Monday, September 29, 2008

Thanks for the traffic, Nate

And thanks for the picture, too.

In the future, if you want readers to be "discreet" then spell it right, Ass Hat.


25 comments:

Anonymous said...

Uh, "discrete" is a word.

1. Separate; distinct; individual.
2. Something that can be perceived individually and not as connected to, or part of something else.
3. (electrical engineering) Having separate electronic components, such as individual resistors and inductors — the opposite of integrated circuitry.
4. (audio engineering) Having separate and independent channels of audio, as opposed to multiplexed stereo or quadraphonic, or other multi-channel sound.
5. (topology) Having each singleton subset open: said of a topological space or a topology.

He used the wrong spelling.

Morgan said...

Good catch. Discrete is indeed a word and I revised my pot to correct what I wrote. I am glad, at least, that you also acknowledged Nate's improper spelling. Most of his readers, I'm sure, are completely unaware of it.

JohnR said...

Morgan: I rarely give advice but in this instance, I am going too.

Delete this post.

I don't know what happened between you, Vox, SB, and Pretty Lady but you cannot be objective about Vox in any sense.

What possessed you to go to Nate's (Friend of Vox) and leave a post wishing ass rape on Vox's father.

No, you didn't say it specifically but the intent was there and hard to miss.

Why don't you just let it go?

You can respond to this but I will say no more.

thimscool said...

I agree with everything that JohnR said, except that I don't think you should remove this post.

Instead, I think you should consider apologizing.

Morgan said...

I am so glad that both of you came by to say what you say, because it highlights the Hypocrisy of Vox's rank-and-file readers.

As you are regular readers of Vox, so you can't claim ignorance to his position on rape - he claims most women lie about it. Neither can you claim ignorance of a recent post where he has stated he found it "amusing" when a woman was raped and murdered.

Now, Vox doesn't know the women he wrote about, and neither do you. But I'd wager that neither of you had the stones to say, "Hey, that woman - regardless of her being in the wrong place and the wrong time - did not deserve what you wrote. She's a human, with a family and feelings. And you, Vox Day, should remove the post and apologize."

So explain to me why it is wrong for me to make a joke about his father's engaging in prison sex (I never implied it wouldn't be consensual) but it is OK for Vox to find amusement in a woman's rape and murder?

You can say "two wrongs don't make a right," but again, if you don't have the stones to call Vox out on what he says, then don't come whining to me when I joke about his father's predicament.

Besides, any man arrested with a driver's license issued from the "Kingdom of Heaven" - as Vox's father was - is a joke within himself. He apparently doesn't take himself too seriously. Who knows? He might find my suggestion that his son pen a book called "Daddy's Cellmate" amusing. And if the unthinkable does happen in prison, can we really believe Mr. Beale? I mean, prisoners lie about rape all the time, right?

So in short, the post stands. Without apology. Unless, of course, you can explain to me why you can't distinguish between my behavior and the behavior of the man you're defending....

Good luck with that, Luke and JohnB.

Morgan said...

Oh, and per "what happened" in the past it was nothing more than verification of what I suspected when I first started reading Vox.

There's nothing to "let go" of and as far as I'm concerned, the players were and are insignificant. But the positions people take are still open for rebuttal. This time I simply did it through example...

thimscool said...

1) I do not read everything that Vox posts. I specifically did not read the post to which you refer. But I am aware that he thinks that rape is often a fabricated crime.

2) I have many times stood against what Vox has written, and faced angry crowds of people opposed to my resistance.

3) Perhaps I am wrong, but to my knowledge Vox has never suggested or joked about wanting some specific person to be raped. If he did, I might publicly ask him to apologize. But...

4) For my own reasons, I care more what you think and say than what Vox thinks and says. As such, I am more likely to attempt constructive criticism of you than him. He is hopelessly and deliberately cruel, whereas you might find your inner Christ/Bhuddah/whatever.



So in short, the post stands. Without apology. Unless, of course, you can explain to me why you can't distinguish between my behavior and the behavior of the man you're defending....

See point three above.

Perhaps I should have conducted this discussion via email.

thimscool said...

By the way, Morgan. You now owe me an apology too for implying that I am a hypocrite and a rank-and-file reader of VP.

I mean really. Everyone is a hypocrite sometimes, so I might let that one slide. But to accuse me of being a rank-and-file anything is just blatant disrespect for the work I've done here and on other blogs. Sheesh.

Morgan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Morgan said...

Point 1 and 2, agreed and agreed. I have seen you do that.

Per Point 3, there's the rub. What, pray tell, is the moral difference in taking delight in the rape and murder of a woman and raising the possibility that the eyes of Vox's daddy and another man might meet across a shower stall and...

Well, I won't bore you with the details. I'm sure you get my drift.

Again, my comments over at Nate's were intended to provoke just the kind of reaction they did!

Per the inner Christ/Buddha stuff, I'm touched that you seem to have higher expectations of me than you do of him. But please don't. I have a sneaking suspicion that under all that swagger-and-bluster Vox doesn't really believe the stuff he writes because it is so inconsistent with Christianity. I think he's just a short, scared guy who finally feels like he's found a place to be viewed as bigger, tougher and meaner than he actually is. And that's OK. But people like that need to realize that turnabout is fair play. He probably does, which is why I'm also sure his Followers are far more upset about what I wrote than he is.

And you're right, Luke. I do owe you an apology. And JohnR for that matter, if I implied that either of you are rank-and-file VP Disciplines. I know you're not.

Morgan said...

And Luke, don't feel like you should have taken this to private emails. If someone puts up something publicly they shouldn't mind answering for it publicly. And I don't.

thimscool said...

What, pray tell, is the moral difference in taking delight in the rape and murder of a woman and raising the possibility that the eyes of Vox's daddy and another man might meet across a shower stall and...

Hmmmm. Nothing really, except that in the first case he is not making his comment to a friend or relative of the victim. That is not a very consequential difference, though.

But I don't ever recall reading that Vox took delight at the rape and murder of anyone. Cite please.

Morgan said...

Um, you must have missed it, Luke. Here it is:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/04/you-must-have-heart-of-stone.html

So naturally I think you'd have to have a heart of stone not to find amusement in a tax-dodge who could have avoided the whole Prison Thing to be bent over in the shower and...

Again, I won't bore you with the details.

You are exactly right that whether we know the people we mock is inconsequential. It's not inconceivable that the relatives of that woman may at some point come across his post. I hope they just come across this one, too, so they'll know that the guy who mocked her death now has to worry about his own Daddy suffering a similar ordeal.

thimscool said...

Hmmmm. Perhaps this is parsing, but it seems to me that the delight he took was not in the fact that she was raped and murdered, but rather in the fact that her idealistic notions were demonstrated to be totally at odds with reality.

I was simply saddened by reading the story, not amused. She was clearly a bit daft, and it can be funny when stupid people die (e.g. see the Darwin Awards). But in this case, her death highlights the sickness of humankind, and I am not amused by her naiveté.

But Vox is simply demonstrating a sick sense of humor, not a wish that someone would be raped and murdered. I'm sorry, but I do not see the equivalence.

It is very strange that there were no comments for that post.

Morgan said...

I think it is parsing, Luke. And my take on Vox's dad's incarceration (and subsequent shower buggering) and that woman's ill-fated trip is that they are both comparable.

The woman in the story was naive and possibly naive and delusional, hence her decision to put herself in harm's way to make a politically correct point when she could have worked for justice in a more reasonable way.

Vox's dad was naive and delusional, hence the driver's license he had issued by the Kingdom of Heaven and his decision to hide his money and flee rather than use his money to fight the tax regulations in court.

Both put their faith in something that didn't help them; the woman put her faith in the goodness of humanity and Beale put his in a God who apparently moonlights at the Division of Motor Vehicles.

The woman was abducted and raped. Vox found sick humor in that. Vox's dad was imprisoned and is at an increased risk of rape. I find sick humor in that.

Did I ever say I wished rape on his daddy? No. But as Vox would say, anyone stupid enough to put themselves in that position, well....

Like Vox says, you have to have a heart of stone not to find some situations funny.

And there were comments on the original posts, mostly from the Amen Chorus. Comments aren't retained on many older, archived posts. I wish they had been on this one because I do recall that Vox did indeed reiterate how funny he found that particular rape and murder.

And I still can't see how finding sick humor in a rape and murder can be any more offensive than pondering the ironic possibility of one that may or may not have happened yet.

thimscool said...

I guess I just have a heart of stone, then.

Morgan said...

And a head of stone if you seriously believe I want to see some old man raped in prison. I wouldn't joke about it if I thought it would really happen, and it isn't likely. Vox frequently refers to his personal wealth; I'm pretty sure he'll be able to keep the old man supplied with enough cigarettes to buy his personal safety.

I was illustrating a point, Luke, and as I expected the same people who don't bat an eye at Vox's "sick humor" become a bunch of hand-wringing hysterics when someone else adopts his tactics.

You need to be less serious, Luke. I know you think I'm better than I am. But sometimes I just think you're too good....

thimscool said...

Can't we all just get along?

Morgan said...

"Can't we all just get along?"

I'd say that's about as likely as my making it across Turkey in a wedding dress.

Anonymous said...

Regardless of who is right or wrong that picture is hilarious. It even kind of looks like Nate.

Morgan said...

It is Nate. He was kind enough to trim his mullet before having his picture taken. I still had to crop it, though. His left hand is on top of his cousin's head. And, well, this is a family blog....

Christopher said...

Completely off-topic, I have send that picture to a friend of mine who insists I have a mullet. I'm going to add a note: "No, THIS is a mullet." His definition of a mullet is hair that's trimmed on top and long in the back, which sort of describes mine, but mine isn't THAT trimmed on top.

Morgan said...

I've seen your pictures, Christopher, and you do not have a mullet. Besides, "mullet" is more of a state of mind than a haircut. Mullet is about willfully embracing ignorance and trying to act all bad-ass in the hopes that no one will notice how short you are. Mohawk is similar.

Butchie said...

What is going on here?

Morgan said...

Hi Butchie. I'm hoping the comments will explain, as it would be exhausting for me to rehash my history with the True Christians ™ who still go completely Rumpelstiltskin at the mere mention of my name.