4 thoughts on “Dwight Shrute on Gun Safety”

  1. Ahhh, Nightwing, this is what inevitably happens when you suck from the black teat that is the Wall Street Journal’s so-called “satire:” you’re left with an inability to recognize satire when it actually appears.

    Dwight Schrute is a parody of the “Rambo” weapon-owning mentality, down to the ninja stars, pepper spray, and nunchucks (!) he keeps hidden under his desk to “protect his co-workers.” He’s self-absorbed, paranoid, and so totally raised on fantasy and adventure fiction that in real-life office situations he’s totally dysfunctional.

    Every time some truly hideous shooting disaster happens in America, you have armchair-quarterback NRA Rambo-wannabes who talk about what they would have done in the situation, which always sounds laughably macho, like a speech by the horse-toothed Scotsman in 300. I always expected one of them to say something like,

    “…and after I pull my knife out of that Arab’s heart, I then find the woman with the biggest breasts that I can possibly find and then press her against my greased up, rockhard torso…”

    It’s all so hilariously divorced from reality. Somehow, the real-life, true heroism of people in real-life, true situations (like the Holocaust survivor that jumped in front of the Virginia Tech shooter’s gun to protect a class) makes the Rambo and movie-inspired armchair swagger of the Dwight Shrutes of the world downright ridiculous.

    I always look forward to reading the NRA-types and their blustery response to school shootings and other disasters, as it provides much needed comedy relief to a painful event.

  2. Wow, Julian, you really think I don’t get that Dwight Shrute is a parody? Dwight “Beets, Bears and Battlestar Galactica” Shrute?

    It’s a curious conceit of the lefties to believe they’re the only ones who understand satire, but perhaps not surprising since they also think they’re the only ones who understand economics, diplomacy, human psychology, ethics, etc, and that this mental superiority obliges them to rule the ignorant rabble out of a benevolent paternalism, since of course the great unwashed are incapable of making their own decisions in a rational way.

    Trust me, I know Dwight’s a buffoon, just as I “got” that Archie Bunker wasn’t a hero. And as a Virginia resident and university employee, I do have some understanding of and sensitivity to the Tech incident. It might also surprise you to learn that I don’t own a single firearm, nunchuck, throwing star or bo staff. I did recently acquire a Louisville Slugger, but it’s one of those miniature souvenirs from the factory tour, so unless my opponent is Billy Barty, I’m probably no threat.

    Interestingly, I was *this* close to posting a comedy clip of Adolph Hitler singing the theme from “The Jeffersons” at a Nazi rally when I decided the D.C. shootings made the timing inappropriate. So you see, I might yet achieve the sensitivity of a devout lefty.

    Then again, I may post it tomorrow. It’s pretty funny.

  3. Here’s the thing: you were posting a quote, with the intent of having it articulate your own personal views, without sarcasm or irony, by a satirical take on a weapons owner that keeps ninja stars under his desk.

    Also: at least at this particular moment in time, liberals actually do understand parody and satire better. There’s no conservative equivalent to the “Daily Show” or “Colbert Report.” There was “Red-Eye,” trying to be the conservative Daily Show, but it didn’t last a few episodes because, all politics aside, it just wasn’t funny. The closest your side got to a true comedian was Bill Buckley, who is not only dead, but was marginalized years before.

    (I wouldn’t count P.J. O’Rourke, mostly because he’s more a libertarian than a Republican or little-c conservative and agrees with liberals almost as often. Ditto for the “Thank You For Smoking” guy, Buckley’s son, oddly enough.)

    The trouble is, conservative satire at least at the present time, is often unintentionally funny in a way not intended by its creator. One satirical work was the comic “Liberality for All,” which has to be seen to be believed: featuring a future America where all conservative discussion was outlawed as hate speech, it had Chelsea Clinton as president (huh?) and Sean Hannity as a freedom fighter with a cybernetic arm (!).

    That was what I found so hilarious about the WSJ “satire” article you posted a while back: it talked about how a term like “War on Terror” had just been replaced by something deeply emotionally manipulative and obfuscating! In related news, I just had my Ford Taurus replaced by a suburbanite crap-car, and I just had my shampoo replaced by Pantene. Even if you agree with the premise that a very specific piece of professional military jargon is manipulative, sanitized and politically correct language, even if you agree…they’re trying to argue that an excessively sensationalist term replaced “War on Terror,” a name that sounds like Stan Lee came up with it!

    It’s a curious conceit of the lefties to believe they’re the only ones who understand satire, but perhaps not surprising since they also think they’re the only ones who understand economics, diplomacy, human psychology, ethics, etc,

    Well, I’m not saying that’s true, there are certainly some conservative geniuses in some of the fields you mention, but when it comes to economics, let me put it this way:

    Obama’s top economic advisor during his campaign was his buddy Warren Buffet. John McCain’s was Senator Phil “we live in a mental recession” Gramm.

    I keep on adding the caveat “at least for right now” over and over, because I can’t say that in the future I won’t become a Republican. But the reason I vote Democratic at least for right now is because the real concerns I have right now are issues that Republicans have ceded almost entirely to the Democrats.

    For instance, what weighs heavily on my mind right now is health insurance. I worry about making health payments and what happens if I’m injured, and I’m only partially covered by my job benefit since I’m a first-year, a glorified coupon. Perhaps the Democrats’ latest plan for a national insurance isn’t the best idea, but what’s the conservative idea, what’s their response to the problem? Do nothing and leave the single payer insurance as-is? In the current health crisis, that’s no answer. In the end, most people don’t care as much about tax cuts as they do about health insurance; the conservative response isn’t addressing a real need.

    There was a great book a while back called Grand New Party, which actually addresses one issue that Republicans have ceded almost entirely to Democrats: the environment. Instead of outright intervention and regulation of emissions, they proposed increased fines on polluting companies. In other words, their plan was to let the Free Market handle the problem instead of government invention and legislation, a real conservative answer to a problem only liberals have addressed.

    That’s what I’m talking about! A party that actually says, “no, there’s another way to do this” to an issue I actually care about. That’s the kind of conservatism I can get behind. Maybe Obama is wrong about the national insurance policy…but what’s the Republican response to a very, very real problem?

  4. Here’s the thing: you were posting a quote, with the intent of having it articulate your own personal views, without sarcasm or irony, by a satirical take on a weapons owner that keeps ninja stars under his desk.

    That’s a big leap in logic there. How do you know what my intent was? Does it necessarily follow that any quote I post reflects my own beliefs? What if I put up this quote from Obama:

    “Okay, look, you know, when I was a kid, I inhaled frequently. That was the point.”

    Now if I ran it with no commentary, would it necessarily follow that I support the use of illegal drugs? How about if I photoshopped dreadlocks onto a photo of Barry and cut-and-pasted a joint in his mouth? Would that mean I think he’s cool and hip? Or that he’s a clown? Would my position be “Once a stoner always a stoner?” Or would I be saying, “Look what you can accomplish if you give it up?” Would be photo imply that anybody with dreads must be a user? Or that anyone who uses needs to get dreads first? You can assume a great many things, but they aren’t necessarily true. Maybe you have a point that I should include commentary and not just run quotes, but even if you think Dwight’s quote is lame humor, you have to admit it would be even lamer if I had to run a disclaimer like, “The views expressed are those of Dwight Shrute and do not necessarily reflect those of the blog owner or his ISP.”

    I do appreciate your thoughts on the issues of the day, which as always are well-considered, well-expressed and beyond superficial parroting of the liberal party line. Like you, and probably most Americans, I consider myself an independent who just happens to always vote for the same party. 🙂

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.