More-On

James Poulos cranked a particularly stinky nugget into Tucker Carlson’s cat box Thursday, a column entitled “What Are Women For?” that was at once so offensive, pretentious, incoherent, clueless and just plain dumb that it attracted hoots of derision from every corner of the internet. Balloon Juice commenter Clark Stooksbury summed it up pithily as follows:

I think that English is his second language, and perhaps Earth is his second planet.

Yup. Stung by the “wave of anger and condemnation” occasioned by his column, Poulos apparently decided to spend Friday afternoon masticating and swallowing an unabridged thesaurus along with a freshman introduction to philosophy textbook and wash it down with a liter of Everclear. The resulting geyser of vomit was pixelated into a dripping rebuttal to his critics that contains half-digested chunks such as this:

It’s not very controversial to point out that sex and gender are foundational to the culture wars. But it is apparently extremely controversial to claim that we can’t make sense of how and why they’re foundational without acknowledging that the root of the battle is over reaching — and enforcing — a consensus about the relationship between what women do and who women are.

And…

The same [Meh, never mind; it doesn’t really matter what is allegedly “the same”—ed.] is true for the meaning of the relationship between women as sovereign individuals and as beings with female bodies.

But its conclusion may contain a kernel of truth that the incredulous and exasperated reader espies with wonder similar to that of a janitor engaged in mopping up a binge drinker’s pool of sick upon finding a single kernel of undigested corn, whole and recognizable, in the barf on the frat lounge floor:

Difference doesn’t presume or ordain inequality. I’m not alone in thinking that women are uniquely able to help humanity avoid becoming enthralled to the more sterile cultural creations of men. But this sort of insight is far more circumspect and modest than the central principles of virtually all social conservatives. If my claim is doomed to be met with an avalanche of contempt, it seems likely that in our lifetimes social conservatism as we know it will be mocked, despised, and shamed right out of existence. You might be deeply uncomfortable with that even if you do hope to see an America without a social conservative movement.

I think he means “Après moi, le déluge” or something. But I’m not sure why I’m supposed to be “deeply uncomfortable” with the extinction of social conservativism that Poulos’ blogular rogering is supposed to portend. Say bye-bye to all-male panels of sanctimonious, god-bothering pricks deciding women’s healthcare issues? Bring it on, I say.

[X-POSTED at Balloon Juice]

Posted by Betty Cracker on 02/18/12 at 08:45 AM • Permalink

Categories: Booze • Politics • Bedwetters • Nutters • Our Stupid Media • Relijun •

Share this post:

But I’m not sure why I’m supposed to be “deeply uncomfortable” with the extinction of social conservativism that Poulos’ blogular rogering is supposed to portend.

Assuming by “deeply uncomfortable” he means that feeling in your solar plexus when you’ve laffed yourself into exhaustion and tears, then I can get down with that.

Comment by marindenver on 02/18/12 at 01:18 PM

But it is apparently extremely controversial to claim that we can’t make sense of how and why they’re foundational without acknowledging that the root of the battle is over reaching — and enforcing — a consensus about the relationship between what women do and who women are.

The “enforcing” bit is pretty controversial to me. Enforcing my assent to any behaviors due to my purported nature as a female-bodied person directly interferes with my being viewed as a sovereign person which must come first. This is especially true if what I do as a woman is defined for me by others as “making babies and sandwiches”.

Enforced baby-making? I spit in your sandwich, Poulos.

Comment by Vixen Strangely on 02/18/12 at 07:24 PM

But it is apparently extremely controversial to claim that we can’t make sense of how and why they’re foundational without acknowledging that the root of the battle is over reaching — and enforcing — a consensus about the relationship between what women do and who women are.

This is an example of what we may call the higher idiocy. Who, in the above, is “we”? What does it even mean, to “reach a consensus about the relationship between what women do” (what “women”? what kind of “doing”?) and “who” (the most useless word in contemporary discourse) women “are”?

It is a badly written, turgid, pretentious assertion of something that, from three different directions, makes no sense. Other than that, it’s perfect.

Comment by Mr.Wonderful on 02/18/12 at 07:27 PM

Did this dumbshit actually follow up his pretentious, badly written spout of drunken intellectual masturbation by hitting the Captain and whipping it out again?

Wow, this boy doesn’t know when to fucking quit, does he?

Comment by StarStorm on 02/19/12 at 09:49 AM

Yes, I always pay tons of attention to a writer (if that is what he is, hard to tell) who plays little thought experiments that require the female half of society to do the barefoot and pregnant thing. His total loss of objective credibility, starting from the very first sentence of what he barfed out onto the intertubes, surely must qualify him as one of our greatest thinkers*.

*In his own mind. Because no one else would ever, ever come to that conclusion.