Entry tags:

books/authors, omg mock people mock, person: neil gaiman, political wank, twitter, wanking inside the house

Tax deductables! Pencil necks! Thieves! HIGH SPEED CAR CHASES!
Well, all right, maybe not high speed car chases. So, the background: last year, Neil Gaiman, author of such lovely things as Neverwhere and the Sandman series etc., was contacted to speak at a library in Minnesota for a hefty speaking fee, which was paid for by a fund which (a) stated any leftover money would be lost if not used, and (b) was also not available for books, salaries, or other useful things. Neil Gaiman did so, and subsequently donated the speaking fee to charities.

All's well that ends well, right? Well, except that Matt Dean, the House Majority Leader, decided it was time to let his long-simmering grudge be aired to the world: 'Dean said that Gaiman, "who I hate," was a "pencil-necked little weasel who stole $45,000 from the state of Minnesota."'

Neil is... well, he's not well pleased. Nor is his Twitter.

"Sad & funny. Minnesota Republicans have a "hate" list. Like Nixon did. I'm on it. They also don't like capitalism. http://t.co/FObmLGo"

"It's strange watching a grownup high school bully in power. But the bully vocabulary remains the same. http://t.co/FObmLGo"

"And for those curious how and why I made it onto the hate list, what I wrote at the time on my blog. http://bit.ly/lMxsWQ"

"Any nice, sane Minnesota Republicans reading this, please vote for someone who isn't a bully with a hate list next time."

"You can listen to the Stillwater speech that all the Pencil-neck fuss is about at http://bit.ly/k3lA1B (You need to go down to point 2.)"

He also happened to link to Dean's blog, which proceeded to crash. Whoops.

So you'd think that Dean would realize his mistake and apologize, right? Well... sort of. Why?

His mommy made him do it.

The universe collectively facepalms.

(Bonus funny from the comments, courtesy from someone called Lucas: "Do weasel thieves steal just weasels? Or do they also steal ferrets, otters, and wolverines? In the case of the latter, how do they arrange for transportation?")

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	ustareth 2011-05-07 10:10 pm UTC (link)
	How awful, to be called out on using misogynistic language to make a point which could have been made just as well without misogynistic language. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

tunxeh
2011-05-07 10:44 pm UTC (link)

I believe the actual reason that word used in that particular context can be considered offensive has little to do with women, but instead involves male-male prison rape. And that by using rape terminology to talk about something that has nothing to do with rape he somehow (this is the part I don't follow very well) contributes to a culture that does not take rape seriously enough.

On the other hand, I think there is a place in the world for shocking language. I expect that Gaiman knew that it was shocking language when he wrote it that way, and intended it to be shocking, as a way of emphasizing his statement. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I am greatly offended by the notion that civilized writers should censor themselves to avoid the possibility that their language would be shocking. Apologize! Right now! You just offended me.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -