--- Dwayne Monroe <idoru345 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I've found it very easy to predict which of your
> posts
> will attract the most ad hominems, reproaches and
> "sanctimonious preaching" by noting how heavily
> weighted your contributions are by stylistic choices
> such as what's found in the above example.
Fair enough. I would be lying if I said that I do not know what reaction most of my "stylistic choices" will provoke. However, would not you agree that ridiculing or reducing to absurd an idea or text (as opposd to a person) that one is debating is a legitimate rhetorical strategy? I do not mind when others do the same to what I post - it is called debating.
What I do not appreciate is sanctimonious thrid person omniscient paternalism pronouncing that so-and-so plays "sandbox politics" or is a "racist" or an "apologist of the status" quo or otherwise despicable excuse for a human being. Such responses are not warranted even if I were quoting verbatim the WSJ or the Republican Party platform. With the exception of Max Sawicky, nobody on this list even met me face-to-face, let alone knows what my life choices and politics are. The same applies to most other people. All we know is the literary products that various subscribers post to this list. Is it really too much to expect of people with higher education to distinguish between opinions expressed in a literary text and those held in real life by the author?
> and wondering whether or not you're saying there are
> no people being oppressed, or, the only people being
> 'oppressed' are "derelicts" who deserve their
> discomforts due to poor choices and so on.
>
I just made this comment in passing while making another point, but once you brought it up, let me clarify.
What I have been consistently objecting to is what I perceive to be the US left's infatuation with celebrity figures of certain kind, especially counter-cultural celebrities, and selling it as serious politics. The latest example of it is crocodile tears shed nation wide over the excution of Mr. Williams, while another death row convict Cory Maye http://www.theagitator.com/archives/025962.php#025962 remains largely unknown, even on this list. If what the above referenced site says is true, Mr. Maye's conviction is an act of scandalous injustice that not should be immedialy reviewed by higher courts, but an investigation should be launched to find how that injustice was allowed to happen.
But again, nobody knows about Cory Maye and everyone is rooting for Mr. Williams whose guilt cannot be seriously doubted. Why? Because Mr. Williams is a popular countercultural icon, the hip-hop industry is rallying behind him, whereas is Mr. Maye is a regular fellow with no criminal record who furthermore was caught in a very uncool by "gangsta" standards role - taking care of his baby. Abomination!.
The hip-hop industry may, of course, rally behind whomever they want for whatever they want reason, after all it is thier firts amendment right. However, one would expect that self-styled advocates for social justice, most of whom have advanced academic degrees, and are quite experienced in deconstructing industry and government propaganda would also recognize a celebrity cult masquarading as a "social movement." But they do not. Worse yet, they spit venom at those who are saying that the celeberity figure has no clothes.
This confusing celeberities with politics is precisely what I am arguing against by pointing out that celebrity figures have no clothes. I do that not just with left wing celebrities and mythologies, but even more so with right wing and religious ones. After all debunking celebrities and popular self-righteousness is venerable literary tradition practiced by such stalwarts like Mark Twain or HL Mencken, no?
However, that has nothing to do with a bona fide discussion about the causes of poverty, and more generally about nature of politcial instituions in this country, and how to transform them to achieve greater social justice - except perhaps clearing the grounds for such a discussion from rubbish that may clutter, obscure or derail it.
Wojtek _______________________ DISCLAIMER: Opinions posted by this writer to this forum are solely forms of literary criticism exercised as the First Amendment right, and do not necessarily reflect the author's views or attitudes toward real-life people, including other writers posting to this forum, groups of people, institutions, or events to which the critiqued texts may refer, either explicitly or implicitly. Any statement asserting or implying such views or attitudes on the basis of this writer's opinions posted to this forum is thus unfounded, and may be libelous. ________________________
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com