…on the one hand, we have Christopher Hitchens’s critique of F 9/11.
On the other, we have Chris Parry’s critique of Christopher Hitchens’s critique of F 9/11.
I remember going to a party or a conference or some event that had company-sponsored Good Beer and asking a bunch of SF web people just what the hell they meant by “going all meta.” Their original answer didn’t quite stick with me, but I now understood what they were talking about. “Going all meta” is talking about stuff that goes on behind the stuff, and then the stuff behind that, and then the stuff behind that and on and on and on. I do remember that I filed that answer under Needless Wankery, which I am now engaged in by whipping up this post. I figure the best way to realize the absurdity of wankery is to take part in it, and now that I’ve taken part in it, I can see how absurd it is and will continue to be.
I’m all for critique, and I’m all for discussion, but I think it’s going to get ridiculous when there are critiques of critiques of critiques. It can’t be tortoises all the way down, can it?