from this earthly plane, sooner rather than later."
Ah, seems as though you fell for it all hook, line and sinker!
That was all just satire, you see - and you clearly didn't get the lighthearted jokes.
....
On a less sarcastic note - the original editorial was obviously not to be taken at face value, but the real point was not at all apparent, let alone "funny," either on its face, or as satire. And it still isn't, after your "gotcha!" followup.
Your point is...what? That people get in trouble when they say that men and women are different, regardless of the empirical truth?
I hope that something more clever was intended, because that's about as insightful as a high school civics 101 course. If something more interesting was intended, what's more likely - that everyone else is dense, and just proved your point...or you just didn't communicate the point all that well in the first place?
Communication is a two-way street, and an author has some obligation to make his rapier wit knowable to the audience.
Angela,
I'm a woman strong enough to get angry and say something when someone suggests repealing my rights, or when they think that such a suggestion makes a great joke.
And I "got" your comment. It might have been merely pitiable, instead of deplorable, if it hadn't been such a blatant attempt to act superior to all us "thin-skinned" people who know that threats against historically oppressed groups are threatening, not funny, and that making light of struggles for basic human rights for which people have suffered and died is disrespectful, and also not funny.
Unfortunately for you, it's truly telling that for all your willingness to throw others under a bus by saying "Don't listen to them! I'm a woman and I don't mind your joking about treating me as a second-class citizen!" your only reward is to be called "a rare flower"- something fragile, beautiful, and unintelligent.
There's a metaphor that's distinctly apropos here: you can make fun of the other girls all you want, but you still won't get into the "boys only" tree house. Or in this case, you can agree all you want with those who think your rights are a joke and that you are fickle and have no ability to reason, but they still won't respect you for your opinion.
Enjoy your submissiveness,
B
I'm a woman strong enough to get angry and say something when someone suggests repealing my rights, or when they think that such a suggestion makes a great joke.
And I "got" your comment. It might have been merely pitiable, instead of deplorable, if it hadn't been such a blatant attempt to act superior to all us "thin-skinned" people who know that threats against historically oppressed groups are threatening, not funny, and that making light of struggles for basic human rights for which people have suffered and died is disrespectful, and also not funny.
Unfortunately for you, it's truly telling that for all your willingness to throw others under a bus by saying "Don't listen to them! I'm a woman and I don't mind your joking about treating me as a second-class citizen!" your only reward is to be called "a rare flower"- something fragile, beautiful, and unintelligent.
There's a metaphor that's distinctly apropos here: you can make fun of the other girls all you want, but you still won't get into the "boys only" tree house. Or in this case, you can agree all you want with those who think your rights are a joke and that you are fickle and have no ability to reason, but they still won't respect you for your opinion.
Enjoy your submissiveness,
B
This is, perhaps, among the saddest uses of fallacious sophism I've seen in some time. If you were a 'real man', you'd simply own up to that fact that you were serious but hoped to leave yourself the 'out' of falling back on the satire excuse; you'd just 'fess up and take your lumps. This bit of pre-school blame shifting should be illegal for professional 'journalists', perhaps punishable by forced reading of your own material.
You see, Mr. Mitchell, satire is rarely effective when your readers are (obviously) more sophisticated than you. Perhaps you could move over to sports?
You see, Mr. Mitchell, satire is rarely effective when your readers are (obviously) more sophisticated than you. Perhaps you could move over to sports?
I find it especially delicious that the loudest proponents of "fairness" in this comment thread wag their fingers at Thomas Mitchell with the line "Good satire usually gives the reader a clear hint about its nature."
Teehee. See if you can manage to read a few paragraphs of Jonathon Swift - or even Voltaire, which is certain to be found in your local "politically correct" school library. Or for the shock of your young life, read a little something from Iowahawk.
Ain't no rubber diapers on satire, kids. Consume at your own risk.
Teehee. See if you can manage to read a few paragraphs of Jonathon Swift - or even Voltaire, which is certain to be found in your local "politically correct" school library. Or for the shock of your young life, read a little something from Iowahawk.
Ain't no rubber diapers on satire, kids. Consume at your own risk.
I look forward to some of Thomas Mitchell's future "satiric" gems -- "Black people are lazy and dumb. Let's repeal the 1964 voting rights act" and "Jews -- Why do we allow them to control our banking system?"
He'll get lots and LOTS of angry responses, which will mean he's a brilliant satirist!
He'll get lots and LOTS of angry responses, which will mean he's a brilliant satirist!
Let me hand that mirror back to you, and suggest you take a look around and behind you. The reason that so many "libruls" got outraged and upset about this ("took the bait hook, line, and sinker" as you would say) is because we've had to put up with EXACTLY this kind of behavior from those on the right who WERE NOT being facetious. Be honest: if I were to go over to KOS and write up a diary talking about how we should outlaw Christianity and guns, and make an amendment to the constitution banning war... how many of your friends and readers would fall for it? How many of you would say, "Look...the ******* hippies are openly flippant about it!", hmm?
re: satire.
In the words of Inigo Montoya - You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
In the words of Inigo Montoya - You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
TV networks that are fair and balanced don't have to always say they're 'fair and balanced' - and good satirists don't have to explain to their readers that it's satire. Stick to your regular schtick - Conservatives are genetically incapable of wit........
First, I think Mr. Mitchell is confused about what satire is. Satire is not merely the presentation of an extreme position that we all should know is hyperbole. Satire generally requires that the author disapprove of what he or she is satirizing. Colbert is a great satirist not because he presents insanely ridiculous right wing positions (Limbaugh does that everyday), but because he is clearly critiquing the insane right wing of of our country.
So, Mr. Mitchel, what are you critiquing? Misogyny? Bad statistics? Or do you really think that women (and people who vote democratic in general) are biased and you got caught proposing a silly thing that you don't really believe? I suspect it is the latter. If so, then you are not even a poor satirist. You are not a satirist at all. You are just like Limbaugh.
So, Mr. Mitchel, what are you critiquing? Misogyny? Bad statistics? Or do you really think that women (and people who vote democratic in general) are biased and you got caught proposing a silly thing that you don't really believe? I suspect it is the latter. If so, then you are not even a poor satirist. You are not a satirist at all. You are just like Limbaugh.
Hey Mikey, where's those pearls of wisdom you've written? I'm still waiting for an entertaining read of some GOOD satire.
You know, the kind you say YOU write.
You know, the kind you say YOU write.
Big hat, no cattle. Or, in this case, big hat, no brains.
The differences that exist between the genders does not imply differences in judgment or in reasoning abilities. And if one gender appears to be biased (your word, not mine) towards more qualified candidates, that's probably not a "bias" that would disqualify them from voting.
It may have been hyperbole. It was not, however, funny.
The differences that exist between the genders does not imply differences in judgment or in reasoning abilities. And if one gender appears to be biased (your word, not mine) towards more qualified candidates, that's probably not a "bias" that would disqualify them from voting.
It may have been hyperbole. It was not, however, funny.
You 'flippantly suggest' taking away a woman's right to vote & expect us to be calm about it? ~shakes head~ You were the kind of kid that poked sticks into ant hills & bee hives just to see what would happen weren't you?
Shorter Thomas Mitchell: "I wrote something stupid and no one bothered to take my argument on its merits and instead called me stupid...see how stupid you all are...especially you women."
Dear Mr. Mitchell,
Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert entertain with great satire but you, sir, suck at satire. In fact, you are are terrible at journalism and logic as well. Do the Las Vegas community a favor and resign.
Thank you,
Mark Schaffer
Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert entertain with great satire but you, sir, suck at satire. In fact, you are are terrible at journalism and logic as well. Do the Las Vegas community a favor and resign.
Thank you,
Mark Schaffer
Wow - you are GOOD! It is *hilarious* to riff on taking away my basic rights, to (ha ha ha ha ha - I"m sorry, I cannot stop laughing!) pretend to threaten to repeal my right to vote in a Democratic society; and I must concede the utter brilliance of using the fact that Larry Sommers gave his daughter trucks to play with to excuse his claim that women and girls are just not as good at science because we're different than men - well, BRILLIANT. I mean who wouldn't excuse Sommers' misogynistic rant because he allowed his little girl to play with trucks?!
Great job, honestly. Oh, and the next time you write a wondrously witty column on how stupid and inconsistent women can be, definitely don't expect any women to get angry. Because, you know, I know that you completely understand what it's like to be part of an oppressed group, right? I mean, wow, as a white, heterosexual male you have surely experienced - what? Discrimination in the workplace? Pay inequity? Harassment in the street? Racism? Violence because of your gender, color or religious beliefs?
Oh, and yeah, isn’t it ridiculous that people were calling you out on the basis of your race, creed, color, sex, religion…? Because you didn’t do anything to egg people on, right? Gosh, here you are just sitting quietly blogging about how stupid women are because we’re women and gosh, why are people angry about the fact that I’m a white male writing about how every one else is an idiot?
Here’s the thing, when you actively work to impede my rights and the rights of those I love, you step over the line and my rights and the rights of my children are worth fighting for.
Great job, honestly. Oh, and the next time you write a wondrously witty column on how stupid and inconsistent women can be, definitely don't expect any women to get angry. Because, you know, I know that you completely understand what it's like to be part of an oppressed group, right? I mean, wow, as a white, heterosexual male you have surely experienced - what? Discrimination in the workplace? Pay inequity? Harassment in the street? Racism? Violence because of your gender, color or religious beliefs?
Oh, and yeah, isn’t it ridiculous that people were calling you out on the basis of your race, creed, color, sex, religion…? Because you didn’t do anything to egg people on, right? Gosh, here you are just sitting quietly blogging about how stupid women are because we’re women and gosh, why are people angry about the fact that I’m a white male writing about how every one else is an idiot?
Here’s the thing, when you actively work to impede my rights and the rights of those I love, you step over the line and my rights and the rights of my children are worth fighting for.
Sure, you have the freedom of speech to say whatever you like no matter how absurd. Along with that comes the responsibility of dealing with the results of what you say. As for saying things with the intent to inflame tempers on the internet, they have a word for that: troll
I wonder if this would've gotten the same reaction had the article joked about MEN losing the right to vote. Didn't think so.
Really, take a joke, people. I'm a woman, and I laughed. I understand concerns about sexism, but this identity politics has gone far enough. Instead of attacking a glib article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, shouldn't we all be spending more of our time trying to bring down the number of sexual assaults on women or some other cause that makes sense?
Yeah, he was SERIOUS about repealing the 19th amendment...give me a break!
D. Holland
Really, take a joke, people. I'm a woman, and I laughed. I understand concerns about sexism, but this identity politics has gone far enough. Instead of attacking a glib article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, shouldn't we all be spending more of our time trying to bring down the number of sexual assaults on women or some other cause that makes sense?
Yeah, he was SERIOUS about repealing the 19th amendment...give me a break!
D. Holland
Daphne,
Given the risible track record of the RJ on any number of issues (Envirnonment, minority rights, immigration, etc.) I am more surprised at your naivety.
Given the risible track record of the RJ on any number of issues (Envirnonment, minority rights, immigration, etc.) I am more surprised at your naivety.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Comments (44)
Registration Notice: The Review-Journal has implemented a new registration procedure that requires all existing and new accounts to validate and login using Facebook. Visit the Registration FAQ for more information.
Share your thoughts on this story.
Sign in or register to make a comment.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.