Warning: All links in this post lead to strong language. The previous sentence is often an understatement.
Kim du Toit has a now famous, crash his server post on the feminization of men and horrors of the Nanny state, with follow ups here, here and here.
Kim is dead accurate about the horrors of the Nanny state. Drugging our young men with Ritalin is particularly horrifying. I also hate the laws outlawing smoking in NY bars (I am allergic to cigarette smoke) and the proposed FDA menu regulations which will probably make it illegal to introduce a new dish until its calories are measured. (What's next, banning buffets?)
Actually I find Kim's style and his critic Philosoraptor's some what similar. They are both condescending and both insulting. Philosoraptor is more polite about it. Kim's essays are easier to read and better constructed and much more succinct. Philosoraptor rambles.
Mrs. du Toit had a useful comment in one of her defense posts:
"Kim, intentionally heat the debate with invective and hyperbole, challenging the very assumptions themselves in the language he used? NOOooo... heh heh"
I desperately need to understand her point.
I have been struggling with Kim's rants for some time now. Though I enjoy them very much, I cannot imagine handing them to my Depression-Era Democratic Mom and Dad to read. I would like very much to persuade them that the statism ensconced in the Democratic party (and, shudder, the Republican party for the most part) is incredibly corrosive to our Republic. However, I can't imagine them being persuaded by his favorite hang 'em from the utility-pole image. As a former Democrat, I find this imagery repulsive, off-putting and pretty well reprehensible. I thought of challenging Kim to a boxing match over it, but my wife pointed out that I have a family to feed, so please don't risk the injury.
Do I just lack imagination? Why would someone chose this style, and how can it be used to persuade?
Mrs. du Toit has other related posts here, here and here.
