[…] usually too easy a target what with its nationalistic and quasi-fascist tendencies. But a recent post over at The American Catholic is worth pointing to because of its demeaning recklessness. Such […]
I posted the following response to Michael at the link above, but he deleted it (ironically, given his objection to censorship in the linked post). I believe it’s the first time I’ve had a comment deleted. In any case, all ‘you’s’ and ‘you’res’ are addressed to Michael:
If you’re unfamiliar with the red state guys (and it appears you are), you’ve completely misinterpreted their whole schtick:
1) They are conservatives, making videos for conservatives (including rural conservatives);
2) They make fun of liberals and/or fringe-ish elements of the right;
3) They send-up themselves in a self-aware way to suggest that the liberal stereotype of stupid rural Americans is inaccurate. Now, their humor is certainly not to everyone’s taste, but you’ve completely missed the point if you think the video is intended to denigrate rather than amuse people who live in rural American (much less Appalachia, which isn’t even mentioned in the video).
4) The video also makes fun of effete urban dwellers for their squeemishness at killing a pig, when they have no reservations about eating a ham sandwich.
5) This: His post has received comments pointing out how offensive it is and that he owes his readers an apology. is basically a lie. I read your comments (although I did not delete them), and they provided no rationale for your objection other than an all-too-characteristic combative tone. I had no idea after reading them: a) Why you found the video offensive; or b) Why you couldn’t be bothered to articulate your grievance.
6) I would submit there is a tension in the link above between Michael’s professed concern for charity and the content of the post. In any case, I wish Michael well. Michael is feel to free outraged; I am sorry he does – and I did not post the clip originally – but I think his outrage is based on a needlessly offensive misinterpretation.
5) This: His post has received comments pointing out how offensive it is and that he owes his readers an apology. is basically a lie. I read your comments, and they provided no rationale for your objection other than an all-too-characteristic combative tone.
I deleted your comment because you accused me of lying when I did no such thing. The sentence you quoted of mine is the truth. The fact that I did not provide a “rationale” to your liking is irrelevant. Tito was told the video was offensive and asked to apologize.
I think his outrage is based on a needlessly offensive misinterpretation.
This is a typical defensive reaction. “It’s all just a misinterpretation.”
I deleted your comment because you accused me of lying when I did no such thing. The sentence you quoted of mine is the truth. The fact that I did not provide a “rationale” to your liking is irrelevant. Tito was told the video was offensive and asked to apologize.
Michael, your post says that:
Unfortunately, he is not oblivious. His post has received comments pointing out how offensive it is and that he owes his readers an apology
This strongly suggests that you provided some sort of explanation for why you were offended. But, as you concede, you provided no such explanation, and did not even to attempt engage Mr. Edwards charitably. I think your post is misleading and deceptive on that score.
Moreover, context matters here. You have been known to take offense at everything from the 4th of July to Thanksgiving. Mr. Edwards was likely as ‘oblivious’ as I was to what you found offensive (violence against pigs was my guess), and you made no attempt to explain prior to posting your cry for a more charitable blogosphere. Implying, as your post does, that you attempted to address this civilly first but were met by derision, is simply inaccurate.
This is a typical defensive reaction. “It’s all just a misinterpretation.”
Well the good news is that anyone reading this thread can judge the matter for themselves. I certainly don’t understand the clip to be a mean-spirited polemic against people who live in rural America, and I think a review of some of the other Red State clips would provide context to confirm that view. But, as I said, I don’t begrudge anyone the opportunity to offer a different interpretation. I could be wrong. Either way, I think you’re post is somewhat misleading and it’s certainly uncharitable. To say this is not to say the clip brilliant or high art or anything else.
I don’t find the RSU guys terribly funny, but I confess to finding some humor in a twisted sort of way at the thought that the most caustic and outright hateful blogger in Catholic blogosphere is calling someone out on being uncharitable and offensive, then having the nerve to call for more “charity” in the blogosphere. Funnier is that he moderates to ensure opposing comments don’t get though, yet criticizes someone for deleting his objection.
This strongly suggests that you provided some sort of explanation for why you were offended.
It “strongly suggests” no such thing. And I admit that I did not offer an explanation to Mr. Edwards. I thought he was smart enough to see why the video is offensive. I guess he’s not.
But, as you concede, you provided no such explanation, and did not even to attempt engage Mr. Edwards charitably.
You have no evidence that I did not engage him charitably. Why is it “uncharitable” for me to simply tell him that his video is offensive and that he owes his readers an apology? If anyone could be charged with lying, sir, it is you.
In other news, the Red Green Show is deeply offensive to rural Canadians and PBS is ordered to stop broadcasting it immediately less they offend our neighbors to the north. Shame on them for thinking that a show made about Canadians by Canadians is not inherently offensive to Canadians.
It really doesn’t make sense to you, Darwin and Joe, that “Appalachian humor” could be offensive? That’s really not surprising, considering its history. Read my post on Dick Cheney’s West Virginia incest joke.
Shame on them for thinking that a show made about Canadians by Canadians is not inherently offensive to Canadians.
“Canadians” doesn’t mean anything. By your logic, some white Christian Canadians could make an insulting video about Muslim Canadians and you would defend it by saying it was a video “about Canadians by Canadians.” Makes no sense.
Perhaps the point only makes sense to those of us who watch radically conservative TV stations like PBS, Michael. The Red Green Show is a comedy sketch/sitcom produced by the Canadian broadcasting service which centers around a rural, small town in Canada. The humor mostly centers around rural/small town jokes, and schemes of the main character (a handyman named Red Green) to get projects finished quickly using junk, duct tape, and a minimum of actual work.
Whether this makes it offensive to rural Canadians is not a topic I’d consider myself an expert on, but as I recall it’s the longest running comedy show in Canada, and it usually gets late night PBS slots here in the US as well.
In other words: get a grip. While it’s true that there are negative stereotypes out there about Apalacia, not every piece of rural humor is a part of this phenomenon.
And really, it’s a little hard to take a plea for civility and charity seriously, when it’s couched in “I hardly ever talk to these people because they’re all fascist, nationalist, militarists anyway” terms. If there’s one person in the Catholic blogsphere in little position to throw stones when it comes to falsely stereotyping others, it would be you.
I deleted your comment because it had no explanation as to what you were offended by. No one, including John Henry nor Joe Hargrave nor Darwin deleted your comment, I did.
If you read the tags to this post it is tagged as “humor”. If that didn’t give it away then I’m not sure how else to explain to you the humor done on the show.
I thought conservatives poking fun at conservatives would be funny! Which I found it was funny. I just discovered the site last week and this was the only one that got me to chuckle enough to post it.
Anyways I suggest you can offer up your suffering to God for all the poor rural folk!
You need to check up on the definition of Calumny.
Out of curiosity I just read your post and it falls well short of charity.
I will be praying for your change of heart.
Pinky
Monday, December 7, AD 2009 2:48pm
“most caustic and outright hateful blogger in Catholic blogosphere”
Michael, I’ve said as much to you before.
Big Tex
Monday, December 7, AD 2009 3:47pm
Oh… my…
It’s hard for me to comprehend just how this video clip is offensive, let alone how it singles out Appalachia. As one who has been graced to live in Texas for 28 years of my life, and being familiar with a variant rural Texas culture (my family hails from one of these rural towns near the Red River), I can assure you that this “podunk-ness” is not unique to Appalachia.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to find similar types of this rural culture in other states, such as LA, MS, AL, and GA. Then again, it shouldn’t be relegated to the south either. There are similar variants out here in the northwest as well. E. WA, ID, MT, and WY.
To those of you whose state I have failed to mention with respect to rural culture, I apologize; I’m not as cosmopolitan as others.
That does not make it unoffensive. We can do and say things that are offensive and not “intend” to do so. When someone I know informed her relatives that she was pregnant and it became known to one particular relative that the father is black, the relative replied “I hope it was one of the smart ones.” When confronted about this comment she replied that she did not intend to be insulting or racist, but her comment was clearly both. Tito’s video is offensive to some people. He should apologize. The fact that he didn’t “intend” it to be offensive is irrelevant.
On the other hand, your characterization of this blog as “quasi-fascistic” is a little offensive to me.
Well, I didn’t “intend” it to be offensive. In fact, I said that the blog has quasi-fascist tendencies, and I was in fact referring to one of your contributors in particular. Fascism is a word with a meaning. Whether that word is applicable to the contributor in question can be debated. But my use of the word was not intended to be insulting. just a statement of what I perceive to be fact. The video under discussion, on the other hand, makes rural people the butt of a series of jokes. There is no comparison, in my opinion.
John Henry – I’m not into caricatures and ridicule. You may consider criticism of persons to be simple caricature and ridicule, but careful, you might be asked to defend such charges. At which point you will retreat from the conversation.
It’s not my thing, because I don’t think of myself as being “Red State” in the way that the Red State Update guys are talking about, but I can’t help seeing this crusade of Michael’s as being a bit like going after Woodie Allen with the accusation that all his movies constitute drawing humor from negative stereotypes about New York Jews.
I really don’t find the video offensive. It seems like people poking light-hearted fun at themselves. I don’t think the content is malicious.
As for your comment, there’s no comparison. To me that video looks like rural people making light of some of their own tendencies.
Your comment, on the other hand, was deliberately offensive, and it originally didn’t single out a person, (it reads: “I don’t typically refer to this particular blog in my posts, as it’s usually too easy a target what with its nationalistic and quasi-fascist tendencies.”) and the addition of the word “tendencies” doesn’t make it any better.
So now we learn that you didn’t mean the blog, but a person, and that you don’t even think the “person in question” really is a fascist, or “quasi-fascist”, but only might be.
You know what I call that? Dangerous, reckless, offensive, and hateful. You owe this entire blog an apology.
Priceless! May I quote you? May I put down that you you wrote this on the Second Monday of Advent?
Sure, but “Feast of St. Ambrose” has nicer ring to it than “Second Monday of Advent”. Just sayin’.
Sincerely,
Twit
(No offense to twits. Or saints for that matter. Nor to Appalachians, Texas rednecks, blue collar grunts, corporate fat-cats, quasi-fascists, anarchists, and Amish witchdoctors on medical disability. Maybe a little offense to lawyers. No animals were harmed in the writing of this post, but I did just eat one for dinner.)
Oh for heaven’s sake. I clicked over here from Vox Nova, unable to imagine what terrible calumnies MI was referencing…wondering what I would encounter and..
it’s the Red State Update Guys.
Catch a clue, Michael.
These guys are Middle Tennesseeans (from Murfreesboro, I think, right outside of Nashville) who created these characters – they are of that place, in that place, and people in the area love them. Real Live Southerners are not offended by RSU so you need not fret, okay?
“Fascism is a word with meaning” – is that all you have to say for yourself?
Fascism is a politically charged epithet that is commonly used to smear people without having to engage their ideas, a way of associating a person or an idea with the most vile regime of all time. You darned well know it too.
You characterized this entire blog as “quasi-fascistic” in your post at VN for everyone to read. That is a slander. It was reckless, dangerous, offensive, and hateful.
Why should anyone ever take anything you have to say seriously ever again, when you can’t admit you did something wrong and apologize for it?
Pinky
Tuesday, December 8, AD 2009 1:20pm
“Why should anyone ever take anything you have to say seriously ever again?”
In my first go-round with Michael, I referred to Matthew 18, that a person should be rebuked first in private, then with a few witnesses, then in front of the whole community. If the person refuses to change his behaviour, there’s probably no reason to take him seriously again.
jonathanjones02
Tuesday, December 8, AD 2009 2:01pm
Fascism is a politically charged epithet that is commonly used to smear people without having to engage their ideas, a way of associating a person or an idea with the most vile regime of all time. You darned well know it too.
Yes, just so. And for michael to call for civility of discourse is a severe irony. He has been specifically called to task on the hatreds, demeaning behavior, inflamations, assignment of negative motives, ect. by a variety of folks from a variety of backgrounds and opinions. This includes one former blogger that was widely respected but understandably became dismayed by a bitter spirit of contention, one that drove several people away.
It’s not proper to speculate about “real life,” but the e-persona is so lacking in charity and good faith as to not be viewed as anything more than an occasional, amusing distraction.
[Reflexive accusations that other members of the conversation are racists removed as needlessly uncharitable, inflammatory and, of course, false.]
Joe – Yes, that is all I have to say regarding my use of the term “fascism” other than this: if you think it refers only to one regime, you need a better reading of history.
S.B.
Tuesday, December 8, AD 2009 2:44pm
But usually when the humor is at someone else’s expense, it should be questioned.
Says michael in the VN thread. But if these guys are poking gentle fun at anybody, it’s at themselves, not someone else. Of course, given that he, in years of writing, has never shown the slightest capability for wit (let alone that of the self-deprecating kind), it might be chalked up to simple unfamiliarity with the very concept.
jonathanjones02
Tuesday, December 8, AD 2009 3:35pm
racists
Well, of course – we’ve disagreed at various points. It’s a shame the e-persona is incapable of dialogue better than that sort of junk, as michael seems like a bright guy with interesting things to say. Maybe at some point he’ll actually take to heart the many criticisms from many different corners.
[Reflexive accusations that other members of the conversation are racists removed as needlessly uncharitable, inflammatory and, of course, false.]
I’m shocked, shocked, to hear that on the Second Tuesday of Advent!
Big Tex
Tuesday, December 8, AD 2009 4:09pm
From redneck humor to accusations of racism. Brilliant troll, there MI. Brilliant!
Now, back to redneck humor… I saw this on the wall at Babe’s some time ago (BTW, their food is excellent!):
M R farmers
M R not
O S A R, C M M T pockets
L I B! M R farmers
Pinky
Tuesday, December 8, AD 2009 4:54pm
Big Tex – Like you said, it’s not just in the Appalachian south. I’ve seen plenty of rural culture across New England. Rednecks are rednecks, God bless’em.
Joe – I do not apologize for saying that this blog has “quasi-fascist tendencies.” Let me explain. You are no doubt aware of the contributors I am referring to. (As much as I disagree with some of your views, for example, I would not characterize you as a fascist.) I characterize said contributors’ views as “fascist” not to be mean or insulting or sensationalistic, but because their views clearly resemble the characteristics of the historical political tendency of fascism, broadly understood. That is, I am not simply looking to compare said contributors to Hitler or whatever other narrow understanding of “fascism” you might have. And since said contributors write for this blog, the latter can rightly be said to have “quasi-fascist tendencies.”
I hope I am being clear. I find it really strange that you and others here feel free to invoke the various totalitarianisms of history, e.g. communism, Nazism, fascism, etc. when it suits you (such as when you all post about Hugo Chavez) but when those on the left do so, we are simply being “insulting” and “hateful.” If we cannot use a political term like “fascist” without getting bent out of shape, then we risk allowing fascism to continue to appear in new forms, even “american Catholic” forms.
because their views clearly resemble the characteristics of the historical political tendency of fascism
This basically constitutes saying, in long form, “I said the blog was fascist because I think it’s fascist”. You’ve gone no where in regards to actually listing out views espoused by contributors which you actually consider to be fascist. One hates to speculate, but I can’t help wondering if this is basically because to you “fascist” basically means “supported the Iraq war” or “considers the military to be something other than wholly evil.”
A basic definition of fascism (which, as you admit, is a word with a meaning) would be:
Fascism is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system, and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum.
Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state, with the belief that the majority is unsuited to govern itself through democracy and by reaffirming the benefits of inequality. Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement. Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalism and liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept. Fascism fashioned itself as the “Complete opposite of Marxian socialism…” by rejecting the economic and material conception of history, the fundamental belief of fascism being that human beings are motivated by glory and heroism rather than economic motives, in contrast to the worldview of capitalism and socialism.
In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a “Third Way” in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state socialism.
[I would actually quibble with elements of this, but I think it certainly passes the “commonly accepted” test.]
So, the question would be: Who on this blog, in Michael’s opinion, thinks that capitalism and democracy are the cause of communism, supports the creation of a single party state, supports centralized direction of industry (rather than free market policies), and thinks that people are given a sense of meaning through the state’s pursuit of militarism and glory.
Fascism is, indeed, a word with a meaning. The question is, does Michael know that meaning, or does he just get a wonderfully “grad school bad boy” feeling when he throws the word around.
If I had to guess (and I don’t, but i will anyway), I’d say Michael would cite various contributors support for the war in Iraq and perhaps Don’s posts on military chaplains as evidence of a fascistic tendency. I don’t share that view for a number of reasons, not least of which is that even patriotism/nationalism is not necessarily fascist, and saying someone is a fascist when they’re ardently opposed to most of what fascism stands for (i.e. rejecting centralization of industry, the single party state, and the idea that glory is the sum bonnum of human ambition) is a misuse of the term. One could as easily call Michael a fascist because he supports the centralization of the health care industry if meeting one condition is sufficient to earn the label. But Michael is entitled to make that argument, however implausible I or others find it.
The real problem to me is that Michael doesn’t make the argument. He generally calls people names, writes obtuse one-liners, and then refuses to engage in a civil conversation. It’s the laziness that bothers me the most. It shows a lack of good faith and a refusal to treat others as people rather than objects to be derided. I’ve read Michael write about civility and charity any number of times; I hope one of these days he tries to put it into practice on-line. To take a recent example, if he’s going to write a post about the absence of charity in the blogosphere, he would do well not to casually insult people with unspecified charges of quasi-fascism in the second paragraph of the post.
Darwin – You might continue reading your Wikipedia article where it goes on to discuss the variety of understandings of fascism, rather than relying on its first paragraph for a rigid definition. Although I realize how many right wing Catholics are obsessed with clear black and white doctrines, as a tendency rather than a clear doctrine, fascism takes a variety of forms. It is debatable, for example, that fascism was/is anti-capitalist. Michael Parenti for example demonstrates how Italian fascism and Nazism were both pro-capitalist and undermined workers movements.
I think Parenti as well as Chris Hedges (who draws on Umberto Eco) make a strong case for the continued existence of fascist tendencies in the united states and they do a good job of identifying characteristics of american fascism, many of which are present at various times on this blog.
But to use your Wikipedia article as an example and starting point, I think many of the characteristics it lists are right: nationalism, authoritarianism, expansionist imperialism (including obsessive and unquestioning defense of america’s expansionist history), social darwinism (although some here would not admit it, such a worldview is embedded in their arguments), machismo and rigid gender roles (usually linked with militarism), racism, etc.
To these we could add some of Eco’s identified characteristics, such as the complete rejection of “modernism” or the critical spirit, fear of difference (including sexual difference — anything that is not stereotypically “male”), the view that life is “permanent warfare” (or in John Milbank’s words, an ontology of violence), “contempt for the weak,” obsession with heroism, etc.
Some of these characteristics are clearly present as well in some of your contributors’ take on Catholicism. Such a syncretism could rightly be called, in Dorothee Solle’s words, “Christo-fascism.”
One hates to speculate, but I can’t help wondering if this is basically because to you “fascist” basically means “supported the Iraq war” or “considers the military to be something other than wholly evil.”
So no, the first speculation of yours has nothing to do with my claims about this blog. Neither does the second really, but I do think there are contributors here who are undeniably militaristic, although they would defend themselves through supposed “traditional” Catholic teaching, or by claiming that they simply do not “consider the military to be . . . wholly evil.”
Alexsees
Tuesday, December 8, AD 2009 9:20pm
Are you going to register a formal complaint again? I think you should, if for no other reason than it made me laugh out loud when I read it the first time.
wpDiscuz
Discover more from The American Catholic
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
MI,
You put another smile on my face.
You’ve given me so much joy and laughter I only wish I could return you the favor.
Do you want a Christmas grape or a Christmas hog?
Tito – Do you know why this blog post is offensive? Who do you think you might be offending?
[…] usually too easy a target what with its nationalistic and quasi-fascist tendencies. But a recent post over at The American Catholic is worth pointing to because of its demeaning recklessness. Such […]
I posted the following response to Michael at the link above, but he deleted it (ironically, given his objection to censorship in the linked post). I believe it’s the first time I’ve had a comment deleted. In any case, all ‘you’s’ and ‘you’res’ are addressed to Michael:
6) I would submit there is a tension in the link above between Michael’s professed concern for charity and the content of the post. In any case, I wish Michael well. Michael is feel to free outraged; I am sorry he does – and I did not post the clip originally – but I think his outrage is based on a needlessly offensive misinterpretation.
5) This: His post has received comments pointing out how offensive it is and that he owes his readers an apology. is basically a lie. I read your comments, and they provided no rationale for your objection other than an all-too-characteristic combative tone.
I deleted your comment because you accused me of lying when I did no such thing. The sentence you quoted of mine is the truth. The fact that I did not provide a “rationale” to your liking is irrelevant. Tito was told the video was offensive and asked to apologize.
I think his outrage is based on a needlessly offensive misinterpretation.
This is a typical defensive reaction. “It’s all just a misinterpretation.”
Humor more subtle than “And then the Fascist Republican choked to death!” is wasted on the Catholic Anarchist.
I deleted your comment because you accused me of lying when I did no such thing. The sentence you quoted of mine is the truth. The fact that I did not provide a “rationale” to your liking is irrelevant. Tito was told the video was offensive and asked to apologize.
Michael, your post says that:
Unfortunately, he is not oblivious. His post has received comments pointing out how offensive it is and that he owes his readers an apology
This strongly suggests that you provided some sort of explanation for why you were offended. But, as you concede, you provided no such explanation, and did not even to attempt engage Mr. Edwards charitably. I think your post is misleading and deceptive on that score.
Moreover, context matters here. You have been known to take offense at everything from the 4th of July to Thanksgiving. Mr. Edwards was likely as ‘oblivious’ as I was to what you found offensive (violence against pigs was my guess), and you made no attempt to explain prior to posting your cry for a more charitable blogosphere. Implying, as your post does, that you attempted to address this civilly first but were met by derision, is simply inaccurate.
This is a typical defensive reaction. “It’s all just a misinterpretation.”
Well the good news is that anyone reading this thread can judge the matter for themselves. I certainly don’t understand the clip to be a mean-spirited polemic against people who live in rural America, and I think a review of some of the other Red State clips would provide context to confirm that view. But, as I said, I don’t begrudge anyone the opportunity to offer a different interpretation. I could be wrong. Either way, I think you’re post is somewhat misleading and it’s certainly uncharitable. To say this is not to say the clip brilliant or high art or anything else.
I don’t find the RSU guys terribly funny, but I confess to finding some humor in a twisted sort of way at the thought that the most caustic and outright hateful blogger in Catholic blogosphere is calling someone out on being uncharitable and offensive, then having the nerve to call for more “charity” in the blogosphere. Funnier is that he moderates to ensure opposing comments don’t get though, yet criticizes someone for deleting his objection.
most caustic and outright hateful blogger in Catholic blogosphere
Priceless! May I quote you? May I put down that you you wrote this on the Second Monday of Advent?
This strongly suggests that you provided some sort of explanation for why you were offended.
It “strongly suggests” no such thing. And I admit that I did not offer an explanation to Mr. Edwards. I thought he was smart enough to see why the video is offensive. I guess he’s not.
But, as you concede, you provided no such explanation, and did not even to attempt engage Mr. Edwards charitably.
You have no evidence that I did not engage him charitably. Why is it “uncharitable” for me to simply tell him that his video is offensive and that he owes his readers an apology? If anyone could be charged with lying, sir, it is you.
In other news, the Red Green Show is deeply offensive to rural Canadians and PBS is ordered to stop broadcasting it immediately less they offend our neighbors to the north. Shame on them for thinking that a show made about Canadians by Canadians is not inherently offensive to Canadians.
I saw the comment awaiting moderation and I thought it was a joke.
As in, “this is so unfunny it’s offensive to my comedic sensibilities.”
It honestly never dawned on me that anyone would actually find that offensive as in politically incorrect.
It really doesn’t make sense to you, Darwin and Joe, that “Appalachian humor” could be offensive? That’s really not surprising, considering its history. Read my post on Dick Cheney’s West Virginia incest joke.
Shame on them for thinking that a show made about Canadians by Canadians is not inherently offensive to Canadians.
“Canadians” doesn’t mean anything. By your logic, some white Christian Canadians could make an insulting video about Muslim Canadians and you would defend it by saying it was a video “about Canadians by Canadians.” Makes no sense.
Perhaps the point only makes sense to those of us who watch radically conservative TV stations like PBS, Michael. The Red Green Show is a comedy sketch/sitcom produced by the Canadian broadcasting service which centers around a rural, small town in Canada. The humor mostly centers around rural/small town jokes, and schemes of the main character (a handyman named Red Green) to get projects finished quickly using junk, duct tape, and a minimum of actual work.
Whether this makes it offensive to rural Canadians is not a topic I’d consider myself an expert on, but as I recall it’s the longest running comedy show in Canada, and it usually gets late night PBS slots here in the US as well.
In other words: get a grip. While it’s true that there are negative stereotypes out there about Apalacia, not every piece of rural humor is a part of this phenomenon.
And really, it’s a little hard to take a plea for civility and charity seriously, when it’s couched in “I hardly ever talk to these people because they’re all fascist, nationalist, militarists anyway” terms. If there’s one person in the Catholic blogsphere in little position to throw stones when it comes to falsely stereotyping others, it would be you.
Michael,
I love you man.
I deleted your comment because it had no explanation as to what you were offended by. No one, including John Henry nor Joe Hargrave nor Darwin deleted your comment, I did.
If you read the tags to this post it is tagged as “humor”. If that didn’t give it away then I’m not sure how else to explain to you the humor done on the show.
I thought conservatives poking fun at conservatives would be funny! Which I found it was funny. I just discovered the site last week and this was the only one that got me to chuckle enough to post it.
Anyways I suggest you can offer up your suffering to God for all the poor rural folk!
Tito
Michael,
You need to check up on the definition of Calumny.
Out of curiosity I just read your post and it falls well short of charity.
I will be praying for your change of heart.
“most caustic and outright hateful blogger in Catholic blogosphere”
Michael, I’ve said as much to you before.
Oh… my…
It’s hard for me to comprehend just how this video clip is offensive, let alone how it singles out Appalachia. As one who has been graced to live in Texas for 28 years of my life, and being familiar with a variant rural Texas culture (my family hails from one of these rural towns near the Red River), I can assure you that this “podunk-ness” is not unique to Appalachia.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to find similar types of this rural culture in other states, such as LA, MS, AL, and GA. Then again, it shouldn’t be relegated to the south either. There are similar variants out here in the northwest as well. E. WA, ID, MT, and WY.
To those of you whose state I have failed to mention with respect to rural culture, I apologize; I’m not as cosmopolitan as others.
Michael, I’ve said as much to you before.
Well there you have it. I must be “hateful” then if you two experts think so.
MI,
I don’t think the clip was malicious in intent.
On the other hand, your characterization of this blog as “quasi-fascistic” is a little offensive to me.
I don’t think the clip was malicious in intent.
That does not make it unoffensive. We can do and say things that are offensive and not “intend” to do so. When someone I know informed her relatives that she was pregnant and it became known to one particular relative that the father is black, the relative replied “I hope it was one of the smart ones.” When confronted about this comment she replied that she did not intend to be insulting or racist, but her comment was clearly both. Tito’s video is offensive to some people. He should apologize. The fact that he didn’t “intend” it to be offensive is irrelevant.
On the other hand, your characterization of this blog as “quasi-fascistic” is a little offensive to me.
Well, I didn’t “intend” it to be offensive. In fact, I said that the blog has quasi-fascist tendencies, and I was in fact referring to one of your contributors in particular. Fascism is a word with a meaning. Whether that word is applicable to the contributor in question can be debated. But my use of the word was not intended to be insulting. just a statement of what I perceive to be fact. The video under discussion, on the other hand, makes rural people the butt of a series of jokes. There is no comparison, in my opinion.
John Henry – I’m not into caricatures and ridicule. You may consider criticism of persons to be simple caricature and ridicule, but careful, you might be asked to defend such charges. At which point you will retreat from the conversation.
It’s not my thing, because I don’t think of myself as being “Red State” in the way that the Red State Update guys are talking about, but I can’t help seeing this crusade of Michael’s as being a bit like going after Woodie Allen with the accusation that all his movies constitute drawing humor from negative stereotypes about New York Jews.
MI,
I really don’t find the video offensive. It seems like people poking light-hearted fun at themselves. I don’t think the content is malicious.
As for your comment, there’s no comparison. To me that video looks like rural people making light of some of their own tendencies.
Your comment, on the other hand, was deliberately offensive, and it originally didn’t single out a person, (it reads: “I don’t typically refer to this particular blog in my posts, as it’s usually too easy a target what with its nationalistic and quasi-fascist tendencies.”) and the addition of the word “tendencies” doesn’t make it any better.
So now we learn that you didn’t mean the blog, but a person, and that you don’t even think the “person in question” really is a fascist, or “quasi-fascist”, but only might be.
You know what I call that? Dangerous, reckless, offensive, and hateful. You owe this entire blog an apology.
I mean, I guess it would be okay if, instead of calling a black person a n-word, you said they just had “n-word tendencies.”
Fascism is a word with a meaning.
Tito’s video is offensive to some people.
It’s offensive only to those who choose to take offense.
Life would be so much more fun if you were able to chill out about, well, anything.
Priceless! May I quote you? May I put down that you you wrote this on the Second Monday of Advent?
Sure, but “Feast of St. Ambrose” has nicer ring to it than “Second Monday of Advent”. Just sayin’.
Sincerely,
Twit
(No offense to twits. Or saints for that matter. Nor to Appalachians, Texas rednecks, blue collar grunts, corporate fat-cats, quasi-fascists, anarchists, and Amish witchdoctors on medical disability. Maybe a little offense to lawyers. No animals were harmed in the writing of this post, but I did just eat one for dinner.)
S.B. – Great life philosophy you have there: Chill out! Have fun!
No thanks.
Michael:
How is your “faith-filled” blogging different than it was two weeks ago?
Michael,
Must be tough to view every suggestion as a philosophy.
Michael,
I’d switch to decaf if I were you.
Oh for heaven’s sake. I clicked over here from Vox Nova, unable to imagine what terrible calumnies MI was referencing…wondering what I would encounter and..
it’s the Red State Update Guys.
Catch a clue, Michael.
These guys are Middle Tennesseeans (from Murfreesboro, I think, right outside of Nashville) who created these characters – they are of that place, in that place, and people in the area love them. Real Live Southerners are not offended by RSU so you need not fret, okay?
I mean…seriously?
Ellen – Being from the South does not mean that one’s jokes are automatically not offensive. I mean… seriously.
“Fascism is a word with meaning” – is that all you have to say for yourself?
Fascism is a politically charged epithet that is commonly used to smear people without having to engage their ideas, a way of associating a person or an idea with the most vile regime of all time. You darned well know it too.
You characterized this entire blog as “quasi-fascistic” in your post at VN for everyone to read. That is a slander. It was reckless, dangerous, offensive, and hateful.
Why should anyone ever take anything you have to say seriously ever again, when you can’t admit you did something wrong and apologize for it?
“Why should anyone ever take anything you have to say seriously ever again?”
In my first go-round with Michael, I referred to Matthew 18, that a person should be rebuked first in private, then with a few witnesses, then in front of the whole community. If the person refuses to change his behaviour, there’s probably no reason to take him seriously again.
Fascism is a politically charged epithet that is commonly used to smear people without having to engage their ideas, a way of associating a person or an idea with the most vile regime of all time. You darned well know it too.
Yes, just so. And for michael to call for civility of discourse is a severe irony. He has been specifically called to task on the hatreds, demeaning behavior, inflamations, assignment of negative motives, ect. by a variety of folks from a variety of backgrounds and opinions. This includes one former blogger that was widely respected but understandably became dismayed by a bitter spirit of contention, one that drove several people away.
It’s not proper to speculate about “real life,” but the e-persona is so lacking in charity and good faith as to not be viewed as anything more than an occasional, amusing distraction.
[Reflexive accusations that other members of the conversation are racists removed as needlessly uncharitable, inflammatory and, of course, false.]
Joe – Yes, that is all I have to say regarding my use of the term “fascism” other than this: if you think it refers only to one regime, you need a better reading of history.
But usually when the humor is at someone else’s expense, it should be questioned.
Says michael in the VN thread. But if these guys are poking gentle fun at anybody, it’s at themselves, not someone else. Of course, given that he, in years of writing, has never shown the slightest capability for wit (let alone that of the self-deprecating kind), it might be chalked up to simple unfamiliarity with the very concept.
racists
Well, of course – we’ve disagreed at various points. It’s a shame the e-persona is incapable of dialogue better than that sort of junk, as michael seems like a bright guy with interesting things to say. Maybe at some point he’ll actually take to heart the many criticisms from many different corners.
MI,
So you won’t apologize for your reckless, dangerous, offensive, hateful comment? You’re content to wallow in hypocrisy?
You brazenly labeled this blog “quasi-fascistic” for your audience. That is the issue. Your pathetic evasions will not be addressed.
[Reflexive accusations that other members of the conversation are racists removed as needlessly uncharitable, inflammatory and, of course, false.]
I’m shocked, shocked, to hear that on the Second Tuesday of Advent!
From redneck humor to accusations of racism. Brilliant troll, there MI. Brilliant!
Now, back to redneck humor… I saw this on the wall at Babe’s some time ago (BTW, their food is excellent!):
M R farmers
M R not
O S A R, C M M T pockets
L I B! M R farmers
Big Tex – Like you said, it’s not just in the Appalachian south. I’ve seen plenty of rural culture across New England. Rednecks are rednecks, God bless’em.
Joe – I do not apologize for saying that this blog has “quasi-fascist tendencies.” Let me explain. You are no doubt aware of the contributors I am referring to. (As much as I disagree with some of your views, for example, I would not characterize you as a fascist.) I characterize said contributors’ views as “fascist” not to be mean or insulting or sensationalistic, but because their views clearly resemble the characteristics of the historical political tendency of fascism, broadly understood. That is, I am not simply looking to compare said contributors to Hitler or whatever other narrow understanding of “fascism” you might have. And since said contributors write for this blog, the latter can rightly be said to have “quasi-fascist tendencies.”
I hope I am being clear. I find it really strange that you and others here feel free to invoke the various totalitarianisms of history, e.g. communism, Nazism, fascism, etc. when it suits you (such as when you all post about Hugo Chavez) but when those on the left do so, we are simply being “insulting” and “hateful.” If we cannot use a political term like “fascist” without getting bent out of shape, then we risk allowing fascism to continue to appear in new forms, even “american Catholic” forms.
because their views clearly resemble the characteristics of the historical political tendency of fascism
This basically constitutes saying, in long form, “I said the blog was fascist because I think it’s fascist”. You’ve gone no where in regards to actually listing out views espoused by contributors which you actually consider to be fascist. One hates to speculate, but I can’t help wondering if this is basically because to you “fascist” basically means “supported the Iraq war” or “considers the military to be something other than wholly evil.”
A basic definition of fascism (which, as you admit, is a word with a meaning) would be:
So, the question would be: Who on this blog, in Michael’s opinion, thinks that capitalism and democracy are the cause of communism, supports the creation of a single party state, supports centralized direction of industry (rather than free market policies), and thinks that people are given a sense of meaning through the state’s pursuit of militarism and glory.
Fascism is, indeed, a word with a meaning. The question is, does Michael know that meaning, or does he just get a wonderfully “grad school bad boy” feeling when he throws the word around.
If I had to guess (and I don’t, but i will anyway), I’d say Michael would cite various contributors support for the war in Iraq and perhaps Don’s posts on military chaplains as evidence of a fascistic tendency. I don’t share that view for a number of reasons, not least of which is that even patriotism/nationalism is not necessarily fascist, and saying someone is a fascist when they’re ardently opposed to most of what fascism stands for (i.e. rejecting centralization of industry, the single party state, and the idea that glory is the sum bonnum of human ambition) is a misuse of the term. One could as easily call Michael a fascist because he supports the centralization of the health care industry if meeting one condition is sufficient to earn the label. But Michael is entitled to make that argument, however implausible I or others find it.
The real problem to me is that Michael doesn’t make the argument. He generally calls people names, writes obtuse one-liners, and then refuses to engage in a civil conversation. It’s the laziness that bothers me the most. It shows a lack of good faith and a refusal to treat others as people rather than objects to be derided. I’ve read Michael write about civility and charity any number of times; I hope one of these days he tries to put it into practice on-line. To take a recent example, if he’s going to write a post about the absence of charity in the blogosphere, he would do well not to casually insult people with unspecified charges of quasi-fascism in the second paragraph of the post.
Darwin – You might continue reading your Wikipedia article where it goes on to discuss the variety of understandings of fascism, rather than relying on its first paragraph for a rigid definition. Although I realize how many right wing Catholics are obsessed with clear black and white doctrines, as a tendency rather than a clear doctrine, fascism takes a variety of forms. It is debatable, for example, that fascism was/is anti-capitalist. Michael Parenti for example demonstrates how Italian fascism and Nazism were both pro-capitalist and undermined workers movements.
I think Parenti as well as Chris Hedges (who draws on Umberto Eco) make a strong case for the continued existence of fascist tendencies in the united states and they do a good job of identifying characteristics of american fascism, many of which are present at various times on this blog.
But to use your Wikipedia article as an example and starting point, I think many of the characteristics it lists are right: nationalism, authoritarianism, expansionist imperialism (including obsessive and unquestioning defense of america’s expansionist history), social darwinism (although some here would not admit it, such a worldview is embedded in their arguments), machismo and rigid gender roles (usually linked with militarism), racism, etc.
To these we could add some of Eco’s identified characteristics, such as the complete rejection of “modernism” or the critical spirit, fear of difference (including sexual difference — anything that is not stereotypically “male”), the view that life is “permanent warfare” (or in John Milbank’s words, an ontology of violence), “contempt for the weak,” obsession with heroism, etc.
Some of these characteristics are clearly present as well in some of your contributors’ take on Catholicism. Such a syncretism could rightly be called, in Dorothee Solle’s words, “Christo-fascism.”
One hates to speculate, but I can’t help wondering if this is basically because to you “fascist” basically means “supported the Iraq war” or “considers the military to be something other than wholly evil.”
So no, the first speculation of yours has nothing to do with my claims about this blog. Neither does the second really, but I do think there are contributors here who are undeniably militaristic, although they would defend themselves through supposed “traditional” Catholic teaching, or by claiming that they simply do not “consider the military to be . . . wholly evil.”
Are you going to register a formal complaint again? I think you should, if for no other reason than it made me laugh out loud when I read it the first time.