So there’s this cheesy essay out there now, The Pussification of the American Male. I’ve been sort of meaning to write about it, but I’ve also been unable to think of anything I could add to the discussion other than “You know, I agree; Kim Du Toit is kind of a wimp for freaking out over a Cheerios commercial.”
(Speaking of which, I’m glad to report that I was listening to sports radio the other day and heard a commercial in which a guy demonstrated the meaning of bitter by calling up his bitter ex-girlfriend. It was pretty funny. More significantly, I take it as conclusive proof that the trend Du Toit documents has been defeated. Or, perhaps, conclusive proof that ad agencies target advertisements to target markets. Not sure which.)
Anyway, if I can’t add substantive commentary, I can add a really good link. TPB comes at the question from a mythological perspective. And nails it. To the wall.
du Toit has a good point – people who back down from a challenge for the wrong reasons are inferior to those who do not do this. It’s a good and important point, except for the part where it’s kind of like a tautology when you phrase it like that, and the problem is knowing the difference between Billy Jack and Falling Down, isn’t it? (Aside: Billy Jack gets 5.4 stars on IMDB, Falling Down gets 7.2. I don’t think this means anything, but I’ll bet du Toit can come up with something.)
I can’t say much beyond that, because I try to spend as little time as possible analyzing screeds which average more than one blatant logical fallacy per paragraph.