« Sauce for the Goose... | Main | Quote of the Day »

July 26, 2009

First Rule of Holes

When you're in one, stop digging.

Shorter Donald Douglas:

1. I did something disgusting and wrong, and I know it was disgusting and wrong, but I refuse to apologize:

I saw a news opportunity that might bring in some traffic. My hunch exceeded expectations. And, it is what it is - exploitation of privacy invasion for profit. It's ugly, but that's what I did, no apologies.

2. I am passing NO VALUE JUDGMENTS on anyone who looked at that disgusting and wrong video, or on anyone else....

...except Miss Attila, who is a disgusting hypocrite because she has written about sex, which as we all know is tantamount to exploiting a crime for personal gain...

...and that radical feminist Cassandra, who is not only a hypocrite for displaying a fully clothed pinup on her masthead (remind me to tell you that story sometime, Donald) but a "hardline feminist ayatollah".

Sometimes, the comedy just writes itself :p

Posted by Cassandra at July 26, 2009 10:49 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3030

Comments

A big huzzah to this post.

One who cannot admit error, and must instead lash out at others, is a sad person, indeed.

My objection to "Rule 5" was always that it was a bait & switch meant to attract hits from folks not interested in political blogs-- (Ratings (or "blog hits") are nice, but that doesn't mean I want news programs or nature shows to adopt the look or feel of American Idol. Sell to your audience, but don't pretend to be something you're not just to earn ratings.) --but given the examples Dr Douglas offers (the guy who took candids of his neighbor shaving her legs, and the "jailbait swimsuit" issue--not to mention his own foray into criminal sleezery, posting a link to the Erin Andrews illegal peephole video) I'm not sorry to see him drop it, whatever the reason. There's a difference between a model exploiting her own body, and someone else exploiting it without her consent.

Posted by: repsac3 at July 26, 2009 12:14 PM

IMHO, even handed analysis and application of principle, regardless of one's gender, does not make one a hardline [fill in gender specification, as needed] ayatollah.

But then again, being yet another flown-over, rednecked, biter-n-clingy, dragger of hairy conservative knuckles, what do I know...

Ok, I do know what I like. And I know what I dislike. That's not much, but it works for me.

Posted by: bthun at July 26, 2009 12:31 PM

I'm especially going to stay true to myself as A HETEROSEXUAL MALE...

Ummmmmmmmm -- yeah. Got it.

Why do I hear overtones of Ethyl Merman in those last three words?

Posted by: BillT at July 26, 2009 12:47 PM

Okay, so "Ethyl" may have been a Freudian slip.

But maybe not...

Posted by: BillT at July 26, 2009 01:01 PM

*sigh*

I don't think namecalling is a great argumentation tactic whether it's applied to men or women. I am not impressed when a woman tries to refute a man's opinion by calling him a sexist, and despite Donald's repeated insults, I never called him that.

Not once.

The irony here is that this is precisely the tactic the Left uses to try and silence opposing ideas - "you're a racist/homophobe/sexist/kitten bouncing neanderthal".

Okay, but how does that refute the argument being made? It doesn't. If you have an argument on the merits, make it. If you don't, saying, "but she's just a mean spirited poopy head" doesn't answer the mail.

The fact is that I haven't once objected to his being a "heterosexual male". That's a slur by implication against any man who disagreed with him too (if you didn't look, you're gay - if you did, you're a hypocrite).

Honestly, what bunk. Neither of those tacks says anything about whether it's right or wrong to exploit a crime victim, or to look at naked women who were filmed without their permission. Personally I think it's wrong to look at sex tapes and photos (revenge porn) but there are gazillions of these sites out there and they're doing land office business. But I didn't address that, either.

People rationalize a lot of weird stuff. I am not perfect and when I've screwed up I've tried to admit it and move on. What I can't understand is someone who admits what he did was "ugly" but doesn't seem to think it's OK for others to say "Gosh, buddy, if even you admit it was ugly maybe you shouldn't have done it."

He doesn't need to "apologize" to me or anyone else except maybe Erin Andrews. It would be nice if he were a little more honest with himself and stopped attacking people who disagree with him personally.

Posted by: Cassandra at July 26, 2009 01:10 PM

Oh.

And thanks for the comments, guys.

When this first happened, the most distressing thing to me was not that some people watched the vid. Of course they did.

It was the impression I had that no one saw anything wrong with doing so. I really struggled with whether to say anything, but in the end concluded that people often misconstrue silence as agreement or acceptance. I know I felt that way, and that is the only reason I chose to say something about it.

Having so many guys say they saw what was wrong with this means more to me than I can possibly express. Everyone doesn't have to agree with me. But the moral support was tremendously reassuring to me and to other women I discussed this with privately.

Posted by: Cassandra at July 26, 2009 01:15 PM

"whether it's right or wrong to exploit a crime victim, or to look at naked women who were filmed without their permission."
It's telling when a person knows the difference yet acts upon the wrong choice anyway.

Interesting times, this age of enlightenment, eh what?

Posted by: bthun at July 26, 2009 01:19 PM

"I'm especially going to stay true to myself as A HETEROSEXUAL MALE...

Ummmmmmmmm -- yeah. Got it.

Why do I hear overtones of Ethyl Merman in those last three words? "

Hmmm... You know, this is fitting.

Well you asked for it! Heh.

Posted by: bthun at July 26, 2009 01:26 PM

Reminds me of what "Habib" said to Steve Martin's character in Father Of The Bride, part deux" when Steve Martin bought his own house back for $100,000 saving it from certain demolition and preserving that which he held as supremely important, his integrity and family memories.

Glad we could be of assistance! or words to that effect.

Posted by: vet66 at July 26, 2009 02:18 PM

Oh, Cassandra, you're just like Feministing. Why, you must be just so proud. (What is that saying? All women look alike in the dark?)

I, on the other hand, just read that Donald Douglas is a professor of Political Science and am terminally humiliated.

Posted by: Elise at July 26, 2009 04:22 PM

I always thought it was, "Things develop better in the dark".........or was that, "Things go better with Coke"?

Is it Wookie time yet?
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at July 26, 2009 04:58 PM

It's Wookie + 5!

Posted by: bthun at July 26, 2009 05:14 PM

Oh, Cassandra, you're just like Feministing. Why, you must be just so proud.

*snort*

Yep, that's me all right. Good Lord :)

Posted by: Cassandra at July 26, 2009 06:20 PM

'hardline feminist ayatollah?'

Is that a promotion from 'uppity mullah?'

Posted by: Cricket at July 26, 2009 07:19 PM

Poor, poor Donnie. Lost in the Ozone.

Although insults are not very addult, the term "juvenille buttmunch" comes to mind.

And this is a representative of an institute of higher learning??? Eek, as that weather critter would likely say.

Posted by: kbob in Katy at July 26, 2009 08:09 PM

He can be very nice, actually. I was kind of surprised at the radical feminist and disturbed Victorian whatever-the-helk-it-was business.

I don't want to talk about him. I just thought that the radical feminist thing was kind of amusing :p I don't think the folks over at Feministe or Pandagon would like me or my opinions much.

Posted by: Cassandra at July 26, 2009 08:27 PM

Is that a promotion from 'uppity mullah?'

Please do not encourage afe, Cricket. I do not want to be stricken upon the soles of my feet like an impudent female.

Posted by: Cassandra at July 26, 2009 08:28 PM

Well, I thought it was time you were promoted after all those feminist fatwas you have issued over the years; Men are wonderful, they are gentlemen...yadda yadda.

heh.

Posted by: Cricket at July 26, 2009 09:56 PM

My objection to "Rule 5" was always that it was a bait & switch meant to attract hits from folks not interested in political blogs

Strictly speaking I don't have a problem with "Come for the pr0n, stay for the smaller gov't". If that's what it takes, I say go for it.

The problem is when the images you are using is really tantamount to rape. I mean, what else would you call non-consensual sexual exploitation?

And, as in a comment I posted to his site (we'll see if it makes it past moderation) his argument that one cannot advocate against rape if one also advocates for sex is, quite frankly, one of the most disturbing thoughts I've ever heard. (But I'm not passing judgement, mind you.)

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at July 27, 2009 10:21 AM

"- one cannot advocate against rape if one also advocates for sex..."
Having the intellectual wherewithal, not to mention the possession of an industrial grade logic engine, to hold such a belief is, well, beyond astounding.

This curmudgeon, while no longer surprised by such bovine scat, mourns nonetheless.

Posted by: bt_the-resident-curmudgeon_hun at July 27, 2009 11:36 AM

And, as in a comment I posted to his site (we'll see if it makes it past moderation) his argument that one cannot advocate against rape if one also advocates for sex is, quite frankly, one of the most disturbing thoughts I've ever heard. (But I'm not passing judgement, mind you.)

It did. I do not like giving the guy traffic after both utilizing the video in (as he says) a blatant attempt to get blog hits, and then declaring Cass to be a "hardline feminist ayatollah". I just had to go read that for myself. No offense Dear Hostess, it's not that I believe you would misquote him or take something out of context. I just couldn't believe an informed, rational human being could level that accusation at you as anything other than a complete joke (e.g. were you to refer to the Unit as a tree-hugging, latte sipping, Code Pink kissing hippie... that would be obvious sarcasm).

So now I realize he's either uninformed or irrational. One or the other. I MAKE NO VALUE JUDGMENTS HERE. :P

I decided not to post a comment on his site, mostly because you do not need to be defended. For one thing you're completely capable of that yourself, and also it cannot be slander because a reasonable person will not believe it. As for the moral support, I'm glad to have contributed to it, and I am saddened that it could not be simply assumed that men can and would consider the whole incident disgusting. Not that YOU wouldn't, but that in general... anyhoo... you know. :)

Posted by: MikeD at July 27, 2009 11:56 AM

bt, that essay on Common Sense is great! Thanks.

Posted by: Elise at July 27, 2009 12:33 PM

"that essay on Common Sense is great!"
Indeed. Lori Borgman crafted the subject's obit accurately and in no uncertain terms.

Posted by: bthun at July 27, 2009 01:55 PM

Sometimes the smallest-minded individuals can advertise themselves as the largest-mouthed of all available ignorant crapheads.

Hey, it's a free country. Go for it.

*click*

Posted by: spd rdr at July 27, 2009 06:27 PM

Heh :)

I kind of think it is funny now. I have never been a radical feminist with disturbed Victorian sensibilities before.

I wonder - will The Unit mind?

*running away*

Posted by: Cassandra at July 27, 2009 07:59 PM

I'm wondering if he'll even notice....

*skipping away...you know the rest*
heh
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at July 27, 2009 09:28 PM

Cassandra,

I took up the cudgel yesterday with my post, "I am with Little Miss Attila in Villainous Company to challenge American Power," and I would value your comments, if you care to read it and make any.

Thank you.

Cynthia

Posted by: Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian at July 27, 2009 11:15 PM

I have never been a radical feminist with disturbed Victorian sensibilities before.

I don't think anyone has. In fact, I'm wondering what, exactly, a radical feminist with disturbed Victorian sensibilities would look like: Rosie in a riveted corset?

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at July 28, 2009 09:25 AM

"I have never been a radical feminist with disturbed Victorian sensibilities before.

I don't think anyone has. In fact, I'm wondering what, exactly, a radical feminist with disturbed Victorian sensibilities would look like: Rosie in a riveted corset?"

YAG, I've gotta thank you for saying what I was struggling so to avoid!

*wonders if defibrillator paddles discharged across the temples will erase the Rosie part of that imagery?*

Posted by: bthun at July 28, 2009 10:18 AM

bthun, don't thank *me*. Cass could have turned it into a contest. Defib paddles wouldn't even *begin* to erase those images. :-)

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano who is the bad influence around here at July 28, 2009 10:57 AM

"Defib paddles wouldn't even *begin* to erase those images. :-)"
*lifts smoking head from floor to nod in agreement*

Posted by: bthun at July 28, 2009 12:08 PM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)