Search the Lounge


« Long Stepping Into the Faculty Lounge | Main | Ancient Pear Tree »

August 30, 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Any thoughts on Lady Gaga's latest video?
Scholarly minds want to know if she is depressed, out of control, or just publicity-seeking, and, here in the FL, such information is very much appreciated. In fact, legal academy seems to welcome immaturity!
BTW, have you actually watched Miley's performance?
What about it didn't you understand before reading the author's post?
Is the "context" - that some other person(s) (males) may have done something that can be thought of as equally lewd - even remotely interesting or significant? Demonstrative of some deep insight?
Or, is this "insight" just a junior high school sort of rant about the reason boys aren't thought of as poorly as girls when they behave in public like low life strippers, written in a way that evokes a vaudeville sort of mimicry of black culture, and wrapped in an unjustified attack on another person?
(Read the mother's comment: It hardly deserved this response.)



Nope, haven't seen it.
If the "she" that you refer to is Lady Gaga, I have no position, since I haven't seen the video.
Absolutely, I couldn't miss the 'N Sync reunion or 15 minutes of JT.
I had not seen Robin Thicke's video for Blurred Lines and therefore did not understand that Miley's performance was a reference to the video. My bad.
That is not the context I was referring to. The context that I found meaningful was the intentional reference of Miley's performance to Robin's video. And yes, I think it does demonstrate a much more meaningful critique of Miley's performance than that offered by the talking heads that Michelle mentioned in her post.
What I do not understand is why you are so threatened by this post that you feel the need to attack not only the author, but everyone who comments on it. If you hate the legal academy so much, why do you continue reading Faculty Lounge?
(And I have, and I think we can all make up our own minds about what kind of response, if any, it deserves. We've definitely heard your opinion.)


Thanks for the response.
I don't feel threatened at all by the original post, but I have felt it needs to be put in "context" as you say, and I don’t mind debating with those who, like you, think that post was “great.”
You addressed my comment in response to yours, point by point, until you came to the points that challenged the original post. Understandable.
As for your "attacks" on me, instead of the points raised by my comment, I do enjoy reading most posts on the FL and I certainly don't hate the legal academy.
In fact, I think by opposing this post, I am showing a form of loyalty to certain ideals that have perhaps been lost in some of the discourse here on the FL. The original post should never have been posted, in my view, here. (That doesn't mean, BTW, that there isn't a place for this sort of writing.)
Your comment is most telling in your claim (projection, I think) that I am "attacking everyone who comments on [the original post]."
If you are offended by my response to your comment - if you feel that it was an "attack" - then perhaps you can better understand how the person who was actually attacked in the original post - unfairly at that - must have felt (if she saw it, which I doubt).
If you read my comment, I think it is a stretch to call it an "attack" on you. I responded to your claim that the original post was a "great post."
I didn't directly "attack" that ridiculous claim in clear enough terms, it seems: my oversight.
If you believe that this sort of post was "great" then I think I'll leave my response at that; to repeat that claim. You think the original post was "great." At this point, that comment speaks for itself.
Accordingly, I’ll refrain from commenting further in response to those (few, it seems) who might agree with you.


Where's your open letter, now?

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad