I tried to insert the following pic into my previous post, but every time I did, the whole post went mysteriously blank, so I’m inserting it here instead.
Extremely red dress looking misleadingly maroon
Gloury Days, Part Deux
Navigation
Austro-Athenian Empire
"Austro" as in Rothbard and Wittgenstein, "Athenian" as in Aristotle and smashing-the-plutocracy.
Her breasts are too huge and ugly. It’s common for Hollywood actresses though.
Am I jealous? In no way! All my male friends adore my small ( barely visible actually) tits.
I hold an idea that one’s favorite breasts’ size indicates their level of aesthetic development.
Huge and meaty ones are for drunken farmers and Senators, small ones are for educated libertarians.
Do you agree? Or you are a kind of “aesthetic relativist”? 🙂
Imagine that instead of this comment, another had appeared, talking instead about the picture of professor Long.
“His face is too huge and ugly. It’s common for Alabama college professors though.
Am I jealous? In no way! All my female friends adore my thin face.
I hold an idea that one’s favorite face size indicates their level of aesthetic development.
Huge and meaty ones are for drunken farmers and Senators, small ones are for educated libertarians.
Do you agree? Or you are a kind of “aesthetic relativist”?”
Imagine this one also.
“Her breasts are too huge and ugly. It’s common for Hollywood actresses though.
I hold an idea that one’s favorite breasts’ size indicates their level of aesthetic development.
Huge and meaty ones are for drunken farmers and Senators, small ones are for educated libertarians.
Do you agree? Or you are a kind of ‘aesthetic relativist’?”
-Male commentor
I think that this would likely have provoked a response by some reader’s that the comment was innappropriate and sexist. I think that this sort of thing is more tolerated when it comes from a woman than from a man, and that pisses me off. It is itself a kind of sexism.
I also happened to have made that picture the background on my computer before reading the comments. I don’t like what the commenter implied about me when she said what she did. I think of myself as an “educated libertarian.”
I was wondering, with a mixture of hope and dread, if someone would criticize Alexandra K’s comment on precisely these grounds.
I think the identity of the speaker can be an important difference, given the proper context. For example, I am ethnically Jewish, and I feel comfortable using anti-Semitic racial slurs in a way that I would not feel comfortable using racial slurs against other groups. But I only do this in an ironic, “reclaim the word” sort of way, like the way LGBT people have reclaimed the word “queer”. I certainly grant the possibility that some Jews are actual, unironic, anti-Semites: Bobby Fischer was one, for example. So I’m willing to defend double standards up to a certain point, but no further. What that point is, I’m not sure…
Another important difference is the physical presence (or likelyhood of future appearance) of the person being described. I think it is much worse to insult someone to their face than to do so behind their back with a high degree of certainty that they will never find out. I doubt this particular actress will one day visit this blog and read this thread, and in any case, part of being an actor or actress seems to entail praise or criticizing of one’s physical appearance. (Incidentally, Jewish Law disagrees with me on this point and considers true gossip to be particularly evil.)
So I think these two factors lessen the charge in terms of judging the virtue of the speaker. On the other hand, to the extent that bigoted speech is generally harmful, in that it promotes harmful stereotypes or opens the door and makes it easier and more socially acceptable for future bigoted speech, than these two factors don’t mitigate the danger, and in fact may worsen it, for bigots will use them as an excuse: “so and so, who is a member of group X, made derogatory statements about group X, so it must be okay for me to make derogatory statements about group X too, even if I’m not a member of group X, because we can’t have double standards.” I don’t agree with the logic of this argument, but I have to concede that it may still be effective at perpetuating harmful attitudes despite being illogical.
Let me add some weight to the charge of judging the virtue of the speaker. What she was doing was promoting a standard of beauty which benefits her at the expense of other women whose breast size is different than hers. The specific actress may not read this blog (though it would be great if she did), but there is a reasonable chance that a woman whose breast size is similar to the actress does. This is an attack on the body image of these women. She said that their breasts are “too huge and ugly”. That is nasty and mean spirited. She also insulted any man who might find her attractive by comparing us with “drunken farmers and Senators” which on this blog counts as an insult, while men who prefer her breast size are “educated libertarians” which is something most readers of this blog aspire to be.
Good points.
I was not aware that her bust was the focus of the picture; running with this though, I question your assertion since the Chinese are not particularly libertarian.
They are! Chinese girls with tiny tits I mean. Not the Chinese living in China but Chinese living elsewhere. Extremely libertarian folks.
It’s interesting though would Americans exiled to China get more or less libertarian?
Yes, indeedy – the Double A cup rules! Or, as the French do opine, there should be just enough to fill a champagne glass.