Yesterday’s post about Duke’s Coach K being a terrible in-game coach has generated a lot of conversation over on Facebook. These five comments are my favorite ones out of more than fifty I’ve received because the authors — who are not people I know —- took my comments about Coach K so personally that they decided to lash out at me.
What’s funny is that I’m not arguing that Coach K isn’t a winner or that he’s a terrible coach generally. My argument is that, in years characterized by parity, he doesn’t see the same success he sees in other years because he cannot alter his game plan to account for a bad shooting performance by his team or a better-than-expected performance by his opponent. This isn’t a major problem a lot of the time because he’s a great recruiter and often has the best players on the floor. But in years when there’s more parity and he doesn’t enjoy the same talent disparity, he runs into trouble.
This has made several thousand people very angry at me.
I was watching a conversation unfold on Facebook about religion, dating, and traditional values in marriages — brought on by some reality tv star entering into some sort of courtship relationship. Everyone seemed to be in agreement that a return to these “old ways” was obviously good, but one participant was concerned about the age difference between the young man and the young woman:
it’s problematic to have a 20-year-old girl with an 18-year-old boy. I’d advise against it. In our increasingly feminized society, men need some age advantage to lead when young, I think.
Pretty much none of this made any sense to me and, when I intruded on the conversation to ask what in the world this all meant, I received no reply.
We have been moved in our purpose by the following contemporary developments which we observe with deep concern:
- The widespread uncertainty and confusion in our culture regarding the complementary differences between masculinity and femininity;
- the tragic effects of this confusion in unraveling the fabric of marriage woven by God out of the beautiful and diverse strands of manhood and womanhood;
- the increasing promotion given to feminist egalitarianism with accompanying distortions or neglect of the glad harmony portrayed in Scripture between the loving, humble leadership of redeemed husbands and the intelligent, willing support of that leadership by redeemed wives;
- the widespread ambivalence regarding the values of motherhood, vocational homemaking, and the many ministries historically performed by women;
- the growing claims of legitimacy for sexual relationships which have Biblically and historically been considered illicit or perverse, and the increase in pornographic portrayal of human sexuality….
So that’s what’s going on here.
It’s all about the virtues of inequality between men and women, and about the damage done to society by — let’s see — feminism, homosexuality, pornography, egalitarianism, and probably a whole bunch of other things too.
Having thought about it for just a few minutes, I have to say that what bothers me so much about this sort of thing isn’t just all the nonsense about inequality or sexuality. It’s also that it makes it so much more difficult to be a person of faith today because you constantly have to deal with the perception that you have a connection to or relationship with this kind of nonsense.
Well, this has occasioned a whole lot more discussion than I’d anticipated (especially given how little anyone said about yesterday’s post on the very same topic) …
But, seriously, we all know the whole religious freedom argument is just an attempt at an end run around all manner of anti-discrimination laws and court cases, right?
Hey! I got Luxembourg, South Dakota, a handful of loose Milk Duds, and 2000s Plastic Surgery Paul McCartney!
But seriously why do people like Buzzfeed quizzes so much? Is this a sign of the impending apocalyspe? Do people in other countries like this ridiculously horrible nonsense as much as Americans? Or is this why we specifically can’t have nice things?
Unpopular Opinion Alert:
It doesn’t make you look like the genius you think you are when you make fun of someone who died because he believed something you think is clearly ridiculous.
Lots of people believe things I don’t believe; I can’t get on board with their beliefs. And I believe things that lots of people don’t believe; they can’t get on board with my beliefs.
But maybe let’s not laugh at people because their sincerely held beliefs aren’t ours and thus appear to be ridiculous or terrible. It’s one thing to disagree or even disapprove; it’s quite another to point and laugh.
Apparently, Facebook doesn’t agree that a page called “Jewish Ritual Murder” violates its Community Standards.
So, yeah, a page devoted entirely to anti-Semitic propaganda, posting offensive photos and “news” clippings that promulgate the blood libel that has led directly to the torture and murder of Jews throughout history … that’s well within the range of what’s acceptable under Facebook’s Community Standards.
The more you know.
Is Christmas the appropriate holiday to ask Sarah Palin to stop playing the faux-persecuted Christian card? Or is that Easter?That’s me, on Facebook, in response to her MLK Day post asking President Obama to promise to stop “playing the race card.”
BREAKING: Woman who has nothing better to do with her days than post inflammatory nonsense on Facebook refuses to understand history or anyone’s experience other than her own; also refuses to go away.
Well, this a pretty clear example of how gun control advocates can’t ever win an argument with people who believe the hype churned out by the gun lobby.
Someone asserts that “Every family man should own a pistol” and I say, “The statistics demonstrate that your pistol is more likely to harm your family and others than to protect them” and then the other guys says, “That’s all well and good, but who’s going to protect your family in a crisis? My family ain’t going out without a fight.”
In other words, the facts absolutely don’t matter.
I can’t win an argument if facts don’t matter.
This claim, from Jodi Dean’s book Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies, is a particularly interesting one to try out on the audience of this blog (who almost exclusively arrive at this blog via Tumblr, Twitter, and Facebook).
Are you reading this?
And are you engaging with the things written on this blog (or on blogs generally)? Do you debate and discuss these ideas? Do you share them with others or do you just click “Like” and move on to the next thing?
And, especially for the Tumblr audience, why are you blogging? Knowing that there are millions and millions of Tumblr blogs, do you think your posts matter and, if so, in what way?
Or is Dean right that we’re just engrossed in the whole idea of consumption and contribution, leading us to believe that we’re participating in a national (or even global) political conversation when, in fact, we’re not?
Twenty-two comments in under an hour … and every single one is in hysterics about this non-scandal. Not a single one asks whether the person asking the question has nothing better to do with his/her time … which is what I was tempted to post.
Other things I was tempted to post include, “I’m not sure which is worst. What did Limbaugh, the Daily Caller, and Fox News conclude?” and, “This is the best Facebook thread I’ve read all day. Thank you for the smiles.”
I’m inclined to post the same exact question on my Facebook Timeline … just to see what happens.
The thing I’m most thankful for today is that tomorrow everyone on Facebook will stop telling me what they’re thankful for.
It’s been going on all month now and, boy howdy, it’s exhausting.
All of these Facebook comments on my post this morning about Dennis Prager’s ridiculous National Review piece are today’s Comments of the Day.
Facebook recommends that you befriend a guy you didn’t like in high school and — wouldn’t you know it? — he’s a grown man wearing a bowtie in his profile picture and his only public “Like” is Mitt Romney.
Apparently spying on me all these years has taught you precious little, Facebook.