Men Explain Lolita to Me

[Duane]

Cemre wrote: "@Duane
You like South Park, don't you ?"

No, I *worship* South Park.

HMMM... *That* gives me an idea - You must have seen "Mecha-Streisand"? Picture a Dworkin as "The Blob", appearing from Stage Right, with all the townspeople fleeing in terror....

E.D. wrote: "Once you've eliminated the possibility of civil discussion..."

Oh, for heaven's (And whoever's) sake, *I* at least wouldn't drEAm of *eliminating* its *possibility*...

But I do get a kick out of making it fuming mad and and run to Daddy (desperately hanging onto its "possibility" with both hands) threatening to file a complaint demanding equal protection under whatever statute it can think of that might provide some relief in its current circumsatances...

Cemre wrote: "I normally refrain from posting in Lolita discussions as they get really toxic..."

HMMM... Now, the more I think about it, *that*'s really *interesting*. I mean, I read the dang thing about 372 years ago when I was 14, and my reaction then was just "man, THIS dude is FUUUuUCKed UP", and my basic conclusion hasn't really changed, nor have I felt like it needs Further Analysis. I mean, it *hardly* deserves anything so esoteric as a Toxic Dicsucsion... But what do *I* know...

(@Laura... Don't bother, I can already smell you thinking, and no, I didn't at that time *have* the discrimination to even *ask* whether it was "Doylist" Nabokov or "Watsonian" Humbert Humbert Humbert Humbert Humbert who was Fucked Up...).

[Gary]

I'm deeply impressed by the candor of your post, Maelanie. I can only hope you found some small measure of catharsis in composing it, and find some measure of empowerment by the strength it took to post it.

[Maelanie]

Maybe I was having a moment that day ... Lol

However, it does seem that sex and race are the two major dilemmas for people ... We have an obsession with both.

There are those who are obsessed with removing sex from our lives altogether, and those obsessed with having it ... Lol

If we do not fix ourselves and soon, humanity is doomed.

Cathartic? No. Strength? In hindsight more embarrassed than empowered. And yet, it just is what it is.

[Eric]

Art matters. It does insofar as that description of the landscape adds an ineffable beauty to the composition. Art makes the world. Does it? Because the only thing books of indisputable artistic merit have done as far as I could tell is provide an English professor with the resources with which to make his living. Oops, I mean his or her living.

[Laura]

Sure, but what constitutes "ineffable beauty" is, indeed, a subjective notion. Said to be in the eye of the beholder, or the reader in this case.

[Eric]

Hi Laura - Art is subjective. There's no good or bad art. I hope this isn't what you're getting at because that can't be further from the truth.

[Eric]

Art serves no practical purpose. It's an indulgence. Which is why I think the author of the article got it all wrong. As much as art can stir the emotions, it's make believe, a deception, a game. I don't think that's what God's about.

[Gary]

Eric wrote: "Art is subjective. There's no good or bad art. I hope this isn't what you're getting at because that can't be further from the truth."

I think there is such a thing as good and bad art. At least, there is such a thing as more and less effective art, if you will.

Here is a work of art commonly called The Mona Lisa, with which I'm certain everyone is familiar:



Here is a work called Cool Shit by Scott Reeder in 2006:



Now, I'm not suggesting that Mr. Raeder should not have created his piece of... work. Furthermore, it's definitely art. I say so because there are folks who'll argue the definition of art itself in this kind of situation, and I'd suggest that what they are getting at really is the same thing as what we're talking about here: good versus bad art rather than art itself. And they have a point, though I think they've confused their semantics.

Note: There are a lot of people who embrace the concept of "art for art's sake" which--crudely put--means that art need not be for human beings at all; it can exist for itself. I think that's a perfectly valid assertion. It does open one's work up to a follow up question: Why should anyone care? But that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

On the other hand, if we consider art as a means of expressing thoughts, ideas, emotions and impressions beyond the content and methods of the art itself, then there is surely a way of acknowledging that more is being conveyed than blobs of paint, a carved hunk of marble, or words on a page alone contain. Essentially, art is more than the sum of its parts.

Of course, that's a very broad and open-ended. Mr. Raeder's work shown above does absolutely qualify under that definition. However, I'd argue that some art is more effective (and both objectively and subjectively better) than other art. Da Vinci's art conveys more beyond the sum of its part better than does Raeder's.

Ultimately, there is a subjectivity to that assessment, but I don't think that means the assessment is ultimately subjective. For example, I really, really like the movie Joe Versus the Volcano. I watched it again last night, having newly formed a theory that it has a relationship to Shakespeare's King Lear. And... it does. It's very amusing. I don't think JVtV stacks up against, say, Citizen Kane when it comes to their relative artistic merits, or King Lear, for that matter. Still, I've seen Joe as many times or more than I've seen both Kane and Lear. My subjective pleasure does not equal my subjective assessment.

Last, I don't think we can say that art has any sort of aesthetic or moral value in and of itself. Melanie suggests that "Love beauty intelligence are one" to which I say... maybe.

I've certainly loved ugly things and dumb things; intelligent people can be hateful; beautiful things stupid, and ugly things can be loved, loving and lovable; it's very possible to hate intelligence and/or beauty. Any of those things can be in art, or not, or their opposites, and it's still art.

Those things definitely can be in art, but I don't think they are definitive of art itself. Science has much beauty, an awful lot of intelligence, and I'd argue much love too. Many scientists and artists might disagree with me there, and maybe that's where art and science overlap. However, I don't think we can say those things are definitive of "art" either. They may even be incidental.

So, to tie all this back into the original subject: Lolita.

Lolita is a work of art that often gets misunderstood. I'd argue that it meets just about any reasonable definition of "art" that anyone might use, but it may have caused as much confusion as it has comprehension. A shade of that is what Ms. Solnit was getting at.

[Eric]

Gary wrote: "Eric wrote: "Art is subjective. There's no good or bad art. I hope this isn't what you're getting at because that can't be further from the truth."

I think there is such a thing as good and bad ar..."

I think you're being too generous. Just because it's verse or prose fiction doesn't mean it's art. A lot of this is my fault of course for writing good art and bad art, as if art could be bad.

I just reread the Solnit article. It seems like she went out of her way to provoke the reactions she got. Good for her. I do stuff like that too. Her argument about how art affects behavior and even life choices I'm on the fence about. In a way, she's absolutely right as a book I read in high school, which I now find unreadable, directly led to who and what I am today. Then again if it wasn't that book it would've been another, leading me to think I was destined to be where I am. As to books I've read since, books I consider supreme works of art, their practical effect is limited to my use of them as measuring sticks.

Anyway, it was thought provoking article, and I take back my remark that Solnit "got it all wrong." I just didn't give it the careful reading it deserved.

[Laura]

Of course, if you compare the Mona Lisa with the rough drawing of a turd, but that is a hyperbolic attempt to make a point. Compare the Mona Lisa with anything by Pollock, or the most famous art by Picasso. Many people see those as silly doodles or worse. No, not everyone loves them just because they became popular and it's "educated" to like them. Is that good art to you? To me? To others, who may love the Mona Lisa and hate Picasso? Yes, that is my point.

The same can be said about books. Some people like Shakespeare, or rather, some people love telling others that they like Shakespeare, because it's "good art", and diminish anyone who reads only "bad art". Someone may have loved the Twilight series, and I may roll my eyes internally, but I have no right to consider myself better than them because I enjoy other things.

Of course, if you go on and compare Lolita with the graphical description of a turd, you may make your point again, but whether you agree or not, the beauty of any piece of art IS and always will be subjective. As someone pointed out, it's indulgence. Art is created with the main purpose to be liked. If someone likes it, it's served its purpose, and for that person, it's good art. Secondarily, art has been always used as a mean to spread ideas and discuss social issues. But the main goal is still to be enjoyed.

[Eric]

Laura wrote: "Of course, if you compare the Mona Lisa with the rough drawing of a turd, but that is a hyperbolic attempt to make a point. Compare the Mona Lisa with anything by Pollock, or the most famous art by..."

Time will ultimately tell if it's art or just a fad of the times. As to what one gets out of art, enjoyment is secondary at best. I'm gonna use that word again....Ineffable. Art's about awe, amazement, astonishment, or to quote Scott Fitzgerald "the incommensurate capacity to wonder." There's a little more going on there than fun and easy.

[Gary]

Eric wrote: "Laura wrote: "Of course, if you compare the Mona Lisa with the rough drawing of a turd, but that is a hyperbolic attempt to make a point. Compare the Mona Lisa with anything by Pollock, or the most..."

I have to point out that "Cool Shit" is an oil painting done on canvas by an artist who has exhibited his work. Here are a couple links:

http://www.thegreengallery.biz/artist...

https://paddle8.com/artists/scott-ree...

By contrast, it's debated whether or not "The Mona Lisa" is actually a finished work. At least, he kept it around for 15 years and dabbed at it sporadically for that last decade.

So, I'd suggest that the point still stands: there is such a thing as "good art" and "bad art" or art that is more effective than other art, whatever terms one wants to use. And though there is some subjectivity in that assessment, that doesn't mean that such assessments themselves are meaningless.

[Gary]

Eric wrote: "Art serves no practical purpose. It's an indulgence. Which is why I think the author of the article got it all wrong. As much as art can stir the emotions, it's make believe, a deception, a game. I don't think that's what God's about."

I think you're on the right track when you compare art to make believe, deception and a game. But those things do have a practical purpose in, at least, an oblique way, and I'd suggest that art is comparable. That is, in the same way that children play games to develop higher mental functions, they create art for a similar purpose--and we continue to do so as adults. Lion cubs "play" at fighting, and that's cute, but they are also exercising, and honing skills that (in nature not zoos) would help them survive.

Similarly, I'd argue that art has a practical purpose. Humans could be defined as "culture creating animals" and in that sense art is a primary force in developing that instinctive quality. One could look at art as the R&D of culture. I think that is more than a little 21st century corporate culture reductive, but it does illustrate the function of art in ways that we probably see around us all the time these days....

In that sense, Solnit was getting at one of the functions of art that has clearly been missed by many people over time. That is, that it has a role in drawing out people from their own little solipsistic worldviews. It isn't always white men who I see saying things about how the Education budget needs to be slashed and these worthless classes like "Art" can go first, I think they're exhibiting much the kind of behavior that she was describing.

[Gary]

Here is a recent piece by Solnit for anyone interested.

http://lithub.com/rebecca-solnit-the-...

[E.D.]

"a pustule of ego"

If you do not see the art in these words, you are culturally blind.

[Mickey]

The new essay exposes some unsavory weaknesses in Solnit's writing:

I've talked before about the kind of role that her writing has: it's not persuasive enough to convince people, and I always wonder why fans keep trying to inject her into the mainstream as if it's likely to win new converts. I suspect it has more to do with the fact that Solnit can adroitly present a constructed reality that party faithfuls can recognize. But what they refuse to see is that the particular fantasy she creates is a very stark morality play with flat, cardboard images. It's only effective if the reader will help out by adding weight to the pictures. Only then can you almost pretend that it "looks real".

A lot of what she writes is simple populist demagoguery. For instance, there's straight up class envy with focusing on people who are born wealthy and then relying on stereotypes of them facing no hardships or difficulties. You could just as easily substitute JFK or FDR into the "spoiled boy" Trump sections because it's so non-specific and based on prejudices.

Then there is the dehumanization of your opponent. Trump is called a "lobster" and a "termite" in some sections and in others he becomes the emblem of the human failing: greed-making those who oppose him instantly and painlessly virtuous and selfless by comparison. Take her use of Pushkin's fairy tale, which has a lesson (that Solnit readily acknowledges) about overreaching. She effectively neuters the universal message by pinning it on Trump while admitting that it is not applicable currently, but it might be at some future time. I imagine the appeal of including the story is simply to anticipate his downfall and to add a bit of literary flavor to the brew.

Solnit's writing has never been a logical presentation of positions and facts. It's based entirely on emotion and cheap pay-offs. She presents a false picture by constructing simplistic contrasts: breakers vs. makers, tyranny vs. democracy, immoral vs. moral, inequality vs. equality, disrespectful vs. respectful, bullying vs. collective power, greedy vs. altruistic, elevated vs. humble, "brittle, weak, unable to handle contradiction" vs. (implied) flexible, strong, cooperative. Her portrayals are as nuanced and subtle as an old-fashioned Saturday morning superhero cartoon meant for children. I really wonder at any adult who finds this level of reasoning satisfying, and I don't know why anyone would find it so compelling that they would think to share it with the general public. This is the sort of thing that the faithful say during closed-door sessions without press coverage.

[E.D.]

And......your point?

[Mickey]

E.D. wrote: "And......your point?"

Is this question directed at me?

[E.D.]

Mickey wrote: "E.D. wrote: "And......your point?"

Is this question directed at me?"

Yep.

[Mickey]

Short version: Solnit has written a childish fantasy with Trump as the cardboard villain and those who oppose him (the "we" she refers to) as virtuous heroes. The essay's appeal is to the ego-not the mind or the spirit. She offers no real insight into her subject, and it doesn't look like she's done any research. She simply relies on people's prejudices against the wealthy (practically creating her Trump out of that one fact). It's simply not a thoughtful piece.

[E.D.]

Thank you for your response, Mickey. I do agree that the piece lacks the degree of intellectual depth we might expect from political and/or social scientists looking to explain the many facets of why things are as they are currently in The Republic. Simple "good vs evil" declarations do not offer solutions of a viable nature.

However, I'm confused as to why you critique Solnit for writing a humorous essay clearly targeting a like-minded audience. The keyword being "humorous". Must certain topics always require serious scholarship to hold validity? What's wrong with a giggle?

While I respect your intellect, I wonder if you let it dominate your spirit.

[Mickey]

E.D. wrote: "However, I'm confused as to why you critique Solnit for writing a humorous essay clearly targeting a like-minded audience. The keyword being "humorous". Must certain topics always require serious scholarship to hold validity? What's wrong with a giggle?"

I think it highly unlikely that this essay was intended to be a satire on the tendency to view politics as a simplistic morality play. I've read a book of her essays. The exaggeration in her work is not used for comic effect, and judging by comment sections, the vast majority of readers take her work as a sincere attempt at social and political critique. It's somewhat dismissive to label her work comedy and say her intention is to get "giggles". I see no indication of that at all.

I'd be curious to know what you think the appeal of Solnit's writing is-if there is something else beyond the humor you see.

[E.D.]

Mickey wrote: "E.D. wrote: "However, I'm confused as to why you critique Solnit for writing a humorous essay clearly targeting a like-minded audience. The keyword being "humorous". Must certain topics always requ..."

I don't see a satire here, either, and don't think I ever suggested such. I see no effort to proselytize. She sings to the choir.

I do see mockery. And, sole intention or not, humor.

I see craftsmanship. I think you used the word "adroit" to describe her ability. That would be fair.

In this particular piece, I see her touch upon socioeconomic relativism...a topic of vital importance to political science...but, only as a layman writing for layman. You proclaim "cheap populism". This isn't Piketty on capitalism, and I don't think it was intended to be so. Since the piece made me "giggle", I can only assume that was her intent.

Is your "beef" with Solnit, or with those who praise her? I suspect the latter. Am I misreading you?

[Mickey]

E.D. wrote: "In this particular piece, I see her touch upon socioeconomic relativism...a topic of vital importance to political science...but, only as a layman writing for layman. You proclaim "cheap populism". This isn't Piketty on capitalism, and I don't think it was intended to be so. Since the piece made me "giggle", I can only assume that was her intent."

What exactly is "socioeconomic relativism"? I haven't been able to find a definition of that term. And why are you bringing up Piketty on capitalism? There's no explanation as to why that is casually dropped in there or what it is supposed to mean.

ETA: You seem to be damning with faint praise here. You seem to be saying we shouldn't expect Solnit to say anything interesting or new because she's "singing to the choir" or trying to be funny or isn't a social and/or political scientist. None of these things give her a pass.

[E.D.]

Mickey wrote: "E.D. wrote: "In this particular piece, I see her touch upon socioeconomic relativism...a topic of vital importance to political science...but, only as a layman writing for layman. You proclaim "che..."

A poor man who spent day after day, hour after hour cursing the rich man for stealing from the "people" inherits a fortune and successful business. He currently spends hour after hour playing golf and laughing about all the lazy wastes of flesh that want him to pay for a big screen tv.

Socioeconomic Relativism. Ones ethics, morals and priorities align with ones perception of reality based on ones position socioeconomically and culturally. Not everyone agrees on Relativism.

Piketty wrote a 700 page bestseller about empirical economic data and the conclusions he reached regarding dynastic wealth it represents.

I don't think Solnit is hoping to nab a Nobel for this essay.

Again, I think you're more at odds with her audience.

[Mickey]

E.D. wrote: "Socioeconomic Relativism. Ones ethics, morals and priorities align with ones perception of reality based on ones position socioeconomically and culturally. Not everyone agrees on Relativism."

I actually was looking for some other sources (other than yourself) that such a term is in use-much less "of vital importance to political science" as you say. As I've said before, I can't find any evidence of that particular term online. Your story about a man whose economic status changes, so necessitating a change in his attitudes towards wealth redistribution doesn't show relativism at all (it actually shows a very fixed tendency towards self-interest above ideology on the part of the man), and I fail to see the connection with this idea and Solnit's Trump or with Solnit's article. Perhaps it would be better to move away from name or term-dropping in an effort to impress. It doesn't add anything of interest.

E.D. wrote: "Again, I think you're more at odds with her audience. "

How so? As far as I can remember, I haven't said anything about her audience. My criticism has centered on the article itself.

[E.D.]

Mickey wrote: "E.D. wrote: "Socioeconomic Relativism. Ones ethics, morals and priorities align with ones perception of reality based on ones position socioeconomically and culturally. Not everyone agrees on Relat..."

How so? As far as I can remember, I haven't said anything about her audience. My criticism has centered on the article itself.

(has it,now?)

it's not persuasive enough to convince people, and I always wonder why fans keep trying to inject her into the mainstream as if it's likely to win new converts.

(who are those "fans"?)

adroitly present a constructed reality that party faithfuls can recognize. But what they refuse to see is that the particular fantasy she creates is a very stark morality play with flat, cardboard images. It's only effective if the reader will

(party faithful and readers are...?)

A lot of what she writes is simple populist demagoguery. For instance, there's straight up class envy with focusing on people who are born wealthy and then relying on stereotypes of them facing no hardships or difficulties. You could just as easily substitute JFK or FDR into the "spoiled boy" Trump sections because it's so non-specific and based on prejudices.

(whose prejudices would that be?)


nuanced and subtle as an old-fashioned Saturday morning superhero cartoon meant for children. I really wonder at any adult who finds this level of reasoning satisfying, and I don't know why anyone would find it so compelling that they would think to share it with the general public.

(who are these childish adults of whom you speak?)

has written a childish fantasy with Trump as the cardboard villain and those who oppose him (the "we" she refers to) as virtuous heroes

(same childish adults?)


relies on people's prejudices against the wealthy

(would these prejudiced people be the same childish adults?)

and judging by comment sections, the vast majority of readers take her work as a sincere attempt at social and political critique

(who was it you haven't said anything about...?)

Your story about a man whose economic status changes, so necessitating a change in his attitudes towards wealth redistribution doesn't show relativism at all (it actually shows a very fixed tendency towards self-interest above ideology on the part of the man), and I fail to see the connection with this idea and Solnit's Trump or with Solnit's article.

(we agree...you fail to see the connection.)


fixed tendency towards self-interest above ideology

(a very relativistic view..., socioeconomically speaking)

:}

[Duane]

E.D. wrote: ""a pustule of ego"

If you do not see the art in these words, you are culturally blind."

I tried every anagram I could - no matter how I look at it there's an "a" and a "t" but no "r"... Can I buy another word, maybe?

[Duane]

Mickey wrote: "S She offers no real insight into her subject, and it doesn't look like she's done any research. "

That's because she doesn't HAVE any real insight - Just unreal insight garnered from smoking pot with her left-wing cohort.

Nobody who hasn't worked for a large corporation and met a few CEOs, has done any "Research" on him - Nor can they possibly have any Real Insight. Solnitwit might as well be living on a different planet from Trump (which I'm sure she'd freely admit, but would still insist that her snarling, fuming invective somehow means something...).

[E.D.]

Duane wrote: "E.D. wrote: ""a pustule of ego"

If you do not see the art in these words, you are culturally blind."

I tried every anagram I could - no matter how I look at it there's an "a" and a "t" but no "r"..."

A pustule of ego.

C'mon,....this ooooooozes contemporary culture. A turned phrase, done well. Superior branding. If you want to paint someone a seething egomaniac...in four words....you can't do much better.

Buzzed or not. But, especially buzzed.

As to the article overall, I'd put it on the same level of "choir singing" as Ann Coulter's monthly "book" releases.

With the exception of that "pustule of ego" line.

That was arty.

[Duane]

Bah. She's a Bongfull of Nonsense.

And,,,,,,,, Until she can cause Berkeley to spontaneously ignite just by showing up there (oh, waidaminnit... she LIVES there - Well, howbout maybe someplace in Idaho... ? ... naah that won't work either, they'll just laugh at her...) she can't play in the same sandbox with Ann...

I demand to see, at the very least, a broken Starbucks window before I take her seriously.

[E.D.]

"I demand to see, at the very least, a broken Starbucks window before I take her seriously." - Duane

Snowflakes cowering in their safe spaces or violent threats to real Americans.

I get confused. :}

[Karen]

Duane wrote: "E.D. wrote: ""a pustule of ego"

If you do not see the art in these words, you are culturally blind."

I tried every anagram I could - no matter how I look at it there's an "a" and a "t" but no "r"..."

Lol!

[Karen]

Duane wrote;
"Nobody who hasn't worked for a large corporation and met a few CEOs, has done any "Research" on him - Nor can they possibly have any Real Insight. Solnitwit might as well be living on a different planet from Trump (which I'm sure she'd freely admit, but would still insist that her snarling, fuming invective somehow means something...)"

Thank you for your opinion Duane

[Karen]

E.D. wrote: ""I demand to see, at the very least, a broken Starbucks window before I take her seriously." - Duane

Snowflakes cowering in their safe spaces or violent threats to real Americans.

I get confused. :}"

So do I.

[Duane]

Karen wrote: "E.D. wrote: ""I demand to see, at the very least, a broken Starbucks window before I take her seriously." - Duane

Snowflakes cowering in their safe spaces or violent threats to real Americans.

I get confused. :}"...

"So do I.

Okay, okay... It's an abstraction, see - it's like "The show isn't over until the fat lady sings", except, it's "It's not a real riot unless the Starbucks is trashed".

Now, there's an important core principle here: The millenial snowflakes all WORK at Starbucks. So why are they trashing *that*? Seemingly there's something about trashing Starbucks that transcends ALL revolutionary principle. Starbucks is apparently a neocultural metaphor, representing "That-which-must-be-trashed", in a *really* abstract sense! Otherwise, they'd be trashing an Evil Crapitalist Bank, or something, right?

So it's entirely reasonable to refuse to assign "Street Cred" to *anyone* bitching from either the left OR right, until they can get the blacksuits to trash a Starbucks (And I submit that they have to be able to incite the trashing merely by showing up, and without even saying anything - though I'm negotiable on that point.)

Now, all of THAT said... there is a serious question as to how one can call someone who trashes a Starbucks a "Snowflake". Nobody's been able to explain *That* to my satisfaction... I seriously suspect that "Snowflake" is getting drastically overused and its definition expanded to the point of meaninglessness, just as Orwell said about "Fascism".

Anyway - HTH (But I won't say how - It could merely be helping to spread more confusion, right? We're all anarchists on this here bus, because it's going to Berkeley... ??).

(Now, hand over the Ph.D., dammit!)

[E.D.]

Well..., thanks a lot, Herr Doktor! You gotta go and bring up Orwell on Fascism As A Meaningless Term To People Who Don't Know What It Means, again. And substitute "Snowflake".

Just as I'm about to launch a meme and t-shirt campaign!

in day-glo or subdued variations of gray:

dangerous roadways....
blinding blizzards.....
murderous avalanches!

(insert pissed off Rastafarian snowflake logo here)

...just some of the things large masses of
motivated snowflakes can do.


What's the point now? Orwell.

Again, thanks.

[Karen]

I will never go to Berkley, well, maybe if Milo is there. He can protect me with his big yellow snake.

[E.D.]

Big yellow snake! Now my gerbil is all agitated again.

For sale:
Multiple intermodal containers of novelty tees.
At cost plus S&H. Firm.

[Karen]

E.D. wrote: "Big yellow snake! Now my gerbil is all agitated again.

For sale:
Multiple intermodal containers of novelty tees.
At cost plus S&H. Firm."

Lol. Your gerbil should be agitated

[E.D.]

His doctor recommends otherwise. :}

[Duane]

E.D. wrote: "Well..., thanks a lot, Herr Doktor! You gotta go and bring up Orwell on Fascism As A Meaningless Term To People Who Don't Know What It Means, again. And substitute "Snowflake".

Just as I'm about t..."

Well, after all, what are Ph.D.'s for, if not to question definitions until there's no longer enough agreement on them to permit ANY dicsucsion?

I might nevertheless suggest distinguishing ordinary, satandard Snowflakes from diabolical, rioting Snowflakes (If such really exist, but, in any case for the sake of clarification) by referring to the latter as "Blacksuits". This lexical bifurcation, while it may at the moment appear to stabilize matters, may also better serve a disruptive overall agenda in the long term... .

To salvage your infestment, though, I have a Ruthless Crapitalist solution to your slurplus T-shirt dilemma, To wit:
Make up a small, but recognizable stencil of the "Burning Man" insignia, and stencil it onto all of the T-shirts somewhere. That will cause millenials to reflexively buy the shirts without even looking at anything else that's on them, and, presto - Investment Recouped!!

And, @Karen:
With the benefit of my newly conferred Ph.D., I can speculate that you may be suffering from Riot Approach-Avoidance Conflict - Could that possibly be the case? (And if so, I may have a suggestion from a local Riot connoisseuse... .)

I wouldn't count on much protection from Milo, though - he's what Salvador Dali referred to as "An Aficionado of Pure Chaos" (For which *I* of course *commend* him, BUT...).

[E.D.]

Duane wrote: "E.D. wrote: "Well..., thanks a lot, Herr Doktor! You gotta go and bring up Orwell on Fascism As A Meaningless Term To People Who Don't Know What It Means, again. And substitute "Snowflake".

Just a..."

What was it Carlin said? Oh, yeah....
"I leave symbols to the symbolminded."

If total liquidation fails I can always trickle 'em down on Etsy. Or donate them to Indivisible for the write-off. Regardless, The Market Decides.

Haaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! I crack myself up. The Market Decides. Funny that.

How about Dirty Harry wearing a pink Pussy Cap pointing his 44 captioned:

"Go ahead. Call me Snowflake."

[Duane]

"I leave symbols to the symbolminded."

If total liquidation fails I can always trickle 'em down on Etsy. Or donate them to Indivisible for the write-off. Regardless, The Market Decides.
.
.
How about Dirty Harry wearing a pink Pussy Cap pointing his 44 captioned:
"Go ahead. Call me Snowflake." "

Oh, well, now, the POINT was to SALVAGE an EXISTING disaster, not cause a new one (Not that I'm in any way *opposed* to the latter, of course, *But*...)

I can't remember which marketing disaster it was that I read about that got salvaged by Creative ReBranding, but, if addition of a MERE symbol will save an otherwise going concern from financial economic difficulties, I mean, why not? As one not-so-famous nobody whom I can't remember once said, "Sometimes you just have to *spend* your way out of trouble"...

hmmm... Just hypothetically, in a similar vein, what could one do to salvage a warehouse full of pink pussy hats? (Hey - It could happen!!)

[Karen]

Duane wrote;
"wouldn't count on much protection from Milo, though - he's what Salvador Dali referred to as "An Aficionado of Pure Chaos" (For which *I* of course *commend* him, BUT...)."

No protection there since he is the one causing the snowflake riots. I like to avoid riots- I get too angry and I'm small.

[E.D.]

Karen wrote: "Duane wrote;
"wouldn't count on much protection from Milo, though - he's what Salvador Dali referred to as "An Aficionado of Pure Chaos" (For which *I* of course *commend* him, BUT...)."

No protec..."

Angry and small? Perfect ammunition for the Peoplepults! You could be lobbed right over the barricades to harass the enemy's rear. Much more effective than agitated gerbils. :}

[Holly]

E.D. wrote: "Karen wrote: "Duane wrote;
"wouldn't count on much protection from Milo, though - he's what Salvador Dali referred to as "An Aficionado of Pure Chaos" (For which *I* of course *commend* him, BUT......"

Actually us little folks are really good at hamstringing, femoral evisceration and disembowelment. Use the big people in your Peoplepults

[E.D.]

Duane wrote: " "I leave symbols to the symbolminded."

If total liquidation fails I can always trickle 'em down on Etsy. Or donate them to Indivisible for the write-off. Regardless, The Market Decides.
.
.
How a..."

I kinda recall that rebranding thing..., can't remember details, though. I 've got no problem with creatively manipulating the easily manipulated for selling doo-hickies. Doesn't really cause any harm, and "everybody's gotta eat", right? Rubes is rubes.

Taking executive control of an ongoing republic? I'd say a line of some sort has been crossed, but....,then again....., that "rube" thing.

Surplus Pussy Hats? I'd suggest a remake of The Pink Panther with a female Clouseau, and a merchandise tie-in. Get BurgerKing(tm) on board and the warehouse is ready for the "Next Big Thing".

[E.D.]

Holly wrote: "E.D. wrote: "Karen wrote: "Duane wrote;
"wouldn't count on much protection from Milo, though - he's what Salvador Dali referred to as "An Aficionado of Pure Chaos" (For which *I* of course *commend..."

Tried the "bigs"...., their trajectories were always too flat. And most weren't nimble enough to recover after landing.Hamstringing, disembowelment, and femoral evisceration are precisely the attributes that make small folks the perfect infiltrators. That, and a higher proclivity to stick the landing. :}

[Karen]

E.D. wrote: "Karen wrote: "Duane wrote;
"wouldn't count on much protection from Milo, though - he's what Salvador Dali referred to as "An Aficionado of Pure Chaos" (For which *I* of course *commend* him, BUT......"

Hmmm... I can yell really loud! Ask my neighbors, however I am too old to care what they think. Or anyone else for that matter! I am then, fully prepared to fight off the rioters!