In the Staff Report What is the origin of “notary sojac”? I came across the perplexing phrase:
I thought it was a joke or something, but there’s no other reference to it.
I’ve always thought of The Straight Dope as fighting ignorance, not slinging insults (especially with nothing to back it up). What gives?
Even though I am an old-style liberal of the Hubert Humphrey mold, participated in the March on Washington during the Viet Nam war, and am a knee jerk Democrat, I, too found the gratuitous remarks to be, well, gratuitous. Probably an attempt to be as flippant as Cecil. But it crossed the line. You were right to post it.
It was a joke.
Given the instance of a joke, one has two choices :
A : One laughs.
B : One sloughs it off and goes on his merry way, none the worse for wear.
However, since The Straight Dope has recieved more than one complaint about this line (Christ, have any of you people ever read any of Cecil’s columns? Especially the early ones?) including one that accused me of being a “Duh-mocrat” (classic … must have taken all of four days to think that one up) I hereby offer this profound and heartfelt apology :
I apologize for attempting to appeal to the humorless.
Yours,
SDStaffEuty
Eutychus, there is no need for apologies (neither in the modern sense of expressing regret nor in the ancient Greek sense of explanation.) Staff Reports, like Cecil’s columns, often throw out such jokes, against both parties.
One complaint email ranted that we never made sarcastic comments about the Democrats. My response: no one seemed to care much when SDStaff Hawk, writing about oxygen molecular bonding, for heavens sake, said: “On the other hand, electrons come and go like hookers at a Democratic Convention.”
It’s only the right-wing dogmatists, it appears, who are offended by exposure. You lift the rock, and look at what scrambles about, offended by the light. Euty’s comment was, after all, directed at dogma, not at Republicans per se.
So, Eutychus, [trying desparately to keep a straight face]you are out of line to offer an apology, and if you keep up this erratic behaviour, I gonna have to take dramastic action, like … like… [/giving up trying to keep a straight face] encourage you to write more staff reports.
Oh, yes, “Republican Dogma”, terrible comment, just terrible. Can’t imagine why anyone would think it funny. And how horrid to lampoon either Republicans or dogmatists. Stick to lampooning people from Albania. Much safer.
:rolleyes:
[sub]shifts feet nervously and hopes no one discovers she thought “Republican Dogma” was a real thing, like the “Bible Code”[/sub]
One entry found for dogma.
Main Entry: dog·ma
Pronunciation: 'dog-m&, 'däg-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta /-m&-t&/
Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem – more at DECENT
Date: 1638
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
I think the word “dogma” has lost a lot of meaning in the recent past. It is not something which is dictated from above to the masses and accepted without individual thought.
Again, I thought we were fighting ignornace here, not spreading it.
As for jokes, Cecil usually labels them as such. I don’t dismiss ridicule of core Democrat beliefs any more than ridicule of core Republican beliefs.
What, we’re not allowed to complain that a “joke” was in bad taste?
Sorry, emarkp, I ain’t followin’ you.
And, furthermore, I believe this conversation has gone far enough. Anyone wanting to comment on “notary sojac” is welcome here.
However: A debate on whether there is such as thing as “Republican dogma”, whether it is good or bad, whether it is authoritative, whether it is “dictated from above to the masses without individual thought”, and whether it is (in point of fact) really different from Democratic dogma… all that stuff belongs in Great Debates, not here.
For myself, I use my copy of Republican dogma to balance the wobbly leg of a table.
Just goes to show the old adage was right - let sleeping dogma lie.
Any stigma will do to beat a dogma.
I think emarkp has demonstrated that there is also a
C : One fulminates at the offense.
And there is a
D : One shakes their head, and thinks, what a feeble attempt at a joke.
I’m pretty sure that there are others.
[quibble] Hey, RM, is (D) substantively different from (B)? [/quibble]
We could addd: (E) One starts a protest group or political movement or religion, tying oneself to a tree, hanging a liberal in Effigy (a small town outside Montgomery), opening a Presidential library, burning books, transubstantiating pizza, etc.
Hmmm, I thought B concerned One who was offended by the joke, but let it slide. D just recognizes it as weak.
Since this was prompted by a column, even if the joke wasn’t the main point of the column, I think it’s perfectly valid to talk about it here. Personally, I feel that singling out Republicans was unnecessary. A generic political joke such as “as meaningless as a political candidate’s promise” would have been just as effective as humor without offending anyone.
I think the problem is not that these “right wing dogmatists” can’t laugh at themselves…the problem is that they don’t believe you guys were really just kidding.
If someone showed up in the Greate Debates subject and kept making insulting comments to people with certain views, but was careful to use a smiley face or “Haha, just kidding” after every wise crack, would that negate the offensiveness of the remarks? Not if the targets of the “humor” thought the person truly did mean their “jokes” seriously, I expect.
True, most people here don’t seem to feel threatened by Cecil’s barbs. However, I think that’s because he has an established reputation for dishing it out to all sides. One article makes a smart aleck remark about gay people, but another makes a smart aleck remark about the reactionaries who are against gay marriage. One article jokes about the “dreaded l-word” (someone accuses Cecil of being a “typical liberal” if I recall correctly), but another one says [referring to using animal fur] “Cecil, like any good liberal, opposes the gratuitous destruction of life.”
It would have offended political candidates.
Geez, are we still arguing this? I’m holding my breath waiting for the post that Republicans are some sort of maligned minority that need special protection.
Grow up and get a sense of humor, guys.
A’s, B’s, and D’s have a sense of humor. C’s and E’s might not. F’s have to find out exactly who they are–they’re kinda like Cecil’s hundred percent hole cheese with no holes.
spath: << However, I think that’s because he has an established reputation for dishing it out to all sides. >>
And, frankly, Staff also tend to dish it out to both sides, as I have pointed out above.
Euty: << I’m holding my breath waiting for the post that Republicans are some sort of maligned minority that need special protection. >>
Man, how I wish that they were an endangered species.*