Yesterday I posted the following diary (with poll), which was eventually HR’d. Many posters called me out for making jokes at the expense of rape victims, and insisted that I remove the post and apologize.
I’m sorry Daddy Akin.
You’re right. It wasn’t legitimate rape.
I am really pregnant because:
a) I enjoyed it.
b) I was asking for it
c) I was drunk
d) I didn’t say no often enough
e) I’ve had sex outside of . . marriage. . . before
f) It was my husband/boyfriend
g) Wait! It was Rape!
To quote Gary Larson, “I suppose my first mistake was thinking this was funny.” Well, sue me – because I still do. Or, rather, I still think it to be a clever deconstruction of the misogynist sentiment expressed by Todd Akin in his disgusting use of the phrase “legitimate rape.”
The point of the post – for those who still don’t get it - is that Akin’s implication that there is "legitimate rape" - and "illegitimate rape" - buys into a long history of excusing rape within patriarchal society. The point - is that all of the above are egregious excuses. And to draw attention to the fact that they are egregious excuses. Item G in the list is intended as a vehement rebuttal to such thinking.
Of course I could have written a more typical post – expressing more clearly and precisely what I meant. And one that likely would not have unleashed the thought police (though one never knows with this crowd). However, I genuinely believe satire to be an important rhetorical tool for confronting political idiocy. Clever satire has a way of forcing people to look at things in new ways. Certainly Jonathan Swift accomplished this in his great essay “A Modest Proposal.”
Of course I am no Jonathan Swift (not even close), but I still think we need to set aside for the moment whether or not my post was in fact clever or not, and ask whether or not Daily Kos really wants to be a community that doesn’t just censor hateful speech, but also speech which is clearly directed towards attacking hateful speech but, for whatever reason, misfires. Indeed, it is all too easy to HR something on the grounds that a particular post was an awkward and inappropriate misfire when, in truth, you simply do not approve of what was said (or of their right to say it) for one spitefully silly reason or another.
I used to come and post here fairly regularly. However, after a few snarky diaries which I intentionally did not signal as snark (and one admittedly stupid over the top post criticizing Obama), I decided to go away. My thinking then – as it is now – was that the best snark does not wear its snarkiness on its sleeve. Jonathan Swift’s audience was left bemused at the possibility that he sincerely intended for the Irish populace to take up eating babies; to decide for itself whether or not he was being satirical; and, in coming to terms with the fact that it was the latter rather than the form, were enabled to come away from the essay with a deeper understanding of the issue than they had previously.
I must say that I am sad to see that things have only degenerated on the snark front in my absence. For on a whim, this time I even decided to explicitly designate my post as snark (I thought it too important a topic to leave to the interpretive whims of those less sympathetic to satire). However, that even so designated as snark my post still got HR’d clearly speaks to the fact that the thought and purity speech are winning here. And that more clever modes of attacking right wing idiocy are losing. Which speaks ill both for this site and for democratic freedoms more generally (especially because sites such as this one have so much potential for good).