Thursday, August 23, 2012

Equal Time


So, as promised -- or threatened -- Cesca's response to my Banter piece is now up.

I thought I made it pretty clear in my column that I wasn't drawing a one-to-one correlation between Michael Moore and Todd Akin and that, regardless, it was important to apply the same standard across the board, no matter the subject or person, when you're doling out criticism. That to me just makes sense. I also thought I made it clear that I'm not completely beholden to any one political party or slant, therefore, while I absolutely understand political reality and try to keep it in mind at all times, I don't beat myself up too harshly if I say something that's critical of liberals or the liberal mindset. Taking a shot in the direction of the left, when it's deserved, doesn't automatically mean that I'm doing something that benefits the right; thinking it does is the worst kind of crass reductionism and it tips a hand to the traditional, and insidious, liberal intelligentsia trait of paternalistically trying to protect the ignorant unwashed from jumping to the wrong conclusion. Apparently, though, Bob feels much differently about all of the above and more.

Anyway, while I know there are those expecting me to continue this little back-and-forth, I'm out. I spoke my piece and I see no need to say anything else about it. If you can't figure out the point I was making, or simply don't agree, then there's nothing else I can say to elucidate or convince you.

I will say this, though: While I went out of my way to temper my remarks, as I always do when I disagree with someone I consider a friend, Cesca, in my opinion, showed me no such courtesy. And yes, I'm a little pissed about it.

5 comments:

Steven D Skelton said...

I wouldn't take it personally. It wasn't you he went after...it was the straw man he created in your place.

Cesca does that a lot...

Jennifer said...

Good on you Chez. Don't let crap like this deter you, or worse, change your viewpoint.

Nadine said...

While I think that Bob had a point-- I agree that the whole mindset of the piece was combative and didn't address the points that you made. And, yes, I would be a little pissed as well. I'm glad that you won't engage further. You stated your case, he stated his. Done.

namron said...

"Jane, you ignorant slut!"

Claude Weaver said...

It is a shame that this discussion went this way, since it was an important one that needed to be addressed, as well as the raw feelings involved.

I understand why Bob was so upset. Nobody like hearing that, after a lot of time lambasting the other side for so long, they have some similar trait as them. It is hard to take, and I get their reaction. You pointed at a dent in their armor, and unfortunately, it revealed a raw nerve.

But I gotta side with you. We can't hold the guys who say the things we like to a different standard than everybody else. And saying that is not "false equivalence". Nobody was saying that Moore or Stone were anywhere near the level of shitballs insane as Akin. But there was that similar dismissal of serious unanswered accusations. You can't gloss over them simply because the accused makes you feel good.

This is my last word on it: I am most offended by the seeming go-to rebuttal that was "their opinion doesn't really matter." The idea that, because Moore et al. were not elected officials, that their words really had no meaning like Akin's did. If that was the case WHY THE FUCK WOULD WE CARE WHAT THEY HAD TO SAY IN THE FIRST PLACE??!?!?! Why defend their opinions when they don't matter and won't change anything? It is dismissive in the highest and practically says both sides of the argument are pointless. It is the table flip of discourse, declaring all moves invalid.

The fact is, Moore and Stone may like the sound of their own voices, but they just don't say stuff for their own edification. They want to influence popular opinion through their words, and they should have to answer for them just as much as anyone. Otherwise, why bother saying anything in public? Or being filmmakers, for that matter?

PS On a lighter note, you two really annoyed me with calling Harry Potter "science fiction" last After Party. Did you just forget the term "fantasy" for some reason?