Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Howley on Red Eye Tonight
I'll be on Fox News' Red Eye at 2am ET, dutifully blurring the line between libertarian and libertine. Topics will include Mitt Romney's penchant for animal torture and catfish that eat basketballs.
|6.28.07 @ 5:32PM|#
Kerry, I love watching you take on those blowhard conservative
on "Red Eye."
Plus, you're pretty much hot.
Doug|6.28.07 @ 6:04PM|#
Most nights Red Eye has at least two liberals, and Kerry just tries to be funny when on Red Eye. She does not have the balls to talk seriously about her beliefs, unfortunately.
|6.28.07 @ 6:08PM|#
She does not have the balls to talk seriously about her beliefs, unfortunately.
Well, yeah ...
highnumber|6.28.07 @ 6:13PM|#
Ms Howley,
Nice response to your fervent admirer's comments from the other
day.
That's class.
Seriously.
Maybe I'll watch RedEye one of these days.
(More likely, not, because I have seen clips from the show.)
|6.28.07 @ 6:28PM|#
Do we have to endure all of the "you're so hot," and the much
worse "you're a slut," and whatever else bullshit comments whenever
Kerry Howley posts?
Read the posts and comment on the substance.
Brian Sorgatz|6.28.07 @ 6:44PM|#
I'll be on Fox News' Red Eye at 2am ET, dutifully blurring
the line between libertarian and libertine.
"Libertine" is such a rare word in political discourse these days
(except by Jonah Goldberg) that it sounds almost as laughable as
being called a masher. Unless you sport a handlebar mustache and
support McKinley for president, there's no sting in that insult
anymore.
Especially for a wanton bluestocking like Howley.
Jimmy|6.28.07 @ 6:44PM|#
I think redeye is hilarious. I can't believe its allowed on television, but its perfect for 2AM.
|6.28.07 @ 7:08PM|#
^#,
Nice response to your fervent admirer's comments from the other
day.
To what does this refer?
highnumber|6.28.07 @ 8:04PM|#
Warren,
I hesitate to give the guy more attention, but there was a fellow
who made some awfully lewd, rude, and crude remarks about Ms Howley
the other day. Later he wrote that he was trying to make the point
that in her appearances on RedEye she was promoting libertinism,
not libertarianism.
I foolishly encouraged the guy by appreciating his humor when he
veered toward more satiric material. He unfortunately relapsed into
the pointlessly rude rants and attacks. Think like crazy Terry, but
obsessed with sex.
|6.28.07 @ 8:18PM|#
Doug | June 28, 2007, 6:04pm | #
Most nights Red Eye has at least two liberals, and Kerry just tries
to be funny when on Red Eye. She does not have the balls to talk
seriously about her beliefs, unfortunately.
Doug, you must have missed this appearance of
Kerry Howley's on a Fox news program. Apparently she was able
to parley her Red Eye appareances into appearing as serious
commenter on civil liberties and heavy-handed government
interventionism in a straight news/debate format. Specifically, she
took on a representative of MADD in a point/counterpoint exchange
on teenage drinking, which is not exactly a soft target.
|6.28.07 @ 8:25PM|#
Dear Mr. scofflaw:
How fortuitous to see you here, on another Kerry Howley thread.
Kindly inform your alter ego/putatively less-retarded family
member, Mr. Spooner, that I wished to pass on a message to
him.
Good day, sir.
|6.28.07 @ 8:45PM|#
Kerry,
I just wanted to remind you that it is ok to turn down television
invitations. You don't have to accept ones from, say, terrible
shows such as "Red Eye."
|6.28.07 @ 8:57PM|#
^#,
But what was Kerry's response? I don't know that she's ever
responded to the wolf pack.
|6.28.07 @ 9:35PM|#
To the extent that this post is a response, it is a response to
several threads.
I think I found the one you were talking about. It was titled
"Toward a More Humble Modesty". Looking at the comments now it is
clear that scofflaws comments have been purged.
I want say I think that is BULLSHIT. I've had a few comments purged
over the years (never over Kerry Howley and never several in one
thread). And well like I say, it's just bullshit.
Take the Humble Modesty thread. It is littered with comments giving
it to scofflaw. So we know he said something (apparently many
somethings) provocative and offensive. But WTF? Why can't we be
provocative and offensive. Don't we believe in free speech around
here? Isn't the answer to bad speech, more speech?
*Standard disclaimer regarding Reason's right to police it's boards
however they want and championing free speech not being a
requirement to host speech they don't approve of*
Now I'm an extremist when it comes to free speech/press. I don't
make any exceptions for obscenity. I can tolerate exceptions for
child porn, if children were actually used in the production. I do
make exceptions for libel/slander, and fraud.
And if I ran H&R, I wouldn't allow advertising/spamming. But
deleting someone's comment because you don't like what he said. I
don't think we should do that here.
Now, since our comments obviously are subject to censorship based
on content. I am DOUBLY PISSED that it is done capriciously. There
should be a "rules of conduct" page so we know where they draw the
line.
Take a look at the "Toward a More Humble Modesty" thread. Comment
after comment in response to comments that are no longer there. I
say that just isn't right.
For a web domain calle....
|6.28.07 @ 11:07PM|#
Warren, you obviously didn't see scofflaw's original comments,
and are therefore making a judgment based on a lack of
information.
He called a member of the Reason staff a slut and another female
commenter a slut. Other than being crude and insulting, the
comments that were removed were pretty much content-free, as I
recall. For all I know it might have qualified as libel/slander,
but IAMNL.
I'm also a free-speech extremist, but a property-rights extremist
as well. If Reason declines to provide bandwidth to commenter with
nothing to contribute but nasty insults and personal attacks upon a
staff member, that's fine with me. I was glad to see the comments
go.
If someone wanted to write me letters consisting of "Your mother's
a whore, you ass" I guess I couldn't stop them -- but danged if I'd
feel obligated to pay for their postage.
scofflaw|6.28.07 @ 11:20PM|#
I know that I've arrived when a Reason contributing editor
(Julian Sanchez) will say this about me in the comments section of
a Hit & Run post:
"Wow. You're a deeply disgusting human being. If you had the
slightest shred of basic decency, you would have taken your own
life out of self-revulsion long ago."
And then to have Kerry Howley herself allude to my thoughts on her
previous Red Eye appearance in a post announcing her next Red Eye
appearance. It's all too much, so very flattering . . .
Stevo: Good to see you, man. I sent your message on to my bro. He
says thanks.
scofflaw|6.28.07 @ 11:27PM|#
Warren,
Stevo isn't being entirely fair or accurate. If the original
comments were there you could see that for yourself. My brother's
e-mail to the Reason webmaster that he posted on the thread you
mention tells the true story.
|6.29.07 @ 8:16AM|#
Warren,
Your comments are endearingly idealistic, but Reason is a business,
not a free-for-all commune. If they ran it your way (no
ads/spamming and no post deletion), they would have no incentive to
maintain this site.
The constant and sometimes personal comments about Reason staff
threaten to undermine the proffesionalism of this site. Moreover,
it wouldn't be unprecedented in the world of Internet forums to see
demeaning comments about a female editor devolve into threatening
comments. As staff editors at Reason surely have other
opportunities, it doesn't benefit anyone to make their work at
H&R unpleasant or even threatening.
|6.29.07 @ 8:34AM|#
Stevo isn't being entirely fair or accurate. If the original comments were there you could see that for yourself. My brother's e-mail to the Reason webmaster that he posted on the thread you mention tells the true story.
Warren -
As someone who saw the original comments, I can, without
reservation, inform you that scofflaw's claims are utter
bullshit.
|6.29.07 @ 9:13AM|#
Does this mean that I can't preface my objections to, say, one
of Jennifer's arguments with, "Jennifer, you ignorant slut"? My,
how times have changed. In the 70s, it was practically polite to
say such things. Of course, Lorne Michaels ruled the late night
world with an iron fist back then.
Tsk, tsk.
M|6.29.07 @ 9:16AM|#
Any predictions about how long it'll be before "slut" is
appropriated as a badge of honor on the model of "queer" and (as
Mr. Imus learned, for now only endosubculturally) "nigger"?
And fwiw, my recollection of the memory-holed comments accords with
the extant account by Lysander Spooner Jr. But we'll never
know.
M|6.29.07 @ 9:53AM|#
you ignorant slut
I know it's somewhere, but I just can't find Bloom's translation of
Plato's Republic, where Socrates calls one of his friends
just that. Must have been the copy I lent Thomas Bowdler.
|6.29.07 @ 10:20AM|#
Actually, I believe it's in Plato's Alcibiades. Although there's no simple "Alcibiades, you ignorant slut" in the text, if you read the whole thing, that's the message. Socrates starts by calling Alcibiades a slut, then spends a while detailing his ignorance.
|6.29.07 @ 10:56AM|#
And fwiw, my recollection of the memory-holed comments accords with the extant account by Lysander Spooner Jr. But we'll never know.
Actually, I do know, having a copy of said comments here
with me. Commenter lysanderspoonerjr (whom I consider most likely a
sock puppet of scofflaw) said this:
But aside from that, he only said that she came across as [a slut], not
that she is one.
That statement is untrue.
M|6.29.07 @ 11:04AM|#
Jake, estimable fellow, how I wish you could post the evidence to the contrary so I and others could see lysander defend himself. Alas, it is not to be, as such evidence and your subsequent opinions would be suppressed by a muzzle. Safer it is to loose our hostility on images of weeping ten-year-old daughters of unpopular politicians.
M|6.29.07 @ 11:12AM|#
So at least we can be reassured that the protection lavished here is not "for the children".
|6.29.07 @ 11:15AM|#
M, I think you're being a bit silly about this. I'm not going to
post the entirety of scofflaw's comments, because they were removed
for very good reason. I will, however, quote enough to show that
lysanderspoonerjr's claim is not true.
To review, here's lysanderspoonerjr's claim:
But aside from that, he only said that she came across as [a slut], not
that she is one.
And here's a small snippet from just one of scofflaw's needlessly
abusive original statements:
But during that time, I was a total slut, probably worse than Howley even.
Q.E.D.
highnumber|6.29.07 @ 11:18AM|#
M,
As winner, and therefore owner, of said thread, the "Salty Ham
Tears" thread, I respectfully request that you refrain from the
unfair comparisons between that thread, in which delirious
excitement brought on by Santorum's defeat led to perhaps misguided
glee at a little girl's tears, and the baseless accusations made
against Ms Howley.
Thank you.
M|6.29.07 @ 11:20AM|#
highnumber, most excellent buddy, I shall continue to refrain from unfair comparisons.
M|6.29.07 @ 11:25AM|#
Let me also put it this way: Why should someone not proudly proclaim him/herself to be a slut?
|6.29.07 @ 11:27AM|#
M,
Are you seriously claiming that if "Howley" were replaced with
"Mary, Mother of Jesus," then people wouldn't consider that
"calling Mary a slut?"
You're a very silly person and I'm not going to interview you any
more.
|6.29.07 @ 11:35AM|#
Let me also put it this way: Why should someone not proudly
proclaim him/herself to be a slut?
Yes, you're free to call yourself a slut. Surprisingly, it's
acceptable to do a lot of things to yourself that it's not
acceptable to do to other people. Let me know if you find this
notion complicated.
scofflaw|6.29.07 @ 12:14PM|#
Boone said: here's a small snippet from just one of scofflaw's
needlessly abusive original statements:
But during that time, I was a total slut, probably worse than
Howley even.
Note that I gallantly heaped the abuse on myself in preference to
the delicate Ms. Howley. Note also my use of the word "probably" --
I do not have personal knowledge of Ms. Howley's actual behavior
(as opposed to the behavior she implicity advocates) so can't
really say that my behavior was in fact worse. So again, I did not
say that she is a slut, but only that she . . . well, never mind,
the Reason police might be watching.
Thanks M for linking to that article by Julian Sanchez. That, and
the picture of him he posted on his website, sheds new light on his
suggestion that I should kill myself out of "self-revulsion."
Also, M, thanks for pointing out on the other thread the kind of
misguided "chivalry" that seems to be going on here. Somehow I
don't think the heavy hand of Reason would have been brought down
so heavily if the comments were directed at a male Reason staff
writer. Male libertines obviously have a vested self-interest in
maintaining the dulled sensibilities of their female counterparts,
and become outraged at anyone or anything that threatens the
"output" that flows from those dulled sensibilities.
scofflaw|6.29.07 @ 12:55PM|#
Just to be clear, that last sentence was a general statement, and was not meant to apply specifically to the Reason environment.
|6.29.07 @ 1:24PM|#
I didn't see the original thread, but given the extremely diverse collection of viewpoints, and even somewhat lewd and abusive comments that are allowed to remain on this blog, I feel comfortable assuming that the removed comments must have been way over the line.
M|6.29.07 @ 1:34PM|#
I'm not going to interview you any more
Then your question must have been rhetorical. I'll address it
anyway. It was nice knowing you.
I do see your point. I was focusing on the "probably" part, which I
wouldn't have been if I weren't trying to establish to myself
whether the grounds for deleting the post(s?) - which on this site
I would have to cross a very high bar, namely threat - were
literally what deletion-defenders said it was. You see, the censors
drove me to it!
That's because I quickly became used to very high standards of
tolerance here, standards that on another thread (which in order
not to provoke, I won't name or link), were not only permitted and
encouraged, but authored for ad hominem shock value on an
unarguably innocent person incapable of defending herself.
In contrast, this instance showed the potential for a substantive
discussion, namely the interrelations among human dignity, the
capacity for and are there any worthwhile uses of feeling shame,
the relative responsibility of an agent who advocates vs.
discourages vs. practices controversial conduct.
Although the condemned writing was in fact in a style alien to my
taste, the concepts it framed and suggested intrigued me enough to
want to see more of it and the responses it provoked, all in the
complete context intended by the respective authors.
Human sexuality seems to be inherently problematic, at least in our
civilzation, and to witness its sacred-cow status inverted from,
say, Victorian times to where loyalty drives, say, Mr. Sanchez,
and watch spooner parry it seem to me potentially
redemptive; more enlightening than, say, cockfighting, and
certainly more informative than many "you're a doodoohead"-type
comments I've sighed through in other threads.
I am wondering what nerve this guy hit. I say wondering because I
certainly haven't figured out what sex is all about. I haven't been
much impressed that any individual here knows either, but I have
lately noticed an inverse relation between the confidence professed
by sexual liberators and the resilience exhibited when a
demonstration seems attempted (not to my taste, I repeat) to
discover whether the logical consequeneces of advocated
shamelessness are welcome to its champions.
Spooner reported that he sinned in haste and repented, if at
leisure, at least with some conviction. He seems to have tried to
demonstrate that heroic sexual immodesty is an incoherent and
therefore unsustainable position. Was he vindicated? It seems that
only hardier folk in some other venue will have the opportunity to
disprove his thesis (if I got it right).
Assuming Spooner doesn't personally know Ms. Howley, his inferences
can only have been from her public expressions. Giulinani
qua fascist, LaRouche as "crazy" are unflattering
perspectives from opposing ideologies. Why is "slut" so
much worse than "prude"? Unlike a politician, Spooner, like
everyone else on this board, such as someone who writes, say,
You're a very silly person
isn't doing anything to influence others except through
thinking. With the exception of those who delete comments.
So I'll concede that Spooner/scofflaw (if that's what's called a
sock-puppet, this one's made of fishnet) was saying "a public
advocate of shamelessness invites the inference that s/he is
shameless" and instantiating Ms. Howley. Which I feel bad about,
since... Jeez, how do I pay a deeper compliment after all that's
been posted on this board about her beauty? ...since I enjoy
reading and hearing her words and I suppose this may have been
painful. But it shouldn't have been astonishing, and it isn't
prodcutively eradicated, even if delivered in coarse idiom. Be made
of sterner stuff!
To your point, the mother of Jesus can also be held accountable for
her persona. In fact, didn't I once see on Hit & Run,
illustrating an article about Giuliani, a picture of Mary covered
in elephant dung? That must be an historical advance over
this approach.*
*I prefer the translation "resolved to treat it as a
mystery."
Chris S. - Good response to a question I hadn't meant to ask. To
make it more vivid, What would be wrong with someone not minding if
his daughter called herself a slut?
scofflaw - Hearing directly from you makes me feel like the admirer
who approached James Joyce in Switzerland and breathlessly asked
him, "May I kiss the hand that wrote Ulysses?" to which
Joyce answered, "No. It's done lots of other things, too." I feel
mixed about your posts, but their value as exotics earns my
provisional respect, and I have a soft-spot for underdogs.
crimethink - I wish my memory supported your comfort.
|6.29.07 @ 2:18PM|#
First, let me say that both M and Scofflaw are quite eloquent
writers. It's unusual on an Internet forum. Now this:
"To make it more vivid, What would be wrong with someone not
minding if his daughter called herself a slut?"
Would it be wrong for a person not to mind whether his daughter
called herself a "slut"? Maybe, but again, we're talking about
someone calling themselves a slut, so this isn't quite on the mark.
However, I think you've accidentally hit on something bigger. Your
concern is about the duty of third parties (parents, in this case)
to ensure the chastity of women, and that notion is, in fact,
embedded in the word "slut."
"Slut" evokes something much more than sexual promiscuity. It's a
term of collective disrespect; it's meant to chastise women who
have disobeyed our collective sexual mores. It's not hard to
imagine a society where men (and women) enforce their collective
sexual mores on women through various forms of paternalism, social
punishment, or outright abuse. And this is why using the word
"slut" for yourself or for a man doesn't quite hit the mark, as men
have never been subject to this sort of sexual control, and the
paternalism angle clearly doesn't apply to self references. As
always, it's all about context.
Now, before you get upset about what appears to be PC, feminist
overreaction to the word "slut," let me point something out to you:
You used "slut" in an expressly paternalistic hypothetical (how
would you treat a daughter calling herself this term?). Why?
M|6.29.07 @ 4:35PM|#
let me say that both M and Scofflaw are quite eloquent writers
Thank you, but evidently not eloquent enough: One gets banned
and the other repeatedly misinterpreted. Perhaps you've been
distracted by a word-slut here who will attempt more properly to,
uh, cover the matter.
Would it be wrong for a person not to mind whether his daughter called herself a "slut"? Maybe, but again, we're talking about someone calling themselves a slut, so this isn't quite on the mark.
We seem to disagree.
However, I think you've accidentally hit on something bigger.
Or not so accidentally.Your concern is about the duty of third
parties (parents, in this case) to ensure the chastity of women,
and that notion is, in fact, embedded in the word "slut."
It was a question, not a concern; it was about how a parent would
feel rather than about said parent's "duty"; no one said anything
about "ensuring"; and the notion of chastity may be, just may be,
embedded (so to speak) in the human entelechy/constitution rather
than only in a word. It is the exploration of that embededness that
I took to be scofflaw's project. He seems not to consider the value
of sexual modesty a closed issue, and undertook, it seems to me
with alarmingly violent success, to show that he is far from alone
in that view, notably among those who profess to reject it. It
appears as though everything is permitted here, including
expressing a desire for the suicide of a commenter, except probing
taboo-violating for consistency.
"Slut" evokes something much more than sexual promiscuity. It's a term of collective disrespect; it's meant to chastise women who have disobeyed our collective sexual mores. It's not hard to imagine a society where men (and women) enforce their collective sexual mores on women through various forms of paternalism, social punishment, or outright abuse. And this is why using the word "slut" for yourself or for a man doesn't quite hit the mark, as men have never been subject to this sort of sexual control, and the paternalism angle clearly doesn't apply to self references. As always, it's all about context.
I found scofflaw's technique entirely consistent with those
observations, which I confess to find unremarkable, though I
suspect less worrisome than you might. In other words, So
what?
Now, before you get upset about what appears to be PC, feminist overreaction to the word "slut,"
Hardly. Maybe you assume I attach the same moral values to some concepts that you do. We may not find all the same words dirty.
let me point something out to you: You used "slut" in an expressly paternalistic hypothetical (how would you treat a daughter calling herself this term?). Why?
Maybe some mothers reading this would like to chime in to tell
me that they wouldn't mind their daughters calling themselves
sluts, or their sisters calling themselves sluts, or their best
friends calling themselves sluts, or their mothers.
That will build a convincing case that some people find chastity
valueless. But those won't ever be the same people who wish death
on those who impute its privation to their friends, will
they?
|6.29.07 @ 5:53PM|#
It was a question, not a concern; it was about how a parent
would feel rather than about said parent's "duty"; no one said
anything about "ensuring"; and the notion of chastity may be, just
may be, embedded (so to speak) in the human entelechy/constitution
rather than only in a word. It is the exploration of that
embededness that I took to be scofflaw's project. He seems not to
consider the value of sexual modesty a closed issue, and undertook,
it seems to me with alarmingly violent success, to show that he is
far from alone in that view, notably among those who profess to
reject it. It appears as though everything is permitted here,
including expressing a desire for the suicide of a commenter,
except probing taboo-violating for consistency.
***
I found scofflaw's technique entirely consistent with those
observations, which I confess to find unremarkable, though I
suspect less worrisome than you might. In other words, So
what?
Forgive my crude cut & paste and failure poor html
skills.
There is absolutely nothing remarkable about my observations, but
they're not consistent with Scofflaw's arguments, nor yours, which
is why you beleive you've found a contradiction where none exists.
One can approve sex without approving of violence or paternalism.
You cannot parse any of these elements out of words like
"slut."
"Ensuring" -- that is exactly what I meant, because it implies that
such words are used as a means of enforceing certain mores and a
certain social order. And yes, I'm possitive that notions of
chastity are "embedded (so to speak) in the human
entelechy/constitution," but so what? I don't find much moral
guidance in our biological nature (naturalistic fallacy,
etc.).
Maybe some mothers reading this would like to chime in to tell
me that they wouldn't mind their daughters calling themselves
sluts, or their sisters calling themselves sluts, or their best
friends calling themselves sluts, or their mothers.
That will build a convincing case that some people find chastity
valueless. But those won't ever be the same people who wish death
on those who impute its privation to their friends, will
they?
See above. I'm not interested in your observations of the typical
mother's gut instinct about chastity. That isn't the issue
here.
M|6.29.07 @ 6:40PM|#
One can approve sex without approving of violence or paternalism.
What "approving sex" might mean escapes me; my strong hunch is that
it was voted in long ago.
Nor do I know why you mention violence, which was, apparently
paternalistically,* approved in this context only by Mr. Sanchez
when he advised a commenter to commit suicide for having impugned
Ms. Howley's sexual purity.
I'm not interested in your observations of the typical mother's gut instinct about chastity.
I wouldn't call "typical" those mothers who post here, whose
contributions seem to me considerably more sophisticated than "gut
instincts." But maybe your expectations are more realistic, though
I'll continue to think otherwise.
That isn't the issue here.
What, please, is the issue here?
*I am not up-to-date on the current status of their association,
which was broadcast here first as intimate and then as having been
disbanded.
|6.29.07 @ 7:05PM|#
You don't know what "approving sex" could mean in this context.
You're not sure why I brought up violence, although you find the
below observation unremarkable, and consistent with Scofflaw's
observations:
"Slut" evokes something much more than sexual promiscuity. It's
a term of collective disrespect; it's meant to chastise women who
have disobeyed our collective sexual mores. It's not hard to
imagine a society where men (and women) enforce their collective
sexual mores on women through various forms of paternalism, social
punishment, or outright abuse.
You confront me on my use of "typical", and "gut instinct" and you
have no idea what I could possibly mean when I say that the opinion
a mother has of her daughter's use of "slut" is not relevant to the
meaning of that term as used.
I'm sorry, M, but I didn't think we were going to get so petty.
This is a waste of my time.
scofflaw|6.29.07 @ 7:17PM|#
Suppose I was single and on a first date with someone and she
said "Last week I went to a frat party and got porked by two guys
in front of everybody and it was a blast!" I'd be liable to stand
up from the dinner table and say, "By God, you're a shameless
slut!" (Well, depending on my mood, maybe I'd just mutter "Jesus!",
try not too hard to politely conceal my disgust, and then drop her
off as soon as possible.)
Now, if she's really that type of girl, she'd probably just respond
with "Screw you too!" and that would be that.
But very many men would have the same reaction as I, grounded as
such reaction is in human nature and reason. So no law (other than
natural law) is preventing her from engaging in that kind of
behavior, but if she engages in that type of behavior she can
expect to incur the disgust of a large majority of society.
Such a cultural attitude condemning certain kinds of behavior
constitutes a form of "control" and "enforcement," which in my view
is a good thing, again, grounded as it is in human nature and
reason. It has nothing to do with "abuse" or "violence," or
"paternalism" or "maternalism" except to the extent that a father
or a mother reasonably and naturally would not want their daughter
to engage in such behavior and would often constitute an important
part of that cultural "control").
And this same social and cultural opprobrium would rightfully and
naturally extend proportionately to less egregious kinds of immoral
behavior. Somebody who wants to act like a shameless slut may not
like it, but neither can she or he force me to respect such
behavior or prevent me and many others in society from calling a
spade a spade.
M|6.29.07 @ 7:28PM|#
Such a cultural attitude condemning certain kinds of behavior constitutes a form of "control" and "enforcement,"
If disapproval = "control" and "enforcement," in what do the
conditions of liberty consist?
It has nothing to do with "abuse" or "violence," or "paternalism" or "maternalism" except to the extent that a father or a mother reasonably and naturally would not want their daughter to engage in such behavior and would often constitute an important part of that cultural "control").
Perhaps you caught on to connections I still fail to make in my
erstwhile penpal's thesis.
Good for you.
I guess.
M|6.29.07 @ 7:51PM|#
Btw, condemnation isn't the only possible response to conduct
one regrets in others. One also has the option of trying to
understand the origin of the misbehavior, and of generating and
offering concern for the welfare of the agent who expresses it,
while preserving the offending party's liberty to reject one's
care.
Expressing interest in another is called love. Expressing informed
interest in the lasting happiness of another is called true
love.
M|6.29.07 @ 8:09PM|#
Also btw, the H&R Censor is to be credited for rescinding
the ban on our little enfant terrible.
It is an expression of informed interest in others' lasting
happiness.
Let freedom ring.
World without end.
Amen.
scofflaw|6.29.07 @ 8:52PM|#
M,
Chris S. in his earlier post said this . . .
"Slut" evokes something much more than sexual promiscuity. It's a
term of collective disrespect; it's meant to chastise women who
have disobeyed our collective sexual mores.
. . . which I do indeed find unremarkable and consistent with my
earlier arguments and not worrisome or problematic. But he then
went on in the next sentence to say . . .
It's not hard to imagine a society where men (and women) enforce
their collective sexual mores on women through various forms of
paternalism, social punishment, or outright abuse.
"Paternalism" and "social punishment" are ambiguous, but with
"outright abuse" he kind of sneaked in the idea of violence.
Indeed, "it's not hard to imagine a society" where mores are
enforced through violence, because such societies of course have
existed and do exist, on both a large scale and small scale (in
abusive families).
When you called the whole paragraph unremarkable he may have
imagined that you were saying that violence to enforce mores is
A-OK, which I of course know that you did not mean to imply.
I disagree with Chris S.'s equating or lumping together of violence
with merely disrespecting women or men who violate sexual
mores.
Perhaps "control" and "enforcement" were stronger words than I was
looking for to describe the appropriate and salutary role of
cultural "disapproval." Perhaps "influence" or "deterrent" would
have been more accurate. Certainly I didn't mean physical
"coercion" or "violence." Reason and persuasion themselves, as well
as the disapproval of one's peers and family, are influences and
deterrents not inconsistent with the conditions of liberty.
scofflaw|6.29.07 @ 9:01PM|#
No M.
I'm still banned on my other computer from which I have in the past
often posted to Reason. Oddly enough, I haven't yet been banned on
this computer, from which I wrote the "offending" posts. Must be
some glitch.
BTW, I thought your earlier posts this afternoon were very well
said; couldn't have said it better myself.
M|6.29.07 @ 9:18PM|#
he may have imagined that you were saying that violence to enforce mores is A-OK, which I of course know that you did not mean to imply.
Thanks, scoff (may I call you scoff?) for trying to make
connections I missed. If your gloss is accurate, I still have no
idea how the man got from "it is not hard to imagine x" to "M
approves x."
Concerning the substantive issue, irrelevant though I find it, of
whether to (eg, whether I) believe "violence to enforce mores is
A-OK," I would call the option to employ violence to
enforce some mores A-OK, such as the violence necessary to
oppose the initiation of force against a non-aggressor. So that
mores such as "We do not murder" and "We do not rape" seem to me
A-OK, while not obligatory, to enforce with violence. Individuals
should retain the option to be pacifists on occasions they select.
Again, what this has to do with why your posts were banned eludes
me.
I disagree with Chris S.'s equating or lumping together of violence with merely disrespecting women or men who violate sexual mores.
If that needs to be said, I suppose it's worth your saying
it.
Perhaps "control" and "enforcement" were stronger words than I was looking for to describe the appropriate and salutary role of cultural "disapproval." Perhaps "influence" or "deterrent" would have been more accurate. Certainly I didn't mean physical "coercion" or "violence." Reason and persuasion themselves, as well as the disapproval of one's peers and family, are influences and deterrents not inconsistent with the conditions of liberty.
Uh, yes. I just kinda thought people who post here know that
already.
*shakes head, admiring scofflaw's forbearance
M|6.29.07 @ 10:34PM|#
Studies in Comparative Civility, Hit & Run blog,
June 29, 2007, 10:27pm
You, {name redacted], are a huge, disgusting fucking racist.
M|6.30.07 @ 5:10PM|#
And from June 30, 2007, 2:11pm:
this fuckin' racist moron should be posting at KKK.com or whatever the small dicked racists call their internet septic tanks. Refuting morally weak, intellectually deficient, loudmouthed assholes just isn't
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245