February 24, 2004

You no funny to me

Michael L Barthel of Brooklyn NY, nee Mr. Clap Clap blog posted yesterday, in response to my post below Fader's child-sexualizing "fashion" editorial, called TinyLucky "overheated". Lattes are overheated, dog, I am like LAVA -- and I do not mean the hand soap.

He then made the following "joke":

"I mean, it doesn't get to the key question: sure, they're revolting, but are they fuckable? I think you should never get so offended by child pornography that you neglect to tell me whether it's good jerk-off material."

Then, upon the commenting of many people, including gold medal ski champion Pikaboo Street, he confessed, perhaps writing, nestled in his nest made from back issues of Vice:

"I made a substantive response to the posts a while back about sex slavery. I didn't get a response then. So I say something flippant, and oh look, it gets a response. As long as you fail to engage, people will continue to say stupid shit to get you to respond--this is why I always engage, always respond. It's why we're here."

Excerpt from substantitive response:
"But if I'm implicated in sex slavery--and I'm not denying that in some ways I am--it's unclear why taking to the streets, or ceasing to buy pornography and treating women better, is going to do more to alleviate the problem than me running for public office and working to address the problem along with the non-systemic root causes, or learning everything I can about human trafficking and immigration issues and devising a sensible policy to address those issues."

I am not voting Clap Clap in 04, though he certainly exhibits qualities and ideas that would not have him out of place in any level of our current administration.

Wanna know what policy and initiative is in place to stop sex trafficking? Wanna know just how effective and proactive the gov't is? Want to know about the TWO domestic/American arrests of sex tourists since new laws were passed April 30, 2003?

Says Mike Garcia, asst. secretary of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs enforcement "We're sending a message."


Posted by Jessica at February 24, 2004 11:48 AM | TrackBack
Comments

So since the current administration isn't sufficiently enforcing the sex-trafficking laws on the books, the only rational response is to riot? I'm not following you.

I acknowledged numerous times in the post that the current enforcement and implementation of the policies was insufficient. That's why I said that you, Mr. or Ms. concerned citizen, should perhaps get involved and try to change said enforcement to something more effective, rather than running down Broadway in a ski mask throwing garbage cans through the windows of McDonald'ses.

The original post was a specific response to the idea that, after a mostly fair critique of the current situation, the only solution was rioting. I disagreed. Do you?

Posted by: Michael L Barthel of Brooklyn, NY at February 24, 2004 03:06 PM

"I made a substantive response to the posts a while back about sex slavery. I didn't get a response then. So I say something flippant, and oh look, it gets a response. As long as you fail to engage, people will continue to say stupid shit to get you to respond--this is why I always engage, always respond. It's why we're here."

This defense is truly bizarre. Mr. Barthel evidently believes Sasha is somehow obligated to "engage" any criticism he posts of Sasha's writing? And by slighting him with a "failure to engage", Sasha leaves Barthel no recourse but to post this (lame attempt at an) offensive joke?

In other words, "if you had just given me the attention I craved from you, I wouldn't have to resort to these tactics! So this is all your fault!"

Whatever dawg.

Posted by: Jay Smooth at February 24, 2004 08:13 PM

I love it that so many of you like to be pathetically hip and use the word, or a variant, of dog.
Keep it up. Makes you sound as if you should be listened to.
If you actually believe that government "initiatives" are activities that are effective, or even paid attention to, then you need to look more into them.

Posted by: Pops at February 25, 2004 11:54 AM

I get the feeling you lead a rather sheltered life, Pops, so you are probably not aware that there are millions of people for whom slang is a natural part of their everyday speech, and they use it without the slightest care for being hip or ironic or Williamsburghy. Did you think the hipster kids were actually making all those words up themselves?

Regardless, I love it when people latch on to my usage of slang to avoid addressing the substance of my post, cuz it lets me know me they are unable to refute it.

Posted by: Jay Smooth at February 25, 2004 01:08 PM

HI, THIS IS MY BLOG AND I DO NOT LIKE IT WHEN YOU ANONYMOUSLY POST MEAN-NESS HERE. Why are you trying to make people feel poorly about themselves? Thats not a rhetorical question, btw.

xo JH

Posted by: Tiny Lucky Unicorn Horn at February 25, 2004 07:05 PM

It is unfortunate that you have failed to truly engage with Mr Claps' post regarding the sundry options we have to fight sex slavery and the institutionalized abuse of children around the world.

My question to you is, if you believe that we ought to stifle free speech, which is what jokes about child rape is, because through such efforts we will be able to terminate the practice of coercing children into making sexually exploitative material for the underground mass market of the stuff, then what else are you doing with your time? Do you regularly give money to charities that provide protection for victims of domestic violence and shelters for teenage runaways, most of whom are fleeing abusive situations?

Or do you favor lobbing distorted, self-righteous tirades at intelligent music critics and pop stars simply because they highlight the absurd and macabre severity of the violence in our world?

However you feel about the nature of my questions, I would encourage you explore the intersections of intimacy violence and the ways in which assaults against children can be stopped or minimized while preserving the spirit of free speech and public discourse.

After that, I will be interested in hearing how you situate your arguments about the suppression certain activities now protected by the First Amendment and follow you wherever it leads.

I'm listening.

Posted by: Hannah Tubman at February 27, 2004 11:38 AM

Spielekonsolen http://versandhaus.gelago.de/cat16956/Multimedia/Videospiele/PlayStation2/Spielekonsolen/

Posted by: Spielekonsolen at September 22, 2004 12:15 PM

hello. i just wanted to give a quick greeting and tell you i enjoyed reading your material.

casinos: casino resources

Posted by: casinos: casino resources at March 20, 2005 01:31 AM

I live in 34668 Las Vegas, Nevada. Have you been here before?

Posted by: Ein Lo Sechel at October 4, 2006 12:47 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?