December 20, 2012

"'Candyass Blogger' Update: Free Speech Absolutists Who Banned Mr. Althouse UPDATE: 'These Are Historical Dildos.'"

I wasn't going to wade into the Loomis lunacy, but that headline caught my eye. I won't even try to summarize the post, by Robert Stacy McCain, other than to say that I read it out loud to Meade and we both laughed a lot and that it contains the phrases "Everest's testicles" and "historical dildos."

As for Loomis, I lean heavily toward academic freedom, freedom of speech, and the comprehension of metaphor, but against the hypocrisy that for purposes of this blog goes under the tag "civility bullshit" and against the appropriation of a child massacre for diversion and propaganda.

51 comments:

David said...

This dildo has a splinter!

Damn, that hurt.

traditionalguy said...

Reading the tags made more sense to me than reading the post.

No more rum egg nog for me.

But use of the phrase "historical dildos" makes up for the fogginess. That phrase could be made into a post all on its own.

Ann Althouse said...

"Reading the tags made more sense to me than reading the post."

Mine or McCain's. You're supposed to click through to McCain, but then you've got a lot of links there is you're not already up to speed on Loomis.

X said...

Whose fault is it that Erik Loomis, Ph.D., studied the historic significance of anal sodomy in logging camps

professor, you work in a serious industry with serious people.

garage mahal said...

Was there a point in that jumbled Other McCain post other than "haha Loomis so what!?"

Palladian said...

I don't like the insinuation that a scholarly discussion (or even mention) of homosexuality is something laughable or absurd or, as the McCain blogger suggests, grotesque.

Palladian said...

Of course my dislike of the implied anti-gay rhetoric in McCain's commentary doesn't make Loomis's insane, stupid Twitter outburst acceptable.

CWJ said...

Now that (the other McCain post) was enjoyable. Curious how directly quoting someone has somehow become equal to attacking them. I suppose you'd file that under self-abuse. Maybe Dr. Loomis might have some insight in that area.

wyo sis said...

No wonder the world is screwed up.

YoungHegelian said...

@CWJ,

Now that (the other McCain post) was enjoyable. Curious how directly quoting someone has somehow become equal to attacking them.

It's interesting how for the Left, simply "harshing" a narrative is the same as throwing in with the reactionaries. All this bad-mouthing by Loomis was simply talking "out of school" and to expose it to the world is to set him up for ridicule.

Why do the Lefties circle the wagons? Because, but for the grace of God, and a powered-off microphone, it could have been them! Every lefty I've ever known sounds like Josef Stalin when they have had a bad day.

Twitter will end up ruining more careers than booze & sex before it's all done.

garage mahal said...

Some idiot actually contacted the FBI and told them that Loomis had threatened LaPierre’s life.

And here is Malkin:

So, it’s come to this: Advocating beheadings, beatings, and the mass murder of peaceful Americans to pay for the sins of a soulless madman. But because the advocates of violence fashion themselves champions of nonviolence and because they inhabit the hallowed worlds of Hollywood, academia, and the Democratic party, it’s acceptable?

Blood-lusting hate speech must not get a pass just because it comes out of the mouths of the protected anti-gun class.


Oy.

Patrick said...

Garage, you are correct that Malkin does not exactly cover herself in glory when she is imitating the left right around the time of the Giffords shooting.

YoungHegelian said...

@Garage,

Some idiot actually contacted the FBI and told them that Loomis had threatened LaPierre’s life

Because Lefties never follow through on their threats to hurt people, right?

You full of it, garage. Replace LaPierre's name with George Soros and have some militia guy threaten him in a tweet like that, and you don't think the FBI should be notified?

Rocketeer said...

I don't like the insinuation that a scholarly discussion (or even mention) of homosexuality is something laughable or absurd or, as the McCain blogger suggests, grotesque.

I'm sincere when I say that I see your point, Palladian. On the other hand, it's not either/or: A scholarly discussion (or even mention) of homosexuality can indeed be laughable, absurd, or, as the McCain blogger suggests, grotesque.

Rocketeer said...

By the way, apologies for the use of the colon in the comment above. It was neither intended as a visual pun, nor as a gratuitous use of an unnecessary form of punctuation.

Unknown said...

Insert Monty Python Lumberjack Song allusion here....

traditionalguy said...

Confession: I read the article and understood the blogger guilt issues before I commented. But at first read before reading the article it had me out of step. I should have folded my hand.

Alex said...

Second, Morgan embodies an attitude that we’re seeing more and more on the left. It’s a nasty combination of supreme self-righteousness and reflexive demonization. Piers Morgan can’t accept that people of good will and decency might hold views that are very different than he does on gun control. And so it’s not enough to say Pratt is wrong; he has to be portrayed by Morgan as moronic and a moral monster.

Alex said...

BTW - that attitude is shared by 100% of lefties including garage, Ritmo, Inga.

edutcher said...

Who's Mr Althouse?

Your current (/sarc), your ex, or, considering this is the guy who invented Rule 5 it would be quite a laugh, can't he tell you're a girl?

YoungHegelian said...

@Alex,

Good quote, but give us your source next time.

I was staring at it, wondering where I had missed it in the McCain article.

Chip S. said...

So this is all about a hysterical twat's access to historical dildos.

(Notice how this entire comment works equally well w/ or w/o "?" after both sentences, but the shades of meaning are slightly different.)

Tyrone Slothrop said...

OK, just to clarify things for all you stoopid wingnuts--

Using a bullseye to indicate that the GOP should target Gabby Gifford's congressional seat is an assassination threat.

Saying all NRA members should be beaten to death is intellectual discourse, nothing less.

Got it, stoopid wingnuts?

EDH said...

Whose fault is it that Erik Loomis, Ph.D., studied the historic significance of anal sodomy in logging camps?

"Oh, and this one time, at logging camp..."

Who said anything about homosexuality?

Nomennovum said...

"And here is Malkin ..." - Garage Mahal
-------
The Loomiad

I sing of the right to bear arms and the man who, exiled by fate,
first came from where ever to Rhode Island and to
Academic halls – hurled about endlessly by Mr. Althouse on a Rethuglican sea, by the will of candy-ass bloggers, by Cruel Malkin’s Remorseless Anger,long suffering also on Twitchy, until he founded a cause
and brought the progs to tweet for him: from that the reality-based people came -- and came again – by dint of Historical Dildos, so with ancient Butt Plugs in place, the Left shook the walls of noble URI.
Muse, tell me the cause: how was she offended in her divinity,
how was she grieved, the goddess of Twitchy, to drive a man,
noted for historical anal sodomy, to endure such dangers, to face so many armed NRA members? Can there be such anger in the minds of the liberals?

Carnifex said...

The people who want to ban guns to save the children are hypocrites. If they wanted to save children, they would want to ban abortion. They are people who are not to be trusted.

But after this election, apparently, that is most of the electorate.

You people ban, and turn in your guns. Me, I'm stocking up.

YoungHegelian said...

@Nomennovum,

You're a cultural treasure, buddy!

But poor Virgil...

Ann Althouse said...

"I don't like the insinuation that a scholarly discussion (or even mention) of homosexuality is something laughable or absurd or, as the McCain blogger suggests, grotesque."

I agree. All sorts of things about sex are valid topics for scholarship.

Nomennovum said...

"But poor Virgil..." -- YoungHegelian

Yeah, I know. I hope the copyright has lapsed.

Chip Ahoy said...

When I said that the mentally ill should be in institutions, public universities weren’t the kind of institutions I had in mind. ha ha ha good one

if a nut like Loomis can legally buy a gun, maybe we do need new laws ha ha ha ha ha good one

Prof. John Lerner: Okay, you pushed me in. Whatever it takes to make you feel good about yourself.
(Hank pushes him back in)
Prof. John Lerner: Mr. Hill, violence doesn't solve anything, so why don't we just discuss this like-
(Hank pushes him back in)
Prof. John Lerner: You know what's funny? You're the one who looks stupid here.
(Hank pushes him back in again)
Prof. John Lerner: Okay, so you're stronger than me. You've proven that.
(Peggy pushes him back in)
Prof. John Lerner: I'm starting to enjoy this! I really am! I want you to push me in the hole! Go on, push me in the hole!
Bobby: Okay.
(Bobby pushes Prof. John Lerner into the hole.)

King of the Hill, The Arrowhead

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Excellent use of King of the Hill reference there.

PMJ approved.

Amartel said...

He's not a scholar, nor is he engaging in a discussion.

He's a walking, talking political agenda; a hack not a scholar. There's a difference. Sometimes it's not a clear difference. Like when the hack is tenured faculty.

He's lecturing, he's twittering, he's jeering, he's dissembling, but he's not discussing.

He gets excited lecturing teenage students about (historical) dildos. Really? He's putting that out there and we can't mock the snot out of it without being called homophobes?

garage mahal said...

Replace LaPierre's name with George Soros and have some militia guy threaten him in a tweet like that, and you don't think the FBI should be notified?

Would the FBI have been notified? I highly doubt it.

Nomennovum said...

"I don't like the insinuation that a scholarly discussion (or even mention) of homosexuality is something laughable or absurd or, as the McCain blogger suggests, grotesque."

I find other people's sex practices fucking hilarious. Especially when written in a scholarly manner.

Hey, it's either laugh or cringe

Michael said...

It is absolutely worth a stroll to Loomis' website to read his admiring reflections on his own far far left opinions. Quite remarkable, really.

Sam L. said...

Ah, the troll is out of the garage.

McTriumph said...

We should put restrictions on free speech, because the founding fathers couldn't and didn't imagine 21st century technologies. They only envisioned hand cranked printing presses as constitutionally protected etc., etc., etc.,.....

JorgXMcKie said...

I love Free Speech freely used because it lets the asshats self-identify [yes, I mean Garbage, too] and saves the rest of us a lot of trouble.

No one on the Left truly wants to debate or discuss. They want their opponents to shut up and accept the will of the Left.

Notice how infrequently the Lefty trolls here use actual facts, logic, evidence, etc compared to how often they use vilification, emotion, outright lying, and so on.

ThomasD said...

We should put restrictions on free speech, because the founding fathers couldn't and didn't imagine 21st century technologies.

Had such 'safeguards' already been in place we might have been able to save Loomis' career, if not his credibility.

Clearly as this case indicates, it's for the children'

Greg Toombs said...

Seems to me that Loomis is evidence that academics are running out of serious subjects to explore.

The Mayans may not be right, but I think the professional academy is doomed in the near future.

somefeller said...

Palladian said: I don't like the insinuation that a scholarly discussion (or even mention) of homosexuality is something laughable or absurd or, as the McCain blogger suggests, grotesque.

Agreed. But for what it's worth, Robert Stacy McCain is laughable, absurd and grotesque. He and his fans are the sort of ignorant bigots that make other conservatives look bad. If someone wrote a fictional character like him, that writer would be accused of creating a slanderous caricature of conservatives. So don't sweat it, he isn't the sort you need to worry about, unless you're stuck in a really bad part of town.

McTriumph said...

Shouldn't we find a "common sense" approach and compromise on 1st Amendment rights?

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

"Everest. Terrifying, aloof, forbidding. The mountain with the biggest tits in the world."

[voice off, wearily: "Start again."]

Then again, I recommend this for a look around the neighborhood of the biggest tits in the world. Quite staggering.

Maguro said...

Yes, homosexuality is such a solemn, momentous subject that it must always be approached with reverence, if not outright genuflection.

I mean come on. If this dude's "scholarship" was about heterosexual sex in early 20th century logging camps it would be just as absurd. Academic historians have pretty much become a parody of themselves with their super-specialization into ridiculously narrow areas of expertise. Not to mention their dreary tendency to view distant historical events through the lens of ontemporary identity politics. It's a fucking crime that the American public has to subsidize this nonsense.

Kev said...

I won't even try to summarize the post, by Robert Stacy McCain, other than to say that I read it out loud to Meade and we both laughed a lot and that it contains the phrases "Everest's testicles" and "historical dildos."

I'm pretty sure Everest's Testicles opened for Historical Dildos at Lollapalooza in '97.

LoafingOaf said...

I had a post censored off this site the other day for no legit reason I can think of. This site isn't so in favor of free speech anymore. Meade's in charge of the deletions? What a hypocrite, 'cause I've seen how he trolls other sites. Anyway, carry on, blog that transformed into a tea bagger comment section for Instapundit and Drudge.

Badger Pundit said...

Althouse, 5:04 p.m.:

"I don't like the insinuation that a scholarly discussion (or even mention) of homosexuality is something laughable or absurd or, as the McCain blogger suggests, grotesque."

I agree. All sorts of things about sex are valid topics for scholarship.

-----

Sorry I'm late to this thread. I wrote the guest post on McCain's blog about Loomis's Ph.D dissertation. I agree that lots of things about sex are valid topics for scholarship. For example, I see nothing wrong with Loomis's reference to "historical dildos" -- he was explaining an earlier reference, in a tweet, to a discussion of dildos. I excerpted that entire discussion in a comment (on Twitchy.com) here, in which one professor points out that Loomis's discussion of dildos shed light on the medical profession's view of women a century ago:
http://bit.ly/VVdGqM.

As to the Ph.D dissertation, as I explained in the post, my principal criticism was directed to its conspiracy theory about the government and capitalists acting to prevent the Marxist unionists from saving the environment and the peaceful forest creatures. Also, Loomis's fairly open rooting for the Marxists who ambushed Legionnaires and killed four of them, using snipers placed in the hills.

My references to Loomis's discussion of "homosexual" (his term) loggers who preferred anal to oral sex, and his discussion of whether or not one of the Marxist assassins was castrated before being lynched and what that might have meant to the lynchers in terms of "gender" politics, were mostly to add color. But I did have a substantive criticism: these were gratuitous sexual references, unconnected to the purported subject of the dissertation, and they undermined the overall paper.

Loomis didn't even pretend they were connected; after discussing the loggers' sex lives, for example, he added that the Marxist union organizers never dealt with the subject in any way.

Loomis has his defenders, of course, and I'm sure there's lots of room for criticism of my analysis -- one labor historian posted this earlier today:
bit.ly/R8c7sB.

But the idea that my analysis was based on the proposition that in general it's laughable or absurd for scholars to discuss or even mention sex is incorrect. Very little of my post relied on the sex references. The part that did argued it was laughable and absurd -- and illustrative of the weird streak we've recently seen with Loomis's private-life tweeting -- for Loomis to have inserted into his otherwise deadly boring dissertation completely gratuitous references to homosexual lumberjack sex, and the castration of a Marxist before lynching, just because he felt like it.

Oh, and I never remotely suggested I found any of Loomis's discussion "grotesque." I found it hilarious.

Moneyrunner said...

It's worth stating that there is a case to be made for the freedom of academics to take unpopular views. In Loomis' case it becomes a matter of defending the right of academics to be outrageous assholes without consequences.

Jim Treacher said...

What's the big deal? It's not like he put crosshairs symbols on a map.

Astro said...

I'm guessing that 100 years from now, Prof. Erik Loomis will be regarded as an historical dildo.

SDN said...

100 years? Try 100 nanoseconds....