The Argument Fish
A while ago I posted a quote from Things My Girlfriend and I Have Argued About :
An especially frequent argument argument, however, is the result of Margret NOT STICKING TO THE DAMN ARGUMENT, FOR CHRIST’S SAKE. Margret jack-knifes from argument to argument, jigs direction randomly and erratically like a shoal of Argument Fish being followed by a Truth Shark. It’s fearsomely difficult to land a blow because by the time you’ve let fly with the logic she’s not there anymore. A row about vacuuming gets shifted to the cost of a computer upgrade, from there to who got up early with the kids most this week and then to the greater interest rates of German banks via the noisome sexual keenness of some former girlfriend, those-are-hair-scissors-don’t-use- them-for-paper and ‘When was the last time you bought me flowers?’ all in the space of about seven exchanges. “Arrrrrrgggh! What are we arguing about? Can you just decide what it is and stick to it?”
The war seems to be bringing out that style of argument in everyone. A Cheese Dip entry linking to a photo of a maimed Iraqi girl inspires a comment condemning spring breakers for having wet t-shirt contests during wartime. A Boing Boing entry on GM’s ad campaign smearing mass transit and insulting its riders led to a rant about someone else somewhere else on the site Boing Boing had linked to having said something grotesque in support of fragging your lieutenant. And the discussion on Boing Boing’s linking to Paul Krugman’s editorial on how a major corporation with close ties to the Bush administration organized a rally to celebrate the destruction of the works of artists who’d dared criticize Bush really made my head spin. The real issue, you see, is a liberal media outlet typically attacking a corporation for engaging in its constitutionally protected right to free speech. Or something.
But wouldn't their destroying of that work in a way be taking away the free speech of the chix?
Posted by THEM on March 25 2003 23:05
Sorry, THEM, but I don't see how. It's not like they're destroying all copies of the works or removing all of them from stores or other purchasing methods. They're just destroying specific items they personally own. If you rip up a photo of the Pope, you're not taking away the free speech of the photographer.
Posted by Mris on March 26 2003 06:42
Certainly, there was nothing illegal about the rally. And I fully support boycott as a means of expression, so while I may personally disagree with the content of the Dixie Chicks boycott, I have no problem with the actions of the individuals who swore off supporting them, asked radio stations not to play them, mailed their CDs back to the record label.
But none of that means that a book-burning rally isn't fucking scary.
Posted by Zed on March 26 2003 08:16
Oh, sure, Zed, I'm not saying that it's not scary. I'd much rather have seen the people who were mad at the Dixie Chicks selling their CDs to used music stores, say, or any of the things you listed. But there are a lot of things that are scary and aren't violating anybody's rights. There's a lot of confusion about what free speech does and doesn't mean right now, and I don't think the false claims of rights violation help us defend against the true ones. If anything, the opposite.
Posted by Mris on March 26 2003 10:33