In Praise of "Controversy"

[Xenophon]

Erasmus wrote "In Praise of Folly," so...

I was a sceptic about having a "Controversy" section in the forum. Now I see it's a fine idea. It defuses a lot of shite that could get out of hand. I am reminded of a family I knew with pretensions to "culture" (as much as was available in Austin's West Lake Hills, anyway.) By Mme. Westlake's decree, family members could say anything they wanted to one another during a disagreement, but the entire exchange had to be sung throughout. Improv performances could sound like the four-letter version of "Pirates of Penzance." The Controversy section seems to play a similar role here, though rather less artistic.

With those words of mine and five RMB, SkullTraill can get a bowl of instant noodles anywhere in China.

 

[KjEno186]

In the 51 year old book called The Rape of the A*P*E*, Allan Sherman made a long list of things that used to get one arrested in America. Progress was slow...

1963

Fanny Hill—Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure received the go-ahead signal from the courts. The all-time best-selling pornographic novel was the subject of the first obscenity case in American history, when Peter Holmes was arrested for publishing it in 1821. Only 142 years later justice prevailed, and Americans were free to read this filthy fossil.​

​

Here are some of the quotes from Fanny Hill that allegedly can corrupt your morals: Author John Cleland refers to female breasts as "delicious manuals of love devotion"; the penis is "his plenipotentiary instrument"; the same individual's balls are "his inestimable bulse of ladies' jewels"; fucking consisted of "a just concert of springy heaves" and produced "the prodigious effect the progressions of this delightful energy wrought in this delicious girl." Finally, the hero turns out to be an ass man, as the following quote shows: "Sometimes he took his hands from the semi-globes of her bosom and transferred the pressure of them to those larger ones, the present subjects of his soft blockade."​

​

You see, once upon a time, America was SO Conservative that some naughty words simply weren't allowed. Now, Progressivism also has lots of words that aren't allowed, but they rely on 'cancel culture' instead of so-called obscenity laws. People tend to shy away from these extremes by self censoring. Unfortunately, if you give the authoritarians an inch, they'll take it all away from you.

The A*P*E* is the American Puritan Ethic.

 

[Xenophon]

In the 51 year old book called The Rape of the A*P*E*, Allan Sherman made a long list of things that used to get one arrested in America. Progress was slow...

1963

Fanny Hill—Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure received the go-ahead signal from the courts. The all-time best-selling pornographic novel was the subject of the first obscenity case in American history, when Peter Holmes was arrested for publishing it in 1821. Only 142 years later justice prevailed, and Americans were free to read this filthy fossil.​

​

Here are some of the quotes from Fanny Hill that allegedly can corrupt your morals: Author John Cleland refers to female breasts as "delicious manuals of love devotion"; the penis is "his plenipotentiary instrument"; the same individual's balls are "his inestimable bulse of ladies' jewels"; fucking consisted of "a just concert of springy heaves" and produced "the prodigious effect the progressions of this delightful energy wrought in this delicious girl." Finally, the hero turns out to be an ass man, as the following quote shows: "Sometimes he took his hands from the semi-globes of her bosom and transferred the pressure of them to those larger ones, the present subjects of his soft blockade."​

​

You see, once upon a time, America was SO Conservative that some naughty words simply weren't allowed. Now, Progressivism also has lots of words that aren't allowed, but they rely on 'cancel culture' instead of so-called obscenity laws. People tend to shy away from these extremes by self censoring. Unfortunately, if you give the authoritarians an inch, they'll take it all away from you.

The A*P*E* is the American Puritan Ethic.

Not just the U.S. Arthur Machen relates how, in the 1890's, the English publisher of Zola's works was sentenced to jail time for the "obscenity" of said translations at the same time that Zola himself was touring England and being lauded and feted. Likewise, Graham Greene was once successfully sued for libel for writing that "no one except a pedophile" could enjoy Shirley Temple films. And, don't forget, that in today's Europe "the truth is no defense" when it comes to criticizing the behavior of pet pongoid demographics.

 

[KjEno186]

Controversy invites criticism. A topic wouldn't be controversial if it didn't spark disagreement. Of course, the invented, meaningless controversies like Coke versus Pepsi and 'flat earth' aren't really at issue. The defense of freedom of speech is about protecting the minority opinion because more often than not it opposes official dogma.

Censorship assumes that nobody will think about a topic so long as no one is allowed to mention it. This concept was echoed by Orwell in 1984. Orwell realized that language itself controls what people think about. Change the language, and people will think (or not think) differently. Change official history, and people quickly forget how they got where they are, assuming it's always been as it is in the moment. "Winston's job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones." To extend the analogy a bit further, 1984's "party members" are very similar to today's AWFUL (Affluent White Female University-educated Liberals). Minorities like 'liberal males', gays, and various national & ethnic groups are merely along for the ride because they don't really constitute an actual united block outside of official propaganda machines. Corporate media is full of messaging designed to appeal to and influence this AWFUL demographic quite heavily. Going against this media current is strongly discouraged by new-speak words like 'disinformation' and 'cheap fakes'.

Lest one think I am only criticizing the 'left', I will also point out that the so-called 'right' seems to derive its power from the vaporous promise of a return to some sort of Eden of Conservative Values. What does that actually mean? Are we going back to the 1950s (or is it the 1980s, where it's Always Morning in America?)

Lastly, the real reason for a Controversy section is the fact that some unsettled souls gleefully spew some pretty vile things. One doesn't have to agree with it. In fact it can be 'healthy' to look at it and laugh. Laughter is not only good medicine, it's a banishing tool.

 

[Xenophon]

Controversy invites criticism. A topic wouldn't be controversial if it didn't spark disagreement. Of course, the invented, meaningless controversies like Coke versus Pepsi and 'flat earth' aren't really at issue. The defense of freedom of speech is about protecting the minority opinion because more often than not it opposes official dogma.

Censorship assumes that nobody will think about a topic so long as no one is allowed to mention it. This concept was echoed by Orwell in 1984. Orwell realized that language itself controls what people think about. Change the language, and people will think (or not think) differently. Change official history, and people quickly forget how they got where they are, assuming it's always been as it is in the moment. "Winston's job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones." To extend the analogy a bit further, 1984's "party members" are very similar to today's AWFUL (Affluent White Female University-educated Liberals). Minorities like 'liberal males', gays, and various national & ethnic groups are merely along for the ride because they don't really constitute an actual united block outside of official propaganda machines. Corporate media is full of messaging designed to appeal to and influence this AWFUL demographic quite heavily. Going against this media current is strongly discouraged by new-speak words like 'disinformation' and 'cheap fakes'.

Lest one think I am only criticizing the 'left', I will also point out that the so-called 'right' seems to derive its power from the vaporous promise of a return to some sort of Eden of Conservative Values. What does that actually mean? Are we going back to the 1950s (or is it the 1980s, where it's always Morning in America?)

Lastly, the real reason for a Controversy section is the fact that some unsettled souls gleefully spew some pretty vile things. One doesn't have to agree with it. In fact it can be 'healthy' to look at it and laugh. Laughter is not only good medicine, it's a banishing tool.

Interesting about the 50's and 80's. Brett Stevens recently wrote the next Benighted States election is about which time-warp one wants to enter: Trump's making America 1980's again vs. Biden's eternal recurrence of the 60's.

 

[KjEno186]

Brett Stevens recently wrote

I noticed how DuckDuckGo only wanted to show a Wikipedia article calling him a "white supremacist and Neo-Nazi blogger"...

I had to enter his name within quotes to get to his actual blog. I guess we can be grateful that it is still possible to find the speech of those who disagree with the corporate narratives, but this form of "soft" censorship used by internet search engines should cause one to pause and wonder who is amplifying some voices while suppressing others.

As far as what people think they want, well, it's all repackaged dreams sold back to them at a tidy profit. There's no going back...

 

[Xenophon]

I noticed how DuckDuckGo only wanted to show a Wikipedia article calling him a "white supremacist and Neo-Nazi blogger"...

I had to enter his name within quotes to get to his actual blog. I guess we can be grateful that it is still possible to find the speech of those who disagree with the corporate narratives, but this form of "soft" censorship used by internet search engines should cause one to pause and wonder who is amplifying some voices while suppressing others.

As far as what people think they want, well, it's all repackaged dreams sold back to them at a tidy profit. There's no going back...

I noticed that back in 2016. Googled "What's Wrong With Hilary Clinton"; got pages of hits all gushing praise. Same thing now. "What's Wrong With Diversity in Hiring" and you get only hits praising it. This despite the fact an in-depth study by Jeremiah Green and John N.D. (Econ Journal Watch, March 2024) Hand finds "no statistical correlation" between diversity and profitability. They say the McKinsey study---the DEI Quran---at best shows that profitable companies tended to promote diversity after the fact.