Graphictruth: Don't Piss on the Crazy Bush

Any discussion of any topic of any importance (say, human trafficking and slavery) will be degraded into incoherence by dealing with the sort of people who insist on their right to be heard because of what the insects in their heads tell them is Too Important To Be Ignored.

This advice does not merely apply to such people speaking out against you. It's far more humiliating to have such people thinking they have a place in your "posse."

Crossposted from Graphictruth.




The thing about us cosmopolitan elitists is that we have learned that taking crazy people seriously can make you crazy. They USED to teach people in Journo 101 that you don't give credence to the incredible.

It is fun at times to ridicule the ridiculous - but some things are so fucking INHERENTLY ridiculous that pointing it out amounts to insulting the intelligence of any audience worth having.

Rick Perlstein -- Birthers, Health Care Hecklers and the Rise of Right-Wing Rage - washingtonpost.com: "So the birthers, the anti-tax tea-partiers, the town hall hecklers -- these are 'either' the genuine grass roots or evil conspirators staging scenes for YouTube? The quiver on the lips of the man pushing the wheelchair, the crazed risk of carrying a pistol around a president -- too heartfelt to be an act. The lockstep strangeness of the mad lies on the protesters' signs -- too uniform to be spontaneous. They are both. If you don't understand that any moment of genuine political change always produces both, you can't understand America, where the crazy tree blooms in every moment of liberal ascendancy, and where elites exploit the crazy for their own narrow interests."

Never mind watering the Tree of Liberty. Stop pissing on the Crazy Bush!




That's how you deal with crazy people. You firmly tell them that the shit in their heads is their shit, and they have to own it.


At the very least, before inviting others into the private regions of your head, you should pick up the trash and do the laundry. There's a perfect example of that right here.



People who behave like that in public should be treated in the same way as a five year old who has yet to learn that public masturbation is inappropriate.

Renegade Evolution quotes the crazy in full, and mistakenly attempts to respond to the crazy as if she were talking to a rational person who was attacking her for sane, if malicious reasons. A mistake, I fear. I have a stock t-shirt for just such occasions.

While it may have worth citing as a textbook example of disastrously flawed rhetoric or to feature as an example of what happens when you roll a double zero on your critical thinking skill table, one only had to read three paragraphs down to realize that any deeper consideration would be entirely misplaced.

The signers of the letter say they are “members of the academic community.” The media quickly converted that into “50 professors.” In fact, quite a few are not full-time professors or administrators at these institutions; rather, some are adjunct faculty, graduate students, or retired. At least one signer seems to be an undergraduate.

You see, the nutball letter states that these persons who claim to be "members of the academic community" are, indeed, members of the academic community, precisely as they claimed. Citing that media has failed to correctly cite their credentials is not a valid criticism of the credentials they claim, if anything, it more firmly establishes their proper credentials - as representing the entire range of the academic community, that is to say, people who's primary qualification is to think about stuff and derive useful insights that may advise others who may, though no fault of their own, have less time to devote to such matters.

Such as, Margaret Brooks and Donna M. Huges of Citizens Against Trafficking the co-authors of the above paragraph.

See, having established that they cannot think, one may cease to be concerned with what they think regarding any appareant mutual concerns, because any response amounts to Pissing on the Crazy Bush.

Any discussion of any topic of any importance (say, human trafficking and slavery) will be degraded into incoherence by dealing with the sort of people who insist on their right to be heard because of what the insects in their heads tell them is Too Important To Be Ignored.

This advice does not merely apply to such people speaking out against you. It's far more humiliating to have such people thinking they have a place in your "posse."

It's like hearing "Chemtrails" in conversation - it's a signal to switch to meaningless small talk. Trust me, they will not notice the difference, and you won't feel the need to crotch-punch them, so it's a win-win.


Some things are so awesomely, majestically, comprehensively stupid as to be worthy of standing alone in all their awful majesty. I understand why Ren takes this nasty little screed personally, but she's mistaken in doing so.

It's not that I'm saying that she should "understand" their position. She shouldn't even try. You don't encourage people to rationalize a phobic response. You either accept it or you do not, and that reaction depends entirely upon whether the irrational spasms pose any danger.

Likewise, as a responsible person, you cope with your phobia or you do not, and arrange your life accordingly. A phobic has no reasonable expectation that people should accommodate their irrational fears, much less enable them in oppressing the people they are phobic about.

"Doctor, it hurts when I do this."
"Well, then, stop DOING that!"

I may squish a spider in order to keep my wife's brains from leaking out of her head. I will not harm a person because she reacts to them in the same way; I'll take her to the mental health clinic. We both understand that distinction, and she would do the same for/to me. There is a limit to which reasonable people expect their irrationality to be accommodated.

Sane public policy cannot possibly accommodate all irrational fears and phobias, nor may it advantage personality disorders over civility and long persist. Government, along with every other human activity, cannot sacrifice outcome in the name of process.

Bring facts, bring reason, bring a coherent argument with, you know, facts and stuff, or stay home.

From this elitist bastard's perspective, you may just as well. I'm not going to waste precious, publicly funded photons on arguing with crazy.

(Should I forget, do feel free to remind me.)
Permalink to full story.

A Gap in our Selves? Erotic manipulation of our purchasing decisions.

Do you worship at the The First Church of Christ, Mallwalker?

This video by Jessedocs explores the intersection of art, religion and marketing via the classic manikin. While I abhor stereotypes, it's difficult to say which are more stereotypical, the artificially perfect female manikins created by this company, the males creating them, or the marketing of them.

Personally, I can't say that the artificial perfection of display manikins has ever done much for me, artistically or erotically. But then, they don't exist to work on me - these forms are not aimed at men; they are made by men in order to construct in women the ideal of a perfect form.

I must be honest, at first, I thought I was watching a documentary about the people behind the "real doll" poseable sex toy.

By the way guys, if you are going to do portraits of your dolls - hire a hairstylist!!!

I was surprised and more than a bit creeped out to find that the people at realdoll seem far less creepy - and their products a little more realistic - at least, unless they are just utterly absurd.

My wife watched a full documentary about the men who buy real-dolls, sort of creeped out by the idea, but you know how it is; you keep waiting for the trainwreck. Well, there were indeed some creepy scenes - but more simply moved her to tears. Here's some YouTube examples - take your chances, if you will.

They actually have several fairly realistic bodies to go with faces that could easily be Faux News Spokesmuffins. In other words, these are not perfectly idealized faces. Yep, even men that want to have sex with a manikin would like a little more individuality than the people who make store manikins think is appropriate.

But then, when it comes to self-image, we have no sense of humor about our own appearance and far less tolerance for individual variation than the people looking at us. I've always found that the most attractive women who are accepting of their bodies whatever shapes they may be blessed with, and however divergent their faces are from the current whims of fashion

So, if you want to go for an idealized stereotype ... consider something like this.

It's no harder to have your head inflated and your skin plasticised than it is to become a perfectly symmetrical 35, 24, 36.

Come to think of it, Miss July reminds me of Dolly Parton. But then, they are both cartoon-inspired.

(The thing I most love about Dolly Parton is that she'd laugh and agree with the statement. Personally, though, I prefer her interpretation. On the other hand, she's a lot harder to book. )

Permalink to full story.

What part of "Personal Responsiblity" do you not understand?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post. Permalink to full story.

79 Laugh-Out-Loud Ways to Get Rid of Mr. Wrong - annotated and amplified

79 Laugh-Out-Loud Ways to Get Rid of Mr. Wrong

Although Elle advice columnist E. Jean Carroll writes mostly about how to find the man of your dreams in her latest book Mr. Right, Right Now!, she reserved the last witty chapter to show women how to drive men away, which you have to admit is pretty tempting at times. But best of all, you don't have to be in the market for ridding yourself of Mr. Wrong to enjoy her hilarious suggestions below. Take a look!

Oh, can we play too?

Best Way #1. Always end arguments by turning some deeply private secret he's confided to you...against him. Then add, "Screw you, you slobbering half-wit!"

1.5 Even Better Way: Stage an intervention. Include his parents and siblings if possible, but make sure that at very least, his boss, co-workers and closest friends are there.

7. Ask him once a week, "So, where do we stand?"

8. Or, if you prefer a more dramatic scrotum-tightener, ask, "So, where do we stand as a couple?"

8.5. At the worst possible, most awkward moment concevable, ask "Do you think I'm pretty?" If you are damn sure the answer will be an unthinking "yes," add "...as Angela Jolie."

8.6 Wake him up to ask these questions. For each one. The night before a critical early meeting. After all, there's nothing more important to you than your relationship.

8.6.5 Remind him of that constantly.

23. Ask him about his "personal feelings concerning the relationship" while he's watching the final two minutes of the seventh game of the NBA championship series. If he doesn't hear you, snap off the TV and hurl the remote out the window.

23.5. For extra points, stage this scene in public during a tense conversation with a social rival.

28. Is he feeling a tad overwhelmed by the serious turn your affair is taking? Surprise him with loads of expensive gifts for no reason.

28.5 For extra points, get your mom and sister to do it.

28.6 Make sure it's clothing designed to remake his entire image into something "acceptable" and alien to his entire being.

66. Trick him, dupe him, deceive him with every breath you take

-- i.e., follow The Rules.

Oooh, catty much? Not that she's wrong on this point. Viz:
66.5 Sleep with his best friend in order to learn deep secrets he won't tell you. For usage, see #1.

76. If you earn more money than he does, make sure you boost his ego by letting him pay for absolutely everything.

76.5. If he doesn't have the money, slip it to him! After all, it's not whether he can afford it, it's that everyone THINKS he can. Because, well, you wouldn't be dating a LOSER, right?

And one whole new one....

80. Make sure he knows you have standards and expect him to live up to them. Should he actually do that, raise the bar immediately!

Permalink to full story.

ABC, The Darlings and the Exploitation of Paris Hilton.

This just goes to show that you can abide by every FCC guideline there is, to the letter, and still produce total sleaze that would embarrass a pornographer.

ABC Promotes Their 'Love For Paris' In 'Dirty Sexy' Plug

LOS ANGELES, Calif. (June 9, 2007) - Is ABC using Paris’ troubles to promote their new show?

It certainly appeared that way today to LA.

Plenty of people are asking about the message attached to an airplane, which was flying over Paris Hilton’s house in LA earlier today.

Access Hollywood

The message read “We Love Paris: The Darling Family.”

ABC is launching a new show in the fall, “Dirty Sexy Money,” about a ridiculously rich family whose last name, not coincidentally, is… Darling.

Now, were I Paris, or any other member of the rediculously rich Hilton family, I do believe I'd be offended. It's not so much the allegation as the exploitation.

I do know that the exploitation of Paris Hilton's notiriety offends me. Frankly, it always has - I'm probably the last breathing male with internet access who hasn't seen her sex video. I consider her a vapid, uninteresting and unskilled twat; not a flattering judgment, I'll grant. But she's a vapid, uninteresting, unskilled twat with rights.

And more to the point, why is ABC (the Disney-owned "family channel" running something that makes Dallas look like a morality play and promoting it with this offensive and exploitative campaign?

Between this and the Don Imus thing, I'm getting a clearer picture of ABC's "Family Values."


Permalink to full story.

When Morality Becomes Idiocy - the prosecution of sexually exploited children.

blog.myspace.com/duckydoolittle

I'd have more to say about this - but I'll defer to an expert. Besides, if you need an explanation as to why this is fundamentally unethical, immoral and operationally stupid, you probably wouldn't read my blogs anyhow...

Change the System!

A child can not legally consent to sex, so why does our system prosecute child prostitutes as criminals? Once locked up they receive virtually no counseling, psychological care, or help finding a safe place to live. Sadly, when young people get out of lock up, they usually return to the streets. Experts agree that prosecuting sexually exploited young people further traumatizes them and makes it more difficult for them to create any kind of stability in their lives. Sign up for the National Juvenile Justice Network email list and raise your awareness. Learn about how you can support valuable legislation and care for children who need your voice, awareness and light.

(As with all of my posts of this nature ~ please re-post and share freely.)

[EDIT: Just to clarify, I am speaking of American girls. If these girls were not American citizens they would be protected under immigrant sex trafficking laws. But because they are American citizens they do not qualify for the benefits and services given to non-citizens. We just need to recognize valid need for our protection. They have slipped through a very large crack.]

tag: child sex trafficing, child prostitution, morality, law, ethics, church-state, moralism Permalink to full story.

From the mentality that gave us "don't ask, don't tell."

Teacher arrested under peeping-tom law - Yahoo! News

Ware was charged under a 2001 law meant to protect people from ultra-small cameras that can be used to peek into dressing rooms or up women's skirts. Under the law, filming a person without consent for sexual arousal is a felony.

...but merely watching teenagers wrestle and perform gymnastics in skintight Lycra fetish gear is perfectly OK - as long as you refrain from obviously masturbating.

Every time the Olympics or Pan-Am games comes around, we are treated with front-page crotch shots of apparently pre-pubescent gymnasts, who's fan bases sound as if they are not entirely unaffected by the Reuters-supplied "upskirt" images.

While it's admittedly impressive that these hormonally-depleted dwarfs can plant their tushies on their cutely pigtailed heads while doing a hand-stand, a side-view would be more impressive and less... suggestive.

But then, American Anti-pornography laws have always seemed to be less concerned with protecting women and children from sexual exploitation and more concerned with the social threat of calling attention to the plight of the exploited. So we all are supposed to pretend that there is no possibility that anyone looking at such displays of sweaty hard bodies rubbing against one another and posing to display their perfectly sculpted backsides would ever, ever cause the minds of good Church-going PTA members to stray. Proof to the contrary - as the above story shows - is entirely unwelcome!

Under current law, you can get far more time for possessing photographic evidence of a child being raped than for actually raping the child. Believe it or not. The penalty in law for raping your OWN child is often far lower than if you molest another person's child. But preserving evidence of EITHER act - that's FAR worse. You might make use of it in some socially-unapproved way, like, say, busting a child rapist.

It makes me question the legislative intent, and this new law causes me to wonder even more, along with the real (as opposed to the touted) morality of our nation.

I've been through the wars on this issue, from nearly every angle. I spent several years working in the capacity of online councilor with people who had grown up being molested and raped every day, people who finally broke down under the pressure of not being able to talk about it, people who faced crushing scorn and disbelief from entire organizations dedicated to spreading the idea that any allegation of incest was either the lie of a spiteful child or a therapeutically-suggested "false memory."

And the whole time there was a flood of evidence over in alt.pictures.binaries.erotica.children.

But it's illegal for a survivor of such an event to have a photo proving that it occurred, much less computer records of the sort of search needed to find one, that's right out. "It's MY picture" is not an exception under the law, making this the one sort of crime where a search for evidence of a crime is in itself a crime. I find it increasingly difficult to believe this is an unintentional situation, especially in light of Right-Wing Christianist movements to legitimize and sanctify their patriarchal "ownership society," in which women and children can legally be kept isolated from any reality checks. This is why I'm deeply suspicious of the motives behind most homeschooling movements and most voucher programs. I've seen the alternatives they recommend as being more godly or "accurate." And I thought a public education was an exercises in badly presented social propaganda.

Prudery kills. Toxic secrecy kills. If you disbelieve me, check the suicide statistics for abuse survivors. Or spend an hour a week manning a suicide hot line.

It's a hell of a price to pay for the benefit of those folks who would prefer to believe that we ever lived in Mayberry.

tag: covert pornography, sexual ethics, Morality, Ethics, Republican Values, pornography laws, prudery, patriarchy Permalink to full story.