For those who enjoy spectacular comment threads meltdowns, don't miss Ann Althouse swirling around in the Roy Edroso vortex. For instance:
Oh, good lord, this notion that you have to see a movie to know it's not the sort of thing that you want to see! That's crazy. It's a crucial life skill to figure out what you don't want to do. A typical male thing too I think. Sort of: How do you know you won't like sleeping with me unless you try it?
In the immediate context, Althouse is explaining to Kia why she's mad at Susan. Good thing Althouse doesn't know she's likewise being oppressed by Julia -- just as in the past she's been sexistly assaulted by watertiger, and, let's not forget, this bunch of macho bullies. It seems the whole online patriarchy is united against her.
Or maybe it's not really a feminist position at all that if you admit to never seeing a movie you're qualified to call it "not an interesting piece of film art"? Perhaps feminists don't really think not wanting to see a certain film is exactly the same thing as coming to a considered assessment of its its artistic merits? Hmmmm?
Feminism is the last refuge of the Althouse when she's being especially silly. It's an essential part of her charm.
UPDATE: And she's never better than in her own comments:
It's not like I'm an MSM film critic! I'm blogging. You know, that is the answer to nearly every criticism of me: I'm blllllooooooogggggggggiiiiiiiingggggggggggg!
Don't you get it?
Indeed. But let's be clear. There's a pretty good monkey exhibit at our local zoo, and when I take the kids there, we don't criticize the inmates, even when the 3-Year-Old giggles because they're peeeeeeeeeeeiiiingggg on the flllooooooorrrrr. We just enjoy them for what they are. Have a banana, professor.
UPDATE 2: I'm going to be laughing about this from the Althouse comments for probably the rest of my natural puff. It is not her, but rather one of her commenters, who are all very fine exhibits in their own right, not least this fellow:
How do you know about something you haven't seen... Easy. By reading about it in greater depth than you're capable of analyzing by sitting there being spoon fed. I didn't see Fahrenheit 911 because I didn't care to contribute to Moore's wealth while exposing myself to wretch inducing propaganda, and yet I'm capable of discussing the film scene for scene and pointing out every single deceit therein beginning with the switcheroo in scene 1. To an extent you/they lack the patience to endure. That's how.
Which is good stuff, but not the best part. (It might not amuse you as much as me, but then I'm just blooooogggginnngggg):
Regis has ruined me, for they have exposed me to what's going on up there, argumentum ad numerum, argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad authoritatum, dicto simpliciter among others, and how to contrive names for fallacies all on my own like argumentum conbibo meus baculum.
May yours be the noble heart, you spectacular dingleberry, you. Oh Christ, that's funny...