Less Stupid: Who's Cisgender Now?

And now we turn our attention to the comments section of this website. Earnest political discussion! Apparently, it's not just for people with Aspergers and the elderly. It's also for those who take issue with Bill Henrickson's pleated pants. 


And really, who wouldn't take issue with erection falsifying slacks?


In case you missed it last Friday, our Mormon chap stopped by to share his views on hot air ballooning  and to offer an apology for his previous Wiccan mocking. And we accepted. Ohhhkay, sort of.


The truth of the matter is that finding consensus in any crowd of liberals is about as easy as herding cats. And it took a LolCat to actually build some bridges between Baroness, Mike Barthel and MissA.  That consensus:

"As a white, Christian, heterosexual, cisgender, able-bodied, presumably well-off male, Davis can afford to be all, 'lets discuss.'"

I guess that's consensus, of a sort.


But there wasn't a groupthink love-in. Diplomatic #2357, Mar pleaded for patience and understanding:

I think it's important to note that Davis didn't say that he would be defending all of the Republican party's positions. Instead, he said that he would be explaining why he, a fairly average Republican voter, would continue to support the Republican party. That's an important distinction. Very few people could give cogent, thorough explanations for how the Republican or Democratic parties could solve ALL THE PROBS, especially with a community of smart, angry wonks nit-picking at the angles of every permutation of every issue.However, giving an explanation for why an intelligent, ethical person would support the Republican party is worthwhile. For all that libs like to cry out against Othering, there's some very classist, elitist Othering of Them What Live in Flyover Country & Don't Know What Life Is that goes on in pretty much every lib community. It's very hard for a lib to give a critique of Sarah Palin that doesn't use the term "white trash."


So, it would probably be a good idea (by which I mean, an idea consistent with most secular humanist ideals) to treat Davis as a Republican individual, rather than a symbol of all Republicanism, ever. The Republican party isn't just made up of hellghosts like Cheney and Beck; most Republicans are dotty grandmas who bake cookies from scratch; or incredibly lovable Friday Night Lights characters; or Elle Woods types who just read their first Ayn Rand novel got excited but who will later become Democrats; or autistic uncles who don't understand ambiguity or metaphor except when it comes to Myst. Quit othering them.

On the other side of the political spectrum, KarenUhOh used the post to continue her Junior Samples bashing. Contemporary!


The gubment aside, sometimes we just want to problem solve and search out answers on our own.


In "Adventures in Facebook Privacy" after Tiffany Hodges noted that it was strange that a wetback (caldorone) [Ed. note - not his real name] and a towelhead lover (obama) [Ed. note- not the real president] is meeting and dissing OUR COUNTRY IN OUR WHITEHOUSE," helpful #1881 kneetoe proposed It'll be such a productive meeting: Obama can take the towel off his head and use it to dry Calderon's back. Problem solved." While curious #153 BadUncle was inspired to take on the burden of original research with Openbook- "Just testing the waters with a few favored search terms, I came across this: 'I want his choad in my anus. if anyone finds him please tell him i want his black ass.'" Ooofa, servicey.


But as Barry White used to tell us, sexual is nothing without the intellectual. Accordingly, we heard from Academia with "The Shame of the Professor's Summer Vacation" and advanced theories were offered for pontification and stuff! Forced from his reclusive North Dakota estate, Dr. #3787 Larson E. Whipsnade argued:

The key word in Dettmar's post is "glory" in point #1. It's closer to the medieval/religious conception of glory than the common modern/secular application of the word (to achievement in sports, for example). The whole problem with the institutionalized study of literature is the vestigal religiosity. "The profession" often thinks of itself as more of an order than a profession. It's religion stripped of religion. The sanctimoniousness, shame, guilt, self-pity, and monkish denial of the worldly remains. It's probably the world's only profession (and protests too much by constantly yelling PROFESSION!!!) that frowns upon money to such a comic extent. Certainly this is not the case with everyone involved – I'm describing an overall tone. [Unnecessary, bitchy sentence redacted] Also, there's work and then there's work and then there's work. 8-12 hours a day, 7 days a week of digging ditches is a different sort of work. The work of the mind is hard work, but let's not brag about the hours put in to a type of work that does not cause the same sort of physical strain as hard manual labor.

Religious? Sure. But F'ING CATHOLIC MY ASS!! (Sorry, I had to do it.)

Speaking of a lovely getaway, ravishing # 384, BookishLookish suggested a "Wisconsin Death Trip." I took a look at the vacation video and was disturbed.

So we opted for chick flick instead. Which made saintly #69, Dorothy Mantooth and us awl gush and beg for an addition to the cast here. Lindy West, come on down!

For our evening plans, the sensual #975, Wrapitup requested we dress a certain way on our date. That in turn, inspired elegant #273, Baroness to offer an alternative and an unrealistic demand for "median" hairy legs.  Stop objectifying me!

We went to a late dinner with the gourmand #1321 Art Yucko who showed us his discovery of an On-Site Sausage-Gravy Dispenser.

Finally, we went home to Twincest which continues to haunt us awl. After that disturbing encounter, we just wanted to curl up with a good book but Garrison Keillor kept complaining that there were too many choices with "18 million authors in America, each with an average of 14 readers, eight of whom are blood relatives. Average annual earnings: $1.75."

The mysterious #2416, Screen Name, had a rebuttal:

Strangely, it never occurs to those who share Keillor's dismay about the sad demise of book publishing that what they've experienced for the past, what, 50 years?, and benefited from financially (thanks for pointing that out), was itself an unsustainable bubble that emerged from the stranglehold publishers exerted as sole gatekeepers into the rarefied air of Tribeca rooftop literary parties.


The "new economics" of publishing aren't really new at all. It's an economy familiar to industries throughout history when the barriers to production suddenly fall, or in some cases are overthrown, and the unwashed masses suddenly find themselves free, literally, to participate at will. The flood of new production overwhelms the system and destroys the old pricing models. Naturally, those who benefited most from the old economy hate the new one. I imagine that long ago someone not unlike Keillor once stood in front of a public library and complained that it's such a terrible thing to see the relatively few good books in the library get stuffed in among all the terrible ones. And people will be able to choose on their own which ones are good? Like they know! Such a terrible thing.


Yes, it's true, Mr. Keillor; no one is going to pay me a large sum of money for my manuscript. No corn row whoops for me. You're sorry I missed the Old Era? Don't be. I'm sorry for you that the most beautiful moment you retained from it was once getting paid a large sum of money.

In conclusion, have a lovely holiday weekend and send me some recommendations next week: awlcomments@gmail.com.