As heads explode, websites are taken offline and articles are expunged, we wonder where America's appreciation of satire has gone.
Sometimes something which should be a non-news, non-story becomes a huge story solely because of the ridiculously over-the-top reaction which it generates, a phenomenon which seems to be magnified by the instant networked communication made possible by the internet.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Cindy
20 USpace
I think you may benefit from finding out what neoliberalism means to most people. It already has a well-established definition. However feel free to use it however you wish, particularly if you don't want to be understood.
I think I understood your poem, except the line about photography.
27 - roger nowosielski
A very tight and nicely written article, Dave.
There are two possibilities as far as I can see:
1) if the author was even half-way serious about his attraction to (in my mind) mediocre looking woman with no brain, then he's a juvenile and the article could not have been a satire.
2) If, on the other hand, he only feigned his fascination and libidinal urges, then perhaps he didn't go far enough, as you aptly suggest, with the satiric intent and its execution.
Good job again.
Roger
28 - zingzing
archie: "Let's face it, these are not women's groups. The are left wing special interest groups that use the guise of equality for women to advance their leftist political agenda. Even zing knows that."
i don't know that. (do you hate women's groups?) i would think they have women's issues in mind, most of the time. and if they swing left, well, that's the kind of woman who would get out and do something.
29 - Jeannie Danna
Cindy-(I think you may benefit from finding out what neoliberalism means to most people.)
Isn't this what I am?
AND Zing left balances out the right! What do you want to do, fall over?...:)
30 - Ruvy
It might be helpful to remember the name of the publisher of Playboy - Christine Hefner.
Someone got the publisher mad....
31 - Cindy
29 - Jeannie,
¿Qué qué?
You're not as far as I can tell. Unless you are in disguise :-)
Neoliberalism is an economic position that promotes free-trade, business as god (ahem, there is some disagreement with my wording likely here), privatization and other abhorrant and detrimental things... it says fuck you to the poor, steals their land, enslaves them in sweat shops, and then stomps its feet and says the poor are stealing from us regarding almost any social programs at all--then it says don't worry this is all in the interest of fairness and freedom.
I consider Dave Nalle a neoliberal.
Please see Naomi Klein's short video here for an understanding of neoliberalism.
32 - Jeannie Danna
Cindy, Hand me the can opener I'm going to open this baby up!
The last eight years of this country was run on fear to push corporate America's agenda through. I not only believe that they knew about 911 before the fact. I believe strongly that they used it to go get the oil!!!
I am definitely not! a neo-liberal.
33 - Lumpy
Jeanie. Neoliberalism as you define it sounds a lot like the sttatist corporatism of the obama gang.
34 - Lumpy
LOL. Jeannie is a troofer. Not surprised. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
35 - Dave Nalle
I sure hope you only have girls Dave.
I do, Cindy.
Dave
36 - Dave Nalle
I consider Dave Nalle a neoliberal.
Either you got your definition wrong or you're very confused lumping me in there, because I don't believe in neoliberalism as you define it.
In fact, most would probably consider me a "classical libera" which is something else altogether.
Dave
37 - zingzing
yeah, dave, you're a libera. a liberal with his l cut off.
38 - Jeannie Danna
It is Sunday morning and time to make my "weekly apology" to the right wing...:(
39 - roger nowosielski
Good morning, Jeannie. I left you a response on my blog to your last comment. I was asking for your advice.
40 - roger nowosielski
Dave, #36,
I don't see how exactly you do not fit Cindy's definition in #31, as you say you don't.
It behooves you to tell us, in that case, in what respect(s) you're different.
Roger
41 - Clavos
#40:
Or not.
42 - roger nowosielski
Assertions to the contrary are not proof. It doesn't behoove him if he cares not whether he's misunderstood. But I should think it's Dave's decision to make, not yours. All I can do is implore - and "behooves" was used with no other purpose in mind.
43 - cooper
The fact that grown men, even in satire, compose a "hate fuck" list is the toxic part.
It is exactly this kind of thing,along with pornography,read by teenage boys before they have developed any sense of women as human beings, that is the problem.
I'd bet, for those who assume this is something written for teenage boys (frat boys really should be considered almost adults by the way, at least by their age) that may even be a bigger problem.
44 - Dave Nalle
Cooper, why is this "the problem" for that matter, what do you think "the problem" is?
I don't see a teenage interest in sex as a problem. Why do you?
Dave
45 - roger nowosielski
Now you're going to incur the wrath of Dave, Fernando. Don't say I didn't warn you.
46 - roger nowosielski
Just kidding, Fernando. But he will disagree with your characterization of him.
47 - roger nowosielski
But Fernando. I think you do have a rather skewed version of the Republican Party. You do realize, of course, it's not homogeneous anymore (or whether it had ever been). There are kinds, from the religious Right and the (ex) KKK members to moderates (like Bush). So I think you've got to expand your definition somewhat or insist otherwise that people like Dave leave the Republican Party and . . . join the Liberals perhaps?
48 - zingzing
fernando: "How can a "Real" Republican support hate speach..."
ha. how about freedom of speech? and where'd you get the idea that republicans DON'T support hate speech, if you're going to put it that way? and this is hate speech? where'd that idea come from?
i don't think you understand much about your own party. i'm sure you fit in with parts of your party, but there are other parts, clearly, that you don't even know exist.
49 - zingzing
what the hell are you talking about, fernando? being homogeneous is a bad thing... it means you're a bunch of old, rich white conservatives. and that's just not the case anymore, or at least you shouldn't want that. and it's your own party saying that it's not what you claim it to be, not the dems. or the media. the dems and the media decry the the homogeneous quality of your ranks.
are you sure you know which party you belong to? i think you're more of an anti-dem than you are a republican.
of course, i suppose you could say that people like dave and clavos aren't "real" republicans, and i'm sure that, to a certain degree, they would agree with you. but you seem to believe that only people who believe exactly what you believe are "real" republicans. and that's what you don't get. the republican party has bunches of different beliefs that don't neatly fit together (the religious right, fiscal conservatives/social liberals, etc) and all co-exist (to some degree, although there has been some fracturing) under the overall banner of "republican."
if the republican party was only made up of people like you, they'd never win an election. there just aren't enough of you.
50 - roger nowosielski
Shoot, zing. You've just echoed what Bliffle had said of Dave. And you, too, Fernando, get a load of this: "that Dave is more anti-left than a true Republican or conservative."
Gee, the world is coming to an end.
51 - zingzing
heh. well, i think i have to qualify what i said to fernando in light of... what i said to fernando. he really does embody SOME republican traits. or at least those traits that he has are definitely republican. so he's a republican. he just doesn't seem to understand that other people who are also republicans can hold different beliefs than he does.
so, it's not that he doesn't know which party he belongs to, it's just that he doesn't know his party all that well. or at least i hope not. maybe he does know something we don't.
i think bliffle's comment was more accurate than mine.
52 - roger nowosielski
Check out, though, Fernando' astute challenge to Dave on Dave's newest article, just posted.
53 - Baronius
Roger, in what capacity are you:
suggesting to Dave that he needs to clarify his position, as if his political beliefs aren't well-documented?
talking to Jeannie about private conversation?
telling Fernando to watch out for Dave's wrath, as if disagreeing with a false characterization is a personality flaw?
crossing threads during a discussion?
54 - roger nowosielski
Dave's wrath was a joke, Baronius. Do you suggest now that only Chris or Doc are entitled to what looks to you like editorial comments. It'd seem to me that it's you rather than I who's trying to squelch the conversation.
Physician, heal thyself.
55 - roger nowosielski
And do try not to censure me here, Baronius, because that's definitely not your job - not even if I violate the comment policy.
If you don't like the thread, move on.
56 - Dave Nalle
The Republican Party has always been homogeneous...it has been the Democrats, the media and politcal kooks that are the ones stating that it is not!
Fernando, read some history. Look up Nelson Rockefeller. Read some of the speeches of Teddy Roosevelt. The idea that the GOP is homogeneoous is pure ignorance. Would you kick Roosevelt or Lincoln out of the GOP if they were alive today?
As for my opinion of the Playboy article, I feel about it the way I feel about any other "hate speech." The whole idea of "hate speech" is ridiculous. I believe in freedom of speech. If Cimbalo wrote something negative about Republicans that's his right under our Constitution. Do you believe in the First Amendment?
Dave
57 - roger nowosielski
Dave,
I'm sure glad you're here to answer some allegations, because Baronius was taking me to task for egging you. I hope you realize I wasn't doing that. And besides, I'd rather hear your own account rather than Baronius's account of where you stand, which would be second-hand.
Besides, I do think you're perfectly capable of speaking on your own behalf.
Roger
58 - Clavos
Baronius has a good point, Roger. In fact, several of them.
You have attempted repeatedly to arrogate to yourself authority nobody has vested in you.
59 - roger nowosielski
I'm not going to discuss this.
60 - Baronius
In the future, Roger, when I complain about thread bullying, you'll know what I'm referring to.
61 - Clavos
No discussion sought, Roger.
62 - El Bicho
"I'm not going to discuss this."
Oh, no. How ever will the site continue?
63 - Cindy
44 - Dave,
What are you talking about? How does anything cooper said have anything to do with condemning teen interest in sex?
Are you that far gone Dave? Misogyny is just about 'sex'. It should be accepted and promoted to teens, in your mind?
cooper:
The fact that grown men, even in satire, compose a "hate fuck" list is the toxic part.
It is exactly this kind of thing,along with pornography,read by teenage boys before they have developed any sense of women as human beings, that is the problem.
I'd bet, for those who assume this is something written for teenage boys (frat boys really should be considered almost adults by the way, at least by their age) that may even be a bigger problem.
An understanding worth repeating. I agree with that. I also support teen sexuality. I hope they all go out and experience sex with another human being at the time that is appropriate to each of them. Unlikely that they will have that chance to do that before they have to suffer the warping of their sexuality. Especially with all the people who think sex is only 'bad' when you actually engage in it with another person, pornography is just 'natural'.
Warped society.
64 - roger nowosielski
Well, you're fucking wrong then. And I don't give a shit if you take a poll. Get it.
As to you, El Bicho, apparently Baronius was under the impression that it was already corrupted. So I'm sure glad I can always count on your wisecracks to save it.
[personal attack deleted]
65 - roger nowosielski
Baronius,
I pay less and less attention to what comes out of your mouth, so don't you worry. I don't even read your comments anymore unless you confront me directly. And when you do, rest assured that I'm capable to pay you back in kind.
66 - El Bicho
Blogcritics Comments Cause Head to Explode
67 - roger nowosielski
Take a ride!
68 - Dan(Miller)
Re # 71
Was that "head" in the anatomical or nautical sense? When a marine head explodes, things get quite messy.
Dan(Miller)
69 - Dave Nalle
Cindy, I was referring to Cooper's neopuritanical attitude as expressed in his hostility towards Playboy in general rather than this specific article.
Dave
70 - roger nowosielski
Just a question, Clavos. You are a Politics editor - unofficially, I should say - because you don't figure in the figurehead yet. But I didn't know you were also Comments Editor. I thought Doc and Chris were still doing their job. Did you get a promotion?
In any case, your comments here as to my style of posting on this or any other thread must therefore be in your unofficial capacity - which is to say no capacity whatever, unless I hear otherwise from the management about your eagerly awaiting promotion.
But until that happens, I must therefore consider whatever you and your buddy here, the infamous El Bicho, as having no greater validity than any Joe Schmo that posts on this site - unless you want to claim seniority.
So am I right in assuming that what you say here as regards what goes on on these threads is just your personal opinion, or should I regard it as carrying some kind of weight? Do let me know, because I certainly don't want to rock the boat.
If it's official position, I'll bite the bullet and play the game. And if not, you know you can take a hike.
71 - Cindy
Dave,
36 - Milton Friedman was a neoliberal. The way I define it is probably holding you back. I define it by way of its effects, which you likely don't acknowledge. If you say you are not a neoliberal, that's fine, but why do you seem to support all neoliberal policies then?
35 - "I sure hope you only have girls Dave." (me)
"I do, Cindy." (you)
Dave - Playboy in general is something I have a problem with myself. Let's see how we compare on neopuritanical attitudes.
Dave, can I ask you what you will do if your 13-16 year old teen girl is ready for sex? (as determined by her after discussion) Will you help her understand about birth control options and pregnancy? About what saying no means? Keep an open line of communication? Will you give her a key for her bedroom?
When you say 'what's the problem' with teen boys and pornography and misogynistic 'satire'...'what's wrong with sexual interest'?--I am curious to know if you will support actual healthy sexual interest.
Will your daughter have privacy, education and freedom? Or will she be like most daughters--daughters of people whose son's read Playboy, btw, cuz it's so, you know, natural to see women the way it portraits them...good clean fun and all--caught unaware in the back seat of a car with one of the Playboy educated fellows?
72 - El Bicho
Dan, if you read back through the comments, I think which, or better yet whose, head should be clear.
I thought you weren't going to discuss this, Roger. With the new site structure, it's best to wait 20 comments before contradicting yourself.
btw, my horse said you first.
73 - roger nowosielski
Dave,
Proposition 1 and 2 appear contradictory, unless Cindy misquoted you as to #1:
1) "Dave - Playboy in general is something I have a problem with myself."
2) "Cindy, I was referring to Cooper's neopuritanical attitude as expressed in his hostility towards Playboy in general rather than this specific article."
Can you explain?
Roger
74 - roger nowosielski
I changed my mind, El Bicho. Shoot me for it.
75 - Cindy
Roger,
#1 is not a quote of Dave, I should have used a comma instead of a dash...it is a statement to Dave by me.
I inserted it later and didn't realize it was a problem. I usually put the name, though, after everything the person said, if there's any doubt.