They Love This T-Shirt

Posted on by BHE and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Whenever something tragic like the violence in Aurora happens, I always think of this scene from “Almost Famous”. Note that I believe this clip is a different take from the one actually used in the movie. What you can’t see is that the t-shirt shows the band, but only Russell (the guitarist) is in focus.

When a event like the one in Colorado unfolds, I notice it takes about five seconds after the news breaks for people to start using the tragedy as a springboard for political point-scoring, gun control arguments (for or against), lamentations on violence in the media, theses on bad parenting, etc. etc. The premise is that the event is so awful, so tragic, that something must be done. But these are long-held beliefs waiting for an event to prove a point.

They love this t-shirt. It lets them say everything they want to say.

As for me, I’m just hungry man. Let’s just go out and find some barbeque or something. 

Related posts:

  1. Does the WSJ want you to have more kids, or not?

20 Responses to They Love This T-Shirt

  1. HP says:

    Barbeque? Really? You’re going to take this event and exploit it to push your anti-vegetarian agenda?

    Bam. Love this t-shirt.

  2. SpectacularViews says:

    Would more-strict gun control make the country better, worse, or have no effect? There is a correct answer to this question, and that’s what’s important. Their efforts are more constructive than a barbeque.

  3. Guy Fox says:

    Yes, tragic events will continue to happen no matter what institutional tweaks people try. The world is still going to need kitchen knives and kindergartens. The tragedy on the level of discourse, though, is that it’s getting harder to see the point at hand instead of the point-scoring.

    SpectacularViews might be going to far in saying that there’s a ‘correct’ answer to the question of gun control in the States, but it IS a legitimate question, and it’s probably more important than whether the next round of fiscal austerity in the States is branded as a democrat or republican betrayal of whatever. There is something important to discuss and important things to say. You won’t find them on CNN, but who looks to CNN for meaning anyway?

    It’s really sad, though, if every time you hear ‘gun control’, you already know the form and content of what’s going to be said because everybody’s just using it as an occasion to pose, like evolution vs. creation, ‘life’ vs. ‘choice’, gays in (insert institution here) vs. gays out, tax hikes vs. expenditure cuts. Some of those things are really important. If you’re stuck in somebody else’s discursive rut like that, you probably got 3 choices: 1) when in Rome…, i.e. pick a side, pick up some mud, and sling baby sling; 2) fire up those coals – I’ll take a rib-eye medium rare; 3) discuss differently, do what you want others to do, don’t do what you don’t want others to do.

    You’ll do better if you keep your eyes on the ball than on the scoreboard, but the game is still on. It ain’t miller time yet. Get back in there, dammit, and sweat. The steaks will keep.

  4. RatB says:

    I don’t know what’s wrong with politicizing it. It’s not like being sad has ever done any good, but discussions have.

    I think saying “it’ll be politicized” in a tone meaning “inappropriately politicized” could be one of two things. Firstly, it could be a move from either side of the political issue attempting to shame their opposition into silence. Secondly, it could be genuine meta-discussion talking about how people are talking.

    Meta-discussion is all well and good, so long as it’s a minority position. The problem with it is that, being one layer removed from the primary discussion, it has a lower chance of contributing to that discussion’s useful resolution. This could be an issue if people start to resort to meta-discussion as an easy way out of the primary discussion. It lets you keep talking with a lower chance of losing listeners by taking a position.

    But here I am talking about how people talk about what is being talked about. Meta meta.

    Gun control idea: mandatory concealed carry, but only for women.

    Reasons:
    -Women are more likely to be judicious in their use of violence
    -BroDawgs get really pissed off when I tell them this idea
    -That’s hilarious

  5. Herr Surth says:

    On average, 115 americans will die in traffic today and 82 americans will commit suicide. Both causes of death that seem to me a lot more preventable if we did more about it.
    Of course, I do not wish to promote a false dichotomy; We don’t have to decide between EITHER getting better at preventing car crashes OR crazy gunmen. It’s just that the balances are all skewed. Terrorism and crazy gunmen are paradoxically some of the least preventable causes of deaths and simultaneously occupy some of the most media attention.

    Oh yeah, also this: https://twitter.com/DenverChannel/status/227874493123678208/photo/1 That there are people commending Christian Bale for a photo-op and calling him a true hero…

  6. Red says:

    Sooooooooo, it’s been a whole month since anything new has been posted. Is Partial Objects over? What’s up?

    • Guy Fox says:

      I miss the ideas coming from smart people and grad student-level trolling, but it seems to have lost something after Pastabagel introduced the wor(l)d limit. Starting up a sequel somewhere else would be easy, but I’d feel like a schmuck wildcatting since Pastabagel did quite a bit of work to build it up. Thoughts?

      • Nachlasse says:

        I validate your insecurities about stepping up to the plate. Seriously, you should do it.

      • Red says:

        Well, it’s not like Pasta has a monopoly on the format. Although, as you said, it would be a tad “schmuckish.”

        But nothing is being posted, and it’s not because of a lack of submissions, i think. I submitted something a couple weeks ago that never made it on.

        The word limit opened the field to people who may have been too intimidated to post because of the lengthy intellectual treaties previously found on the site. By forcing everyone to play on the surface, more people can be allowed to play. But that can be found almost anywhere. What made this site special was a certain intellectual prowess that I couldn’t find elsewhere.

        If one were to make a new site, they would have to consider the same things Pasta did. Why do you think Pasta introduced the word limit? I can’t be sure, but my guess would be to increase traffic. There is also the fact that most people know Partial Objects exists because of TLP’s endorsement. A competing site would probably have to go without that endorsement.

        All that being said, it’s like this: yolo, yo. I’m down if you’re down.

        • Guy Fox says:

          1. You might be right about Pastabagel just being out of commission. It’s happened before for short periods. Never for this long, though, and the momentum is pretty much gone.
          2. I couldn’t devote more than 30-60 minutes a week to it until at least Xmas, so there’s a big danger that I’d drop the ball too. To prevent that happening at any new site, we’d probably need a small crew of admins/mods.
          3. To that end, I’ve jotted some ideas down on a Google doc that we could use as a discussion forum. If you’re interested in helping to figure something out and making it happen, email me at 9uyf0x[at]gmail.com, and I’ll send you an invitation. (BTW, that’s f-zero-x in the email address.)

Leave a Reply