Missing Link Daily

The ‘karma’ post is one of LE’s, dear Missing Linkers (now I know what Lauredhel & tigtog used to go through…)

Ken,

If I remember correctly, the ‘corporate paedophilia’ charges against DJs were made in a report by a researcher at the Australia Institute – not exactly the whole of ‘The Left’. (What is this ‘Left’ anyway?) Clive Hamilton’s declared position on the Henson photos – that the intent might not have been pronographic, but Henson forgot that the images would be turned into porn by the Internet – isn’t inconsistent with the ‘corporate paedophilia’ view. Weird and contorted, but not so far removed from it.

Andy Landy’s charge of hypocrisy against this nebulous ‘Left’ is a lazy one, IMO.

Anyway, the hysteria seems to have been all played out; I’m doing my best to get it out of my head so I can concentrate on stuff that matters.

There’s a lot that could be said about the weird and contorted positions some people took to get themselves a toehold on the moral high ground but for me, that can wait.

Tigtog posted about the DJ pamphlet Gummo, on her Hoyden about Town blog and on Larvatus Prodeo, where I think it gathered a number of comments sympathetic with her argument. Obviously not representative of ‘the left’ in abstract or in general, but certainly representative of a widespread community feeling amongst left-wing commentators. Landeryou latched on to an obvious example of inconsistency there, but there are definitely other examples which could be commented on.

We should compare notes about these weird and contorted positions people have taken some time. Both of the defined ‘sides’ in this debate seem to be lacking in moral authority and prone to making contradictions or acting hypocritically. As Yeats says, “The best lack all conviction, while the worst/are full of passionate intensity.”

Besides, there’s a new perfect storm of dumb to discuss, the symbolism of scarves.

PS, meant to say that if the cops started lumbering into deparment stores and pulling down the posters I’d be freaking out about that too. It’s just not the way to resolve these (real) issues, leaving it in the hands of the Revolting Squad absolves the rest of us of personal responsibilty, which is at the root of both problems in the first place.

I see the distinction youre seeking to make between teenage awkward sexual self-awareness and advertising sexual availability. But I suspect that it would be largely lost on any pedophile viewing either the DJs ads or Hensons work.

That might be a relevant critique if my criticisms of the advertising images had mentioned the putative appeal to paedophiles as a major point of emphasis. Commentors may have, I did not. I’m far more concerned with the cultural messages contained in the constant bombardment of sexualised images of fully clothed young girls.

I’ve just read this thread from scratch and am still bemused by the apparent conflation of ‘feminist’ with ‘left’. Sure there’s a big overlap but most of the people I saw expressing sympathy with the Clive Hamilton position were coming from theories about the corporate use and/or commodification of (especially female) sexuality, here applied to children which is of course worse. I get the impression that most male bloggers equate Hamilton only with his views on economics and think anyone who endorses his arguments in this instance must therefore be doing likewise.

Which is not the case.

Wow, for a guy who stood for one of the most highly contested seats in the country, you really know how to extend the hand of friendship and negotiate with potential political allies.

Hey, some interesting stuff comes up when you google yourself. I think I’ll make a habit of doing that from time to time.

Nah, I’m too lazy to run a blog myself. Takes all my time just reading other people.

For the life of me, I can’t see how people identifying as feminsits could ever be considered allies of a libertarian. I’m not an expert and there may be a school of liberal feminism advocating people just be left alone to achieve what they want from life, but I suspect they don’t label themselves Feminists to begin with. But then I’m a white male benificiary of the patriarchy, so I would say that, wouldn’t I.

Youre either with im or youre agin im on this issue, Im afraid.

Somehow I find Voltaire the more convincing on that argument. So no, not even a little bit do I have to be with him or against him. His work may not be pornographic, but if he ever asked my daughter to pose for something like that I’d put him on his arse and then on his way.

A couple of notes about the smugly self-congratulatory Landeryou thing. First he uses “Teh Left” as a straw man and that is dishonest. Second, and worse, he identifies DJs’ actions with Henson’s in order to suggest that they are doing precisely the same thing, which gives him the opening to attack Teh Left for trying to “have it both ways”. In fact he adds the “unclothed” bit to colour up the suggestion of sexual exploitation (and the cheeks of his cheer squad). The commercial angle is probably there, it seems to me, to subtly imply Henson is a pornographer.

“David Jones used images of clothed under-18 models to promote their apparel offering” vs “Bill Henson used images of unclothed under-18 models, some of them in situations that are quite disturbing, to promote himself as an artist and photographer”. The error of his argument is easily missed as it bypasses the cerebral cortex and flashes past to the prurient pleasure centres of Andrew’s acolytes. It’s a simplistic comparison and perhaps you would forgive a Year 9 student for making it. The error is this: Bill Henson was not “promoting” himself as an artist with this exhibition. The photographs are not a promotion of his art; they are the art. He doesn’t use his models to promote his photography. They are the subjects of his photography. It may seem a subtle distinction, perhaps too subtle for some, but it is a real and very important distinction nevertheless.

Perhaps he should have a role on Troppos love gods page ;)

Yep, sell it? Set it up and sell it?

Has Troppo played with the possibility of nuance on its pages lately, so to make nuance a commodity? And all the rest of it? “left’ “right” “centralist” “nuance” “balanced” “tribal” That is, let’s use those terms, embrace them because of someone else, throw it around with vim, and thereby we stand woo hoo! Look here! (Hello ads).

A feast of content of same by which to bounce – but has Troppo become >Tabloid?

Righto. While it can be taken as a token thing, that bloody smilie wasn’t my conscious doing. Scary shit, in these parts.

“obscurantist bullshit arstistes”

OMG I’m glad I wasn’t brave enough to use my real name and give you my real email address, Jacques!

I’d have preferred an actual argument in rebuttal rather than a cheap ad hominem. If someone makes an error in logic, or intentionally misrepresents a situation in order to promote their existing prejudice, and someone else points it out, is that just, what, too artsy-fartsy intellectual and therefore un-Australian?

the logical fallacy at work in most comments

Steven Poole at Unspeak.net [which is worth putting on your favourites] has a very pithy post about the frustration of blog commenting :

Blogger: As proposition p about Bs sentence s is false.

Reader 1: Oh my god, I cant believe you are defending everything B ever wrote!

Reader 2: But my completely different proposition q is true, so even if p is false, A is still right to say it!

Reader 3: Yes! Even though p is wrong, A is, er, morally right, because of yet another different proposition r !

Reader 4: Why wont you also condemn the notorious E? Oh my god, you must be a crypto-e-ist!

Blogger: Sigh.

And so it goes. Sigh.