Subscribe via RSS Feed

What is the Daily Tucker For?

[ 47 ] February 17, 2012 |

I would have to agree that, lacking the wisdom of Solomon, I cannot determine what’s worse about this crap: the writing or the ideas.   When you’re doing a middlebrow Kim DuToit imitation, the bad ideas and bad prose are inseparable.

In order to discourage you from getting off the boat, let me say that 1)the deep thinker in question apparently works for Pajamas Media, and 2)writing for the Daily Tucker he apparently believed that he had to dumb it down a shade.  Sadly, about #2 he’s probably right.

much more from Roy.

Share with Sociable

Comments (47)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. actor212 says:

    “Ken DuToit” always reminds me of French band practice…

  2. actor212 says:

    Potemkin Skirts…I’m so naming my retro-Soviet emo band that…

    WTF? This guy ran a Times Op-Ed thru a Janus Node, didn’t he?

  3. Steve M. says:

    Years ago, “the deep thinker in question” wrote this, which argues that civilization is being destroyed by “zany” typefaces and the use of misspellings such as “kidz” on restaurant menus.

  4. avoidswork says:

    Well, He wrote a response based upon comments of what you linked to.

    Then I had to comment… There is just something so obtuse about writing about this area without really delving into how much inequality today’s modern woman STILL faces.

    • Aaron says:

      “The wave of anger and condemnation….”

      I had a “Thanks for reading this so I didn’t have to” reaction. I tried reading the essay, but when something is written that badly it becomes painful – it gives you waves of something, but not “anger and condemnation”.

      The reactions I see seem more like “pointing and laughing”, but if it makes Poulos feel better….

  5. Steve M. says:

    Well, He wrote a response based upon comments of what you linked to.

    … in which he wrote:

    The wave of anger and condemnation that has come from some quarters is dramatic evidence that the column’s central contention is right.

    Wow, you can’t argue with that logic, can you?

  6. Bruce Baugh says:

    I believe that the author imagines himself leaping to the top of the barricades and shouting “Gertrude Himmelfarb, thou art avenged!”

  7. Brutusettu says:

    Liberals, of course, generally and characteristically deny that abortion is barbaric.

    note the no qualifiers giving exceptions for early 1st term induced abortions.

    Why would any sane person that isn’t a clear cut so-con expect some sense to made by that guy?

  8. R Johnston says:

    Apparently if you give a marginally literate bigot a thesaurus, hilarity ensues.

  9. gmack says:

    How does it ever even occur to a person to ask “what are women for?” I can see asking such a question about, say, a hammer, or maybe a blow-up doll. But if you ever find yourself thinking that it’s important to establish what “purpose” the majority of humanity serves, something has gone seriously wrong.

  10. sleepyirv says:

    We’re going to all feel bad when he’s diagnosed with some rare form of schizophrenia and this was his first cry for help. We should have done something!

    I’ve seen essays written poorly to obfuscate its true purpose but this goes beyond this. The actual argument must be such poison that to more than hint at it would cause riots and mass destruction. People would rip out their own eyes to stop the tears of blood. We’re lucky that Tucker Carlson is such a tough editor he could cover up the black death that is this editorial by making it a word salad.

  11. John says:

    Wasn’t Kant on top of this?

    “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.”

    If you think women are “for” something, you are treating them as a means, rather than an end, right? Would it ever occur to Poulos to ask what men are for?

  12. ck says:

    I don’t speak Timecube. Can someone explain to me what exactly Poulos was trying to say?

  13. djw says:

    Ah, I’d forgotten all about Poulos. I saw him at a conference once. He’s about 2 parts Pat Robertson, 2 parts Zizek, 1 part William F. Buckley.

    • gmack says:

      What conference was this? It would have to be an odd experience, ’cause man, that article is some fucked up shit right there.

      • djw says:

        I dunno, they all blend together at this point. Some political science conference. He is (was?) a political theory PhD student, you know. Something about Napoleon’s impact on French political thought or some such thing.

  14. Clark says:

    I think he used to blog as “Postliterate Conservative,” or some such.

  15. DrDick says:

    What is the Daily Tucker For?

    It is the toxic waste dump for the most rancid conservative ideas and most wretched writers.

  16. commie atheist says:

    Pouolos write big words, but this is really all he meant to say.

  17. Jim Harrison says:

    Other comments have made the same point so this is just an attempt to come up with a more economical formulation:

    It is offensive to define anybody by their purposes because things defined by their purposes are tools.

  18. Reilly says:

    Now to the next order of business: How shall we consider the Negro?

  19. [...] detail or with such care. Thankfully for all involved, Poulos decided to respond to critics of his original post with wit and aplomb. Contrary to Bérubé’s claim that Poulos thinks “tennis football [...]

  20. ema says:

    Much good would come from a broader recognition that women have a privileged relationship with the natural world. That’s a relationship which must receive its social due — if masculinity in its inherent and imitative varieties (including imitation by quasi-feminized males of quasi-masculinized females!) is not to conquer the world.

    Women are uterine containers. The State must enforce that role. Women are for saving the world from the savagery of men.

    And anyone who disagrees is a postmodern liberal poopy head in a Potemkin skirt in thrall to a haute-bourgeois conventionality.

    • BigHank53 says:

      That’s actually one of the arguments that sends my head right round a bend: if you trust women to gentle the savage beasts that lurk beneath the skins of men, why the fuck can’t you trust them to know when they should have an abortion? It’s one or the other, boys: incompetence or personhood.

  21. joe from Lowell says:

    I have absolutely no idea what the writer’s point is, and I can’t tell if that’s because his writing is awful or because he doesn’t have one.

    • joe from Lowell says:

      For instance: his topic seems to be different groups’ ideas about what women are for.

      I can’t tell what he thinks women are for.

      I can’t tell what he thinks liberals are saying women are for.

      I can’t tell what his problem with liberal’s position might be.

      I can’t tell what he thinks conservatives are saying women are for.

      I can’t tell why he finds the conservative position to be better than the liberal one.

      That’s probably not good.

  22. laura says:

    I think Poulos would be better described as dumbing it up a notch rather than dumbing it down a notch for the Tucker crowd.

  23. [...] out of the fact that liberal journalists also express liberal political opinions in private, publishing an article called “What Are Women For?” that intends to be taken seriously, publishing an article about how the army should draft lesbians and convert them to [...]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.