Reynolds is still insisting:
TAPPED still has its panties in a wad over the Martha Burk fertility-control "satire" issue, which McElroy also mentions. But I repeat: a non-lefty white male wouldn’t be allowed to claim "satire" as a defense for writing something similar about fertility control in women — any more than he would be allowed to claim "Halloween" as a defense for appearing in blackface.
The problem is it is irrelevant to the point. The work was misrepresented by several people including Lopez. Somehow Reynolds has decided that in a hypothetical other situation, an author who did a satire wouldn’t be allowed to claim satire as a defense. So what? In this case it was obviously a satire and people are misrepresenting it. If, in another case, someone misrepresents a satire that would be wrong as well. The Halloween example is assanine since those involved aren’t claiming it was a satire, but frat hijinks (I agree the incident shouldn’t be seen as a disciplinary issue, but an educational one). The individual with his panties in a wad is the guy obscuring the issue.
First, one can claim any excuse they care to claim. Whether that is a legitimate claim or a believable claim is dependent on the work in question. No one with a brain should be questioning that Burk was writing satire. In the hypothetical other situation, one would have to see the work. Assuming it was as clear as Burk’s work, the people misrepresenting it would be wrong to claim it wasn’t a satire. Others could still argue it was a bad satire or in bad taste. If Lopez or Schlussel had made such an argument, there could have been a debate over the merits. Instead, they lied.
Second, if the situation happened with a conservative author, that would be stupid too. Unfortunately Reynolds isn’t giving an example of this occurring and is instead claiming victimhood. Though Mike Royko was a liberal (not lefty given that is a silly phrase), he certainly got blasted by Latino groups for his satire of Buchanan. That was stupid on the part of Latino groups. As is just about every whine about something Mark Twain ever wrote.
Third, it is entirely possible to argue the satire is unfunny or a poor satire when refuting it. This is different than misrepresenting it as not satire. Lopez, Schlussel and other morons argue that it wasn’t a satire. This is false.
Reynolds is trying to make a point that isn’t analogous to what actually occurred. He is making a PC point when the entire issue came up because Schlussel and Lopez were lying. If Reynolds wanted to make a case about a PC double standard, an example where it was occuring would be nice. Instead, he has tried to change the subject concerning an example of lying and obscure the point to being some screed about PC. Before accusing others of having their panties in a wad, he should untangle his own.
The normally well-spoken
Tom Spencer has 5 points subtracted for using the line ‘doesn’t get it.’ Only idiots like Sullivan are allowed to use rhetorical nonsense like that. Tom isn’t an idiot.
Update: Reynolds is still whining about a double standard.
UP
DATE: TAPPED has another post on this, and — even after a long and cordial series of emails with Armed Liberal, who shares TAPPED’s view — all I can say is "you guys just don’t get it." It’s not about Martha Burk. It never was about Martha Burk. (Though if you think that calling Burk’s piece "satire" changes the face of feminism you’re showing your ignorance.
Actually, the entire discussion has been about Burk. Reynolds tried to change the subject and still is. Burk did a satire Lopez, Schlussel and others tried to represent it as not a satire. That is a lie.
There are other writings by academic feminists calling for the elimination of men and similar absurdities in dead earnest, though at nearly midnight I’m not going to run them down. But as a guy who once edited Catharine MacKinnon, I know a bit about this stuff). It’s all about a double standard. Your "admit you were wrong about the satire" point is (1) utterly inconsistent with my original post; and (2) a conscious or unconscious effort to dodge the real issue,
No, lying was the real issue. An analogous case would be if a conservative white male wrote a satire and those criticizing him, pulled it out as evidence of his ‘wacky’ views. I don’t know of an example of this occurring, but it probably has somewhere in the history of humanity. If someone can pull up an example I’d be happy to say that dishonesty is wrong as well.
As to being wrong about the satire, he has refused to call out Lopez for misrepresenting the work despite a series of posts on the subject. Instead of admitting Lopez was wrong and then making a point about a separate problem, he has continued to whine about a double standard. A double standard doesn’t excuse Lopez, Schlussel or others for lying.
a double standard about speech that everyone knows exists, but that the left dare not admit — because its whole existence depends on both the double standard, and not admitting it.
Nice rhetorical trick, but it doesn’t address the situation as it occurred. Nor does it represent a fair representation of reality. Both Christopher Buckley and PJ O’Rourke do satire quite frequently and they are ‘allowed’. Do some have a double standard? Probably. And I’m happy to call them on it. I’m consistent and I think Reynolds ought to be. Reynolds confuses lying about whether something is satire and arguing over whether the satire is appropriate.
Update II: Instapundit Watch has
been revived by the issue.
ArchPundit