I am seriously considering starting a new category called, “Only A University Student Could Be This Stupid.” A while back I blogged about an interview about tolerance I heard on CBC Radio. In this interview, a professor told of how he was shocked by a student saying that she would not lift a finger to stop the Nazis if she were a time traveller, not because of the “Butterfly Effect”, but because it wasn’t her place to comment on how other people (in this case the Nazis) ran their societies. She was “tolerant.” I remember very clearly when the professor said, “Only a university student would think that way.” Yesterday, I was commenting on a friend’s Facebook page. She had made a comment about Olympic protestors and then caught it from all sides, big surprise there. Her older sister and a friend were being particularly patronizing.
SISTER: I think you need to read a bit more before you can make any accusations. Maybe develop your understanding of “violence” instead of relying on what you saw or heard on CTV.
I couldn’t resist responding to that; so I did. I repsonded that I read a lot too and that I thought the protest was violent and that I had never actually seen any of CTV’s coverage. What I had seen were photographs by local photogs.
SISTER: “[R]ead a bit more” was directed at the term “violence,” looking at the difference between damage to property and an act against a human being…. Anarchist theory is about consensus. Yes we can question the actions of the black bloc, but at the end of the day it was only windows and now it’s time to move on.
I guess she didn’t actually mean “Read” but “Read stuff that will make you agree with me.” I pointed out that the Black Bloc assaulted journalists and police officers in the course of carrying out their duty. Were they property? This is a point no one cared to comment on after if was made. As for consenus, I asked if this was anything like democratic voting or the public agreeing that police officers should try and stop people who are breaking the law. What followed was classic.
SISTER’S FRIEND: Re: free speech, I guess you missed JS Mill. The movement does not pretend to totalize and reconcile the tactics of the movement. It certainly doesn’t consider pandering to the mainstream media to be tactically advantageous. It’s only defense against corporate media is the independent journalism of the movement, which is something, I’m sure, that any activist who knows the motives of canwest et al would read.
If the movement were considering efficient causes, it would vote for the NDP. But it is not, as I read it, interested in upholding the organism of law which it accurately perceives as a defense of the rich. It’s not just the parties that are inadequate, but government. This critique is not invalid if it is articulated as a problem. its exegesis is simply impossible here.
What movement doesn’t support an “efficient cause”? The “organism of law”? You mean a society with Law and Order? I could smell first year university on this idiot. Especially this: “Re: free speech, I guess you missed JS Mill.” Heh…
While John Stuart Mill did have a lot to say on the subject of free speech, as most philosophers do, he also had a little philosophy called Utilitarianism, the “greatest-happiness priciple.” Basically, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Whoops. By quoting John Stuart Mill as an expert supporting his point he also opened the door for me to comment that J.S. Mill’s philosophy of Utilitarianism basically means “DTES suck it up; the majority of us are doing just fine at your expense.” In order words, he blew his own point.
I was dying to know who this moron was so I took a glance at his Facebook page. Turns out he’s a fan of Sasha Grey. J.S. Mill was also a supporter of the rights of women so I asked my new friend this: How does a teenage girl being gangbanged and humiliated by 8 men her father’s age then being ejaculated on by same represent the rights of women or freedom from the exploitation of corporate media?
He accused me of making an ad hominen, which I most certainly had after making my comments. I’d suggested he drop the “pseudo-academic buzzwords” by the time he reached fourth year or his profs would eat him alive. He didn’t answer my question. So I wrote this: I just knew you would say [it was an ad hominem]… How about begging the question, answering everything but the question put before you?
Let’s try this again: How does a teenage girl being gangbanged and humiliated by 8 men her father’s age then being ejaculated on by same represent the rights of women or freedom from the exploitation of corporate media?
~or~ Why would you quote a source that actually harmed your argument unless you were ignorant of his full body of work?
He answered, but then quickly deleted his answer. How do I know this? Because it’s Facebook and a flea can’t fart in Madagascar without 10,000 notifications being sent. When I got to the “chat”, the sister was back and speaking in his stead.
SISTER: [O]ne more thing then let’s end this because I think after Baron’s last comment the argument has gone fucking nowhere. I’m also a fan of Sasha Grey, in fact I was before P. The reason why we are fans is because she’s probably the most articulate and critically minded porn star out there, making her pretty fucking fan worthy to me. Baron you should not reduce her to her image.
Now I would argue that the argument was going “fucking nowhere” because he refused to answer my questions but “The most articulate and critically minded porn star”? Really?
It is not me you need to worry about as far as reducing her to “her image.” Let’s look at that “image”, shall we?
Now, of the 7 men in this room and more specifically the three fucking her, slapping her, and flipping her around like a meaty blow-up doll, how many are thinking about her “articulate and critical” mind? How many men watching this are? How many young women who may see Grey on Oprah being all coy and “smart” and talking about “freedom” and all the money she makes are? Interestingly enough, the file above is “image15”.
Ask Jennie Ketcham about the glamourous life of a porn star.
Sasha Grey may be “articulate” but her image is what everyone sees. The sister would have us believe that taking your child to see a man juggle chainsaws without explaining the danger is okay. People with their noses buried in theory with little or no practical experience to back it up can be very dangerous. Only a university student could be this stupid.
February 19, 2010 | Categories: Straight from The Bear's loud mouth (insane ramblings disguised as social commentary) | Tags: 15 minutes, 2010, Baron S. Cameron, British Columbia, Canada, contrarian, evil, fame, Jennie Ketcham, loud mouth, loudmouth bear, Olympics, Sasha Grey, University students are stupid, vancouver, waste of resources, west vancouver, writing | 1 Comment
I often complain about my life not quite turning out the way I’d expected. But whose does? Meet Jennie Ketcham. Until very recently, those who knew her, probably knew her as “Penny Flame”, porn star. Some of you may notice that I spend a perhaps inordinate amount of time writing about porn stars. This may be because I used to spend an inordinate amount of time watching porn stars. No more.
I spent four years of my life writing in the smoking room of Courtenay’s strip club, The Courtenay House. I rarely if ever looked up at the stage for more than a glance while writing. I found much more “pleasure” (though it is perverse to use that word here) watching the watchers. Meeting the girls, meeting the promoters, was an eye opener for me. People defend the industry saying that it’s not all bad.
I remember a story about a woman whose parachute didn’t open. She lived. Wonder how often that happens? There are exceptions to every rule, yes. But let us not forget that we call them “rules” for a good goddamned reason.
Back to Jennie. Remember Jennie? This is a blog about Jennie.
I dare any fan of hardcore pornography to watch a documentary called “Give Me Your Soul” and then watch another porn without hating yourself and loathing your lot in the universe. When you feel it is time to seek redemption, find http://becomingjennie.wordpress.com and read about the human toll of your “victimless orgasm.”
Jennie Ketcham wanted to be a dancer. Penny Flame did a lot of “dancing.” Jennie wants her life back from Penny.
I do not believe that you can just wrap yourself in a white sheet and take a dip then walk the land “reborn.” Like everything religion does, this is too simple, too easy, and provides only a real sense of false hope.
What the Jesus myth and Eastern religions share is the promise of resurrection. But unlike dunking your head in a drainage ditch and screaming “Jesus be praised!” true resurrection requires death. Resurrection within one lifetime is possible but requires the real death of the individual.
I know it is hard to leave a life behind and starting over can be the most terrifying thing ever. Especially for someone like Ketcham whose alter ego is at the same time feared and despised by her but currently her primary source of income.
No one gets a pass and we must all pay for our mistakes. But for how long?
Head over to http://becomingjennie.wordpress.com/ and read the heart-felt tales of a young woman looking to resurrect herself.
Greek myth tells us that all heroes must journey to hell. It’s usually the last thing they do before finally going home again.
September 23, 2009 | Categories: Straight from The Bear's loud mouth (insane ramblings disguised as social commentary) | Tags: Baron S. Cameron, British Columbia, Canada, contrarian, Jennie Ketcham, loud mouth, loudmouth bear, vancouver, writing | 1 Comment