mirror
By shag carpet bomb • Sep 2nd, 2009 • Category: Belly Button Lint, Feminist Fight Club, Horseshitteryi have to say, in trying to explain why Other people were bad people who should be paid n attention, she described exactly why i no longer read her.
the post itself exemplifies the behavior she is criticizing. these ones over there, they do X and its bad and destructive to healthy debate (which implies that the poster isn’t doing X)
but the very statement, “these ones over there, they do X and its bad and destructive to healthy debate” is itself a species of this very “bad and destructive to healthy debate” tactic.
calling it emotional terrorism as she does? that seems a little extreme. and even if it isn’t, what is gained by labeling someone that way? what’s accomplished? is there some benefit to giving them a big, bad scary name? is there some benefit to suggesting that these folks are, oh I don’t know, something akin to people who blow up buildings?
and who are these emotional terrorists anyway? rush limbaugh? ann coulter? some feminist blogger in some corner of bloglandia somewhere?
basically, the label is meant to be stuck to some amorphous Others who do these things. we don’t actually get a couple of illustrations of emotional terrorism to inspect, so that we can all examine the examples against the definition and see if we agree.
i wouldn’t call her an emotional terrorist, of course. i just think it hilarity on ice that RE is so incapable of self-reflection that it hasn’t once occurred to her that maybe she comes off as someone who instantiates the class that is supposedly Other. Obviously, she recognizes that some people see her this way. The issue is: she disagrees that she could possibly be this bad person.
Like I said: mirror much?
shag carpet bomb is
Email this author | All posts by shag carpet bomb
