Tuesday, June 09, 2009

A brief note on rhetoric

Look down, I realize--for people who don't know me, at least--that it might seem like I'm just this ball of violent, non-differentiated rage. I mean, if I can get that worked up about a dumb comic strip, then what do my angry posts about anti-abortion terrorists even MEAN? To clarify, then, I should note that when I write about posts about Shoe or anything equally ephemeral should be classified as recreational ranting--ie, sure, Shoe sucks and it should be axed to make room for new, talented cartoonists, but it's not like I'm spending any significant amount of time fulminating over it's badness. Whereas when I write about domestic terrorism, it's just pure, undiluted RAGE that we live in a society that nourishes such monstrous people.
I trust the difference is readily apparent.

I have perhaps said negative things about the most extreme versions of feminism in the past. Like any absolute belief system, there are indeed blind spots and problematic aspects to this kind of thinking. But I must say, with things like this going on, none of that really matters--under the circumstances, it seems dialectically indefensible to be anything other than a radical feminist.

2 Comments:

Blogger :-| pontificated to the effect that...

dude. cop a powder.

11:30 PM  
Blogger GeoX, who is here to stay, like it or not. pontificated to the effect that...

Is that some sort of drug reference? Because according to William S. Sessions, winners don't do drugs. Are you calling William S. Sessions a liar? ARE YOU?!?

1:28 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home