Jeff Goldstein Was Wrong to Defend David Letterman for Joking About the Statutory Rape of Willow Palin
After Jeff Goldstein and I scrapped in March, I thought it would be best to keep the peace by not mentioning him or his site.
But there was one linguistic debate where I was really biting my tongue. And now that we’re speaking to each other again — however roughly — I’d like to put it to him directly: how in the world did he defend David Letterman for joking about the statutory rape of 14-year-old Willow Palin?
Our respective views are on the record, but we have never gone head to head on the issue. I’d like to challenge Jeff to do that now — sticking to the ideas and the linguistic theories.
Here is Jeff’s position, which I will quote at length (with emphasis added by me) so as to give him all the context necessary:
Dan writes:
Those of you who think it was okay for [David Letterman] to use a puppet A-Rod to screw a puppet Bristol Palin in Yankee Stadium, I want to hear it justified.
Okay then. I justify it this way:
This is what comedians do — particularly those who are charged with topical humor on a nightly basis.You can argue that the joke wasn’t funny, that it was mean spirited, that it was politically motivated, that it was sloppily constructed, that it attacked an innocent “child,” etc. But those are critiques of the joke, not reasons the joke shouldn’t have been attempted. For good or ill, Bristol Palin’s pregnancy long ago became a public event, and it is part and parcel of the “Sarah Palin” construct Letterman was taking aim at.
. . . .
Here, however, the joke relies on the suggestion that Bristol Palin’s pregnancy maps with her snowbilly trashiness, while simultaneously rubbing against the perceived morality of her mother — and, by extension, any and all Republicans (who, for better or worse, are tied in the public consciousness to the kind of “family values” platform that here is being ironized).
The joke was a political one that simultaneously took shots at the rural bourgeois and Alex Rodriguez, a favorite NY media whipping boy.
And so while it may have been unfunny to those with certain sensibilities, the only “justification” necessary is that someone thought it funny enough to make public, and we (thankfully) still have the right to make those kinds of decisions ourselves.
What Goldstein didn’t seem to understand in that post is that nobody was arguing that comedians should be deprived of the right to make decisions — but that they should exercise those decisions responsibly. Specifically: teenaged children are off-limits when it comes to sexual jokes — even (especially?) teenaged daughters of political figures.
One should not be “justifying” such attacks, but rather savaging them.
As I said in my first post on the issue:
What you need to understand to see the humor: the daughter Palin brought to the game was Willow Palin. Who is 14 years old.
Now do you see the humor?
Me neither.
Goldstein, in his comments to that post, criticized conservatives for their outrage: “I also believe the outrage here — and elsewhere on the right — has been ridiculously outsized.”
My view on this was: Letterman’s joke wasn’t funny. And unlike Goldstein, there was no way I was going to judge my fellow conservatives for their outrage. Especially given the deep wellspring of genuine outrage that was created by the way Palin and her family were treated during the campaign.
Perhaps even more outrageous was Goldstein’s defense of the joke by explaining that “the joke relies on the suggestion that Bristol Palin’s pregnancy maps with her snowbilly trashiness, while simultaneously rubbing against the perceived morality of her mother.”
First, the girl at the game was Willow Palin, aged 14, and not Bristol. All the linguistic arguments in the world can’t paper over that simple fact.
Second, the idea that anyone could consider this joke funny (and while Goldstein said he didn’t find the joke funny, he nonetheless defended Letterman for telling it) ignores the fact that the equation of Bristol Palin’s pregnancy with “snowbilly trashiness” is just another Big Lie of the Left. Had only Bristol Palin done the oh-so-sophisticated thing and “terminated her pregnancy,” nobody would have been the wiser — and there would have been no cheap opportunity to mock her “snowbilly” ways, because her transgressions would have been safely hidden away in the dumpster out back with all the little bloody limbs from fetuses the same age as babies that doctors are toiling away to save at the NICU in the same hospital.
The argument, linguistically speaking, is simple. Sure, the intent of the speaker is what it is. We should strive to determine it. But when your philosophy of language impels you to utterly ignore the way your speech will be received — even when that speech has the effect of dragging a 14-year-old girl into the spotlight as the casual object of derision for a disgusting old joke-teller (who, as it happens, has some little morality issues of his own, as we later learned) — it turns out that the effect on the audience is not something to be ignored after all.
It is to my shame that I allowed my desire to keep the peace to impel me to remain silent on this issue vis-a-vis Goldstein at the time.
But since I am no longer remaining silent on him and his ideas, I wanted to take this opportunity to call him out, on something I should have schooled him on long ago. Namely: if your theories of language lead you to justify a very public verbal assault on a 14-year-old girl, maybe it’s time to tweak those theories a bit. And to consider likely audience reaction as a legitimate consideration for a speaker to take account of — in appropriate cases, like when that reaction will harm a 14-year-old girl.
That’s my argument. I’m happy to take on Goldstein’s — if he chooses to respond to a post that discusses ideas.
If he wants to simply carry on with his little pattern of Internet threats to break the bones of people who mock him, I guess he can do that too. It’s a question of what he considers to be “on point.”
I hope he chooses this discussion of ideas and language theory. It’s time to take this discussion to a higher plane. I’m making this sincere offer to do so.
I thought he was defending Letterman’s inalienable right to be a smirking asshole and to let the marketplace decide if they want to watch him… which is where I left the discussion. It wasn’t like Jeff was getting more flexible on the issue as the night wore on…
SteveG (ece883) — 12/15/2009 @ 11:19 pmthere is no defense for such an act that can be used by an honorable person.
if Jeff defends it further, then he is, by definition, without honor, and thus a pariah among men.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 12/15/2009 @ 11:19 pmI don’t have any problem at all about that joke. None whatsoever.
Did you hear the one about the 1942 German industrialist and the 14-year-old jewess? It’s a real knee-slapper.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/15/2009 @ 11:20 pmthere is no defense for such an act that can be used by an honorable person.
if Jeff defends it further, then he is, by definition, without honor, and thus a pariah among men.
I think Jeff believes it can be justified by his views on intentionalism.
I don’t, and I didn’t when I saw his post.
Patterico (64318f) — 12/15/2009 @ 11:22 pmSo, are criminal defense attorney’s dishonorable then?
I did not really see much difference there from what Jeff was doing.
SteveG (ece883) — 12/15/2009 @ 11:30 pmHe built and argued a case for an unpopular and odious person… not a detail I’d have volunteered for, but it offered a challenge he seemed to enjoy on an intellectual level
SteveG, Jeff was not acting on behalf of another. A criminal defense attorney must needs take the position of his (or her) client on matters, and thus defend indefensible positions from time to time. Jeff, on the other hand, was taking on the role of criminal defendant, whose position was indefensible.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/15/2009 @ 11:37 pmIt was more like: here is the defendant and here is the prosecution — now choose the one you think is right and defend it.
I mean, he had no work-related obligation to do this. It was a choice.
My point is: I think it reveals a flaw in his language theory — if it means it can be used to defend this ugly joke about a 14-year-old girl.
Patterico (64318f) — 12/15/2009 @ 11:40 pmTeen pregnancy isn’t exactly un-trashy … I think it may be a net benefit to stigmatize it on network television, and if Letterman’s way is disagreeable, it’s still salutary for Bristol to be seen as a bit of a Fail. It’s just better for the village I think and it’s supportive of the girls what managed to not get knocked up by a Levi Johnston. Discernment much? No. Not so much.
In her defense, the winters are long.
But I saw Mr. Letterman’s joke in the context of a rancidly dirty socialist CBS where denigration of good Americans what value liberty and free enterprise is centralized and mandated and also David Letterman is sort of a prick anyway and I kind of wanted some Palin fan to jump on stage and kick his dirty socialist whore teeth in just cause that never happens. Well, maybe. I hardly ever watch but you gotta figure you’d hear if something like that happened.
happyfeet (2c63dd) — 12/15/2009 @ 11:45 pmIn her defense, the winters are long.
And she didn’t get an abortion.
You didn’t mention that part.
Patterico (64318f) — 12/15/2009 @ 11:49 pm“are criminal defense attorney’s dishonorable then”
That’s a much tougher question than we are supposed to admit.
I admit I love arguing for things I disagree with, for the enjoyment Steve talks about. Jeff probably enjoys it even more. He’s a very smart fella.
But at some point, publicly defending some things, at least on the root moral level, is wrong. If a defense attorney asks the questions to ensure the state’s evidence is legitimate and the case proven, but stops short of an all out campaign to break witnesses, suggest versions of events that aren’t true, and throw as much BS at the wall in an effort to confuse the jury… that’s honorable to me when the criminal is truly evil. I probably have no business sitting for the bar exam, according to a lot of people.
But absolutely, a fully maximal defense is dishonorable on plenty of occasions in my book. Most say let both sides fight it out hardcore, and may the state be able to win out if they have the evidence. But the micronarrative is that many defenders know they are helping crime occur.
I think there’s a distinction between that mess (a function of administering justice) and speaking, in the public discourse, in defense of abominable things, for no reason but enjoyment of sophistry. Tolerating speech is good, but saying bad things is often immorral.
Just speaking of generalities. I think Letterman did not insult a 14 year old so much as he got the facts wrong, and this was too much of the outrage. On the other hand, even about the older sibling, this was wrong to say. Even when a joke is funny, a joke that is mean or meant to inflict pain is still immoral. We often feel guilt for laughing at such a joke. It’s even socially acceptable to do it in most circles I run in. But it’s still wrong.
So what that it’s in the public sphere? This language intended to hurt someone by embarrassing their family. Jokes are not moral neutral. Many actions can be made that are humorous, but are clearly wrong. Did Letterman know he was harming Willow/Bristol? Of course he did. His right to make people laugh ends, morally, where their reputation begins.
Did Letterman consider these people to be major public figures who could withstand this attack? Is that where intentionalism comes into play? I think it’s a faulty premise… we all saw how naive and unprepared this family was for the hatred they got, and these kids didn’t run for office anyway. We have a standard convention about leaving the families of politicians out of it.
Letterman’s business model is to make money from making people targets of ridicule and ugly hypos. That’s not very funny when it’s directed at people who haven’t hurt anyone or asked for any attention, and it’s also not funny.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/15/2009 @ 11:56 pmThere are a lot of untrashy teen-agers who “oops” on this issue. The fact more of them don’t get pregnant is by sheer dumb luck.
Of course, if you’re going to say teen-agers being sexually-active is trashy, that’s a different argument entirely. And that’s one you cannot win, especially since Planned Parenthood (abbreviated to “PP” on sites that don’t do this blog) and all sorts of government officials (Jocelyn Elders, anyone?) say it’s A-OK for under-age chilluns to hook-up, and if they get prego, no prollem. “We, the government, will help you hide the prego and your abortion from your parents who no longer have final authority in your maturation.” So, it’s decidedly untrashy to hook-up, do the do, get prego, flush it down the toilet. But it’s trashy to say “I did an oops but I’m going to take responsibility for my mistake and not kill someone” in your mind? What a perverted set of moral codes that takes.
Footsie, did I defend you too quickly?
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/15/2009 @ 11:58 pmThere’s been a trend where abortion is widely stigmatized among girls that age, no? Stigma is very powerful.
The intentionalism comes in around the idea that it’s sort of specious to assert that Letterman didn’t think he was talking about Bristol. He wasn’t talking about the other one cause of that joke wouldn’t make sense at all.
That would be one argument to anticipate from the intentionalist camp I think.
happyfeet (2c63dd) — 12/16/2009 @ 12:03 am“in the context of a rancidly dirty socialist CBS where denigration of good Americans what value liberty and free enterprise is centralized and mandated” -feets
Yeah, it’s part of how we look to intent and decide what Letterman was really saying.
Was he trying to tell us that sex with people you aren’t married to is shameful? If he was, I’d still think this was wrong, but not nearly as much. The only think this girl did wrong was be related to a famous pro-life advocate while bearing child.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/16/2009 @ 12:06 amwell, the stigma against teen motherhood would be more for the benefit of keeping little babies from being born into unfortunate circumstances, Mr. Hitchcock…
which, that is not a pro-abortion argument per se.
happyfeet (2c63dd) — 12/16/2009 @ 12:07 amhappyfeet, of course, while you’re right that he did not mean to joke about Willow, when you say something like this to a national audience that you know will really affect someone, you need to do your homework.
Letterman was more interested in screwing his staff than getting a good one that would make sure he was telling jokes about screwing kids that were 17-18 instead of 14. He does deserve responsibility for who he accidentally said this about.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/16/2009 @ 12:11 amOn point, the joke was not on Bristol, the pregnant under-age teen. It was on Bristol’s younger sister, a different, more under-age teen. And the joke was about an easily over-age adult “doing” an under-age teen.
I don’t care which under-age teen you’re talking about. When you joke about an adult “doing” an under-age teen, it’s no longer a joke. And it’s indefensible. EOL.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/16/2009 @ 12:14 amI get that.
So he turned it into a debate and picked the least popular side; perhaps the side he had more intellectual affinity for.
I was more offended by being talked down to than I was by his position. By far.
I really didn’t care what Letterman’s intent was… not funny+14 year old girl=stfu on a visceral level for me… I always thought we should’ve just let Bristol’s Grandpa gut him like a moose
SteveG (ece883) — 12/16/2009 @ 12:19 amI see what you’re saying Dustin, but my feel is if Letterman had taken care to specify his joke was a Bristol joke it would be a lot unlikely to have kicked up as much of what it kicked up as it did.
It still wouldn’t have been a funny joke, but that’s being overlooked in the sense that comedians don’t just validate what’s funny; their Fail helps us ascertain what isn’t. They require a bit of latitude, and there will be misfired jokes as long as we have comedians, to say nothing of public speaking more generally.
It seems to me the real world damage done by Letterman’s joke pales next to the empowerment what’s been found by those asserting that what’s permissible speech in our little country is definable by pointing to David Letterman’s transgressions.
happyfeet (2c63dd) — 12/16/2009 @ 12:41 amFootsie, I wrote an article just because of you. 😉
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/16/2009 @ 12:45 amohnoes. I will go read and then bed.
happyfeet (2c63dd) — 12/16/2009 @ 12:47 am“those asserting that what’s permissible speech in our little country is definable by pointing to David Letterman’s transgressions.”
Those people are right.
Legally? Obviously no. But what’s not OK to say is something you can learn about by asking someone what’s wrong with making a joke about a politician’s kids and sex with a baseball player. decency is valuable and ought to be pursued. When it isn’t, we ought to be disappointed or at least opposed.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/16/2009 @ 12:53 amI’m saying that Mr. Letterman gave you a hook to hang that sentiment on Dustin, and it seems to me that that’s a bit more of an actual consequence than any posited hurtful joke fallout might be considered.
happyfeet (2c63dd) — 12/16/2009 @ 12:57 amI see what you mean!
Good for him, I guess. The answer to bad speech is more speech and all that.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/16/2009 @ 1:08 amI’m not saying a few here couldn’t defend themselves if it came down to it, but few here own Tony Cecchine’s prized DVD series Frat, No Tap!
I know for fact Goldstein has in his possession the complete 12-DVD series.
You’re standing there in your AF wear and one of the actives at the Sigma Nu house says “hey, we’re changing the tap, you’re gonna have to give us a few.” Sure, most people will chill. But if you, like Goldstein, owned Frat, No Tap! you’d know that you ain’t got to give nobody nothin’, much less “a few,” and “give us,” if interpreted down to its structural intent, is not just an idle request; it’s a direct challenge to engage in a eyesocket crackin’ war!
Goldstein can dismember an entire pledge class of Pikes with nothing more than the plastic tube from a beer bong and a bottle cap. The art of melee for wont of an additional plastic cup of Coors Light, don’t fuck with Goldstein, just don’t do it people.
You’ve been warned.
overlord windex (fe3db5) — 12/16/2009 @ 1:37 amSo Patterico digs up something from months ago to add to his “ridiculously outsized” flame war with JG?
“I thought it would be best to keep the peace by not mentioning him or his site”
You were right the first time.
Dood – let…….it……go.
harkin (f92f52) — 12/16/2009 @ 3:38 am[…] and the liberals are loving it 2009 December 16 by jenn1964 I don’t really read Patterico’s Pontifications or Protein Wisdom but both blogs are considered prominent in conservative blog circles and they are […]
Oh good a blogfight – and the liberals are loving it « A Conservative Shemale (d9a4c0) — 12/16/2009 @ 4:04 amPat,
The mess stewards ate the strawberries. Perfect, geometric logic won’t help you here. Let it go.
Russ from Winterset (eeca76) — 12/16/2009 @ 4:43 amRuss…you hit the nail on the head.
Infadel Mataween (4a9c06) — 12/16/2009 @ 5:00 amIt was a repulsive thing for Letterman to do, and I can’t understand anyone defending it.
JEA (0ccd61) — 12/16/2009 @ 5:06 am“First, the girl at the game was Willow Palin, aged 14, and not Bristol. All the linguistic arguments in the world can’t paper over that simple fact.”
But the joke relied on Bristol’s pregnancy. That’s different than who was actually at the game. Jokes can be told based on factual errors or misunderstandings.
imdw (9af31a) — 12/16/2009 @ 5:06 amPatrick, I think you are one of the most brilliant commentators around. I love reading your blog. I hate to say it, but blogging anything related to Jeff Goldstein is a waste of time that you could much better spend on much more interesting and worthwhile endeavors. In my humble and completely unprofessional opinion, Jeff’s got a neurological screw at an odd angle. You keep thinking you’ll change him if you argue in just the right way. But you’ll never be able to change that odd-angled screw. Only Jeff will be able to change that angle, and he’s certainly got no motivation to do so when you keep engaging him and giving him attention, which is part of what he wants.
Barbara Oakley (a19e30) — 12/16/2009 @ 5:27 amI’m eagerly anticipating Patrick Frey starting to ride a bicycle and posting crappy, poorly composed scenic photography.
Dr Carlo Lombardi (c94c0d) — 12/16/2009 @ 5:40 amYou would think that after Jeff had his offspring threatened by Deb Frisch, he wouldn’t see the humor in the sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl.
Crush Liberalism (9d23b9) — 12/16/2009 @ 5:53 amWhen you spend most of your time being an outraged extremely partisan screed, I don’t think it’s very plausible to have a moment when you sit down and say “look, let’s have a moment of decency here” or “look, all the reasonable facts point to the joke being aimed at the 14-year old.”
Those are the sorts of rhetorical moves you earn by being measured and gracious as a rule, not by day in and day out asserting that everyone who thinks differently than you politically is the vilest sort of person acting from the basest motives. Your hatred is palpable: why should anyone believe that when it comes to an inherently unclear question like “which daughter was he talking about” that you’d EVER pick anything but the option you could be the most outsizedly outraged about? As you make plain, the question doesn’t even matter, because you’d be exactly as outraged either way.
Drew (d587d9) — 12/16/2009 @ 6:01 amI think Letterman had the last word on that, which was to say there was no defense. i mean, i don’t think Letterman intended to imply that willow was having sex there. if i had to guess, letterman probably cares so little about palin that he doesn’t know she has 2 daughters, let alone what their ages are; she just knows that one got preggers.
Of course it doesn’t help that Letterman himself had sex outside of the context of marriage and fathered a child. he only recently married the mother of that child and then went on to cheat on her in his famous mea culpa. I am not one to pretend that hypocrisy is the worst sin one can committ, but it doesn’t help letterman any.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 12/16/2009 @ 6:02 amWhat A.W. said.
I don’t really give a shit about Jeff Goldstein, by the way. I think I might speak for a majority of this blog’s readers.
[note: released from moderation filter. –Stashiu]
carlitos (57cfe1) — 12/16/2009 @ 6:16 amYou would think that after Jeff had his offspring threatened by Deb Frisch, he wouldn’t see the humor in the sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl.
Bingo – if the shoe was on the other foot, he’d be out for blood, simple as that. As for Letterman, I stopped watching him shortly after he left for CBS a long time ago. He had quickly become a tiresome, hacky comedian, relying on retread gags and sketches from long ago. Time has not aged him well – he’s become a crochety old geezer screaming at the kids to get off his lawn, while oogling (and more) the young interns bringing him coffee in his Depends.
Dmac (a964d5) — 12/16/2009 @ 7:02 amI probably tend to be the morality cop on this site. I’ve got a longstanding gripe with language and behavior that doesn’t jibe with my personal definition of conservative. I understand that many conservatives, raised in a different context, might use coarse language and sexualized humor and not consider it to have any bearing on their professed political principles.
But then it strikes me as odd that the same people, who use the f-word so easily, would get so bent out of shape that a liberal would be just a bit more crude. (Or that his crudity would be extended to a target just a couple of years younger.)
Didn’t anybody notice Happyfeet’s sly little dig? “In her defense, the winters are long.” Of course, it’s not in her defense at all. It’s more subtle than Letterman, but it’s still a cute way to say that she’s just another one of those snowbillies, and how hilarious it is that the kids up there go bedhopping because it’s cold out.
I don’t think Happyfeet’s “joke” is any funnier than Letterman’s. I don’t think that teenagers, whether they’re 14 or 16 or 18, changing and perhaps even ruining the rest of their lives is very amusing at all.
I’m all for condemning Letterman for his joke. But it would be even better to see conservatives demonstrate behavior that was distinctly different. We’re the ones who believe that human beings have an inate value and dignity that, even if they less educated than we are, is great enough that they can be trusted to govern their own lives and not have a nanny government. Maybe we should start talking that way – about both friends and enemies.
Gesundheit (cfa313) — 12/16/2009 @ 7:13 amI gotta ask … what with the quotation marks around ‘child’? Does this Goldstein person really have doubts about their ages? What a completely dishonorable person!
quasimodo (4af144) — 12/16/2009 @ 7:15 am“…break the bones of people who mock him”
If Goldstein is anything like the usual internet tough guy, I doubt he could “break the bones” in his buffalo wild wings.
furious (71af32) — 12/16/2009 @ 7:15 amSo is that supposed to justify this star chamber you have convened first for Stacey and now for Jeff,
bishop (474138) — 12/16/2009 @ 7:24 amwhich drug in the cat fancier Wolcott, among others
1. I also thought the Letterman thing was overblown. He screwed up, and he admitted it. He wasn’t aiming at Willow, but it came across that way (reasonably enough) to some.
In any event, it’s a well-dead issue now.
2. Is Jeff paying you to promote his site? Is there some purpose to this war – which he must adore – that I don’t see?
I get that he’s making threats and engaging in other nonsense, and it frustrates you. But Brother Fikes is still right. Go to the monastery and consult with Brother Fikes. And stop reading and posting and helping a blog you believe to be engaging not only in unwise argument (for which responses are entirely appropriate) but malicious threats of violence designed to gain attention (for which encouragement in the form of response is borderline irresponsible.)
But that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.
–JRM, and this is the de-harshified version
JRM (355c21) — 12/16/2009 @ 7:29 amSo, Pat, when do you start attacking Andrew Sullivan?
Lazarus Long (a4f63e) — 12/16/2009 @ 7:30 amThat’s deeply incoherent, Letterman was a hack weatherman from Muncie Indiana, who makes his living as a well paid clown, the ultimate cynic, like Stewart and Maher, he of course fell for the ultimate charlatan and political hack that is Barack Obama. He disdained a real hero, like McCain, even though we disagreed with a number of his positions.
They disdained Sarah, because even though she has done more in her relatively short career confronting corrupt officials, forcing oil companies to live up to their contract, supporting
bishop (474138) — 12/16/2009 @ 7:39 amthe American soldier, by example, she has the wrong accent, and frankly looks too attractive.
And she is a devout pro life Christian, the one thing that you can’t be in public life, nowadays.
bishop
no, no, no, sarah palin committed the ultimate political sin. she is a sexy, conservative woman. nothing drives liberals more crazy than that.
my best guess for why is that liberals have mixed up sex and politics in a way that can turn just plain ugly.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 12/16/2009 @ 7:42 amPatrick, I’m thinking you personally need a dog trainer.
serr8d (ae16c5) — 12/16/2009 @ 7:46 amBut Brother Fikes is still right. Go to the monastery and consult with Brother Fikes.
Brother Fikes has said his piece about this matter. He understands that this is not his blog, so he won’t belabor the point.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641) — 12/16/2009 @ 7:57 amNo, if you remember the lead up to that joke, were remarks suggesting Sarah was keying cars in New York and was dressing like a hooker. So the intent was clear, to ridicule her to place her outside of the realm of any actual serious consideration. the fact she was speaking before a charity for special needs children, and she happened to take in a base ball game, That she went on to Houston, to secure the construction of a natural gas pipeline, in order to solve a real problem.
Frankly I don’t care about whatever degenerate acts Letterman does in private, although maybe a little discretion is in order. But his role in
bishop (474138) — 12/16/2009 @ 7:58 ampromoting the fraud that is Obama, and tearing down anyone who stands in the One’s way, is a different issue, and comedy doesn’t enter into it
This post is mostly rhetorical. I don’t expect Goldstein to try to debate me on it, because he has no argument.
Thus ends the interchange, I’m thinking. If the only thing he can say is to threaten various violent acts, and if he is unwilling to defend his language theories when (as here) I can prove they have flaws, there’s really nothing more to be said, is there?
As I say above, I hope he changes his mind about both. There is a large section of people who are sick of the nastiness, but who would like to see a high-level discussion about language unaccompanied by the personal insults. That won’t ever happen with Goldstein, but I’m willing to weather the inevitable insults to discuss this particular issue.
This is the controversy that makes the flaws in his theory most apparent. Which is why he probably won’t take me on.
Patterico (64318f) — 12/16/2009 @ 8:03 amPatterico,
A good man on his way down, meeting a bad man on his way up, and both living happily ever after, is a standard literary device. I hope Jeff meets his bad man, for his sake.
nk (df76d4) — 12/16/2009 @ 8:09 amBut you’re not him, and neither am I.
nk (df76d4) — 12/16/2009 @ 8:10 amIf that needed to be said.
nk (df76d4) — 12/16/2009 @ 8:11 amIn response to criticism that it’s inappropriate to accuse inquire publicly about the (potentially) bad character of bloggers, based on inadequate or mistaken interpretation of those people’s intent, Mr. Frey launches a new inquisition that completely dismisses Mr. Letterman’s intent (making fun of an 18-year-old) in favor of Mr. Frey’s perception (making sexual jokes about a 14-year-old).
Did this line of argument work so well last time that you’ve decided to repeat it?
Squid (9e6447) — 12/16/2009 @ 8:17 amLet him make the argument, Squid.
Patterico (64318f) — 12/16/2009 @ 8:20 amI coulda sworn the word “accuse” was struck through in the preview. Just pretend it is. But don’t actually take a pen to your monitor, because I’ve learned the hard way that that doesn’t work very well.
Squid (9e6447) — 12/16/2009 @ 8:20 amIf “Words mean things” where have I heard that argument before, Jeff didn’t threaten you, then and he didn’t do it this week. I don’t know if Stacey meant what he said 13 years ago. We know exactly what Letterman meant, and why he did it. Because of the context, I think that is the point of intentionality.
bishop (474138) — 12/16/2009 @ 8:31 amThis obsessive need to best Jeff Goldstein is creepy and embarrassing. You’re becoming a laughingstock
Andy S. (cff743) — 12/16/2009 @ 8:32 amI just tried to leave this comment at Goldstein’s site:
It didn’t post. It appears the ban is now a two-way.
And yet I have threatened violence against nobody. I was merely trying to debate ideas.
Patterico (64318f) — 12/16/2009 @ 8:34 amWhat Andy said.
C. Johnson (cff743) — 12/16/2009 @ 8:34 amYou’re giving obsessed cranks a bad name.
Oh, never mind. It was just another post accusing me of anti-Semitism that he took down.
Patterico (64318f) — 12/16/2009 @ 8:35 amJeff started all this Andy S., and then re-started it, and he picked the wrong target. All the things you guys are saying to Patterico, about conservatives not being at each others’ throats, Jeff should have known.
nk (df76d4) — 12/16/2009 @ 8:40 amPat, this has nothing to do with language theory. Everybody got Letterman’s joke. Everyone understood Dave when he said he meant Bristol instead of Willow. Believe him or don’t, everyone understood both messages. There’s no other interpretation to argue about.
As to defending the joke, here’s why: the audience laughed, which I assume means they appreciated him telling it. We can think it’s unfunny and tasteless and outrageous and beyond the pale and shouldn’t have been told (and I think all of those things, no matter which daughter he meant), but neither side gets to be the sole arbiter of good taste or acceptable humor. Public opinion delivered its verdict on Dave a long time ago.
blah (7499b3) — 12/16/2009 @ 8:44 amSubstitute the eldest Obama daughter for Willow Palin and instead of “snowbilly”, why not call her a “nappy-headed ‘ho”? Now see if he thinks that’s funny.
John425 (eae6ea) — 12/16/2009 @ 8:46 amOh brother, that’s just retarded. You might could say he doesn’t have a good argument, but I suggest you are less than honest if you stand behind that statement.
I was one that disagreed with Jeff at the time on this topic. Not on his argument, just on his opinion that I shouldn’t be outraged over it.
The argument from his perspective is easy. He (Letterman) made the joke about Bristol, that was his intent, otherwise the joke doesn’t work. So being outraged about him making a sexual joke about underage Willow is disingenuous. If you want to argue he should have been more careful to know which daughter was there, fine. But from a linguistic perspective on intent, you don’t have a leg to stand on.
I was pissed at the usual hypocrisy from the left, where a politicians children are off limits, except if they are conservative. I have no trouble accepting that Letterman didn’t intend the joke be about Willow.
I think you make yourself look more foolish each time you start trying to disprove what you call a “theory” of language. You sound like a plumber trying to tell a doctor he is wrong about his “theory” of biology, and prevention isn’t important to good health.
[note: released from moderation filter. –Stashiu]
LBascom (69d423) — 12/16/2009 @ 8:46 amPatterico, it might be too many links close together. The comment filter at pw is set to block comments with more than two links to weed out the comment spam, at least that’s been my experience.
I bet if you try again without the third link it will work.
DarthRove (163bb9) — 12/16/2009 @ 8:49 am“What was done, how well was it done, was it worth doing?” are the basic questions of criticism in one school; “Making fun of a politician’s child’s pregnacy”, “Not very well; wrong daughter targeted”, and “No” are my answers.
That it continues to be a topic of discussion is actually more interesting than the joke ever was.
htom (412a17) — 12/16/2009 @ 8:49 amNo, there’s no defending the joke, when you put in context, it is indicative of Letterman’s contempt for her and her family, and as we later saw, his intentions. What his ratings are higher now, so I don’t so how public opinion entered into it
bishop (474138) — 12/16/2009 @ 8:55 amBishop,
blah (7499b3) — 12/16/2009 @ 9:01 amYou said the joke is indicative of Letterman’s contempt for her and her family. Agreed. I don’t know what his ratings are , but the ratings are the public opinion. A lot of people got angry, a lot of people didn’t. And in the end, Dave’s still on TV.
…that he’s allowed to post here. Right? Because he’s banned, right?
And there’s no way he’d invoke the First Amendment right to be a jackass or note that Letterman suffered no consequences whatsoever from his employer or to his livelihood. Were he not banned, that is.
Voltaire? Never heard of him.
Pablo (99243e) — 12/16/2009 @ 9:05 amLooking for another kiss, Pablo? Or another thirty dollars?
nk (df76d4) — 12/16/2009 @ 9:10 amOutstanding argument, counselor. Do you teach, nk?
Pablo (99243e) — 12/16/2009 @ 9:27 amSo is Jeff G. unbanned here so he can respond to your challenge of a “head-to-head”?
Or are you going to declare his enforced silence on a site where he’s banned from commenting as victory? I hope not.
DarthRove (fbc3b8) — 12/16/2009 @ 9:49 amI was wrong about you, Pablo. I can’t stand being wrong.
nk (df76d4) — 12/16/2009 @ 9:51 amAnd, no, I don’t teach, I do.
nk (df76d4) — 12/16/2009 @ 9:53 amYou guys are acting like Goldstein can’t possibly address the points Patterico’s raising because he’s banned from the comments section of this blog. The thing is… he has his own blog. He can address the points there, if he’s willing. People hold debates across disparate venues all the time. People debate things through op-ed columns in newspapers. It’s not a revolutionary concept.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 12/16/2009 @ 10:01 amWhy am I intrigued by the thought that this whole kerfluffle is a back-room deal by the protaganists to bump the site-count on their respective blogs?
AD - RtR/OS! (e12e24) — 12/16/2009 @ 10:16 amAD
Honestly i think most people are turned off by this kind of thing. but taranto will be thankful to you for using his word.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 12/16/2009 @ 10:18 amTaranto has his own word?
Word.
Who’s taranto?
LBascom (01c9ab) — 12/16/2009 @ 10:28 amThe word is kerfuffle, not kerfluffle.
Official Internet Data Office (0a4bf0) — 12/16/2009 @ 10:45 amDavid Letterman was wrong, but this is the wrongest:
Techno Chicken.
Fritz (771258) — 12/16/2009 @ 10:46 amI hope Christian Bale plays the part of Jeff Goldstein in that new Brett Ellis Easton flick, Semiotic Psycho.
coverdale (fe3db5) — 12/16/2009 @ 10:58 amPatterico, I believe your argument is, that because Letterman made a joke about “Palins daughter at the ball game”, and since the only daughter at the game was Willow, you can only conclude that the joke was aimed at Willow.
I can’t believe you can’t see how the target of the joke is who Letterman thought it was. If to him it was the pregnant one he was thinking of instead of the young one, then regardless if it was the young one that got hit, she wasn’t the target.
Oh, and being just an average man without the huge bulging brains to figure out the meaning of intent, I substituted “target” for intent in the above explanation.
LBascom (01c9ab) — 12/16/2009 @ 11:02 amHow about a ‘joke’ about the two daughters of the current POTUS taking on a hockey team and asking for another team to releave them. B’O’ or M’O’ I could believe but not the daughters.
Scrapiron (4e0dda) — 12/16/2009 @ 11:17 amSee, I don’t think that would get any laughs. Liberals wouldn’t laugh because it’s their guy, and the right wouldn’t laugh because they have different values.
Letterman knew his audience.
LBascom (01c9ab) — 12/16/2009 @ 11:25 amHas there been any outrage on the part of A-Rod at the suggestion that he likes banging underage girls?
Dave (in MA) (037445) — 12/16/2009 @ 11:28 amI am really bored with the Pat/ Jeff smackdown. It’s personal. You don’t like each other. I get it. Now, let’s move on.
Dave S (24f0d7) — 12/16/2009 @ 11:33 amThe science is settled. There is NO BAN on Patterico at PW. Not sure how Jeff can pointedly NOT do something, but I’m sure of his intent:
Joan of Argghh! (a0f002) — 12/16/2009 @ 11:37 am“Or are you going to declare his enforced silence on a site where he’s banned from commenting as victory? I hope not.
Comment by DarthRove”
I’d have a hard time commenting on this blog anymore if I see Jeff G here. He threatens people he disagrees with. This isn’t in dispute, and anyone defending this behavior has no standing whatsoever. There’s a baseline for conduct
Patterico’s trying to end this fight on a high note, with Jeff posting, on his blog, a reply to this debate. If he wants to. Patterico’s message has returned to the purely intellectual, and he has no control over what PW does.
Jeff’s reply will probably be linked if he doesn’t threaten to hurt people this time. But he was banned for legit reasons. You can’t blame Patterico for banning Jeff… that is 100% Jeff’s fault. If he has a problem not being welcome, he shouldn’t have behaved like an idiot.
Dave S, it’s personal when people threaten you. If you hold that against both sides equally, you have a problem. But this particular thread isn’t a personal attack, so why are you bringing that up here? there’s a thread all about that for you to complain on. This thread is an attempt to elevate things. I know a lot of Jeff’s fans want no one to criticize Jeff or even debate against him. So what?
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/16/2009 @ 11:50 amI’m not bored a bit. Words are the foundation for all that we are. Communication, even bad communication, is a gift. When things get knotty or even naughty, it’s a grand thing to observe good minds working to unravel the Gordian tangle.
As long as everyone seeks Truth, first and foremost and at the pain of loss of face, then debate is endlessly fascinating.
When the stakes are raised to race-labeling, the seriousness of the charge must be unwound, thread by thread and inspected carefully for flaws. Tedious work, but worthy of those who want precision.
Joan of Argghh! (a0f002) — 12/16/2009 @ 11:53 amI like reading this blog. However, I don’t care for fights with other bloggers. Please declare victory and put the business with this zipper head behind you.
Abdul Abulbul Amir (4d55c2) — 12/16/2009 @ 12:01 pmBawk, bawk, BAAAWk!
Chicken.
Jeff didn’t ban you. You banned him.
You’re free to comment over there (dirty I know, but we’ll clean the place up just for you)
Makes you kind of a pussy, don’t it?
And if you’re struggling with the lingual intent of “kind of”, well…like a commenter over at PW suggested, feel free to leave the “kind of” out.
Lamontyoubigdummy (dfff97) — 12/16/2009 @ 12:02 pmAnd ,I suppose, your “baseline” has justification for existing immediately below whatever was said to provoke an observation that, if that was said in person, would result in an old-fashioned ass kicking.
Are you Pattericos baseline czar?
LBascom (01c9ab) — 12/16/2009 @ 12:03 pm[…] victim as a “hooker”). And Wolcott’s very entertained by the chirping that Patrick and Jeff are engaged […]
James Wolcott [Protein Pontifications Post] | Little Miss Attila (62389c) — 12/16/2009 @ 12:14 pmFor several days now …
BJTex (a2cb5a) — 12/16/2009 @ 12:15 pmIs the end in sight, Dustin or is it just a high C sung by Jackie Mason?
Transcendent Irony: It’s what’s for dinner!
BJTex (a2cb5a) — 12/16/2009 @ 12:22 pmLBascom, fail. The staff knew. The TROPE played on was “Palin has slutty daughters, ’cause you know about that Bristol one.” The wording of the joke was ambiguous on purpose because to name Willow would have stolen , or ruined the joke they wanted to tell.
SarahW (692fc6) — 12/16/2009 @ 12:26 pmSarah’s #96 is a legit interpretation. I used to watch Letterman all the time, and this is actually a more likely interpretation than the one I offered way above, and David simply didn’t know what he was talking about.
This is a show that loves clever subtlety and is relentlessly cruel.
BJTex, The end already happened, and you didn’t notice. While some folks keep insisting that this is still a rage war of personal insults, this isn’t. It’s a legit discussion about how to interpret and reflect on someone’s comments. Just because that was part of the argument throughout the entire ‘blogwar’ doesn’t mean we can’t talk about it again.
Patterico made an offer, and I hope people take him up on it. Take him at his word… he wants to talk about Letterman’s joke and how it crossed the lines of decency.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/16/2009 @ 12:31 pmWhen I tried to comment at PW this morning the post was gone. I think the screen is still open that way at home, saying there is no such post. He’s denying he took it down??.
I am now on a lunch break and see he put it back up.
Someone get this guy a blog so he will have the ability to respond. Wait …
Patterico (32af23) — 12/16/2009 @ 12:32 pmHe threatens people he disagrees with.
Where does this nonsense come from?
So glad you and Mr. P blessed us with “the purely intellectual”. That was a fireworks display complete with one whole bottle rocket.
Awesome.
Oh, and you can unclench Dustin. Jeff has a hard and fast rule. He won’t slap a man with obvious sand in his vagina. And since he’s banned here, you and your delicate sensibilities are safe and can continue to “comment on this blog” regularly.
All to its betterment, I guess.
Lamontyoubigdummy (dfff97) — 12/16/2009 @ 12:34 pm“Are you Pattericos baseline czar?
Comment by LBascom ”
No. And I don’t want to be. I don’t want to be the Sharmuta of this blog. No one likes a sychophant. If you have an argument as to why we should let people threaten eachother, make it. If all you ahve to say is ‘who do you think you speak for’, my answer is me alone. Most people probably can’t stand my comments anyway, but agree with the idea of banning obvious trolls who threaten people.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/16/2009 @ 12:35 pmLamontyoubigdummy,
I feel I’m helping Jeff G trolls threadjack this discussion about Letterman’s joke.
Suffice to say we have different understandings of the facts. I think you will learn more about this if you actually read Patterico’s post (this one), which uses links you should follow. You speak of Jeff like a true sychophant, so I understand why you think that’s why I am. That’s not compelling. As long as you don’t threaten me too, we can have a discussion of this topic right here without being enemies. Or at least I can. Can you?
SarahW pointed out that David Letterman was vague about who he was talking about because he wanted to make fun of Palins in general. I think this is completely probable. While the other argument, he should do his homework and be held to account no matter what errors he made, makes sense too, he’s notoriously clever about his cruel humor.
Isn’t the trope that Palin’s family is entirely a bunch of trailer-trash? Rewatching the skit with Sarah’s interpretation in mind… it just fits a lot better.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/16/2009 @ 12:41 pmThat’s still called argument by assertion, even if you can come up with a plausible scenario.
Besides, I’m not arguing that Letterman is anything other than an asshole, along with the audience that laughed, I’m speaking about the leftist tactic of taking a persons words, and changing or adjusting them to mean what you heard, not what they were intended to mean. It is an un-pragmatic thing to do when you know how dangerous and destructive it is when the left does it.
And I’m probably speaking of it poorly; you could likely get a better feel for it if you read Jeffs take on it.
Oh yeah, right, Jeff isn’t allowed to defend his position here, so you will have to go to PW and debate him, or satisfy yourself with my sub-par linguistic talents.
LBascom (01c9ab) — 12/16/2009 @ 12:46 pmDustin: I’m betting that with these two heavyweights, we are no where near the end and there won’t be a high note to be found. No doubt yanking nine month old arguments to perpetuate the kerfuffle may have had a deleterious effect upon said ending.
But you just go ahead a wring your hands and dab your eyes over the awful speech and threats of harm. I’m sure that high note will appear riding an ass sidesaddle.
BJTex (a2cb5a) — 12/16/2009 @ 12:47 pmWait for what? Wait for you to go over there and read for yourself?
That would require actually going and reading, though. This failure on your part of actually reading what Jeff has to say is the whole problem, Patrick.
Slartibartfast (d553bf) — 12/16/2009 @ 12:54 pmIf by “ending on a high note,” you mean resurrecting a controversy from months ago and misconstruing the arguments that were made at the time, then sure, whatever. If letting Jeff post on his blog, just to have his arguments cherry-picked and misconstrued here, is your idea of fair debate, then sure, whatever. I don’t share those definitions, but I’ll leave you to define your own intent.
If you hadn’t noticed, there’s 600 comments of debate on the linked thread, a significant proportion of which are Jeff’s regular commenters disagreeing with him. Hell, the original thread started because Dan Collins (a co-blogger at the time) issued a challenge to defend the behavior. How much longer do people have to kick this argument around before you and Frey are satisfied? Within the original post and the comments that follow it, Goldstein makes clear the basis for his beliefs that Letterman is unclever, sloppy, and lazy, but not condoning of statutory rape. Check comments 50 and 186 for specifics, if you think I’m being deceitful.
Now, why should Jeff Goldstein, or any of his advocates, believe that you and Mr. Frey are motivated by a sincere desire to elevate this argument to a higher plane, when you’re quite obviously ignoring the arguments that have been sitting there, in plain sight, since June? What is it about a blatant misrepresentation of Jeff’s argument, in the very title of this post, that elevates it to a higher plane of sincerity?
Mr. Frey says:
The quickest reply to which is simple: If your theories of language allow you to redefine a bad joke about an 18-year-old into a verbal assault on a 14-year-old, maybe it’s time to admit that your theories aren’t very fair to authorial intent. Mr. Frey’s continuing insistence on misrepresenting his targets’ intent in the most unflattering terms is at the heart of the past week’s conflict, and I sincerely wish somebody around here would recognize exactly what he’s doing.
Squid (9e6447) — 12/16/2009 @ 1:04 pm“sycophantic Jeff G troll”
That is so going on my next job application.
I beg your pardon Dustin, for calling out your inflammatory, whole cloth douchebaggery. You talk a lot of smack for a fella who just wants to be “friends”. Dunno Jeff, don’t carry his water. From what I’ve read, I don’t need to. The concept of intent escapes all on your end. Including your captain here. Jeff had an exhaustive post with well over 200 comments on the Letterman subject. I ain’t his publicist, just saying. I was one who happened to disagree with him on the subject (and did so in the comments), but still felt he argued an pretty reasonable point. And last I checked, Goldstein didn’t threaten to kill anybody in those comments.
Or these.
Lamontyoubigdummy (dfff97) — 12/16/2009 @ 1:14 pmDustin calls LYBD a “sycophantic Jeff G troll.”
Pot, meet kettle. And, no, they aren’t black.
Oh and what Squid said. I was one of those commentators arguing against Jeff’s position. I managed to do so without raising questions of whether or not Jeff was a misogynist or defended statutory rape. It was probably not as much of a “high note” as dredging up the business months later to perpetuate a blog war but, hey I may not be a reasonable man.
BJTex (a2cb5a) — 12/16/2009 @ 1:19 pmOh, my #102 was for Sarah at #96
Also I should have added a link to:
And informed everyone that JeffG wants you to know:
after I said:
LBascom (01c9ab) — 12/16/2009 @ 1:22 pmNot sure this thread was such a good idea… evidently your intention was to get kicked in the nuts.
I gotta say that JeffG seems to be enjoying himself immensely at your expense.
I’m reminded of that old saying to never argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel. It seems appropriate here.
SteveG (909b57) — 12/16/2009 @ 1:24 pmMaybe Mirandize yourself too if you decide to continue
Um, he didn’t threaten anyone in these comments because this blog doesn’t let that stuff continue. I didn’t say he threatened to kill anyone. You’re just trying to insult people you disagree with and derail a discussion of Letterman’s joke that criticizes Jeff G’s views on the sheer merits of his argument.
Like I said, there is a thread for what you’re wanting to talk about, but you just want to derail this thread, right? You’re the one persisting this blog war when we’re the ones trying to have a nice discussion.
Anyone can read what you say and decide if you’re carrying Jeff’s water or not. You promising that you’re not is totally convincing, though!
Yes, I want to be friends. I smack of the person that I am. This is something I am sure Jeff G thinks makes me a total sissy pussy. That’s why he’s a failure in life and I have friends. He’s a loser. he is trash. he is scum. He’s a criminal who will have IRL legal problems in the near future if he threatens a single additional person. That’s ALL that will EVER come of you bringing this shit up. So don’t bring it up here, unless that’s your clever intent. Let’s just discuss his view on Letterman, on the merits. You say he’s got a post on it. so what? So do we, right here. You aren’t being forced to participate… but bringing up irrelevant shit to derail the discussion is pointless.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/16/2009 @ 1:24 pm“I gotta say that JeffG seems to be enjoying himself immensely at your expense. ”
This is not true. He didn’t threaten to break people’s ankles because he was happy. He didn’t threaten to leave scott broken on the ground because he was enjoying himself. Bullies always play the ‘I meant to do that’ card when they are humiliated, but that’s not relevant to whether or not his defense of Letterman is rational.
Letterman is a good example of how we can use someone’s words as a window into their intent… and it’s good example of why we don’t even need to (in my opinion).
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/16/2009 @ 1:27 pmBefore someone tells my I’m obsessed, I’m having a terrific day and I’m not worried about Jeff aside from replying to people who address me on it.
I have no intention of EVER bringing him up unless someone asks me to (impliedly by addressing me on the topic). There are a lot of internet tough guys… he’s probably the worst I’ve seen since the one who attacked his family (and he deserves sympathy for that), but is otherwise another unremarkable thinker with bad arguments who resorts to cop-out defenses like “I will break your ankles”. Don’t bring that shit up, and I won’t. I want to be friends.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/16/2009 @ 1:29 pmOh, gods, Dustin. Call a Wahmbulance and be done with it.
Jeff’s comments may have been intemperate at times but you are beating a drum like he’s going to show up at someone’s door with a suitcase nuke.
BJTex (a2cb5a) — 12/16/2009 @ 1:33 pmDustin,
You have a comment that went into moderation automatically. It’s still there. Patterico or DRJ can decide whether to release it or not because I’m not going to. Please self-moderate and remember that you are in someone else’s house.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/16/2009 @ 1:34 pmYes, I agree. I mean, who cares what Letterman intended by that, when we can decide for ourselves? Indeed, we can pretty much ignore any subsequent clues to intention, once we’ve decided, and denounced.
Slartibartfast (d553bf) — 12/16/2009 @ 1:37 pmIf we can’t denounce how are we to know that we are better than others?
Makewi (0864f9) — 12/16/2009 @ 1:44 pmPish tosh, Slarti old chum! To ignore intention would be unsporting! Far better, methinks, to engage in a bit of loud and public inquiry into the motivations and character of such people.
To assume the mantle of Arbiters of Taste and Good Breeding would be presumptuous, do you not agree? Far better to cast ourselves as Seekers of Truth. Such truth not necessarily being bound to what people mean when they say things, of course. That would be simply too confining!
Squid (9e6447) — 12/16/2009 @ 1:47 pmIf David Letterman fell in the woods … and landed on Willow Palin … ans Sarah came along and gutted David like a moose … would she be reasonable conservative?
Discuss!
BJTex (a2cb5a) — 12/16/2009 @ 1:47 pmI denounce and condemn all of you xenophobic jingoistic imperialist warmongering misogynistic homophobic racists. You know who you are.
JD (6a02c8) — 12/16/2009 @ 1:51 pmAnybody care to comment on JD’s intent?
Dustin will, no doubt, be along to to wring his hands over JD’s aggressive denunciations.
OH, THE HUMANITY!!
BJTex (a2cb5a) — 12/16/2009 @ 1:54 pmStash, fair enough. I think I know what the problem was.
BJTex, I don’t want to bring this topic up at all. I’m replying to people addressing it. I haven’t brought Jeff up for days. You guys keep bringing him up in a way that I find hard to resist.
I think you have a point that I’m replying far too often. If the case is as clear as I think, it really shouldn’t call for the efforts I’ve made to prove. By repeatedly saying the same thing ‘you are whining’ ‘you should let it go (when it’s already been let go)’, I get way too flustered and annoyed. Jeff has no defense for what he did aside from ‘shut up about it’. By replying, I’m probably giving the jerks way oo much credit and annoying everyone.
Still, whatever was wrong with me replying to someone’s irrelevant whine is doubly wrong with you goading such an exchange. I’m apologizing to the legit commenters who found the topic interesting.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/16/2009 @ 1:54 pm“Yes, I agree. I mean, who cares what Letterman intended by that, when we can decide for ourselves? Indeed, we can pretty much ignore any subsequent clues to intention, once we’ve decided, and denounced.
Comment by Slartibartfast”
Thanks for getting the topic back on track.
I explained this view at the beginning of the thread, but let me repeat it: Letterman is an adult and a professional who was saying something about a young person who has made little effort to get into the limelight, hasn’t run for office, or anything like that. He said something about a 14 year old girl that was sexual and ugly. Even if this was completely on accident, he has a responsibility for the results of his work.
Also, you quoted an aside that was kinda opposite of my general point. I was saying ‘Although A, I think B now’. Quoting A, just to mock it, isn’t anything to lose sleep over, but I think A is actually the view that has the best argument.
We’ll never know for sure if Letterman meant to joke about Willow or Bristol, but we know for sure that he should have been more careful, because no matter what he thinks, his words have effect and do stand on their own as his product.
this is the opposite of Patterico and Jeff’s view on intent… I don’t give up on the idea of looking at intent, but some hand wringing is appropriate when that quest inevitably fails to reach a certain conclusion.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/16/2009 @ 2:01 pmThanks Dustin.
To everyone that feels a burning need to curse and throw out ad-homs or other personal attacks with little point, many of these comments go into moderation automatically. I believe my diminishing sense of urgency to review and approve them will be understandable to most. Or not. It is what it is.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/16/2009 @ 2:06 pmKind of an “ends justify the means” thang huh?
How very…pragmatic of you…
LBascom (01c9ab) — 12/16/2009 @ 2:09 pmReminds me of this: Bill Maher on Craig Fergusen. “What, that’s it?”
Fritz (f04c33) — 12/16/2009 @ 2:10 pmby the way, my email address may look like jibberish, but it’s actually my email address.
The last thing I want to do is f up this blog.
“Kind of an “ends justify the means” thang huh?
How very…pragmatic of you…
Comment by LBascom ”
No, no no… I’m not sure I understand what you mean by this, but it’s not sheer utilitarianism. Letterman knows he will be held to account for what he says, even if he goofs up, so he better do his homework and say what he means. Even if he made a mistake (which I agree, is totally a legit guess), he still produced something harmful to a kid in a way that is indecent to me. It’s like GM making a car that explodes. they didn’t mean to, so I can’t be as mad at them as I am at a car bomber. I can still be mad at them because, at root, I know they were negligent.
This case is like a reformed carbomber working at GM making cars that explode. I cannot prove more than negligence while I suspect something worse.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/16/2009 @ 2:15 pm“pragmatic”
lbascom, was that a reference to Aceofspades trying to explain the division on the right between pragmatists and (can’t recall the other category?)
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/16/2009 @ 2:19 pmComment by Official Internet Data Office — 12/16/2009 @ 10:45 am
David Hobbs says “kerfluffle” AIR, among other mangelizations of the Queens’s English.
AD - RtR/OS! (e12e24) — 12/16/2009 @ 2:20 pmI haven’t brought Jeff up for days.
Dude. Let him out. He needs air.
…in a way that I find hard to resist.
Jeff! Watch out for your cornhole bud!
Jeff has no defense for what he did…
Lighten up, Francis.
Hey, can a rear naked choke be considered a defense? Cuz one’s getting put to your argument right now. Your gonna want to tap before the lights go out.
Shoot. That was rude. Where are my manners? After all, you’ve only lied and insinuated. What about multiple posts followed by personal thread commentary (all accessible) that cover this issue entirely? Would that work? It’s over at PW when you feel up to it. It’s banned over here. Guess it’s rated R or something.
By replying, I’m probably giving the jerks way oo much credit and annoying everyone.
The “jerks” in this case have their own line of credit. And its getting bigger by the minute. Better you just concentrate on being annoying.
Lamontyoubigdummy (dfff97) — 12/16/2009 @ 2:23 pmDustin, I hope you’ll understand that your statement stands in precise contradiction to the argument Goldstein has been making for several years now. One who believes that the speaker’s intent is preferred over the receiver’s (mis)understanding, and who further believes that the primacy of speaker’s intent is the foundation of communication, will surely look at your assertion to the contrary as poisonous to this school of thought.
The idea that speakers everywhere should walk on eggshells to avoid offending somebody somewhere at some point in the future is terribly destructive to clear communication. It leads people to dilute their thoughts into PC pablum and takes away sharpness and precision in communication. It gives listeners the privilege of deciding the meaning of words, and leaves speakers at their mercy. Yes, the Letterman example is extreme, but this argument filters down to where it affects everybody. If you’ve spent any time on a college campus in the past thirty years, you’ll surely recognize this.
Please, I implore you, read Goldstein’s essays on Language and Intentionalism. Even if you don’t agree with him, you’ll at least understand why the argument is important, and why things like your statement above really rub some of us the wrong way.
Squid (9e6447) — 12/16/2009 @ 2:25 pmI dunno Dustin… when I read JeffG’s post, it seemed clear that he was enjoying himself.
You can redefine happiness as happening with only the purest (by your determination) of motivations.
But, I was happy this morning when I pulled over and pissed three cups of coffee all over an echium too.
Sometimes pissing all over something brings great happiness… it can be a guilty pleasure… or not(guilty).
Lets say JeffG had 5 cups of coffee this AM and was looking for somewhere to pee….
Anyway, if you want to know if JeffG enjoyed himself while writing this AM, you could go ask him.
SteveG (909b57) — 12/16/2009 @ 2:28 pmWear a raincoat though
“Dustin, I hope you’ll understand that your statement stands in precise contradiction to the argument Goldstein has been making for several years now.”
I thought I said that a couple of times. Yes, I know what you are saying (in butter’s voice). I like his view, actually, in the most ultimate moral sense. I’m a huge fan of Kierkegaard’s Johannes Climacus writings on how we don’t really know what something means just by looking at the text itself.
But we have to take a leap of faith, and while I grant this is not ideal, we only have limited means to base things off of. Letterman will serve himself when he explains what he said, and isn’t reliable or really even relevant at that point.
this is an altogether different point, though, from noting that at best he was negligent and sloppy and a girl was indecently attacked as a result.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/16/2009 @ 2:31 pmSteveG, don’t take my not replying to your point as anything but me trying not to talk about that right now.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/16/2009 @ 2:31 pmIs there anything inherent in classical liberalism as an ethos that rejects as illegitimate the sexualization of children, even in jest?
Fritz (f04c33) — 12/16/2009 @ 2:33 pmIs there anything inherent in classical liberalism as an ethos that rejects as illegitimate the sexualization of children, even in jest?
What, you think restricting speech by a cheesy comic is more in line with classical liberalism?
Silver Whistle (dfe824) — 12/16/2009 @ 2:38 pmIf the words stand alone, without his intent, then they are not his product.
LBascom (01c9ab) — 12/16/2009 @ 2:39 pmWell! My stupid blockquotes aren’t working.
For #134-
We’ll never know for sure if Letterman meant to joke about Willow or Bristol, but we know for sure that he should have been more careful, because no matter what he thinks, his words have effect and do stand on their own as his product.
LBascom (01c9ab) — 12/16/2009 @ 2:43 pmWhy, would it?
But then, who said anything about restricting speech anyway?
I asked, wouldn’t a true classical liberal reject David Letterman’s sexualization of a child as illegitimate?
Doesn’t classical liberalism require a certain moral standard from its citizenry?
Is “funny” the only standard?
Fritz (f04c33) — 12/16/2009 @ 2:51 pmI just wanted to say “Good Luck, we’re all counting on you.”
Patrick (433aa0) — 12/16/2009 @ 2:51 pmIs there no possible distinction between liberty and license?
Fritz (f04c33) — 12/16/2009 @ 2:54 pmFunny is not the standard. Free speech is the standard. The cost of that freedom is that cheesy comics get to make crappy jokes about all kinds of subjects, that if a classical liberal got his panties in a bunch about every time it happened, he’d need hospitalization.
A classical liberal would know that.
Silver Whistle (dfe824) — 12/16/2009 @ 2:56 pm“If the words stand alone, without his intent, then they are not his product.
Comment by LBascom ”
Okay, there are different levels of condemnation out there, or perhaps I should say, different levels of responsibility we should hold people accountable for their deeds.
Whether these words stand alone or not, they were made by Letterman and his employees as a vehicle to sell advertisements. They are professionals. We can use these words to look into Letterman’s intent… perhaps that’s accurate perhaps it isn’t fair to do that. Regardless of his intent, I say that it is an absolute fact that these words were indecent. Even if he meant to say ‘undetached rabbit parts’, he said that a 14 year old girl was a sex object.
That’s just what he said. His excuses are plausible, that he meant to make an indecent remark about the 18 year old kid. But he didn’t make such a remark. He messed up (if you take him at his word, which I don’t believe but allow for this example). That’s why he apologized. I can’t even take his apology to mean he intended to be indecent, though this was what he said. There’s a limit to what I can know.
What my moral view holds people accountable, to less extent if on accident, for things they do when they are sloppy. Of course it’s still Letterman’s product that he made a sex joke that was indecent, even if he meant to make a different sex joke!
Now, you’re asserting that it isn’t on basis of opinions alone. That’s invalid. I could go much farther than I do here, noting that his intent is pretty damn obviously to shame someone, that he’s a hypocrite, that sexualizing the kids of politicians is wrong and he obviously meant to (re: apology). I’m making a more solid argument specifically because I have to give him some sliver of benefit of doubt in order to make a case to those who agree with this view that Letterman’s intent isn’t known.
He is responsible for that statement’s indecency because he should have been careful. If he had said ‘F You, San Diego’, because he was lazily reading the teleprompter, I can at least accuse him of laziness. Laziness in this case was harmful to a kid.
I establish this culpability well, but I think the unrelated argument over intent also can be made. Not as well as the last one. But I think we should all reasonably agree that Letterman had an obligation to get his joke right before he sexualized a kid.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/16/2009 @ 2:58 pmIf I yell fire in a crowded theater because I want to kill everyone, I am worse than if I yell fire in a crowded theater because I don’t care what the results are.
But under both cases, I had an obligation to not yell fire.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/16/2009 @ 2:59 pmSilver Whistle,
Is there no possible distinction between liberty and license?
Fritz (f04c33) — 12/16/2009 @ 3:00 pmOf course there is, but to take Dustin’s case first, if there is actually a fire in the theatre, I’d think you’d be obliged to shout about it.
The question about freedom of speech has absolutely nothing to do with license. If there is a right to free speech, it has to mean freedom of speech that you don’t want to hear. A right to anodyne speech is no right at all.
Silver Whistle (dfe824) — 12/16/2009 @ 3:06 pmThere’s a lot of overlap between conservative and libertarian, but they aren’t synonyms. Classical liberalism requires certain moral precepts to be true.
To justify something merely because it’s “funny” or that we have “free speech” would seem to me to violate those precepts. Anyone would could justify David Letterman in that way probably isn’t as classical a liberal as they think they are.
Fritz (f04c33) — 12/16/2009 @ 3:08 pmI don’t have to justify David Letterman. I don’t have to agree with anything he says, find his jokes amusing, or admire his choice of a paisley tie with his checked shirt. I absolutely defend his right to be obnoxious, vile, obscene and profane.
That would be classically liberal of me.
Silver Whistle (dfe824) — 12/16/2009 @ 3:12 pmSilver, that is too true. Great point. Letterman should be allowed to say indecent and immoral things that are indefensible because of a basic need in society for everyone to say things that may be unpopular.
My criticism of Letterman isn’t really in sync with Patterico’s. In a way, it might even contradict it. If you can use intentionalist logic to decide that Letterman’s comment is indecent, then Patterico’s argument fails.
Patterico’s argument is that (A) this statement is wrong, obviously and on its face, before you even decide what system of morality and epistemology you’re going to work with. (B) Jeff G’s version of the age old skeptical language theory defends the indefensible (A).
Therefore, whatever merit there is to (B), it has the flaw of being underinclusive when pointing out things that are obviously indecent (or underinclusive in general about every category of speech).
the reasoning is obviously valid. The (A) premise is also true. Is the (B) premise true? According to Jeff it is.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/16/2009 @ 3:14 pmSilver Whistle,
Oh, really? How so?
Fritz (f04c33) — 12/16/2009 @ 3:17 pmSilver Whistle,
While John Stuart Mill and Voltaire and you are all right that the government should allow Letterman to say vile things, you do have to justify what he says as less than vile somehow (such as in doubt, according to language skeptics) or agree that what he said was vile. Or you’re just ignoring the topic, of course.
There’s a huge chasm between condemning something and denying the human right to say condemnable things.
Your classical liberalism is based on the idea that we need vile language so that we can continually condemn it, learn from it, challenge our views if we’re wrong (such as wrong about whether it’s OK to sexualize children). It’s based, in other words, on people criticizing eachother. At least I think that’s where you’re coming from.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/16/2009 @ 3:19 pmDustin, I don’t think Jeff ever argued on the basis of the decency or otherwise of the joke.
Silver Whistle (dfe824) — 12/16/2009 @ 3:19 pmHe is responsible for that statement’s indecency because he should have been careful
Granted. And despite what Fritz thinks, there is no “justifying” going on. We just want you to give condemnation for something real (making tasteless jokes about a candidates kid!), rather than the manufactured (rape jokes about a underage girl!).
It just seems more honorable.
LBascom (01c9ab) — 12/16/2009 @ 3:23 pmAs far as I can tell, the standard of free speech has no qualifications attached regarding vileness. I may find Letterman vile; I may not. It is entirely irrelevant. As long as he is not clearly inciting violence, I really don’t give a monkey’s nut what he says. As a classical liberal, I’m an absolutist on Letterman’s speech, your speech, or indeed anyone’s speech. Would you prefer a Canadian Section 13?
Silver Whistle (dfe824) — 12/16/2009 @ 3:26 pmThomas G. West, of The Claremont Institute, quotes an early libel case:
Fritz (f04c33) — 12/16/2009 @ 3:26 pm“#
Dustin, I don’t think Jeff ever argued on the basis of the decency or otherwise of the joke.
Comment by Silver Whistle ”
His argument still provides this defense that we can’t know an obviously indecent thing for being indecent.
And it is indecent. Working through the Jeff analysis to determine whether it is or not comes later in the argument, when we decide if it’s underinclusive of what we already know to be indecent. And whether Jeff got to this point or not (and I admit, I stand corrected if I misstated his conclusion), that’s what his argument was all about, right? That what this statement stands for, whether it’s indefensible or not, depends on something we don’t know?
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/16/2009 @ 3:26 pmPatrick (I don’t know you & have never commented here before, so excuse the familiarity):
John Powell (fb7ad7) — 12/16/2009 @ 3:28 pmI’ve enjoyed your writing and Jeff’s to a lesser extent, but today’s posts by each of you – you dredging up a 9-month old incident to argue about, and Jeff’s nasty and ludicrous attempt to paint you as anti-semitic – have hit a new low. Please stop.
“As far as I can tell, the standard of free speech has no qualifications attached regarding vileness”
We aren’t talking about the standard for free speech (though you’re wrong… some speech is so vile that it is not protected by our laws, merely for obscenity… sadly the US Supreme Court is not JSM). We are talking about the standard for condemnation.
I agree with LBascom that it’s much easier intellectually to criticize that Letterman said something ugly about the older daughter, since that was admitted to.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/16/2009 @ 3:29 pmMore Thomas G. West, of The Claremont Institute:
Fritz (f04c33) — 12/16/2009 @ 3:29 pmAnd Dustin, not to pick nits, but the government does not permit me or Letterman, or you, to say vile things. That is a natural, innate right, which no-one either grants or removes from me. Forgive me for being a pedant.
Silver Whistle (dfe824) — 12/16/2009 @ 3:30 pmJohn Powell
We shouldn’t talk about intentionalism, on its own, free of personal attacks, because it came up months ago? I think Sarah Palin is a pretty timely topic, actually, if it really matters. but this is philosophy. We could talk about something that happened a thousand years ago or never happened at all if we wanted.
Jeff’s view has flaws, if you agree with premises (A) and (B) … obviously not everyone does, but we just want to talk about it.
I agree that it should stop… and i think the best way to do so is use all the energy and emotion built up and lead the factions (or whatever) into a new direction. Not ignore it altogether, and let it fester (which is what happened months ago and led to the mess, IMO). Maybe Patterico and you agree on what the goal is, and differ on how to get there.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/16/2009 @ 3:33 pmForgive me for being a pedant.
Comment by Silver Whistle —
No forgiveness needed, that’s a valid point.
Our rights, and what I’m allowed to do, are different things, or it wouldn’t be possible for my rights to be violated by the government.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/16/2009 @ 3:37 pmDustin,
John Powell (fb7ad7) — 12/16/2009 @ 3:39 pmThe topic may be interesting but the timing seems “intended” to be another retaliatory strike in the ongoing feud. Not as despicable as Jeff’s manufactured-out-of-whole-cloth “anti-semitism” smear, but in the same ballpark.
Thanks for the discussion, chaps, but it’s UTC here and my bedtime. TTFN.
Silver Whistle (dfe824) — 12/16/2009 @ 3:39 pmI’m still ticking. Anyone up for giving me a few more whacks?
The Dead Horse (eeca76) — 12/16/2009 @ 3:39 pmJohn Powell, forgive me, but every time I follow through on this line I F it up.
The emotions were running at 100 mph, this time and last time these two factions differed. Last time it was cut off. This time we are channeling it into a discussion that seems to you to be retaliation, and to me seems to be a different way to express our differences. Perhaps mine is a euphemism for yours. Still, don’t you admit this is an improvement?
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/16/2009 @ 3:45 pmNot smear, metaphor. Removing intent can create conundrums of understanding.
Jim in KC (06c829) — 12/16/2009 @ 3:56 pmA marginal improvement, but I wonder if it’s really helpful to imply that Jeff was defending pedophilia?
Although I agree with Patrick on the McCain controversy, it’s clear to me that Letterman did not intend to joke about statutory rape, and Goldstein wasn’t defending Letterman on that basis.
I can understand anger at Jeff’s vile accusations of anti-semitism, but the way the topic was raised (Goldstein defending statutory rape) feels like revenge, and I don’t like it.
John Powell (fb7ad7) — 12/16/2009 @ 3:57 pmJim in KC:
John Powell (fb7ad7) — 12/16/2009 @ 4:04 pm“Metaphor” is Goldstein being cute about a nasty smear. His “intent” seems to have been to deploy the headline “Is Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Patrick Frey anti-semitic?” in a personal feud.
“Metaphor” is Goldstein being cute about a nasty smear. His “intent” seems to have been to deploy the headline “Is Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Patrick Frey anti-semitic?” in a personal feud.
Only if you have a hard time grasping “intent”.
He says his intent is blogging with an eye toward political stability, limited government interference in our freedoms, and the kind of social change that tracks with the precepts laid out in our foundational documents (and eschew all that trivial stuff that no one really cares about, like the way the foundation for our epistemologies can be irretrievably corrupted at its very core by incoherent ideas of language which are frankly much too thinky to grapple with).
But you know, tomato/ tah-ma-to…
LBascom (01c9ab) — 12/16/2009 @ 4:16 pmI am enjoying the weapons grade whining by the PW commenters here about Jeff’s inability to comment on this blog as a means of defending himself.
It appears he has gulled a number of the even semi-sentient commenters there into thinking that his banning is a real issue instead of a Goldstein manufactured controversy as fake as the science behind anthropogenic global warming.
Let’s revisit the prior interblog kerfuffles, shall we kids. During the “good man” dick fight did Jeff find it necessary to leave the safety of his own blog and defend himself in the comment threads of Patterico’s Pontifications, throwing flaming balls of pitch from afar? I don’t recall him visiting this blog, but I’m happy to be proven otherwise.
During the March fiasco, Jeff was again content to launch fireball from afar, safe in the bosom of his comrades, venturing onto this blog only shortly before, two threads on the last day, hanging up the “Gone Fishin'” sign on Protein Wisdom.
The narrative that Jeff cannot defend himself without commenting on this blog is rendered completely and utterly false by his conduct in rhe last two kerfuffles, yet his commenters drink it down like Kool Aid.
Yet another red herring offered up by the scaly flanked war salmon and a very stinky one at that. Then again, Jeff is all about principles and staying on point, for the CAUSE!!!
See what I did there?
And Joe, Jeff’s jock strap needs cleaning again, with your tongue. Get to it!
daleyrocks (718861) — 12/16/2009 @ 4:18 pm“Only if you have a hard time grasping “intent”.”
Bascom – The breezy dismissal! The first refuge of the intentionalists. You don’t understand the way language functions the way I do……..blah, blah, blah.
FTNQ.
Why is Patterico wrong? Because he doesn’t understand language? No, no, no, no. That does not address what Patterico wrote. Try again, without the airy dismissal.
daleyrocks (718861) — 12/16/2009 @ 4:23 pm. That does not address what Patterico wrote. Try again, without the airy dismissal.
I have written quite a few comments in this thread addressing Pattericos post.
He hasn’t deigned to answer me, is probably why you missed them.
LBascom (01c9ab) — 12/16/2009 @ 4:32 pmInteresting that he denied taking down the post yet I received a ” no such post” error this morning.
Interesting that the comment I left with the links to examples of his violent Internet threats somehow did not get posted.
Patterico (32af23) — 12/16/2009 @ 4:34 pmLBascom:
John Powell (fb7ad7) — 12/16/2009 @ 4:35 pmThat cutesy mixing of academic language with gibberish like “much too thinky” is not nearly as clever as you and Jeff think it is. The process of coming up with lofty reasons for publishing a completely baseless headline like “Is Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Patrick Frey anti-semitic?” is more commonly referred to as “rationalization.”
LBascom has never heard of these things called “jobs.”. Some people have them, remember?
Patterico (32af23) — 12/16/2009 @ 4:36 pmsearch “disingenuous”, and maybe you will find one. I know I used that word once before.
LBascom (01c9ab) — 12/16/2009 @ 4:36 pm“He hasn’t deigned to answer me, is probably why you missed them.”
Bascom – I didn’t miss them.
daleyrocks (718861) — 12/16/2009 @ 4:37 pmOh, I know Patterico, I wasn’t complaining. Just clumsily trying to drop a hint to a particular commenter(not you).
LBascom (01c9ab) — 12/16/2009 @ 4:38 pm“search “disingenuous”, and maybe you will find one.”
Oh SNAP, Bascom, that was Teh Awesome! Do it again.
daleyrocks (718861) — 12/16/2009 @ 4:40 pm#171
I don’t know if the intent is to fight fair… it appears winning and/or exacting punishment is the greater goal
SteveG (909b57) — 12/16/2009 @ 4:40 pmIt had something to do with not committing until the king has spoken, but sometimes I’m too pithy.
If’s ‘cuz I type slow.
LBascom (01c9ab) — 12/16/2009 @ 4:42 pmLBascom
John Powell (fb7ad7) — 12/16/2009 @ 4:45 pmYou are indeed full of pith.
That was intended (get it?) as a joke, not an insult.
John Powell (fb7ad7) — 12/16/2009 @ 4:46 pmThat was intended (get it?) as a joke, not an insult.
yeah, I’ll give you a pass.
You better not let me hear you lisp though dammit, I’ll break both your arms!
LBascom (01c9ab) — 12/16/2009 @ 4:54 pmOh, and moderator person, that was a
LBascom (01c9ab) — 12/16/2009 @ 4:56 pmthreatjoke, not a promise.Contrary to rumor, we recognize humor. 😉
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/16/2009 @ 5:09 pmThe thing about the Letterman-Palin scenario was it didn’t go straight from the original joke on Monday night to the half-hearted apology on Thursday to the second apology the following Monday. The timeline was he told the joke on Monday night’s show, it was reported late the next morning that it wasn’t Bristol, but Willow who was at the game, and then on Tuesday night’s show — taped several hours after the inital outrage began to build — Letterman doubled down and told a second joke on Tuesday’s show.
The first joke about A-Rod may have been due to confusion over which Palin daughter was in New York. The second joke:
…was done after anyone who wanted to know could easily find out that it was the 14-year-old at the Yankees game.
That’s where Letterman stepped over the line from telling a joke that wouldn’t have been funny but would have at least been spinable by combining Bristol’s sexual activity and subsequent pregnancy with the possibility that Dave and the staff didn’t know which daughter was at the game. Once he told the second joke, that alibi went out the window and it was obvious his dislike/weird sexual attraction to Palin made Letterman not care that the 14-year-old was at the game.
So anyone putting up a defense of Letterman might have a slight case … but only if it was done between Monday night’s show and the time he told the Spitzer joke on Tuesday. Once he doubled down and dared Palin and her supporters to come after him, anyone defending Letterman loses whatever moral argument they have that jokes like that are what comedians do for a living.
John (d4490d) — 12/16/2009 @ 5:11 pmJob?
I’ve got chronic pain.
They did a Cat scan of my brain and it was like totally like light yellow
Hey, is that government healthcare gonna cover weed?
96 degrees in the shade and a Red Stripe… is that too much to ask?
SteveG (909b57) — 12/16/2009 @ 5:15 pmJohn did his homework, apparently. I think he shows that enough knowledge about David’s intent is available that we can say he’s a POS.
Or we can remain completely skeptical. I mean, with this much information, to be that skeptical, what else do you deny? When you find your car in a parking lot, how do you know someone didn’t steal your car and replace it with an identical model? Just how sure are you that Obama was born on Earth, or even exists at all! They can do a lot with CGI!
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/16/2009 @ 5:16 pmWell guys, it could just be Letterman didn’t find out til after his show Monday that it was the younger daughter at the game (about 3 seconds after I bet)
It for sure would have looked better for him if he would have apologized Tuesday night instead of making another Palin kid related joke (one I will point out didn’t put Willow in a bad light, or even Sarah for that matter, just Sprizter), but like I said, Letterman knows his audience.
LBascom (01c9ab) — 12/16/2009 @ 5:30 pmAnd with that I gotta go.
Later.
LBascom (01c9ab) — 12/16/2009 @ 5:31 pmWe’re missing the important question here, which is clearly: when did patterico become such an insufferable cunt?
Charles Johnson is calling, he wants his crazy back.
Brian G. (a7808f) — 12/16/2009 @ 5:33 pmLong time lurker, don’t recall if I’ve ever commented here.
Personally, I think this is beneath Patterico (though I understand one has him limits) and Jeff is just desperate to convince himself he’s still relevant. I used to enjoy PW quite a bit once upon a time. And I realize he went through a tough time that nobody should have to go through, public blog or not. But the ‘poor me’ schtick got so old so fast. He should try court cases and TROs where your deranged stalker lives in the same zip code and actually come to your house. Yeah, I went there.
He can give as good as he gets, so I never got the martyr thing. And sorry, his comments about PJM once the ad network was gone were just juvenile. Some of us would have loved to get that much notice before losing our jobs.
I’m not even buying the humor bits anymore. I don’t believe he’s smiling thru the OUTLAW (or any other instance when his caps lock gets stuck). At this point, he’s just bitter and a bit unhinged. The intertubes have not rewarded his greatness with the appropriate amount of financial compensation and adoration. Luckily, I hear he’s really leaving sometime soon. I’m sure it’s for real this time.
myrealname (c2c6c2) — 12/16/2009 @ 5:37 pmOUTLAW HUMOR!!!111!!!!
Those zany pw kids!
Eleventy!! OUTLAW!! HYPOCRISY11! BECAUSE FUCK YOU!! I CAN BEAT YOU UP!!
Admit you’re wrong or you’re wronger!! ELEVENTY!! OUTLAW!!
LinguisticHumorSpecialist (c2c6c2) — 12/16/2009 @ 8:44 pm(Glad I refreshed to see this was deleted in the ten minutes it took me to write this… i deleted most of it)
He demanded? I thought he was just making a friendly recommendation on how to elevate the conversation, mr pingback
BTW, I had no idea that I was such a topic over at PW until 30 seconds ago. BJTex, LBascom, others, it’s not exactly impressive that P didn’t threaten violence, which is all I’m enthusiastically taking his side over. It’s ironic how you guys persist in calling people obsessed.
I don’t even agree with intentionalism.
There’s a view, called utilitarianism, that the morality of something is strictly based on its contribution to the world. This ideal is not exactly extreme, and has a lot to do with the ideals that Thomas Jefferson and John Locke contributed to our way of life. I prefer this moral outlook.
I tried to explain how this ramifies against Jeff G’s intentionalism over at Little Miss Attila, before this blogwar really exploded. All he had in reply were comments about how stupid I am and how he doesn’t have time to write a ‘book for dummies’ on it. I understand Jeff’s view because it’s a very old and simplistic view that virtually every Freshman philosophy student for those who don’t agree with it.
The very fact that we use ethics as a tool to improve means, IMO, that we should prefer ethics that aren’t hopelessly useless in evaluating, for example, Letterman’s joke about sexualizing the Palin children.. If you have such a hard time evaluating everything out there, perhaps your intentionalism tool isn’t the end all be all.
But now that I followed a link to PW, I realize that several of the people I was dialoguing with here had no interest in thinking. Just as Jeff refused to challenge himself and chose to sneer down in ignorance, you guys stole from yourselves. You quote some statement based on this view, so banal it was practically cribbed from John Stuart Mill, with a compelling reply of merely “Wow”. You couldn’t tolerate how this failed within Jeff’s framework because it didn’t occur to you that his entire framework is just your opinion.
Letterman’s statement was of negative utility no matter what he thought or didn’t. The act itself is immoral. Similarly, RSM’s racist quote was corrosive to the world in its small impact on the racists who took solace in revulsion at black sisters in law being natural. I can say this while respecting and liking Robert because utilitarianism isn’t all that complicated. RSM does a lot of good and a bit of bad, like most folks. This is a “binding concept of justice” that works without the cartwheels.
There’s a book, called “Utilitarianism”, by Mill. Chapter 4 is where to look at if you really reply to this view with a shocked “Wow”. It’s a basic look at what we’re trying to do. It’s not language motive epistemology. You’re evaluating behavior on moral grounds.
But I get it. PW’s threads followed my denial of Patt’s intentionalism with a lot of people pointing out how it proves what a sycophant I am. You’re stealing from yourselves when you waste a bunch of time trying to bring me down and burn me, and refuse to even understand the obvious merit of my view. Granted, I spent a at least ten minutes typing this because this is enjoyable. But I didn’t know, and I’m not affected by the chimpanzee laughter of “wow” and “you’re kissing ass” over in the safety of a blog I don’t visit. You’re stealing from yourself when you ignore anything that challenges your view.
Did David Letterman intend to slur Bristol or Willow or even intend to sexualize either of them? Did he mean to sexualize them with the Eliot Spitzer joke? This is very interesting and worth talking about, but Letterman’s comments are indefensible, morally, regardless, because of how they stand, truly independent.
That’s why Sarah Palin is mad that he sexualized her 14 year old. Doesn’t really matter that he has a plausible explanation… this still happened. Willow was still sexualized. I hope this has helped explain where I’m coming from. I think this is all implied easily by some of my other comments, but the quick glance at PW showed that I had assumed too much of the people I was discussing this with.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/16/2009 @ 9:29 pmNo argument, there. I’d guess Jeff wouldn’t find anything in there to disagree with. Rush Limbaugh might. But the question is, what should be done about it? Do we need all need to picket CBS? Who decides the correct course of action? Would it be ok with the decider if I just continue not watching Letterman, just as I’ve done for 99.9% of my life? Should I be concerned if it’s not ok with the decider if I limit my actions in that way?
No, he didn’t. I think this has been covered and covered again, and that you think it’s ok to assign this meaning to Letterman’s joke is unjustified. You’re leaping to a conclusion, and then treating that conclusion that you leaped to as fact.
Sure, he does; no argument.
Now what? None of this is counter to anything Jeff has said, except for the bit where you concluded that David Letterman was suggesting that A-Rod knocked up Palin’s 14-year-old. And possibly anything you might have to say about what consequences Letterman should have had to face.
Slartibartfast (8894aa) — 12/17/2009 @ 8:41 am[…] the comments to my latest post on the Letterman / Palin jokes, I wrote: Frey isn’t satisfied with what Letterman claimed his intent to be. But Letterman’s intent has […]
On intent, 2: a follow-up to the David Letterman “debate” (38c333) — 12/17/2009 @ 5:56 pm