Margaret Cho's hate mail

>On the right of the computer screen is a scroll bar. I find

>that when I use the scroll bar I can see what other people

>wrote and, therefore, attempt the best response possible.

Dick read the argument just fine. In fact, he read it better than those who made it, because he extended it to its logical conclusion.

If "oh-it's-just-a-joke" is a legitimate defense for Margaret Cho's disgusting comments, then it must be a defense for any comedian who says disgusting things, not just the comedians who spew ideology that you like.

And if it's a defense for Margaret Cho to say that there was nothing wrong with what she said because she only said it to an audience of like-minded people who wouldn't be offended, then this defense must also apply to anyone saying offensive things to other like-minded people (such as, say, a KKK leader making racist comments to his followers).

It is not uncommon, especially (but not only) in this forum, to see people defend Principle X when applied to particular example, but when you point out to them that Principle X is a corrupt principle, and apply it to other examples to illustrate its corruption, they become confused and begin claiming that they never said what you are attributing to them (because they only applied Principle X to one example, not to analogous examples).

That's because they don't realize that they are advocating a general principal when they are opining on a particular topic. So when you point out the Principle which they necessarily advocate, they become confused and say they never said that.

That's all Dick did. He said - you are advocating Principle X, and he then applied that principle to other examples. As a result, people became confused and absurdly accused Dick of responding to points that weren't made. That happens a lot in this forum, which is surprising, given how basic and common it is (or at least ought to be) to reason by analogy.

>Just a suggestion from an unsophisticated New Yorker.

>That's all Dick did. He said - you are advocating Principle

>X, and he then applied that principle to other examples. As a

>result, people became confused and absurdly accused Dick of

>responding to points that weren't made.

I never advocated anything.

>I never advocated anything.

If that's true, then you should immediately notify Hooboy about this serious security breach where someone is signing in under your name and posting things. For instance, this person posing as you advocated the following:

<<That was part of a twenty-minute STAND-UP COMEDY routine. A lot of comedy today is over-the-top or politically incorrect. Would you also call Dennis Miller a "ridiculous bitch"? If you haven't seen the entire routine, you shouldn't criticize it. Drudge Report, which you seem to trust as a credible "news" source, knew exactly what he was doing when he pulled out those fragments of a routine. Lenny Bruce's act was dissected and taken out of context in court, and the prosecutors knew what they were doing, too.>>

Also, this same person answered: "Ahh...that's the point I should have made. You're exactly right, VDN" - in response to his point that Margaret Cho did nothing wrong because the audience she was speaking to was filled with like-minded individuals.

So that's why I thought that you had advocated these things - because someone apparently signed in under your name and posted them. Thanks for clearing that up. And good luck with your investigation into the identity of the imposter.

Oh, that's advocating? I guess I should have looked up the word. My bad.

In his book "Talk is Cheap", John Haiman makes the following affirmation: “What is essential to sarcasm is that it is overt irony intentionally used by the speaker as a form of verbal aggression….”

Some people also view sarcasm as a less aggressive form of stating what is truly on one’s mind. Sarcasm also gives the speaker an opportunity to be dramatic and use wordplay that is more interesting than straightforward remarks

Basically, sarcasm is perceived negatively, as a means of verbal aggression. However, from the perspective of the speaker, the sarcasm is seen more positively than to the people in the other points of view. This makes sense. It is no surprise that the speaker would view his comments as less caustic. He may believe that what he is saying is not as bad as others make it out to be.

People resort to sarcasm when traditional ways of discourse fail them and they feel frustrated and angered.

Just an FYI and not intended to anyone here in this thread .... no one at all.

;-)

http://us.ent4.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/cho_taussig/i_m_the_one_that_i_want/margaret_cho/cho3.jpg

http://www.margaretcho.com/shop/revolution_thumbnail.gif

http://www.margaretcho.com/shop/notoriousposter.jpg

http://www.margaretcho.com/shop/notorious_poster.jpg

>In his book "Talk is Cheap", John Haiman makes the following

>affirmation: “What is essential to sarcasm is that it is overt

>irony intentionally used by the speaker as a form of verbal

>aggression….”

That's so very interesting. Check the next chapter and let us know what he says about pretensious, pseudo-intellectual overgeneralizations and the people who spew them.