Re: Rant Response

Date: 2008-08-30 09:06 pm (UTC)
Excellent! "Willfully sexist for the sake of humor" is exactly what I was aiming for. My worry about the GILF comments is that it's not over-the-top *enough* for people to recognize it as irony, though reading some of the rest of the Big Ugly Man Doll should put it in context. (OK, that *name* should put it in context.)

The funny part (to me) is that I'll write about the actual issues on which I'm guiding my choices on your blog - but not on mine, for the most part. My primary goal is not *specifically* to get people to think, but rather to get them to laugh. If I can also associate an issue with a joke in people's minds, and influence them subtly in what I think is the right direction, I will - and that won't always be the moral high road, and I know that. Humor isn't nice - humor hurts.

Should I take your response to mean that you think we, as pundits (to whatever extent), should aim for the moral high ground?

And, if the conservatives aim low, is it OK to lower our aim? Heinlein reminds us that "It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better still to be a live lion. And usually easier." And so I wonder.

What do you think?
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

doc_strange: (Default)doc_strange

April 2025

S M T W T F S
  12345
67891011 12
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930   

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 9th, 2025 10:13 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios