Seems to me that Khan works at making his readers believe that he believes just as they believe, but once you rinse away the ooze, what's left is bony, stark and nowhere nearly as attractive as it may’ve been before.
That piece of Khan’s from the Times is coated with the same slickness found in this article. That last paragraph is a cipher, which was, I believe, fully intended.
It's as if, if you ask me, Khan has considered what people of various mindsets will make of his pieces, and constructs them like pachinko machines to guide his readers down through his sundry and various points to a dramatic finish. The same finish every other reader sees, though they may have very different ideas of how they got there and what they saw along the way. People in this thread, who’ve made real efforts to suss out what’s going on in the piece, have commented that they got very differing impressions of the exact same piece. This is artful writing, but as admirable as that capability is, in this piece arguing what he’s really arguing, it smacks to me of deception. Or, at least, of letting people see what they want to see, believe what they want to believe, all while getting away with running a three-card Monty operation.
I would say that Khan’s point with this piece is that being gay is a choice, the idea that there is innate sexual orientation is a dangerous and suddenly now widespread in society because of ‘activists,’ and that if you insist on such a thing then you may as well be a Nazi eugenicist. That's a simplification of his pachinko maze, in which we ignore mechanical devices like his suggestion that believing in innate sexual orientation is a disservice to transexuals, because, I assume, he has in mind some supposition that transexuals have obviously made a socially-constructed choice about what body they want, and doesn't get that intersexed people, for instance, had no choice about which mortal coil they were given at the factory.
But I don’t believe that is his real point. I think his point is that he can secrete enough waxy resin all over his writing to slip a fairly toxic bolus under people's nose without them noticing, like this thing he's gotten out under Aeon’s masthead, and that he should be generously funded by the right people to make this skill into a going brand of so-called ‘traditional values.’ To my mind, he’s shopping himself out as a thinking-man’s scold. He’s put in his time telling elites how hard they have it in the modern world, how great their characters are under such trying conditions as our times, and now he means to make it rain as a popular ideologue.
The clearest evidence of this that I’m struck by, peeling away the sticky plaques of phrases like “are not wrong” and “biological determinism,” is that this bright fellow has no sympathy at all for the people he’s writing about here. He discusses innately gay people in dismissive terms, consciously is my sense, by denying them agency in their own lives referring to his actual targets here in terms of ‘activists,’ ‘supporters,’ and ‘the gay-rights movement.’ The stretch in this piece where he revels in disgust at ’pederasty’ is, I think, nearer his real frame of mind than other parts of this pinball text in which he goes on about how innate sexuality is mere ‘desire.’
I’m not particularly interested in this piece, think it’s a glib put-down of people meant to polish his brand of sycophancy to hi...
Seems to me that Khan works at making his readers believe that he believes just as they believe, but once you rinse away the ooze, what's left is bony, stark and nowhere nearly as attractive as it may’ve been before.
That piece of Khan’s from the Times is coated with the same slickness found in this article. That last paragraph is a cipher, which was, I believe, fully intended.
It's as if, if you ask me, Khan has considered what people of various mindsets will make of his pieces, and constructs them like pachinko machines to guide his readers down through his sundry and various points to a dramatic finish. The same finish every other reader sees, though they may have very different ideas of how they got there and what they saw along the way. People in this thread, who’ve made real efforts to suss out what’s going on in the piece, have commented that they got very differing impressions of the exact same piece. This is artful writing, but as admirable as that capability is, in this piece arguing what he’s really arguing, it smacks to me of deception. Or, at least, of letting people see what they want to see, believe what they want to believe, all while getting away with running a three-card Monty operation.
I would say that Khan’s point with this piece is that being gay is a choice, the idea that there is innate sexual orientation is a dangerous and suddenly now widespread in society because of ‘activists,’ and that if you insist on such a thing then you may as well be a Nazi eugenicist. That's a simplification of his pachinko maze, in which we ignore mechanical devices like his suggestion that believing in innate sexual orientation is a disservice to transexuals, because, I assume, he has in mind some supposition that transexuals have obviously made a socially-constructed choice about what body they want, and doesn't get that intersexed people, for instance, had no choice about which mortal coil they were given at the factory.
But I don’t believe that is his real point. I think his point is that he can secrete enough waxy resin all over his writing to slip a fairly toxic bolus under people's nose without them noticing, like this thing he's gotten out under Aeon’s masthead, and that he should be generously funded by the right people to make this skill into a going brand of so-called ‘traditional values.’ To my mind, he’s shopping himself out as a thinking-man’s scold. He’s put in his time telling elites how hard they have it in the modern world, how great their characters are under such trying conditions as our times, and now he means to make it rain as a popular ideologue.
The clearest evidence of this that I’m struck by, peeling away the sticky plaques of phrases like “are not wrong” and “biological determinism,” is that this bright fellow has no sympathy at all for the people he’s writing about here. He discusses innately gay people in dismissive terms, consciously is my sense, by denying them agency in their own lives referring to his actual targets here in terms of ‘activists,’ ‘supporters,’ and ‘the gay-rights movement.’ The stretch in this piece where he revels in disgust at ’pederasty’ is, I think, nearer his real frame of mind than other parts of this pinball text in which he goes on about how innate sexuality is mere ‘desire.’
I’m not particularly interested in this piece, think it’s a glib put-down of people meant to polish his brand of sycophancy to his elite conservative patrons, am surprised that he’s gotten away with calling innately homosexual people knowing that about themselves ‘dangerous’ in front of so many Snapzu readers, but I’m grateful you posted it. Never be afraid of posting things you disagree with, or that you’d like other folks to give a critical eye to. As much as it may seem like I’m ranting about nuanced, complex writing being, in this instance, disingenuous, it’s a fine post that I’m glad to’ve been shown. You can really tell when a community like this is working when they’re sophisticated enough to understand you don’t always agree with or support the things you post. Thanks again. You rule.
Thanks so much, /u/AdelleChattre! If Snapzu had some kind of special award feature for going above and beyond I would give it to you. You're so thoughtful, and I know this must have taken some time to write. I do appreciate it.
I think you're dead on with your analysis. This article is almost like multiple articles superimposed on top of one another, and you're likely to see the one you already agree with, or at least already understand on some level. I guess I'm not used to such tricky writing, and it is kind of impressive. I like reading things that are a bit challenging, because how else am I to learn anything? I'm glad to be able to get other perspectives here. I don't always agree with what I post, but I try to post thought provoking things. (Well, that and the usual frivolity like baby bat videos and articles about buttered coffee).
I am occasionally afraid to share something because I don't fully understand it, or because I think it will be poorly received, but then I tell myself that that's silly and I should have more courage than that. Interestingly, I find I'm not very good at predicting what anyone will think of anything, anyway. Thanks again for taking the time, and just being around in general. You share such interesting things, and you have a rare and admirable mind. :)
Seems to me that Khan works at making his readers believe that he believes just as they believe, but once you rinse away the ooze, what's left is bony, stark and nowhere nearly as attractive as it may’ve been before.
That piece of Khan’s from the Times is coated with the same slickness found in this article. That last paragraph is a cipher, which was, I believe, fully intended.
It's as if, if you ask me, Khan has considered what people of various mindsets will make of his pieces, and constructs them like pachinko machines to guide his readers down through his sundry and various points to a dramatic finish. The same finish every other reader sees, though they may have very different ideas of how they got there and what they saw along the way. People in this thread, who’ve made real efforts to suss out what’s going on in the piece, have commented that they got very differing impressions of the exact same piece. This is artful writing, but as admirable as that capability is, in this piece arguing what he’s really arguing, it smacks to me of deception. Or, at least, of letting people see what they want to see, believe what they want to believe, all while getting away with running a three-card Monty operation.
I would say that Khan’s point with this piece is that being gay is a choice, the idea that there is innate sexual orientation is a dangerous and suddenly now widespread in society because of ‘activists,’ and that if you insist on such a thing then you may as well be a Nazi eugenicist. That's a simplification of his pachinko maze, in which we ignore mechanical devices like his suggestion that believing in innate sexual orientation is a disservice to transexuals, because, I assume, he has in mind some supposition that transexuals have obviously made a socially-constructed choice about what body they want, and doesn't get that intersexed people, for instance, had no choice about which mortal coil they were given at the factory.
But I don’t believe that is his real point. I think his point is that he can secrete enough waxy resin all over his writing to slip a fairly toxic bolus under people's nose without them noticing, like this thing he's gotten out under Aeon’s masthead, and that he should be generously funded by the right people to make this skill into a going brand of so-called ‘traditional values.’ To my mind, he’s shopping himself out as a thinking-man’s scold. He’s put in his time telling elites how hard they have it in the modern world, how great their characters are under such trying conditions as our times, and now he means to make it rain as a popular ideologue.
The clearest evidence of this that I’m struck by, peeling away the sticky plaques of phrases like “are not wrong” and “biological determinism,” is that this bright fellow has no sympathy at all for the people he’s writing about here. He discusses innately gay people in dismissive terms, consciously is my sense, by denying them agency in their own lives referring to his actual targets here in terms of ‘activists,’ ‘supporters,’ and ‘the gay-rights movement.’ The stretch in this piece where he revels in disgust at ’pederasty’ is, I think, nearer his real frame of mind than other parts of this pinball text in which he goes on about how innate sexuality is mere ‘desire.’
I’m not particularly interested in this piece, think it’s a glib put-down of people meant to polish his brand of sycophancy to hi...
Read FullThanks so much, /u/AdelleChattre! If Snapzu had some kind of special award feature for going above and beyond I would give it to you. You're so thoughtful, and I know this must have taken some time to write. I do appreciate it.
I think you're dead on with your analysis. This article is almost like multiple articles superimposed on top of one another, and you're likely to see the one you already agree with, or at least already understand on some level. I guess I'm not used to such tricky writing, and it is kind of impressive. I like reading things that are a bit challenging, because how else am I to learn anything? I'm glad to be able to get other perspectives here. I don't always agree with what I post, but I try to post thought provoking things. (Well, that and the usual frivolity like baby bat videos and articles about buttered coffee).
I am occasionally afraid to share something because I don't fully understand it, or because I think it will be poorly received, but then I tell myself that that's silly and I should have more courage than that. Interestingly, I find I'm not very good at predicting what anyone will think of anything, anyway. Thanks again for taking the time, and just being around in general. You share such interesting things, and you have a rare and admirable mind. :)
You flatterer! Shameless, you are.