In the prior Polanski post, I only noted the bitter irony that monsters who make things may well be remembered for something quite other than their monstrosity, but since The Children were involved, and The Sex, I assumed it might spark a bit of kerfuffling in the thread. Quel kerfuffle! Threadwinner La_rana really deserves the credit for the following, as he first noted, and best noted, the preposterousness of crying, Justice! I mean, here you have a gang of mostly progressive types seizing a moral issue with thoughtless tenacity. Throw the book at him! But anyone searching for justice in our judicial system is going to find themselves forever searching, and what these people are really looking for is a sort of vindication, some programmatic process through which each precious, individual conviction that he is the scum of the earth can be validated by some external authority. Throw the man in jail if you must, but do not pretend that it is righting some wrong. Our prisons abound with people who probably deserve to be there: they are not all leukemia victims who got busted for pot or innocents on death row, except perhaps in Texas—this doesn’t make them bastions of justice, nor even poor imitations thereof. You cannot selectively call it just when you agree with it--or, you can, but it makes you an idiot. Hauling Polanski back to the States and throwing him in jail for a thirty-year-old crime is in the end a poor attempt at vengeance on the part of those who wish to make a hazy point about rape, which, they rush to remind us, is bad. The victim, by the way, believes he should be forgiven, and wishes that all you fucks would shut the fuck up, though in politer terms. But whatever, fuck her! Justice delayed is justice denied! Exterminate the brutes. Throw away the key! If we can save just one more teenager from quaalude-spiked sexual abuse in Jack Nicholson's swimming pool, then by god, we must!
Consider: one does not disarm, dismantle, disassemble, or even inconvenience the goddamned patriarchy by availing oneself of its systems of coercion.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
They Were Threatening Castration
Labels:
Justice,
Patriarchy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
167 comments:
Ooh, re your final sentence, imprisoning rapists is now, like, a tool of the wily patriarchy. How clever of it.
No, it won't wash, IOZ. Your previous post tried to provoke the reactions you're disparaging here, but the majority of commenters simply wished you hadn't linked to a rape apologist. No one, but you, mentioned extradition or Justice.
Much better than the prior post, which was more the fault of Father Smiff's prose than yours. Perhaps we're teaching you to be clear? See, agitation can effect change.
Do you go through this self-righteous indignation exercise every time some dude goes to prison, or just when it affords you an opportunity to (falsely) claim moral superiority / superior amorality?
More importantly, why does the ASCII penis pseudonym have a pointy tip?
Keep digging.
That penis does look a little dangerous. Of course, substitute a close parenthesis and someone will complain that it privileges circumcision.
since this blog plumbs the Big L like holy writ, let me point out one error in the Sacred Text:
"you are not dealing w/morons here."
You're not wrong, IOZ, you're just an asshole.
"But whatever, f*** her!" is what Our Roman himself said way back when, and pretty much what his noisiest apologists are saying today. Not including IOZ in the latter category, but surely there's some room between "Throw the book at him" knee-jerking, and marginalizing those who simply don't object to the creep suffering some real consequences. Admittedly, purchasing the victim's goodwill was a free-market solution.
So gentle Roman is not of the "goddamned patriarchy"? He is surely inconvenienced by this episode. Next you're going to tell us that Hollywood is a subversive check on our otherwise crass capitalism. They do it for the art!
It is a brave thing to troll the moralists, but surely one might have taken a more auspicious opportunity to do so.
I guess I'm more open to a flawed second best. I have lots of gripes with the legal system, but I still want murderers, rapists and so on prosecuted. I can't find it now, but I did give a quasi-endorsement of respecting the wishes of the victim elsewhere in the context of advocating the return of a purely tort system as described in Bruce Benson's "Enterprise of Law". In the current context I think Jeff Ely has a good point.
You're right on one point IOZ: fuck the victim. She's got hers. This isn't about her any more except as one potential victim among millions.
"We" can save just one more child from rape by punishing rapists. In fact "we" can save many. By god, we must. If god don't do it for you, maybe you like a woman or two and could do it for her.
As for inconveniencing the "patriarchy", rape (I mean rape-rape!) isn't a positive sum game that we can win by properly twiddling the dials of the state. Either you let a man fuck any woman or child he can drug or pin down, or you don't. If you don't, "patriarchy" must enforce the ban. If you do, real patriarchy, not your modern feminist "patriarchy", will be reinvented overnight as women withdraw from society to where they are safe. You'll have accept some compromise here.
Oh, and us moralists are also making a point about fleeing the legal system. It's about order. I don't expect you to understand.
Order? You've gotta be fuckin' kidding me. You'd be cheering the sonuvabitch on if you approved of what he'd done.
Free James Brown!
So then is Iraq a "real" patriarchy, or something else entirely? I don't see much moralizing going on in that regard.
You know, she could just be forgiving him because she wants to be left alone which is understandable. Right now, the issue is that he fled the country after pleading guilty and now he needs to go through with the trial.Get that through your head.
"No, it won't wash, IOZ. Your previous post tried to provoke the reactions you're disparaging here, but the majority of commenters simply wished you hadn't linked to a rape apologist"
-Anon
Reading comprehension, you really should give it a try. At no point in either of Smith's posts on the subject or in his responses to the competitive outragers in the SMBIVA threads did he defend rape as a practice.
not to squirt my water pistol on the flaming rage here, but polanski is an *accused* rapist. irrelevant i know, along w/most of the rest of the facts in this case, about which most commentators here know nothing and care not to know. let nothing dissuade from your hysteria, you bunch of helen lovejoys.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo
not to squirt my water pistol on the flaming rage here, but polanski is an *accused* rapist
Except for the part where, you know, he says in his version of the story that he drugged and fucked a thirteen-year-old.
I like this one. You know who the real victim here is, people? It's the rich white dude who raped somebody! You know what the big bad patriarchy really wants us to do? Lock up rapists! Think about it! But not, y'know, for very long!
The victim simply doesn't want to go through a public ordeal over it; pretending that she's somehow on his side as if he didn't really do anything all that bad is disingenuous at best.
Do you go through this self-righteous indignation exercise every time some dude goes to prison...
Yeah, somehow I missed all the "Free Mumia!" posts.
Y'all just mad cuz you couldn't get any sweet tween tang to save your lives. All old and married and shit. Player-haters.
ya'll don't realize that this was just another opportunity for Monsieur to trot out one of his favorite hobbyhorses, do you? anarchy, yo. ya'll are better off trying to catch flies with chopsticks.
anarchy, yo.
It's like, the goverment, man. Why we gotta lock people up for killin' people an' shit? It's like, harsh, man. Don't give me all your "morals" and your "ethics" and your hierarchical structures!
ioz certainly pissed in some people's cheerios w/this polanski thing.
stras, do you know what the legal merit of polanski's "confession" is? does that question have an iota of relevance in your mind?
yeah, and the US guvmint has never targeted rich vaguely leftist jewish hollywood types before. never used sexual hysteria & panic to scapegoat or even manufacture enemies. not in God's America.
yeah, and the US guvmint has never targeted rich vaguely leftist jewish hollywood types before.
That's right, by wanting a confessed rapist to go to jail, we are all McCarthyists, anti-semites and Nazis.
I'm not really persuaded by the "just because she doesn't want to undergo the ordeal" argument. If we accept that she will have to undergo such an ordeal if Polanski is tried, then if we took her actual desires as paramount we would elect not to prosecute him. The argument against this as a general policy is that perpetrators will threaten victims in order to dissuade them from bringing the case to trial, but that I don't think that's at issue here.
McCarthy was a senator, though often conflated with the House Unamerican Activities Committee, which was actually set up in the 40s to go after isolationists and Trotskyites. McCarthy's main target were people in the government he deemed security risks. Since he was also part of the government, from an anarchist perspective it's basically a wash.
Regarding the merits of his confession, has he ever actually denied it? I think he implied that she gave consent in an autobiography or something, but I don't know of him explicitly denying anything he was accused of.
Also, I'm not aware of Polanski's political side. Is he vaguely leftist just by virtue of being a hip Hollywood type, or from drugging and raping a child?
1. Does anyone here believe, for real for real, that there is no place for criminal law enforced by "the state" in some form or another? Like, for instance, a system for preventing people from raping each other?
2. If the answer to the above is "no", then what should the state do to people who flee the country after conviction?
That's all. The victim is irrelevant. The original crime is irrelevant. The passage of time is irrelevant. This is procedural. How do you make a system that creates the proper incentives so people don't do terrible things to each other? The answer is that you don't allow people to commit terrible crimes, then run away from the system whose protection they've accepted.
I don't remember Polanski calling for the release of the Manson family and asking for them to be allowed to come live with him in France. Perhaps I missed that episode.
Hey man! He raped her man! Now he's gotta go to the pokey! You know, how we all agreed that the state, should, uh ... inflict violence on some people...cuz, ya know, more violence cancels the previous viol...er, treats people like moral...justice!...will stop another dude from hiding out in Switz... that ain't legal neither. What, are we gonna split hairs here?
Does anyone here believe, for real for real, that there is no place for criminal law enforced by "the state" in some form or another?
No, but our host will certainly affect such a pose for shits and giggles.
Now here's the part where we drop movie quotes, 'cause we can't think of anything else to say! Also, "BLAWG!"
I don't know how this kerfuffle is playing out in your neck of the woods, but from my observation, it is *not* mostly progressive types who are calling for Polanski's head. Not by a long shot. In fact, it is progressives who are reminding their crazed right-wing neighbors that Polanski's victim does not want him brought to "justice."
And several very high profile lefty actors/directors are also rushing to Polanski's defense, which the hosts of AM radio and Fox News are making quite a bit of hay out of.
You seem to be trying to turn this into one more example of liberal idiocy, but I don't think that's how this is playing out nationally, where it is, very predictably, a right wing hobbyhorse.
Are you referring specifically to the blogosphere? And of what use is that?
!!!
LEBOWSKI
It's funny. I can look back on a
life of achievement, on challenges
met, competitors bested, obstacles
overcome. I've accomplished more
than most men, and without the use
of my legs. What. . . What makes a
man, Mr. Lebowski?
DUDE
Dude.
LEBOWSKI
Huh?
DUDE
I don't know, sir.
LEBOWSKI
Is it. . . is it, being prepared to
do the right thing? Whatever the
price? Isn't that what makes a man?
DUDE
Sure. That and a pair of testicles.
but from my observation, it is *not* mostly progressive types who are calling for Polanski's head
Do women count as progressives? Because those "feminist" types seem to be awfully interested in him going to jail and such.
Poor Roman Polanski. You know, in a better world - a just world - we would take steps to protect our millionaires from the predatory children who secretly want to get raped by them.
what is going on here is not happening at the level of arguments, folks. we're talking intrinsic human reaction to bad things. drugging and raping a 13 year old. which is awful.
that said, can anyone else here even entertain the idea that no damn good can come from this Polanski business? I know it would be a tough idea to accept. but could you entertain it? (this has got to be one of the most defeatist comments I have ever posted.)
BRANDT
That had not occurred to us, Dude.
and you know what, I'm not even interested in anyone's answer, really. because it's already been written. call me what you will, whatever, and so on. there's not a fuck of a lot I can do about much. BLAWG!
who knew the Internet was populated with a sea full of willing ready and able Travis Bickles?
Not one single commentator, here or at SMBIVA, has discussed the core issues. What is the social construct we refer to as "Roman Polanski?" What is the social construct we refer to as "thirteen years old?" What is the social construct we refer to as "drugs?"
No wonder yinz ain't got yer poop poppin'.
Coldtype; No, Smith never did “defend rape as a practice” and let’s all genuflect in his direction for such a brave pose. However, what exactly is the point of his musings? Well, let’s see, some NRO lite ranting regarding “identity politics” – how dare women think they have some grounds for entering male dominated discussions on the topic of rape; a sneering dismissal of anyone to the left of Olympia Snowe taking the side of the prosecution in this case (cause they’re like, hypocrites, man, cause like, they’re suddenly on the side of the bourgeois pigs, man…); and a thoroughly meaningless eruption regarding the supposed desire to see “the "justice system" … behave like it's "supposed to". As if we wanted a lie to become true.” because, oh, I don’t know, it’s obscene to think a 40 year man who drugs and rapes a 13 year old should face any inconvenience from the system if you ever find the system less than perfect.
Ok, wev. Not literally a defense of rape as a practice but, what exactly? To call it empty moral posturing which in the end certainly suggests the author believes no harm should befall Mr. Polanski seems fair enough. Is that close enough to a defense of rape as a practice to call the author out on it?
13 year olds, dude.
tattoo it on your forehead.
who knew the Internet was populated with a sea full of willing ready and able Travis Bickles?
That's right. If a single confessed rapist serves out the remainder of his jail time, it will be the very same thing as gunning down poor black people vigilante-style in the street.
I'm always impressed to see how quickly white dudes grow a social conscience when another white dude's in trouble. It's a lynch mob! No, no, no, it's a Nazi Jew-hunt! Let's just say that if Roman Polanski, rich and famous maker of mediocre Hollywood pap, goes to jail for a crime he committed, it will be the equivalent of fifteen thousand Holocausts, forever.
ding ding ding! we have a winner. (that was quick)
I actually don't care either way what happens to Roman Polanski. I'm just here to entertain myself at work. and I only talk anarchy while I'm at work.
Kissinger committed crimes back in the 1970s, too. Let's talk about sending him overseas to stand trial.
Stipulate that a primary motivation for this is some D.A. who wants free pr. Stipulate that the victim forgives and wants to move on. Stipulate that the crime occurred 30 years ago. Stipulate that the process for ascertaining and punishing violations of the U.S. criminal code is haphazard and biased. Stipulate that liberals are often incoherent and contradictory about criminal prosecutions.
But it was the Swiss who dropped Polanski in the U.S. prosecutor's lap. What was the D.A. supposed to do, say "no thanks, we're not interested any more?" It happens that rape is a crime with no statute of limitations in this cuntry, ahem, country. So I don't see how they could have done anything else.
As for the folks calling for Polannski's head--gosh, hypocrisy about sex crimes? That target was tough to hit!
for the love of a god-like thing that might exist people!
When you make a normative statement, such as "rapists should go to jail," you must explain the antecedents that compel that conclusion. Otherwise its a non-sequitor. One frequently sees a "because," or even a "therefore," such as in "IOZ should be mocking you because there are so many goddamn antecedents in this normative statement - egalitarianism, order, justice, punishment, morality, the state - that to simply demand punishment, violence, by the state, thirty years removed from the crime in which no vengeance is sought, without even pretending to explain why that should be, is moral posturing on stilts."
When you replace that requirement with an empty cliche like "justice," you both beg the question, and imply that you have no fucking idea what you are talking about - just yelling into the wind because your heart beats faster when bad stuff happens.
Your moral indignation is noted. Also, the dog barked.
I give up.
christ almighty Aaron, do get some facts before running your fingers across the keyboards.
Polanski had a home in switzerland. for years.
if you don't care about the legal status of the terms "accused/confessed", then are you not siding w/mcarthyites & nazis?
the big mistake ioz made in posting about polanski was in assuming that people read something else beside IOZ.
Peter Marshall paraphrasing William Godwin:
"Punishment, which is the inevitable sanction used to enforce the law, is both immoral and ineffective. In the first place, under the system of necessity [determinism], there can be no personal responsibility for actions which the law assumes: 'the assassin cannot help the murder he commits, any more than the dagger.' Secondly, coercion cannot convince but rather alienates the mind and is unnecessary if an argument is strong and true. Punishment, or 'the voluntary infliction of evil', is therefore barbaric if used for retribution and useless if used for reformation or example."
(which isn't to say we shouldn't try to prevent rape.)
Anon, I'm lovin it, as they say at McDonald's. I'll grant you my observation about Helvetian, not Amurcan justice being the issue here is kind of McCarthyite and Hitlerian. But that's just the kind of guy I am.
aaron, i wasn't just responding to you. but thanks for reminding us that the swiss are rational, uncoerced, atomized actors in this void. we can all be grateful that the world is a little less cold & lonely thanks to the speedy action of the swiss. accused rapists the world over will be a little more hesitant to cross swiss borders w/anything other than their money.
even if they've lived there before.
for decades.
moron.
Kissinger committed crimes back in the 1970s, too.
Dude, punishment is, like, so whatever. If Kissinger went to jail now for mass-murder, don't you see that it's really the state that would win?!
...if Roman Polanski, rich and famous maker of mediocre Hollywood pap, goes to jail for a crime he committed, it will be the equivalent of fifteen thousand Holocausts, forever.
[Insert desperately ironic comments and demands for three hundred page explanations here.]
To the various people invoking anarchy as a defense of Polansky: you are not being convincing here. You're just inviting the rest of us to look at this extended hissy fit as a reductio ad absurdum for your entire political philosophy.
thinking is so passe.
not to put too fine a point on it, but, yes, the more power are given police, solidres and prosecutors the more rape there shall be. moral outrage is awesome, but its relative mistargetting here on mr. polanski as opposed to those seen in the images reported by Gen Ricardo 'dirty' Sanchez at Abu Gharib or the tormentors of Abner Louima or this -http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/06/12/967/24459 - is, for me, the most revaletory aspect of the excersize.
and none of the puercos or milicos ever produced anything so lovely as chinatown...
and to pre-but, of course i beleive justice, vengence and deterrence, for what else is vigilanteism?
o shit, i think i was just supposed to keep lurkning... im like a child who wanders into the middle of a conversation...
thinking is so passe
Among some more than others.
La Rana: sorry, but until you explain the antecedents that compel each sentence you type followed by an explanation of the antecedents that compel the antecedent itself you are just posturing on stilts.
Fuckin’ poser.
Now posters over at the original site are devolving into arguments like:
"There is untreated diabetes and no free health care...so the State has no right to enforce anything, man. Free everyone inn every jail until I can get free pharmaceuticals!"
We should ignore the latest celebrity scandal du jour because of POVERTY, man. (Of course celebrity news is silly.)
Because my teacher made me do homework, OMFGIAMOTAVOTH (Oh my fucking God I am More Oppressed than a Victim of the Holocaust).
and my favorite "All liberals want to imprison every conservative. Only anarchist heros like Polanski can save us"
It's a train wreck, man.
mob: violence!
LR: why?
mob: justice!
LR: what does that mean?
mob: violence!
LR: could you spell that out for me a bit?
mob: poser!
Don James Gerardo said...
not to put too fine a point on it, but, yes, the more power are given police, solidres and prosecutors the more rape there shall be. moral outrage is awesome, but its relative mistargetting here on mr. polanski as opposed to those seen in the images reported by Gen Ricardo 'dirty' Sanchez at Abu Gharib or the tormentors of Abner Louima or this -http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/06/12/967/24459 - is, for me, the most revaletory aspect of the excersize.
Well, sure. But why is targeting M. Polanski "mistargeting"? If guilty, it was a terrible crime, which is not ameliorated by the broader crimes committed by the American military (or some police officers...heck, many police officers).
Why is it either/or? Instead of a "But, but, but"...why are you not asking "and"? Why is Polanski a victim or a hero in any way? Many "liberals", when not plotting to imprison Glenn Beck and the teabaggers in horrific camps where they will be forced to listen to soft folk rock and eat vegan cuisuine, DID protest such actions. Was the degree of outrage the same? I don;t know. I sure remember a lot of arguments and protests etc. Polanski is a celebrity. Our media system makes celebrities a big deal. That's ridiculous, but that doesn't make him a hero or innocent victim.
Justin: On the one hand, you (rightfully) oppose "mob "justice""
But is calling for the State to try Polanski and punish him for his alleged crimes really the same thing as mob justice? Are people calling for him to be lynched?
Or, is there no difference in your mind between State-run justice and lynch mobs?
Really? I'm not sure I agree with that.
One almost wonders how it is that the powers of the patriarchy, the privileged, and the state have chosen, as their helpless victim, a wealthy member of the elite, one who only evaded prison for three decades through reliance on the very wealthy and privileged ruling class which, we are told, will be somehow rewarded by his punishment.
I'm happy, of course, to see so many show such a sudden and earnest interest in social justice, and I'm sure it's only a coincidence that this flowering of compassion for the downtrodden happens to be in the service of a famous, wealthy white man.
But, but he's a hero, ML 'cause he made Rosemary's Baby!
And the police are worse, man.
And free medical care.
And f&^% the Police, man.
well, given finite resources "justice" remains always a question of or rather than infinite ands. the exceptions it makes are how in practice it defines the morality it claims to uphold. the soldires and police need be given a break or a pass because they are protecting us and we can't handle the truth.
so yea, im fine with going after mr. polanski. after, after after "the system, man" proves its priorities by stopping the rapes perpetrated by its enforcers and auto-prosecuting those.
similarly, if the young lady wants to castrate him, id probably have prosecuters stay out of that one, too.
and id prefer mob justice. it is less ill considered, less ill targetted and less violent (i mereley claim less)
La Rana: That looks fun, let me try:
Mob: A 40 year man admits he drugged and had sex with a 13 year old girl – he claims consent although the victim claims to have said no numerous times.
LR: Diagram that sentence, define each word, conjugate and elucidate and validate my parking – then we can talk.
Mob: ah, ahem, ok, but anyway as we were saying…..given all that it is hardly an outrage to expect said man to stand trial.
LR: Your non-sequitors are empty clichés and your support of humanitarian intervention exposes you for the hypocrites you are and until such time as you have produced something on the order of 10,000 pages of definitions, explanations, charts, graphs and fantasy foot ball predications you have accomplished nothing.
Mob: Ah, what…..humanitarian intervention??? We never said anything about that and, ah, geez……[metaphorical scratching of mobs head]
IOZ: and la rana for the win!
Mob: ?????????????????
I don't see anybody here defending Polanski. I do see people mocking the "Justice" System, the same "Justice" System that allows war criminals to walk freely, or engages in state sanctioned murder with the death penalty. Mocking the Justice System is not the same thing as defending Polanski.
and the police are worse, man
arguing the state has no right to prosecute Mr. Polanski in no way shape or form suggests letting Mr. Polanski get away with rape.
just call me zencomix
God, but Medium Lobster is a fucking idiot. Nothing to add to him; sometimes you just see something dumb enough you must emote about it.
More generally, why have none of you easily manipulated fuckwits realized that a person can both be responsible for an act, and be railroaded by a bunch of fascist assholes for that act at the same time. After all, Sacco and Vanzetti may actually have done what they were accused of. Doesn't make their execution less of an instance of the misuse of state power to score political points for some asshole judge.
Here's what the pearl clutchers/Chris Hanson fanboys don't get: I don't fucking care about Roman Polanski. I don't care if he raped a million people, or none. He is not my hero. He just happens to be some schlub Hollywood guy that I know about only from a few jokes about his alleged crime. I've never even seen his movies! I'd wager most of the people accused of "defending" this guy feel the same way: this is a useful teaching moment concerning state power and manufactured hysteria. Who they are means not a damn to me.
You fucking assholes! Everything's a fucking travesty with you, man! And what was all that shit about Polanski? What the fuck has anything got to do with Polanski? What the fuck are you talking about?
And today I learned that even people who read relatively intelligent blogs are for the most part really dumb, with very run-of-the-mill opinions and prejudices. You deserve all that you will get.
Zing! I hadn't realized that mimicry, plus chronological displacement, factual errors, unelucidating exaggeration, and hilariously inept triumphialism was a satisfactory replacement for a complete impotence to use the word "because."
A loss of essence? I'm certainly not dealing with morons here.
Yeah, my thinking about the case,
man, it had become uptight. Yeah.
Your father--
Brian,
I was being glib. I am having a hard time even understanding the point(s) that La Rana, Fundy, Ioz(?) et al are making in 'defense' of not imprisoning Polanski and I am not saying that as an intentionally thick headed/condescending concern troll or what have you - I really just don't get it. I also don't understand what mob violence has to do with this, or humanitarian intervention, etc.
I did absentmindedly put a brush handle that had a healthy residue of turpenoid-linseed oil mixture in my mouth earlier this week, so my brain may be clouded in a toxic haze.
And I learned today that Anonymi make pretentious claims of vengenance and "liberals" all "deserving what we get" because we are so mainstream, man. Unlike the oh so intelligent and educated anarchistic anonymi (names are so patriarchal, man) who are fighting the power as we speak.
Anonymous 1:37. Ah, the teaching moments. All of us lemmings and schlubs are learning so much from your righteouss rage. fight on, brother, fight on. We can only meekly stare upwards at your towering anonymous internet blog commenting prowess regarding a situation and a person you don't even "give a fuck" about! BLAWG!
the pearl clutchers
Someone is projecting.
La Rana: I know just what you mean. Until reading your comment I hadn’t realized straw man arguments were so compelling.
"so yea, im fine with going after mr. polanski. after, after after "the system, man" proves its priorities by stopping the rapes perpetrated by its enforcers and auto-prosecuting those."
So...in other words we can have absolutely no law enforcement of any kind against any person at any time until your social justice claims are met? No justice no peace?
Ummm. OK.
I would demand free medical care. And ponies. Maybe even unicorns, first.
Anonymous @ 1:37 is right. In the context of a discussion of Roman Polanski offering an opinion on Roman Polanski which differs from the opinion of anonymous @ 1:37 clearly marks you as a pearl-clutching idiot.
Anonymous @ 1:37 you are correct – there is a fucking idiot commenting here. But I don’t think its Medium Lobster.
"Look, I'm not saying I'm DEFENDING Polanski, I'm not even saying I GIVE A FUCK about him, all I'm sayin' is, he shouldn't have to go to trial for raping someone, and everyone who says different is either stupid or a fascist, and I so don't care about this I will spend all day posting about it!"
Justin: Mea culpa. I meant to ding "La Rana." I think. I'm confused now.
But, anonymi, I am now fighting the power myself by typing this AT WORK. BLAWG.
The State has a right to prosecute Polanski. Go for it! Can we prosecute Henry Kissinger for his crimes in the 1970s first?
zencomix: Please see Brian M @ 1:51.
The Kissinger thing...
Actually, one of my first reactions to the Polanski 'defense' was to put together a mental outline for a 'what if it were Kissinger under lock and key?' blawg post that I never got around to... I get that living in our monstrous system of justice, a mass murderer like Kissinger gets to become an esteemed member of high society a minor child raper like Polanski has to live in an exiled high society... and a ghetto kid using drugs gets locked up for years.
So if the point is that under these absurd standards of 'justice' then appealing to justice as a reason to imprison Polanski is an absurd farce and primarily serves to reinforce the criminal system we call a criminal justice system, then, OK. I am trying to sort this out, but I guess for me it still comes down to what Brian is saying and if I took that stance then I would have to be a committed anarchist, not some desk schlubb paying his taxes and banging on a keyboard.
Still trying to make sense of this thing in good faith, so if I am wrong...
It was a sarcastic rhetorical question about the prominence given to "celebrity news" vs war crimes. I didn't expect you to answer it,but feel free to answer it anyways if you want.Are you saying the State shouldn't prosecute Henry Kissinger for his war crimes?No?You fucker.... Yes?Great! If yes, when? AFTER Polanski?!You fucker... Why, that's a moral outrage! Hahaha, let's play the who is more morally outraged game....
I don't think the state will be prosecuting Henry Kissinger anytime soon, nor do I expect the lack of a prosecution of Henry Kissinger to hold up any other legal proceedings.
Ya know, considering that none of us can do much but watch this happen, we seem to be spending a lot of emotion on it all.
So, when pwoggies focus their outrage on individuals and their crimes, whether George W. Bush or Roman Polanski, they're idiots for not seeing the big picture, man, but if they do try to address something like "the system", they're idiots and hypocrites because they don't apply their outrage uniformly across the board and make exceptions for certain individuals being more or less worse than others.
You just can't win with a dude whose entire reason for blogging is to stroke his own ego and inflated sense of genius.
Can't disagree with Zencomix above (or Justin).
Can't deny that our priorities are indeed mixed up. Badly. Waddayahgonna do? Still...the idea that prosecuting Polanski is somehow unjust, or, as OP over on SMBIVA was almost, sorta arguing that the rape was really really not all that bad what about Kissinger...THAT'S where I can't go.
Ah well...in light of the above, enough of this topic. I think I will go drive 35 mph in the left lane of the socialist oppressive interstate!
Ya know, considering that none of us can do much but watch this happen, we seem to be spending a lot of emotion on it all.
I can't ever hope to do anything but watch my favorite porn stars in action either, but that don't stop me from spending a lot of, um, emotion on it all.
She was thirteen years old, she was drugged, and she was raped. The only reason this is an issue now, so very long after the fact, is because the asshole who did it was afraid he might be punished worse than he was willing to be for drugging and raping a thirteen year old girl, and fled the country. To say his ass needs to be in jail for drugging and raping a thirteen year old girl is not to endorse in all its glory the US criminal justice system. Jesus.
Anonymous 2:21:
Given the amusement our host exhibits towards his commenters, I would only respond: "Perhaps so, yet here you are, adding your own strokes."
the Medium Lobster,
one might say the patriarchy led to the circumstances that afforded Polanski the opportunity to rape the child. he was in a position of power over her by virtue of possessing the traits the patriarchy values: wealth, age, position, whiteness, a pair of testicles.
but the patriarchy has rules! among which, if i understand correctly, it strives to hold dominion over when, and with whom, the womenfolk have sex. Polanski flouted these rules.
so what's a patriarchy to do?
eating one of it's own, however reluctantly, may provide for some good p.r. maybe get people excited about the justice system again.
i despise what Polanski did, i don't watch his movies and don't much care what might happen to him in the grip of the justice system. but the fact remains that, as Don James Gerardo notes, the patriarchy uses rape as an instrument of power, and so-- i don't know where i'm going with this --i guess the irony of this whole discussion, is noted.
um, hi, i'm one of the anemone from above, and since my job is to post on random blogs all day, no, blogging for me is not revolunacy or dissonant or anything. i'm not an anarchist, libertarian, etc., etc.
ioz just happens to be right.
i hope yall all get so worked up about child labor and children in the military. the starving children, the exploited children, etc., etc. no? didn't think so.
shomer shabbas, bitches!
Montag, the point where that stops making sense is this: Polanski only ever managed to avoid his stint in prison in the first place because he was wealthy, famous, and well-connected, and used that to flee sentencing and live in comfort for the next thirty years. Roman Polanski can walk away from raping someone because he's one of the elite, while your average poor black kid is more likely to end up in prison for looking funny at a cop.
So it seems to me that all of this is wildly backwards: that this is one of those rare, random occasions when the law has swallowed up a member of the aristocracy instead of the underclass. Why the fuck should I get my panties in a twist over this?
Anon @ 2:39:
Your remarks are well taken if we began with torches and pitchforks in pious hands. But we didn't. Here and elsewhere we began with jaded aesthetes mewling, "Leave Roman Alone!!".
Okay, peoples, this is a hilarious thread. Thank you all for that.
If I may make another aside, the legal issue isn't rape. The guy's already pleaded guilty to rape. The issue here is flight to escape sentencing. The violation is not of a maiden, or even of the law, but rather of legal authority itself. Clearly IOZ believes this to be a good and wholesome thing, but by that same token it doesn't seem too mysterious to me that the evil American state should be upset by it.
"i hope yall all get so worked up about child labor and children in the military. the starving children, the exploited children, etc., etc. no? didn't think so. "
I am sure that a significant subset of people here are sensitive to all of those issues, they just happen to be posting on a thread about Polanski and the enforcement arm of the goddamned patriarchy so those things are tangential at best, at least enough to get a what was all that shit about Vietnam quoute.
This thread is starting to remind me why I used to get drunk and go get into bar fights.
[image of an animated sparkling unicorn clutching its copy of Foucault's Discipline and Punish while anally-penetrating an S.S. officer]
"Polanski only ever managed to avoid his stint in prison in the first place because he was wealthy, famous, and well-connected." And your point is what? Polanski is no Kenny Lay. Extraditing and imprisoning the director has no relation to the structural racism in the PJ's, and thinking in such a manner give false credence to a legal system that is not based on justice. And I just have to say, that a comparison on the number of comments on celebrity posts versus those that deal with people who are being blown up now, simply reifies my hatred of America. Because the vast majority think fucking a blind hermaphrodite icon can convince anyone of its justice.
@stras 2:44,
i agree with everything you just said. my comment made sense to me, and what you write doesn't seem to contradict my sense of what i meant to say.
IOZ can't watch or he's gotta pay a hundred.
" a comparison on the number of comments on celebrity posts versus those that deal with people who are being blown up now, simply reifies my hatred of America. "
Yes. In a post that points how the criminal justice system is rigged, the comments have affirmed a related point - that the celebrity media blitzes, missing white girl on vacation stories, sports culture, blogging, etc. are also means to keep people distracted and emotional about irrelevancies. This is some shameful shit here.
BLAWG!
The French understand these things:
France's Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand is facing intense pressure over a book he wrote that described paying for "young boys" in Thailand.
[...]
In his 2005 book The Bad Life, he wrote: "I got into the habit of paying for boys," saying his attraction to young male prostitutes was not dimmed despite knowing "the sordid details of this traffic".
"All these rituals of the market for youths, the slave market excited me enormously... the abundance of very attractive and immediately available young boys put me in a state of desire."
-- BBC News report
i dont need a unicorn. not even a guranteed minimum income or a way to have my appendix explode without going bankrupt.
just if you/they reeeeeeeeeely care about rape, stop. police. rape. first.
if not, then WTF is up with all the polanski haterz?
"So, so how about this. I'm not sayin' I like rape, and I'm not sayin' I want Polanski to GET AWAY with rape. All I'm sayin' is, until there is universal health care and the elimination of the prison state and a dictatorship of the proletariat... he gets hisself a free rape."
"So, so how about this. I'm not sayin' I like rape, and I'm not sayin' I want Polanski to GET AWAY with rape. All I'm sayin' is, until there is the elimination of the prison state we get ourselves lotsa lotsa lotsa free rapes."
which is to say, the anger focused on this man, in the midst of the carnival of horrors is... not about rape. or about the children...
Damn, Inspector Lee, that's some funny shit. Pity it took a hundred comments to get there.
I am sure that letting Polanski go will send some kind of message, somewhere, to the Prison State, and that a thousand flowers of freedom will bloom thereafter.
But Sad Tortoise, where prison sentences are concerned, the medium is the message.
"which is to say, the anger focused on this man, in the midst of the carnival of horrors is... not about rape. or about the children..."
So...it's a celebrity culture, for all the bad reasons that all of us know and acknowledge.
Much of the outrage is directed less at the crime itself than at the apologists of purists who are dismissing the prosecution, for a serious crime.
Including arguments that "rape just ain't that bad...just get over it, you prudes. Besides, The Man made me do my homework."
Our justice system is corrupt. Yes. What a surprising and shocking argument, totally unfamiliar to all of us here! How does that really lead to an argument that it is injust IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE to prosecute Polansky? Yes, it is silly to be fixated on "celebrities." Yet, we have posted 110+ comments on this topic.
Comments on the crimes of Henry Kissinger lack the frisson of celebrity culture and timeliness, so on such a topic...not as many comments would be expected. But, I bet if there was a statement by our host that Henry Kissinger should be allowed to go free because street crime is endemic in the United States...or because every member of the Carter, Clinton, Bush I and II and Obama administrations have not simultaneously been brought up on charges (along with all pro-war congresscritters, of course) would engender some discussion.
So what? Every human justice system has injustices. Even the indigenous tribal/clan systems which we are somehow supposed to implement once we destroy The State and Capitalism and The Patriarchy and all that.
I just cannot get all hetted up about the INJUSTICE (there as that word again) of charging Polanski. Even if some French politician admits to buying 12 year old boys in Thailand.
Interestingly, when I wrote this same post about hanging Saddam Hussein, I got a different response. Wonder what that's about.
As a woman, I would just like to say
mr. m,
i cant get too heated up about it either.
my piquant befuddlement directs at those who are aroused by the injustice polanski has committed as opposed to other and worse such things... and whatever role the psychology of such misplaced moral posturing might play in the perpetuation of things i CAN get heated up about (white phosphorus, et & c.)
as such my argument is not really about the justice system at all, but about the scales of moral ferment in the reactions of people brought to the forefront by the whole sordid affiar (aptly demonstrated by mr. ioz's button pushing)
Mr Gerardo: Most people live lives of quiet desperation. It is "fun" to worry our pretty little heads about our celebrity betters. That's all. Child soldiers in Uganda are a long way away. The director of Rosemary's Baby (must be a Satanist!) getting his comeuppance? That's excitign and close at hand! because we saw the story on E! last night. :)
erin4womans rights:
If we had just invaded Switzerland 30 years ago, dropped megatons of bombs on the major cities, killed or displaced 10% of the population, and put into power a virulent Calvinist dictatorship allied with North Korea, we would have avoided all of these problems!
I'm starting a Facebook group for people who feel so strongly about prosecuting Polanski, that they are willing to comment about it on a Blawg! anono-mousely.
This thread is beginning to remember my golf score.
The only way this debate can be resolved is a Celebrity Death Match between David Letterman's Sexual Harassment in The Workplace Penis and Roman Polanski's Child Raping Penis. The referee can be the Self Righteous Anonymous Comment Guy Who surfs the web on Company Time.
The loser has to share a cell with Michael Jackson's doctor and a video tape of John Belushi impersonating Henry Kissinger on Saturday Night Live.
Will this refereeing job involve cash? I could use some cash!
You wrote that Saddam was a brilliant director and as such might be forgiven a few rape rooms? I missed that one.
Aaron is correct:
If I may make another aside, the legal issue isn't rape. The guy's already pleaded guilty to rape. The issue here is flight to escape sentencing. The violation is not of a maiden, or even of the law, but rather of legal authority itself.
Yes. Are people to be held accountable under the law for their crimes, or not? Polanski certainly embraced this system when it was applied to his wife's killers; he has also spoken out in favour of the system as applied at the Nuremberg tribunals. It is only after the attentions of the criminal law turned to him that he began to equivocate. I don't have any sympathy for his position, or that of his defenders.
The state, and the systems of violence known as the criminal law and penal system, was developed to codify tribal taboos and make them more predictable and uniform in their application. Those who transgress are to be punished, and some care is put into ensuring that the contours of both transgression and punishment are capable of comprehension by most citizens. To the extent that this has been achieved (which is obviously far from complete), it creates wonderful efficiencies in society, because people can go about their lives with relatively less fear that they will be arbitrarily subjected to violence at the hands of the rest of the tribe. It is, like the man says, not like 'Nam -- there are RULES.
This system of violence exists as an alternative, not to a magical unicorn anarcho-paradise with no violence, but rather to a world in which wholly arbitrary mob violence is visited upon the weak and the unpopular (see, e.g. the history of lynching in America, or the adventures of Genghis Khan). I choose the criminal law's terrible violence over these, because it is better. So did Polanski. Is there something else to argue about here?
IOZ said...
Interestingly, when I wrote this same post about hanging Saddam Hussein, I got a different response. Wonder what that's about.
It's about state sovereignty. At least, that's what it's about for me. Neither Saddam Hussein nor the US signed on to a contract under which the head of state can be executed for failing to please foreign powers.
"This system of violence exists as an alternative, not to a magical unicorn anarcho-paradise with no violence, but rather to a world in which wholly arbitrary mob violence is visited upon the weak and the unpopular (see, e.g. the history of lynching in America, or the adventures of Genghis Khan). I choose the criminal law's terrible violence over these, because it is better. So did Polanski. Is there something else to argue about here?"
Yep. What he said.
Sorry Brian, but you've identified yourself, so you are disqualified from the referee position. You can do the blow by blow commentary if you'd like. Sorry, no cash. Mitterand spent it all on boys.
This could be the anarcho's Chappaquiddickian road to Damascus moment. "I used to be an anarchist until Woody Allen defended Roman Polanski, now I am a law and order crypto-fascist."
Before he goes to prison, would it be asking too much if Polanski could appear on Dancing With The Stars? I hear he does a mean Rhumba to Wild Thing.
Have we hit 100 comments before?
100 comments?
I think during the "Driving 35 in the Fast Lane Because Being a Dick Means I am Fighting The Man" debate. And, certainly during Ioz' lovely paen to Timothy "Hero of Oklahoma City" McVeigh. :)
"Consider: one does not disarm, dismantle, disassemble, or even inconvenience the goddamned patriarchy by availing oneself of its systems of coercion."
Self-serving misrepresentation of "the goddamned patriarchy," here. Prosecuting self-proclaimed sex-offenders doesn't enable the patriarchy. Claiming that the pursuit of sexual criminals is an example of "coercion" does, and it fundamentally confuses what "coercion" actually means, anyway.
I'm very glad Montag brought up determinism and responsibility. My previous link alluded to the subject, and it gives me the opportunity to link to one of my very favorite papers: Joshua Greene & Jonathan Cohen's For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Pour encourage.
Did Travis Bickle shoot black people? I recall hearing that Harvey Keitel's character was originally supposed to be played by a black actor.
Police do commit rapes (as Charles "Radgeek" Johnson has extensively documented) but I'm pretty sure that the overall number of rapes is lower where the authorities aggressively prosecute rapists (at least the civilian ones). Numbers could probably be dug up if anyone was interested and I wasn't so lazy.
I endorse the execution of Saddam Hussein, but not his trial (or the war, but I'm talking in the context of the invasion and his capture having already occurred). Just be up front and admit it's victor's justice.
Because what this thread needs is to be longer:
Prosecuting self-proclaimed sex-offenders doesn't enable the patriarchy. Claiming that the pursuit of sexual criminals is an example of "coercion" does...
Where in the world do you people get this comic book conception of the patriarchy, anyway?
The patriarchy is a vast and powerful, but loose nevertheless, confederation of social constructions and cultural mores that have been continuously created, revised, abandoned, replaced, added to and subtracted from across several millennia of male dominance of human civilization. It's not a fucking two-bit conspiracy being operated out of the headquarters of the Legion of Doom.
It functions to perpetuate and reinforce a tradition of general male privilege by lionizing and codifying psychological characteristics and systems of thought that are perceived as masculine, not to serve as some kind of half-assed Rapist Triple-A that a fuckup like Polanski can call up for a free tow when his shit breaks down.
The United States criminal justice system, from the grandstanding, macho, tough-on-crime politicians responsible for the ludicrously draconian criminal code right on down to the grandstanding, macho, tough-on-crime prosecutors and judges tasked with making sure that criminals spend as much time as possible in our macho, tough-on-criminals, third-world prison system, is every bit the instrument of the patriarchy that any glass ceiling (or whatever) is or ever has been. The patriarchy does not concern itself solely, or perhaps even primarily, with the oppression and denigration of women.
A rich white guy raping a teenage girl may have been kosher two or three hundred years ago, but time marches on and priorities change.
The patriarchy created the rules that Roman Polanski has run afoul of and the system of punishment to which he finds himself subjected. It is under no obligation whatsoever to so much as grant him leniency, much less bail his sorry ass out, especially since the spectacle of throwing the old geezer in jail for 145,000 years is such a great opportunity to be tough, self-righteous and oh-so-very masculine. That his crime happens to be rape and his victim a 13-year-old girl changes the underlying logic of the system not at all.
I still choose the mob. Ive seen enough hiroshima, mon amor, my lai, falluja, gaza, tuskegee, sorbibor, wounded knee, pretoria, grozny and greenhouse gasses to know theres a lot of space to occupy between magic unicorn land and here...
far from complete, indeed... (and just who is supposed to have relatively less fear of arbitrary violence under the system so organized?)
For one, I am astounded at the boundless confidence in the redeeming power of gub'mint administered punishment (aka "justice").
And discouraged, too. Worshipping weak gods like the state is bound to get us in serious trouble.
The Christians
far from complete, indeed... (and just who is supposed to have relatively less fear of arbitrary violence under the system so organized?)
Under the actual system of criminal law actually enforced in the United States, a woman of any social class, race, and so on is likely to be able to walk through any neighborhood in any city in the country in the afternoon without being killed or raped. Compared to a libertarian paradise like, say, Kabul, Afghanistan under the Northern Alliance in the 90s, this is pretty sweet. This security against arbitrary violence is, some might argue, not unrelated to the fact that an armed police force exists in the United States which is ready and willing to punish violent gangs of rapists, and that the presence of such an institution of state violence is what was crucially missing from Kabul during the period in question.
Look, I'm as wary of state violence as the next guy, but Jesus Christ, argue like a grownup about these things. We all live on the same planet, and we know roughly how these things actually work.
"It is, like the man says, not like 'Nam -- there are RULES."
Lulz. Not much experience with the criminal justice system outside of teevee, hmmm?
Or maybe you mean a judge rejecting a plea deal as a means to get some publicity is one of those RULES. Is that it?
Lulz. Not much experience with the criminal justice system outside of teevee, hmmm?
I'm a lawyer. I've worked on many occasions as a legal observer for the NLG. I am pretty familiar with police brutality and corruption. You are an idiot.
I think my previous posts were pretty clear that the system that we have sucks. I wasn't arguing otherwise. I was arguing that the actual alternative, which we have experienced through much of history and continue to experience in many places today, sucks a lot worse.
Go live for a few years in a place with no organ of state violence ready to punish people who break the (often systematically unjust, but usually somewhat comprehensible) "rules". Tell me how you like living according to the whims, not of an imperfectly democratic state, but of the most bloodthirsty and best-armed men in your region. I suspect you'll miss state violence.
Jesus, you people sound like George Bush when he confidently stated that the Iraqi people were better off living in a perpetual warzone than under the reign of an imperfect ruler like Saddam Hussein. A million deaths later, a few people are beginning to doubt the wisdom of that pronouncement, but apparently not you guys.
And I'm the fascist?
There is nothing more pathetic than safe, comfortable Americans claiming to prefer anarchy to the rule of law.
You dudes are so fuckin’ punk rock!
11:40,
this isn't to say we shouldn't feel fortunate about our relatively safe and stable lives, but shit, we were only born here. the United States is "the most bloodthirsty and best-armed" force in the world. a million dead Iraqis wouldn't lie about that, would they? hurrah for state violence so long as it's not pointed at me!
Aren't they supposed to at least make the trains run on time?
what an interesting picture you paint, anon@11:40am. maybe that is reality. maybe that happens when "order" dissolves. but we're not arguing absolutes here, are we? I don't see absolutes in the original post. I see a "Consider:" and a "probably deserve to be there"
and yes, perhaps people have itchy snark trigger fingers here. ever thus the Internet.
but maybe we go where we look, and not where we don't look. what would happen if our entire government was taken out? ha! I bet we'd just keep on keeping on. and I mean that we're conditioned enough here in the States to pick up right where the last guy left off. this is what we've come to expect. this is the way it's written. empire is not some armed dudes sitting around in a fortress by themselves with a bunch of angry people outside waiting to kill them, so that they have to test people's beliefs and spy on them and use brute force to keep them in check. empire is 140million voters deciding which one in the approved, groomed and vetted cabal is going to be the next leader.
is it so hard to entertain an alternative line in the mud?
Blood in the streets in the town of New Haven
Cops beating the hell out of Tibetan protesters in NYC
sucks a lot worse? i would humbly suggest that in aboslute numbers, you know, objective facts, the warlords who ruled afghanistan or those who fight it out in the streets of mogadishu and kismayo and the societies in which they operate rape and kill a lot less that the well "ordered" metropoli of the US, Europe, and China (perhaps the most orderly of all). by orders of magnitude. we might suggest this is from sheer lack of capacity, though one shouldnt over look this as a good unto itself, but might that just not be projection?
disorganized violence is much lesser in scale always than organized violence (and jeebus, as adults we ought to constantly consider WWII when assessing the morality and practicality of the international system of states).
though the visions of randomness seem to really get your goat, which brings back the real central point, i presume, which is the focus and concentration of violence.
sure it works great for me right now, i can walk everywhere and be pretty safe. does that make it true for everyone in the international state system whose outcomes you are somehow sure are less sucky than an alternative wherein they collapse or are done away with?
did the tribes of the serengeti invent the hydrogen bomb or anthrax or the SS? what exactly do you mean by sucks a lot more or less? for you? for me? or for humanity as a whole?? one ought not confuse privilege and justice.
like i said, the alternative can be pretty fucked up (somalia, kabul) and still be well, well better than what we have now, even if IM doing great, thanks.
to bring it all back home: ill take some random street rapes and murders w/o a gubmint to get the baddies in exchange for ending the capacity that allowed the great and overwhelming history of state horrors (hiroshima, Iraq, etc.) any day of the week and twice on sunday.
"I'm a lawyer. I've worked on many occasions as a legal observer for the NLG. I am pretty familiar with police brutality and corruption. You are an idiot."
You have all that education and experience, and yet you still believe all that stuff you wrote that follows the portion I quoted? That law school certainly saw you coming.
"Jesus, you people sound like George Bush when he confidently stated that the Iraqi people were better off living in a perpetual warzone than under the reign of an imperfect ruler like Saddam Hussein. A million deaths later, a few people are beginning to doubt the wisdom of that pronouncement, but apparently not you guys."
Funny, I fully recognize the folly of Iraq War II, and I understand it's a natural outgrowth of the RULES we have here in the U.S. I'm not sure you've cottoned to the second part yet.
You have all that education and experience, and yet you still believe all that stuff you wrote that follows the portion I quoted? That law school certainly saw you coming.
sadly, as any reading of Glenn Greenwald's public essays will indicate, law school breeds a certain type of intellectual blinder-fetter within its graduates, wherein they learn how to ignore real consequences of the pompous prose they print. it's all about the sales job, YO!
this also raises the 2-headed notion I laughed at when I first heard it some 20 years ago...
"a liberal merely is a former conservative who has been wrongfully arrested"
"a conservative merely is a former liberal who has been robbed at gunpoint"
oh how I wish there were more truth in that funny pair of observations
And I'm the fascist?
no, you're the pseudo-enlightened, faux-intellectual apologist for a system that you damn with faint praise.
I was arguing that the actual alternative, which we have experienced through much of history and continue to experience in many places today, sucks a lot worse.
so there's only one alternative?
gotcha.
you're a regular strawman destroyer. what a mensch!
Justin,
If you are still in the building, I try to answer your question here.
what la Rana said, Justin. sorry if I haven't been fair to either one of youze two. blawg.
CBF:
so there's only one alternative?
Historically, which is to say in the actual real-life world: Yes.
Point me toward the nearest libertarian paradise where armed gangs of men don't extort, rape and kill as the spirit moves them. Which is to say: as soon as you kill the state, it resurrects itself in a more chaotic and ugly form.
To put it another way: What is the state? A gang of aggressive, armed men enslaving others. What do you get when you smash the state? The same thing, except worse: most modern states have elaborate mechanisms built into them that make life more or less bearable for their slaves, and these take a long time to rebuild when a state is destroyed.
Again, please, if you can point out a single counterexample in history, I'm all ears. I'd also be interested in any plan you might have for eliminating the human drive to organize into groups and assert dominance over neighboring groups... a virus that induces severe autism into the entire species, perhaps? Because without that, any "anarchist" community will quickly find itself at the mercy of the nearest state/gang with imperial ambitions.
Mr. Fun:
I bet we'd just keep on keeping on. and I mean that we're conditioned enough here in the States to pick up right where the last guy left off.
Your vision of peaceful, civil, communitarian anarchy is immensely appealing, of course, but I know of at least one airtight argument against it. It's three words long, and it goes like this:
The American South.
The minute the feds are no longer a factor, you can bet the inhabitants of Jesusland would go from zero to Taliban in about six months. That's the only libertarian paradise Alabama is ever going to see: ethnic Africans in chains or strung up from trees, women enlisted as incubators, and every book other than the Holy Bible crackling on the bonfire.
I hear Somolia is really nice.
that still dont answer the question as why somalia/madmax anarchy aint better than this?
here, the aggressive men are better organized and better armed and this to you makes it.... more peaceful? more humane?
live is decidely not better for the slaves in this system: YOU just happen to live in the GREEN ZONE
Somalia actually improved under anarchy. But it was impressively fucked up when it had a government.
"This thread is beginning to remember my golf score."
Front nine or back?
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
I skipped a lot of the middle part of this thread, but I note that at the end, the world's problems remain unresolved. Somehow this is comforting.
Again, please, if you can point out a single counterexample in history, I'm all ears.
I don't suppose the Paris Commune troubles your slumbers. No, I don't suppose that.
PS: you don't get to define "libertarian" for me. you don't get to define "anarchism" for me. and you sure as hell don't get to tell me what I think. that's my job. yours is to lie about what I've posted, distort it beyond reason, and then create straw-men that you allege are my views, that you proceed to destroy, after which you pompously preen and pontificate with putrefied prose about how very correct you are... all the while avoiding reality... but saying you're talking about reality.
That would make you Keith Olbermann, or Jon Stewart. And presumably that would make you proud. Why, I don't know.
Charles F.--
The Paris Commune? Talk about a temporary gimmick. You might as well answer the request for a single counterexample to hard Hobbesian reality in world history with, "Gosh, look at the society they managed to maintain on the International Space Station". Or maybe happy hour at Bennigan's ....
or one or two villages in Spain during the Spanish Civil War (which dissovlved due to infighting and treachery).
The problem is...this anarchistic dream would be my ideal, too. I am just skeptical about it.
So...maybe one partial, imperfect solution is smaller statelets. Less opportunity to run a military empire which tries to control the world. ECOTOPIA, man. That's the ticket! :) The Solution is Dissolution.
it all depends what you think of pre-agricultural civilization (which, by defenition we know very very little about).
If its like zerzan says, perhaps the hobbsean brutality is but the tiniest, unsustainable exception to an long, stable, more just rule.
What absolute crap. The victim doesn't "believe he should be forgiven." Those are YOUR words that you have presumptuously put in her mouth. What the victim actually says is that she doesn't want the media to keep hounding her, as they did in the immediate aftermath of her rape. That, of course, is precisely what every famous man counts on when he rapes someone.
And yeah, if we can save just one teenager from being raped by a famous man with a sense of entitlement, then we must. That's called common sense and humanity.
Probably the dumbest line in this post, though, is this:
You cannot selectively call it just when you agree with it--or, you can, but it makes you an idiot.
No, it makes you an intelligent person who knows that any system designed by fallible people will be systematically just in some ways and systematically unjust in others. For rapists, yes, prison is just.
Oh, and I like the "the justice system is patriarchal! So of course we can't use it to punish rape! Because that would just be MORE PATRIARCHY!" nonsense. It's cute, this whole trying to make it a feminist thing to let rapists get away scot-free. In fact it's fucking adorable. Basically you've come up with a way to ban women from using the state to achieve our goals, even though we live in a world where the state isn't going away any time soon. No feminism for us until we live in an anarcho-topia, no ma'am! Otherwise it would be patriarchal!
The Medium Lobster wins this thread, by the way. Little rich white boy anarchist comes to the defense of big rich white boy rapist...film at 11!
Anon @ 6:31---
Methinks the true winner will be him or her that posts this thread's groundbreaking 200th comment.
So to whom are you more sexually attracted---IOZ or Polanski? If the distinction's warranted here, I've always favored a solid Brain over a solid Pole.
get him! get him now!
lulz.
so fucking boring.
"This gives me hope that, maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, but perhaps 41 years from now, the authorities will find my bike."
lulz
"Charles F. Oxtrot said...
I don't suppose the Paris Commune troubles your slumbers. No, I don't suppose that."
That is the most bone-rattling sledge-hammer to the skull comment I have ever read. Jesus Christ on a stick you are stupid.
Holy shit! It just keeps getting better. Mr. Oxtrot is a “sniper of bullshitters”
How did someone so brain dead develop such a massive ego? Look out Inkberrow, the sniper of bullshitters has you in his sights. LMFAO.
You sir are an absolute moron but you are one of the all time great unintenetional humorists. Please stick around and keep commenting. Please.
Post a Comment