“If liberals spent half as much time and energy fighting with conservatives as they did with themselves, they’d probably be a lot better off.”
-some tool in almost every comment thread
Inevitably, whenever one of us takes issue with something about the Democratic Party, or argues with another leftie blogger, or splits hairs over a definitional argument, somebody drops the “can’t we all just get along?” bomb.
Twisty’s blow job blow up is just the latest in a long line of issues over which various liberal bloggers (including our own superstar) and commenters engaged in a heated exchange over what we do and how we act.
Assumptions were questioned. Thoughts were provoked. Personal beliefs were crystallized. Is any of that a bad thing?
Being the good guys means we have to examine ourselves and our behaviors for any underlying insidiousness. We stay focused on our core values, and while none of us can ever live up to perfect liberal feminist hyper-enlightened Buddharific standards, our rigorous self-critique protects us from losing our way. This constant assault on denial and self-delusion separates us from the wingnut beasts, who’ve gone from anti-choice/anti-social-service/anti-taxation tightwads to totalitarian rights-hating warmongers in the blink of an eye.
To demonstrate the value of our internal dialogue, I’d like to perform the textual re-interpretation of my interpretative dance of the right-wing version of one of our discussions.
—————
INT. BOARD ROOM – DAY
A gaggle of Men’s Wearhouse suits stiffly surround a cherrywood conference table.
Dick: Thanks for coming, everyone. I just wanted to run down our agenda really quickly and make sure we’re all on the same page, okay? Great. Oh, and the break room has Red Bulls and hookers in wading pools of coke if anyone needs to stretch his legs.
[pulls up Power Point slides]
Okay, first up is the war in Iraq. Everyone feeling good? Great, next-
Bob: Er, Dick, we’re spending a lot of tax-
Dick: [sighs] Come on, Bob, are you going to waste our time bickering over the details? Insurgents feed on our dissent.
Bob: It’s just that nation-building isn’t normally our-
Dick: If you’re going to comment on an issue, at least have the decency to back our leaders in a time of war. Why do you hate our leaders, Bob?
Bob: I don’t-
Dick: If I didn’t know better, I’d say you were on the al-Qaeda payroll. What the hell kind of soft-hearted America-hating pencil-dick are you?
Bob: No, I love America, I-
Dick: What was that? Could you repeat that for me?
Bob: I love America.
Dick: Then maybe you should stand by her when the going gets tough. At times like these, the true patriot stands tallest. These colors don’t run. They march. And they march in the general direction of victory and glory. So let’s stay on message, people. Now, does anyone else want to whine like a traitor, or can we move on?
[silence]
Fantastic. Bruce?
Bruce: Thanks, Dick. I assume everyone here is comfortable with the NSA’s cutting-edge terrorist-fighting techniques, so let’s turn our-
Fred: Unlike Bob, I fucking hate terrorists. But I have to ask, Bruce, should government extend itself-
Bruce: Before you finish that thought, I have to ask what you’re hiding from our freedom fighters. Anyone with a clean conscience couldn’t possibly object to a brief scan of his communications for terrorist-related activities. And if he was to object, someone might have to point out that, according to the records, the objector likes his masturbation with a splash of online gay porn. But since you don’t object, Fred, that isn’t you, now, is it?
Fred: Uh, nope.
Bruce: So let’s back our boys, eh? Last up is Dave.
Dave: Much appreciated, Bruce. Everyone still good with poking to own?
All: Here, here!
Dick: Fantastic. Now let’s take a fifteen minute break. Sorry, though, Fred — no one told me to bring any gay hookers.
[guffaws all around]
—————
Aren’t you glad that isn’t us? Liberal thinkers and bloggers expect to be challenged by their own kind, and even if someone attempts to shout everyone else down, it never works. In fact, it usually has the opposite effect.
Similarly, shutting down discussions by insisting we all fall in line with some vague notion of liberalism suggests we should shut off our critical faculties like the conservative assclowns. Our love of self-examination is one of our most-prized qualities and shouldn’t be dismissed as a waste of time.
I don’t think any liberal loses sight of the big picture, and when it comes time to face off with the groupthink of the right, we do it with aplomb. In fact, if a liberal is advancing an argument against a wingnut, chances are it’s been vetted in our community first. The certainty gained from checking ourselves seems invaluable.
Love it, seriously. And the funniest part is this reminds me of how conservatives have to pretend to respect liberal values. “Of course we love freedom of speech. Now shut the fuck up.”
Thank you for the compliment, but permit me to point out that it’s not my blow-up. I can take credit merely for posting a few innocuous words on my own website. The ensuing lofty discourse to which you allude is entirely the province of gifted and eloquent third-party cocksucker/ideologues.
You should give yourself more credit, Twisty. Your second post on the topic did precisely what I mentioned — it challenged people about being in denial. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t, but forcing people to question themselves doesn’t hurt.
PM, that’s an important point you’ve made.
One of the challenges in building a socialist organization is that people are often reluctant to voice their disagreements, particularly newcomers, and we have to go to some lengths to encourage people to speak up. People are encouraged to believe that disagreement is rude, and a personal attack. Often someone will start to disagree with something I’ve said with an apology for saying anything at all. It takes some active effort to make it clear that debate is respected and encouraged.
On the other hand, I’ll occasionally hear someone complain that they went to a large demonstration, and were surprised there were so many different groups and so many arguments. Why can’t we just unite? Well, first of all, all these different groups were here, together, today. Second, wouldn’t you expect that the people who most care about freedom and democracy to have strong opinions and to argue for them?
…Don’t we also get lambasted for our groupthink uncritical acceptance of librul articles of faith?
We walk the line, piny. As I wrote Jill the other night:
(I hope she doesn’t mind me republishing that, I just haven’t said it better, or more concisely, recently.)
That said, while I agree with punkass marc that Twisty’s second post accomplished something, the first was shit-stirring plain and simple. It’s her blog to do whatever she wants with it, but I think what people reacted to was the difference between her later claim–that she’d intended to spur a mass-demystification–and her initial post, which contained the contextually absurd suggestion that any sexual practice which wasn’t “natural,” i.e. any one which required practice, was necessarily 1) disgusting and 2) degrading. I understand why the left wants to co-op the right’s strategies to acquire power, but I didn’t realize how popular invocations of false essentialisms/naturalisms were.
I mean, Twisty implied that if they can say man-on-man action is immoral because “that’s not how people parts work,” so can she. That strikes me as a deeply problematic argument for someone on the left to make, even if couched in over-the-top rhetoric. You’ll note that her argument claimed to address heterosexual oral sex, but that she actually impugned the practice itself, a fact many a homosexual male would no doubt take issue with. She spoke to the inherent “disgustingness” of performing oral sex on a man:
I can think of many a gay man who would deny that logic vehemently, and consider the person who said it “a narrow-minded bigot.” (Actually, I forwarded the post to a friend of mine unfamiliar with Twisty’s site, and that’s exactly what he said.) She should’ve saved her disgust for the objects of it–the men who get off in equal parts on the sensation and implicit domination–not the practice itself.
I can take credit merely for posting a few innocuous words on my own website.
Ah, the joys of self-reflection.
Now…I have no objection, being a radical Leftist myself, with open and honest discussions or challenging fundamental beliefs as a means of strengthing our principles. That is what a progressive movement should do.
However…there should be some basic core principles of respect for free choice and free will, and fundamental equality and justice, along with respect for some form of decorum, that should NOT be subjected to debate and discussion…and there is also the fundamental principle of respect for everyone who decides to engage in discussion and debate.
What Twisty did in baiting her opponents into answering her challenge to defend themselves, then rubbing their defenses in their noses by reducing them to “slaves of patriarchy” did NOTHING, in my personal view, to stimulate legitimate debate (except by those she slandered using her forum to defend themselves)…and even now she’s attempting to crawfish away from her responsibility for her actions.
Indeed, I consider Twisty’s act to be more in line with those conservatives PM described who would undercut genuine debate to maintain their mantra, than a true progressive discussion.
It’s one thing to have a spirited discussion; it’s quite another to have an ambush.
That’s my view and mine alone, and I’m sticking to it.
Anthony
But I am in total agreement with the sentiments of the original post in this thread: we as progressives (whether liberal, radical, socialist, Leftist, or otherwise) do not need to hide our fundamental differences of opinion merely for the sake of some temporary “unity”; nor should we allow our differences to prevent us from shared alliances against genuine injustices. In the end, an injury to one is still an injury to all, and if one of us is allowed to be oppressed, we all suffer ultimately.
Whatever my differences with Twisty on some issues, she is still a feminist and an ally…however we may hold our noses at each other.
My last word on this, outside of my own blog.
Anthony
Ah. It’s the *other* people who are ideologues. Hokey-dokey then.
or perhaps that was meant to say, specifically, ideologues of cocksucking? that could be interesting.
Alas, this is what I keep thinking about with this argument. That no matter what you do or say to disagree or state your opinion on the matter, you’re still the cocksucker.
Let’s say it, uh, leaves a sour taste.
Yeah, yeah, not everybody plays fair, and the disdain can get nasty sometimes.
Even if the arguments turn ugly, though, I think it’s still preferable to be part of the group willing to challenge itself than the one cowed into submission by its overlords.
Maybe the blow job issue was too touchy to be the best example, but I still read a lot of damn provocative discussion on the issue.
Right, seems everyone’s still talking, that’s what matters. It’s no small feat.
[...] Part of why I’ve stayed out of the argument is because it involves several bloggers who I read daily and who I really like and respect. Obviously Piny and Zuzu fit into that category; so does Amanda, so does R. Mildred, and so does Twisty. Because I don’t want to offend anyone who I like, I’ve been hesitant to comment. But as Marc points out, that’s pretty silly (have I mentioned lately that if you aren’t reading PunkAssBlog, you’re seriously missing out? Because you are). So here we go. I’m no fan of shaming women for their sexual choices. I think it’s absolute bullshit to call one’s feminism into question because she gives head, or because she enjoys BDSM, or because she engages in whatever other “Patriarchy-approved” sex practice. If I can be a feminist in my make-up, skirts and toe-pinching stilletos, then you can certainly be one while you orally pleasure your male partner. [...]
um, actually, my comment (advocating that women who blow, blow without gagging themselves) was not posted, and a subsequent comment went up for moderation, which hasn’t happened to me before chez twisty.
so it’s not all roses and honesty over here on the left.
jami,
If it’s any consolation, none of the comments I’ve made over there have ever made it out of moderation. I’m not entirely sure why. Must be something in my tone? Pffft.
THe years (not many I admit) I worked as an activist on many leftie issues, most to do with women, I found the constant emphasis on ‘discourse’ and the process and so little on the result that I finally gave up hope of there every being change from the established left activists.
Many groups exist like a parasite sucking off the blood of the ‘oppression’ they consistently say they are struggling to overcome. I don’t know if its cognitive among many of them, but most of their structure runs counter to finding true solutions as such would obviously mean their ceasing to exist. Having a clear of vision of what they want to accomplish includes their dismantling and who wants that?
No one who finds a good vein of power to mine wants to see it end.
And as for Twisty, she did her duty. She makes no claims to want to save the world from the patriarchy, nor to even save anyone at all. She expresses her frustrations, incites and entices and sits back and enjoys the fun. The grand overlord of her blogdom, she rules with impunity on her subjects and doles out punishment as she pleases.
What does come out of her are often pearls of good analysis and questioning which everyone has acknowleged is important.
Just please, don’t say, like I’ve heard for the umpteenth millionth time from some overpaid executive director of one or another consensus process chaired organization that we are better because we think and talk more and in good time, one day, the minds of the publicans will open up and accept our righteous and wonderful, all inclusive thinking and think in tune with us and all will be love and joy.
Makes me want to puke and keep my eyes and ears open for when the fascists will finally rule completely and I will need to get out of dodge lickety split.
Kate,
I have no illusions about us changing wingnut minds with discourse, just that we are likely to prevent our own from rotting with it.
There are certainly cases where there’s too much talk and too little action, and your point about the parasites is a great one. We should definitely focus on action. But that tendency to occasionally talk it out (or argue it out) amongst ourselves has a place, too. It keeps us honest, albeit painfully sometimes. Just my opinion.
[...] Well, he knows his zombies are easy to please, and they’ll tolerate his boring, loutish slumberfests just as much as his short, spastic yipping without calling him down. In other words, he couldn’t handle the rigorous intellectual nature of the left. He would rather stay on easy street. [...]
[...] Not everyone agrees that Dipstick Sex and Daisy Dukes are the source of this new trend. Dr. Huff N Puffin thinks that it was the men’s arm of the gay rights movement and queer struggles that introduced assfucking to the Teh Patriarchy ™. Unfortunately, it’s not just Teh Patriarchy. Even lesbians have been influenced by assfucking in the Gay Men’s Community. [...]