“Comfortingly, this means that a threesome with a Jew and a Muslim will qualify you to be Secretary of State.”

That’s what Kissinger told Palin in their seekrit meeting, actually.

Walnuts!: “How can you countenance someone who was engaged in bombings that could have or did kill innocent people?”

This from an advisee of Kissinger.

Irony, thy name is oh jesus never mind I can’t take it anymore someone please pass the Ambien.

Anyone who thinks growing up in the freaking Canal Zone means someone knows anything else about the rest of Latin America (including Panama) needs to read some damn books on the subject.  I supposed being in such close proximity would enable someone to go out and learn more easily, but that would require a personal decision to learn about something that basically doesn’t effect you.  It requires curiosity. I’m not so sure McCain has that.

Comfortingly, this means that a threesome with a Jew and a Muslim will qualify you to be Secretary of State.

WOO HOO! I’ll fax my resume today!

Comfortingly, this means that a threesome with a Jew and a Muslim will qualify you to be Secretary of State. 

Jesse, between this and the comment the other day about “cute little Jew face,” I’ve got half a mind to start skipping past your posts altogether.  And that would be unfortunate for me, because I think you have a lot of really insightful things to say.  But I just can’t take these otherwise excellent posts that are just ruined by these cringe-inducing, bizarre racial and sexual comments.  It’s surreal.  I’m starting to wonder whether I accidentally bookmarked a parody site.

I can has old Pandagon back?

What do Obama and Osama have in common?
They both have friends who bombed the Pentagon. :-D

I have to agree with Shira. I was really confused by the whole ‘cute little Jew face’ thing, and reread the article and checked all the associated links before I finally realised that was a phrase you came up with, and I probably would have done the same with this interacial sexual fantasy if I hadn’t been through the previous experience. Seriously, whatever you think Pandagon is about, it’s not about your chance to make ironic, racially insensitive remarks. (Both of which had a sexual element.) If you’re insecure about your writing ability I’d try doing more research rather than inserting lowest common denominator comedy.

I’m sorry, but I happened to notice two jarring references in your posts recently, and I’m obviously not the only one. For you to respond to me raising my concerns by basically telling me I’m irrational and unjustified in feeling how I feel is exactly the kind of arrogance that is produced by unexamined privilege. You feel entitled to dismiss my concerns because they happen not to suit you. Well, that may be good enough for you, but I’m going to hold on to my own opinion. I’m sorry if that hurts your feelings.

I can has old Pandagon back?

Maybe I’m the only commentor left from back in ‘02, but I have to tell you—Jesse is the old Pandagon.

Short answer: They’re still fighting the 60s.

I don’t want you to be swayed from what you think just because I strongly disagree with you.  I’d much rather you be swayed because you’re entirely wrong.

So you don’t want me to change my opinion because of a social exchange between us, you’d rather I change my opinion because it’s out of line with the fundamental nature of the universe.(and the universe just happens to agree with your actions.) Did someone mention privilege and entitlement already?

Jesse, I didn’t see a damned thing wrong with what you said.  I’m wondering if Sarah and Shira read the block quote from Fontaine right above it, because maybe that would have provided the context they needed.

Forest green is one of your favorite colors?  I find that truly offensive.

This isn’t an argument about geography. And it’s not an argument that should be trivialised, either.

It’s the Borat effect. Borat, is, of course, making fun of antisemites and not Jews. But to appreciate that, one needs to be from a world where anti-semitic ideas are considered universally laughable. Not just disagreeable, but absurd to even think of positing. Otherwise Borat’s just offensive.

I’ve tried to explain it to those who didn’t get it before, and found very little success. So I’m not optimistic, Jesse, that you’ll be able to convince those who don’t get you that you’re lampooning Palinesque ignorance and idiocy rather than supporting it. But if you do, let me know how it’s done?

You almost have to read the linked article in full to get the full weirdness of Fontaine’s statement. I was wondering about that last quip myself, until I clicked through. It’s actually the obvious corollary of Fontaine’s full remarks.

Short answer: They’re still fighting the 60s.

Exactly.  The Republicans have refought Vietnam in every election of the last 30 years, and it pisses them off that they have to deal with a candidate who couldn’t have done anything controversial during Vietnam because he was in grade school.  It was going to happen sooner or later, of course, but they were hoping to keep dragging it out for a couple more cycles.

Any other form of discourse we need to take off the table?

You could stop being condescending and insincere. That would be a good start.

Wait until my generation starts running for office. Then they’re going to have to deal with people who don’t remember St. Ronnie or the Cold War.

if you don’t want a Pandagon that makes jokes about sex or race,

Your inability to do anything but react in a knee-jerk fashion when sex and race are mentioned is both sad and stifling to any sort of dialogue or humor. 

Really? Your response is to pull the humorless feminist card?  Un-fucking-believable.

Come now, Jesse.  Can’t you see that Sarah is very concerned?

In case you couldn’t tell, the majority of what we do is take on people who are irrational and unjustified in how they feel.

What is your criteria for the determination of irrational and unjustified?

So I’m not optimistic, Jesse, that you’ll be able to convince those who don’t get you that you’re lampooning Palinesque ignorance and idiocy rather than supporting it. But if you do, let me know how it’s done?

There is no doubt in my mind that Jesse has the best of intentions when it comes to lampooning Palin.  I do not believe he supports either Palin or McCain, and I really, really doubt Sarah does either.  However, as anyone with even a passing familiarity with the feminist blogosphere should know, his intentions are just one aspect of Teh Funny.  FFS!

Suffice to say, when someone makes ridiculous statement A and you make even more ridiculous statement B to point out the inherent flaw in statement A, it becomes irrational and justified to contend that B is an endorsement of A.

And Sarah and I said that where, exactly?

And whoever said the Jew and the Muslim were women? Are MMM menages a trois feminist issues now?

Shira, this is what you said:

Jesse, between this and the comment the other day about “cute little Jew face,” I’ve got half a mind to start skipping past your posts altogether.  And that would be unfortunate for me, because I think you have a lot of really insightful things to say.  But I just can’t take these otherwise excellent posts that are just ruined by these cringe-inducing, bizarre racial and sexual comments.  It’s surreal.  I’m starting to wonder whether I accidentally bookmarked a parody site.

Did you not mean that you felt that Jesse’s threesome comment was racist and/or sexist?  If not, what did you mean?

Jesse et al, I come to Pandagon Because the writers here interrogate race (and gender) fearlessly, with humor, and in a very very intelligent manner.  So, you know, keep up the good work.  (Not that my approval means anything, but, ya know, pompoms can be nice sometimes, right?)

But lay off the forest green, eh?  Berube’s a pretty big fight to pick. : )

The real question is why you hate multiethnic threesomes.

Obviously Sarah and Shira have some issues with unexamined privilege before they can accept that other races have a right to sexual pleasure.

I will agree with Shira and Sarah on one thing:  the “cute little Jew face” thing in the other post was a little over the line (and, worse, didn’t really make sense in the context of the post).  But I assume the reason you removed that part was that you read the comments and decided that the phrase was detracting from the point you were trying to make.

This was pretty much a one-to-one comparison, though:  if having sex with a Brazilian woman makes John McCain uniquely qualified to talk about South America, then having a threesome with a Jew and a Muslim would make someone uniquely qualified to talk about the Middle East.

Amanda, you of all people should know that you can be a dedicated anti-racist, anti-sexist advocate and still have unexamined privilege leak through.  Even if I’m wrong in the Great Objective Eye of the Universe, and you know, it has been known to happen, the appropriate response is not, is never, to insinuate that the women who bring it up are overreacting, knee-jerk, humorless, etc.  There is room for legitimate disagreement when it comes to humor, but this and the other comment bothered me, so I brought it up. I really hope you (Pandagon writers in aggregate) have a private conversation about Jesse’s use of these and other sexist stereotypes against Sarah and I, because they are the exact same freaking stereotypes men routinely use to silence women.  And I did not expect that reaction AT ALL on an allegedly feminist blog I have been frequenting on a daily basis for the past several years. 

Again, I was not impugning his intentions. I admit, I hadn’t clicked through and read the entire article, although I did read Jesse’s entire post, including the blockquote.  The block-quote he was responding to had someone attempting to distance himself and McCain from the idea.  To me, at first, it looked like Jesse saw an opportunity for a joke that perhaps would have captured Teh Funny if he’d blockquoted a more pertinent part of the linked article, and he couldn’t resist.  He could have avoided the whole problem and gone for the (imo) much funnier and less questionable double entendre of John McCain’s experience in the region. 

I am bothered by the fact that some combination of “Teh Sexy” and “Jew” keeps coming up as the punchline to Jesse’s jokes, even if he’s mocking other racist dudes.  I didn’t comment on the pretty little Jew face post, although I know other people had a problem with that.  By posting this time, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt - he has unexamined privilege and he may not realize how these come across to people with different backgrounds, but the rest of his writing suggested to me that this is a man who will take concerns from women seriously (omg I used the word concern - I guess that makes me a troll!).  But his reaction of OMG HUMORLESS KNEE JERKZ WILL MARTYR US ALL!!!1 does not exactly inspire me with confidence wrt his intentions.

Shorter me: grow the fuck up, Jesse.  The world is bigger than us and them.

So glad to have you back Jesse. Since you left the site it’s been inundated by the sarahs and shiras of the world.

Now i’m going to ecstatically roll around naked in my privilege and entitlement. Whee!

Really? Your response is to pull the humorless feminist card?  Un-fucking-believable.

Shoe. Fits. You know what to do.

Did you not mean that you felt that Jesse’s threesome comment was racist and/or sexist?  If not, what did you mean?

I did feel that way.  And the biggest reason it was cringe-inducing, the reason it jumped out at me as bizarre, that I only just put my finger on, is the fact that “Jew” and “Israeli” are not synonymous, and neither are “Muslim” and “Middle-Easterner” or “Arab.”  So yea, he was engaging in the same kind of racism and sexism, even if he was A)obviously wasn’t endorsing the blockquote and B) was making an attempt at Teh Funny. 

And I can actually think that the comments had racist and sexist undertones without believing that he secretly wants McCain to win or was attempting to endorse what was in the blockquote.  Nor does it mean I am irrational, knee-jerk, humorless, confused, attempting to stifle dialogue, or any of the other objectively, inarguably sexist things that Jesse just said to me and to Sarah.

Shira, I’m incredibly offended at your implication that Jews are not sexy, and demand an apology.

I thought when McCain said he’d had a Brazilian he meant, oh, never mind. . .

The ‘sort’ function in Excel is not all great.  You can do a multicolumn sort, but it’s not really easy to figure out how to do it from the UI. 

But the colors in Vista are pretty.  Microsoft keeps getting better with the pastel color palettes.

Of course, “Brazilian” isn’t synonymous with “Latin”, either.

This is true.  If you are from Brazil, you are from Latin America, but whether you are ethnically “Latin” (not sure how you are defining that term) isn’t obvious based on nation of origin.  But you can be Catholic without being from Brazil, or Latin America.  You can be ethnically Jewish or religiously Jewish or both and be from anywhere.  You can be Muslim and be from anywhere.  I am writing this from Turkey where many consider Muslim to be part of their ethnic identity (as well as Christianity).  And I hope this is something you already know.  It’s complicated, and I come to Pandagon for analysis that examines the complexity - not jokes about threesomes that rest on problematic, unexamined assumptions about religion, ethnicity, and nationality.  And you can respond and say, hey, that’s beyond the reach of this joke or this post or whatever, but thanks for commenting (and in all fairness, I should have waited a few minutes until my initial WTF wore off before commenting), without dismissing me with so much sexist shit.  I hope you will treat future female commenters with more respect.  You are not by dint of your sex or position on this blog or political views immune to knee-jerk overreactions, as this thread clearly shows.

You gotta give the McCain credit though.  At least they got the continent right this time.

Shira, if it’s a vague sense of discomfort that’s setting you off, I suspect it’s because open discussion of race or ethnicity makes people uncomfortable.  But the total avoidance of the issue of race is what makes it an elephant in the room, and it’s not helpful in any fashion in dismantling racism.  Jokes like Jesse’s are meant to shine a light on the issue and actually dismantle the place of racism in our society.

I had no idea Jesse’s threesome joke was so critical to the revolution.  What was I thinking?!  Objections withdrawn! 

/me shrugs…

I’d be happy to support the appointment of a sex therapist to the office of Secretary of State.  He or she probably could resolve the MidEast Tensions in a jiffy with some Crisco.

Vote Bullworth ‘08

Jesse- All commenters should state their sex, race, orientation, and income, so that privilege and entitlement can be assessed quantitatively, then by inverse ratio a deference score can be generated and applied to the commenter and his/her post.  Problem solved!

Are female commenters now subject to a different standard than male commenters?

Well, you could just avoid using common sexist tropes to dismiss people.

because I had no idea if you were male or female, nor did it matter. 

Remember why the coverage of Edward’s $400 haircut was sexist? Marginalization via feminization is sexism, whether used against men or women.  It shouldn’t be news on a feminist blog.

Oh, very well.

Comfortingly, this means that a <strike>threesome</strike> casual, locally grown, organic dinner (with no unwanted overtures or expectations of physical intimacy) with a <strike>Jew</strike>person and a <strike>Muslim</strike> different person who has been engaged in long-standing, intractable conflict with the first person will qualify you to be <strike>Secretary of State</strike> a facilitator of such interpersonal, interracial, or international turmoils.

Hopefully what it loses in economy is made up in its sensitivity to racial and gender issues.

Jesse, are you not reading my posts? What I said was, “Again, I was not impugning his intentions. I admit, I hadn’t clicked through and read the entire article, <u>although I did read Jesse’s entire post, including the blockquote.</u>”  Your full post, including the blockquoted section =/= the complete article to which you linked.  Please stop misrepresenting me.  This is the second time.  The first is when you accused me of saying you endorsed the blockquote.  Pornographers and abstinence only nuts disagree with each other completely, but that doesn’t mean one is any less sexist than the other, to use a very extreme illustration of the whole “we don’t live in a binary world” idea.

I didn’t miss the point of the joke.  I simply disagreed with the premise, and I’ve already explained why at length.  And you made things a hundred times worse in my eyes by responding with such transparently sexist personal attacks.  And I’m sick of repeating myself to yet another supposedly liberal dude who makes up in straw what he lacks in self-awareness, when I’ve already taken up far too much space on this thread as it is.  So goodnight.

Comfortingly, this means that a threesome with a Jew and a Muslim will qualify you to be Secretary of State*.

Color me confused.  As a woman and a Jew, I still don’t see what was sexist or racist about Jesse’s statement. Not all Muslims are from Arab countries (heck or are even of Arab descent) so the fact that Jew and Israeli are not synonyms has no bearing.  As for the statement being too sexual, Jesse is correct to note that McCain’s adviser is the putz who implied that McCain’s [sexual] relationship with a Brazilian shows his dedication to Latin America. 

This being said, am I the only one that was left scratching my head at:

He was born in Panama, which illustrates a lifetime spent in Latin America.

Is this just another way the republicans remind us that, in their warped little anti-choice minds, life ends with birth?

Marginalization via feminization is sexism, whether used against men or women.

Ugh. This is why feminist anti-porn types go after gay male porn.

He was born in Panama, which illustrates a lifetime spent in Latin America…

Is this just another way the republicans remind us that, in their warped little anti-choice minds, life ends with birth?

Actually I think he meant to say it illustrates a lifetime spending in Latin America.

It’s the Borat effect. Borat, is, of course, making fun of antisemites and not Jews. But to appreciate that, one needs to be from a world where anti-semitic ideas are considered universally laughable. Not just disagreeable, but absurd to even think of positing. Otherwise Borat’s just offensive.

Erl on 10/04 at 01:17 PM

Actually, Cohen IS offensive.  His attempts to ridicule anti-semites in reality is his contempt for gentiles, be they anti-semites or not.  Two examples come to mind in his movie; the first was when Borat attended a dinner party and brought in some poop in a plastic bag (supposedly he didn’t know what to do with it after using the restroom, so he came downstairs with it in a sack and asked where to put it), and invited a prostitute to join the dinner party.  I found this quite offensive as anyone with a shred of decency would.  I wonder what Cohen would have done if some idiot he invited into his home with a number of his own friends behaved in such a manner?  I cannot think of too many people reacting positively in such a a situation.

The second was the demolishing of an antique store.  Just downright disturbingly rude and disrespectful.  Not funny whatsoever whether you agreed with the “southerners” or not.

Amanda, you of all people should know that you can be a dedicated anti-racist, anti-sexist advocate and still have unexamined privilege leak through.

Lighten up.  This has the sound of “looking for infractions”.  When one looks for them, no doubt, they will be found.  Most people will immediately know if something is beyond the pale.

Shira! Would you shut up already!

On the other hand, a threesome with a socially conservative evangelical and a rabid libertarian will qualify you to feel a deep and abiding sense of shame over the depths to which you have fallen. Unless! Unless at least one of the three is male and the condoms used are forest green in hue. Forest green has amazing protective powers for liberals.

A few thoughts.

As Kip Adotta once said, “never explain the joke”.  Ever.

Jesse your comment was funny and right on target.

If you’re not pissing someone off once in awhile then you’re not trying hard enough.  Which isn’t license to be an asshole.  It’s only to say that when a writer or comedian or anyone is really pushing the boundaries and really (I hate this fucking phrase) truth to power, then you’re going to piss a few folks off.  It’s unavoidable.

It was a hilarious closer Jesse.  Nuff said.

Count me as another who has Jesse’s back on this.  There was nothing racist or sexist about the joke.

And calling someone humorless is not automatically sexist.  It’s just not.  If you agree that humorlessness is something that actually exists as a human characteristic then you have to allow for a situations in which people who are like that can be called what they are.

What the hell is “unexamined privilege” and where can I get me some of that?

John McCain, having been born in Panama, plus a later sex cruise aboard a navy ship, has a “lifetime” spent in Latin America, and shows lots of foreign policy experience.

Obama, born in Hawaii, his family roots in Africa, is not so much a citizen of the world as he is dangerously un-American.

These people excel at writing the most ridiculous fables.

As for the spat in the comments above: don’t let anyone turn off your sense of humor, Jesse. I come here every day for your delicious wit, and I’d hate to see it vanish.

People like whatshername won’t be happy until nobody can joke about anything anymore. And they won’t be happy then, either. They are here to suck the joy out of life, as best I can tell. ymmv.

Well, you could just avoid using common sexist tropes to dismiss people.

By gosh, you’re right - ‘cos only females get called “humourless”, right?

And I’m sick of repeating myself to yet another supposedly liberal dude who makes up in straw what he lacks in self-awareness, when I’ve already taken up far too much space on this thread as it is.

So, Jesse’s gender matters in your criticism of him?...

So, um, ol cranky…

You wouldn’t happen to have a Muslim friend, who’s…

What?

Tbogg- It’s been said that the unexamined privilege is not worth having.

You know, it’s at times like this that I miss the founder of Pandagon, whathisname, who invited Ezra Klein, and later Amanda Marcotte, to be his co-bloggers.  That guy would never have been so anti-semitic and sexist as this Taylor character.  I’ve picked up a lot of hostility towards black people from Taylor, too: note his frequent use of the term “Blackazoid” in a supposedly sarcastic manner.  I hope that the proprietors take this fellow aside and tell him to dial it down, or I may have to unsubscribe from this site.  I mean, what’s next, Photoshops involving enormous submarine sandwiches?

You wouldn’t happen to have a Muslim friend, who’s…

well, one of my direct reports. . . . oh but she’s a nice girl, and that would be sexual harassment ;>

Yo Jesse I’m a Jew, straight up, undoctored, and I thought your joke was hilarious. It just goes to show that uptight folks come in all shapes, colors, sizes, and tribes.

I’m still trying to figure out where Jesse was sexist towards Shira or Sarah. Did he call them bitches? Cunts? Harpies? Shrews? Did he reference their gender at all?

Also, when you say things like “Seriously, whatever you think Pandagon is about, it’s not about your chance to make ironic, racially insensitive remarks.” you lose all credibility. He started Pandagon, so it’s pretty much up to him what Pandagon is about. Not that I see how the mention of Jews and Muslims, in the same sentence, having sex, is racially insensitive. Don’t Jews and Muslims have sex?

I mixed up Shira and Sarah

Given that they don’t appear to be separate people, and it apparently got tiresome to keep posting under two different names, I think it’s a pretty small infraction.

Given that they don’t appear to be separate people, and it apparently got tiresome to keep posting under two different names, I think it’s a pretty small infraction.

Actually, we are different people. I just stopped posting after Jesse successfully intimidated me with his

Believe me, this is the far more preferable way.

comment, which I took as an indication that he was about to stop being civil and outright abuse anyone that disagreed with him. Of course, their were plenty of other posters willing to abuse me and Shira for posting our opinions. If in doubt, label anyone who disagrees with you as humourless feminists , or trolls. Nice one.

I also noticed that some of you are willing to accept that the ‘cute little Jew face’ comment was wrong, but you won’t accept why it makes his other offensive comment seem like part of a pattern. If Jesse and others accept he made one offensive comment, why is it so unthinkable that he is capable of making other mistakes?

“Abuse anyone”? You mean Jesse was going to come over to your house and kick your door in, or did you mean he was going to make fun of you in comments? The “humorless feminist” thing is a nice touch, though, if a little obvious.

I’d just like to add that I definitely did not think the joke was sexist or racist. Nor do I think Jesse’s responses were sexist. Last I checked “humorless” was gender neutral. If one doesn’t like to be called humorless- fine. But to say the word is sexist is just ridiculous.

I also would like to add that I love Pandagon and have for years. I also enjoy Jesse’s posts. They’re insightful, funny and make a point in a very good way.

Keep up the good work!

Mythago, I don’t enjoy being insulted, dismissed, and accused of not actually existing. I consider that abuse. Your understanding of abuse as only involving physical violence is extremely narrow and dangerous, at it justifies all sorts of psychological abuse, including sexual harassment as ‘making fun.’

And Genine, if you think ‘humourless’ is a gender neutral term when it comes to discussing feminism then I suggest you head to the Feminism 101 blog to familiarise yourself with some of the tactics used against feminists.

I just stopped posting after Jesse successfully intimidated me with his [...] comment

Just as a brief note, referring to you here as a “delicate little flower” probably would be sexist.

You do realise this is the Intertubies, and not a sunday school, right?

Yes, Phoenician, I realise I’m on the net, but does that mean I should enjoy being abused by someone in a position of authority (and their cronies) because I disagreed with them? I left because I thought my comments successfully made their point, and I didn’t want to be subjected to further insults by cynical posters who enjoy attacking others on the net.

The only reason I’m posting again is to prove that I am an actual person, after someone suggested I was just Shira using another name.

Incidently, have you considered that this would be a better place if people like you didn’t relish the adversarial aspects of online debate and actually tried to make disagreements more civil?

It’s Jesse’s blog. Have you considered that not every blog is for everyone? There are other blogs where there are plenty of people who would commiserate with you over chamomile tea about the horrible abuse you’ve suffered at the hands of Jesse and his cronies.

It’s Jesse’s blog.

Actually, Pandagon is a group blog, but even if it was solely Jesse’s blog, I should still be able to express my disagreemnet with those parts of it I find offensive without being dismissed as a humourless, over-sensitive, irrational Troll.

I’m not the only one expressing my concerns, after all, so me going elsewhere wouldn’t actually solve the problem. Even if all of us who had voiced concerns about Jesse’s behaviour stopped reading Pandagon, I gaurantee you that for all of us who have expressed their opinion there are dozens of others who feel the same but are reluctant to comment because they know they will be subject to insults and be dismissed as Trolls.

That’s the most unfortunate effect of the insults directed at me, they effectively censor those who feel the same but do not wish to make themselves targets.

Sarah:

And Genine, if you think ‘humourless’ is a gender neutral term when it comes to discussing feminism then I suggest you head to the Feminism 101 blog to familiarise yourself with some of the tactics used against feminists.

Red herring is red.

Yes, Phoenician, I realise I’m on the net, but does that mean I should enjoy being abused by someone in a position of authority (and their cronies) because I disagreed with them?

“Not enjoy being abused” <> “Intimidated”.  And if you think Jesse was abusing you, you should see some of the wingnut cesspits.

Incidently, have you considered that this would be a better place if people like you didn’t relish the adversarial aspects of online debate and actually tried to make disagreements more civil?

I have, and it wouldn’t.  Civility is overrated in debate critical to the democratic process - I point you to John Ralston Saul’s “The Doubter’s Companion” for more (I think the entry is under “Politeness”)

Sarah, I also guarantee you that for every person who has said Jesse’s analogy was apt and funny, there were also a dozen more who read it, laughed, and either didn’t have time to go through the thread or felt other people responded well enough to the complaints without them having to chime in.

Samantha, the crucial difference is that those who post comments that criticise Jesse’s behaviour will immediately be attacked by a dozen different posters, as Shira and I were, while those who post merely to be a part of the cheer squad will not be attacked by a similiar group, so the site will effectively discourage criticism, rather than discourage all opinions in the same ratio.

long time pandagon reader her. I actually thought Jessie’s post was pretty funny. His and everyone’s responses to a couple of critical commenters? Not so much. I’ve seen more polite pile-ons in grade school bullying contexts. I won’t be coming back.

What you’re saying then, Sarah, is that your criticism of Jesse should be free from criticism, because when you criticize Jesse it’s merely reasonable commentary, but when your criticism is criticized it’s sexist patriarchal abuse?  Something like that?

Quit whining about being attacked.  Nobody here is obligated to agree with you.  Besides, it’s not true that you can’t criticize Jesse’s behavior.  For example, I think he made a mistake when he wasted ten comments trying to explain a simple joke.  For shame!

There are grade-school bullying contests?  Are they televised?  It’s on ESPN2 between poker and Australian rules football, I’ll bet.  I’ll be setting my DVR!

NOTE: The preceding was entirely serious and literal.

Sarah, whenever you’re forced to claim that you can’t possibly be in the wrong because everyone is ganging up on you and being mean to you and it’s JUST NOT FAIR!!!, you’ve already lost the argument.

Dan, that’s a complete misrepresentation of my arguments, as any fair minded person who reads this thread will realise, so i won’t go to the trouble of re-iterating my comments for your benefit, as I’m fairly sure you know you’re being dishonest.

Also, the real admission of defeat is what you are doing, declaring ‘victory’ on a misrepresentation of your opponents arguments.

Sarah, please explain why criticism of your words is unpardonable, while criticism of Jesse’s is just fine.

Or you could just come clean and admit that you’re trolling.  Honestly, it beats the alternative, which is that you’re a dumbass.  I hope that “dumbass” is sufficiently gender-neutral for you.

Jrod, as CassieC indicated, the attacks from numerous posters with no original points to make, but simply dismissing me as a Troll, and claiming that I don’t actually exist, is very different from criticising someone’s judgement in making an offensive post.

Jesse

just because I did one dumb thing (and it was a dumb thing) doesn’t mean that everything I do is, in fact, dumb.

I never claimed everything you do is wrong. Like Dan you’re demonstrating bad faith in your arguments by misrepresenting what I said. I, and another poster, both expressed concern over two similiar posts we found troublesome. This is very different from claiming ‘everything you do’ is wrong. And I’m the one accused of being over-sensitive? Over-sensitive is responding to two posters pointing out their concerns with the level of vitriol you and your buddies have displayed.

Also, you don’t get to decide what isn’t rascist and sexist, and automatically give yourself a pass on your own behaviour. You admit you’ve made mistakes in the past, I’m merely pointing out that I think this is another mistake. I’m sorry if you’re having trouble accepting that.

Sweet, I am anxiously awaiting my appointment as German ambassador.

“Like Dan you’re demonstrating bad faith in your arguments by misrepresenting what I said.”

‘Cuz you didn’t misrepresent what Jesse said AT ALL.

Jesse, I love you.

Now back to read the thread! Woohoo, accusations of bigotry! such fun.

Is the tag for “eyeroll” <eye>?

Cassie C wins the thread with the funny!! Ahahaha, accusations of mean mean pile-on & disturbing viciousness in a thread with really quite mild disagreement! And then the threat to never return! Wow, that is the greatest!

And then one of the principals adds “as CassieC indicated” !! Oh my lord, you people do the best parody on the web, I swear…

I left because I thought my comments successfully made their point

And yet many, many words typed by you follow these…

Interesting definition of the word “left”...

I’ve noticed that the McCain campaign, in associating Obama with “militant chicago leftist Ayers” makes a point of never showing an image of Ayers.  Why is that?

Sarah/Shira:

You are not a captive audience and you do have a choice.  If you find Jesse’s posts offensive - don’t read them.  It’s that simple.

Incidentally, I would love to have a tee shirt that said “Jesse’s Crony” on it.

And Genine, if you think ‘humourless’ is a gender neutral term when it comes to discussing feminism then I suggest you head to the Feminism 101 blog to familiarise yourself with some of the tactics used against feminists.

Jesse used the term “humorless” and he did note that he would have said the same thing no matter what the gender. The funny thing was, he only said “jew” and “muslim” he didn’t mention what sex they were or what sex the person was having sex with them. Then you assume the word “humorless” was being applied to feminists when no one mentioned feminists or feminism. In fact, this post in tagged under “Republicans” and “General Election”. You’re offended over a bunch of assumptions and then cry foul when people say you’re full of it.

Sarah:

Dan, that’s a complete misrepresentation of my arguments, as any fair minded person who reads this thread will realise, so i won’t go to the trouble of re-iterating my comments for your benefit, as I’m fairly sure you know you’re being dishonest.

Actually, it seems that pretty much everyone in the thread realized almost immediately that you’re just another pompous jackass with poor reading comprehension skills and a martyr complex, so I think you’re working from a deeply flawed definition of what a “fair minded” person will think.

Also, the real admission of defeat is what you are doing, declaring ‘victory’ on a misrepresentation of your opponents arguments.

Oh, the irony is just so palpable. Jeebus. Talk about an utter lack of self-awareness. Physician, heal thyself.

Pandagon:  No longer a feminist blog.

Note how many of the commenters dismissing Shira and Sarah are men.  That Amanda Marcotte joins in the pile-on is frustrating, but not surprising considering her absolute arrogant failure to examine her privilege vis a vis her book cover.

Jew, Muslim, threesome.  That’s the best example you can come up with to satirize qualifications for Secretary of State?

Oh, wait—I forgot.  The blockquoted article said, “Asked afterward about whether he was suggesting that McCain’s fling with a Latin hottie counted as Latin America foreign policy experience,” so Jesse had to maintain the racism and sexism in order to make his joke funny.

As for claiming that Shira’s objection to this post is because she refuses to admit that Jews and Muslims could participate in a threesome:  Seriously?  That’s how you defend this crap?

However, I am with Shira and Sarah in trying to dismantle all humor in the universe, because as a feminist I think nothing is funny, so flame on.  There’s a new woman on the thread to jeer at, ridicule, claim that she’s being oversensitive, and otherwise “have Jesse’s back” on this.

Because goddess knows men need each other to defend against those scary, un-funny, feminist bitchez.

Especially on a purported “feminist” blog. Since Jesse’s back in town, why not just admit this blog is nothing of the sort?

Neddie Jingo

And yet many, many words typed by you follow these…

Interesting definition of the word “left”…

If you want to appear to be posting in good faith you shouldn’t quote parts of my comments and respond to them while ignoring the rest of what I said, in this case:

The only reason I’m posting again is to prove that I am an actual person, after someone suggested I was just Shira using another name.

There, a perfect explaination of my actions in commenting again. Nice try at convincing everyone I’m just an irrational hypocrite, though. I’m sure you’ll get one of those ‘Jesse’s Cronies’ T-shirts someone is talking about in the mail.

th:

Note how many of the commenters dismissing Shira and Sarah are men.

Exactly, because there’s nothing more feminist than asserting that women are axiomatically immune to criticism from men.

Because goddess knows men need each other to defend against those scary, un-funny, feminist bitchez.

Actually I am an African-American woman and I think a few women have some to Jesse’s defense, not that he needs it.

Notice that the ONLY ones interjecting the entire “humorless feminists” meme are the women who are offended by it. No one here has mentioned anything, at all, about feminism or women or anything. The post was about Republicans and the General Election. Jesse mentioned a threesome but did not mention anyone’s gender- yet its sexist?

Its like Obama talking about the economy, calling McCain’s policies “lipstick on a pig” and then people railing that he was talking about Palin. Huh?

If Sarah, Shira and you want to be offended by something no one said and that you came up with in your own heads, feel free. I just think its not anyone else’s problem but your own.

If you don’t think Jesse’s comment was funny- fine. Everyone has different tastes. But to call it sexist or racist when it wasn’t is silly, imo.

Way to kill that stereotype Hattie!

Damn! When did the feminist parody trolls arrive?

(P.S. I know Tinfoil Hattie has always been a parody, but Sarah, Shira and CassieC are new to the game)

Seriously, this “more feminist than thou” shit is why I’ve had to stop reading certain other blogs.

This is interesting:

“Jokes like Jesse’s are meant to shine a light on the issue and actually dismantle the place of racism in our society. “

Sooooo: racist jokes from *Jesse* aren’t racist, they’re meant to dismantle racism?  Frankly, I don’t get how that works.

I’ve only read about halfway down the thread, and we’ve already achieved anti-feminist bingo.  Nicely done, Shira - you’ve instigated an object lesson in standard anti-feminist rhetoric.

One question:  Is the basis of the joke that Jews and Muslims are not Americans?  That must be the basis because if one doesn’t not assume that, then the joke doesn’t make sense and is not analogous to the original comment.  If we are not American, where are we supposed to be from?  It seems to me (and obviously others) that there is an assumption inherent in your joke that all Jews are Israeli (or at least “foreigners”), which is weird because I am both Jewish and a US citizen.  It should be noted that the number of Jews residing in the US is almost equal (sometimes more of less depending on the source) to the number in Israel, so to presume that all Jews are Israeli, or even that most are, is ignorant at best.  The last time I checked, there is no national religion, culture, or language in this country, so I’m considered to be just as American as anyone else.  I’m not Israeli, no one in my family is Israeli, and we’ve been in this country (US) for multiple generations from Europe (we’re Sephardic—look it up), just like the “white folk.”  No one in my family has ever even BEEN to Israel or any part of the Middle East.  So how can we, as Jewish Americans who don’t travel, be considered any less American than people of any other religions/cultures/etc. in this country?  I think one of the points Shira, Sarah, and the others are trying to make is that Judaism CAN BE a religion, ethnicity, culture AND/OR nationality, but does not HAVE TO BE, and even being a Zionist doesn’t make one Israeli.  The same is true of Muslims, whom I’m sure were also offended or at least confused.  I’d like to give Jesse and the others the (huge) benefit of the doubt (despite how inappropriate some have been to Shira, Sarah, Tinfoil Hattie, and the others) and explain this concept since it was obvious they did not understand the difference.  I hope this clears things up as to what was offensive about the “joke” and that it can be read from a place of enlightenment and responded to (if necessary) accordingly.

If McCain was born in Panama, how can he run for prez?  I thought one had to be born in the U.S.

th, 

Way to say that the people on Jesse’s side are mostly men and then quote the phrase “have Jesse’s back,” which I am pretty sure was only said by me, someone with a pretty obviously feminine name.  Way to show that you are not re-imagining the exchange in your mind to fit closer with your pre-fabricated outrage.

history_mom,

I have stopped reading those certain other blogs too.  Certain other blogs have gone round the freakin’ bend.

Reading this, I saw that Jesse correctly identified and mocked the bizarre logic of the McCain/Palin campaign.

It isn’t that he (Jesse) believes that a Jew or a Muslim couldn’t possibly be American, but that the McCain/Palin ticket essentially operates using these kinds of ridiculous brush-strokes. If you want more proof, check out Sarah Palin pulling the some-of-my-best-friends-are-gay”>card recently.

This is simply how this campaign goes about convincing people to vote Republican, and Jesse merely took their tactics to their logical conclusion.

Think about it this way: imagine if Jesse replaced “Jew” with “Christian,” and said something like: “this will qualify you to understand the Russia-Chechnya conflict.” Would it be offensive? I wouldn’t think so. What is offensive is that throughout this campaign, we are being encouraged to view the world through such a lens.

Maybe I’m not seeing something here, but I honestly doubt that this is the case.

Ugh, sorry, I screwed up the tags.

Hollywood Marie, you hit the nail on the head.  I’ve been puzzling over that “joke” and what was so discomfiting about it for a day or two, and just wandered back to put in my two cents.  But, you beat me to it:

Jesse’s unfunny “joke” depends on the assumption that Jews and Muslims are “foreign”.  Jesse and those who were amused all clearly share that assumption, or they wouldn’t have “gotten” the “joke”.  Are Christians the only “real” Americans?  Are all non-Christians, by default, “foreign”?  Well, in reality, fuck no.  In the conservative imagination, I’m afraid the answer is “yes: them Jews and Muslims is FOREIGN, every last one of ‘em!”. 

Now, I get to use my new favorite neologism: “Fauxgressive”.  This election sure is outing a lot of them.