Blogging and Bigotry
Dave Price
Well, Dean has started quite a controversy with his ultimatum the other day. I feel partly responsible, as some bigoted remarks in the comments to one of my posts may have been played a part in instigating this imbroglio (though I was gratified to see the regulars quickly take the offenders to task). Here are my thoughts on the subject.
When it comes to issues like this, I am a universalist. My view is that in any group of people, regardless of race or creed, the vast majority would prefer to live in freedom (even if they themselves sometimes do not realize it), and to the extent they do not have such freedom or profess not to want it, this is because a small elite is controlling their environment with dishonest propaganda, effectively brainwashing them. This is as true for atheist Communists as it is for radicalized Muslims.
So from this perspective, I generally agree with all of Dean's points in principle, and I think most people should. Most of the points are too obviously correct to need much discussion, but let me touch on a couple that might be a bit contentious for some people.
Should Muslims bear an extra burden to prove their loyalty to Western ideals? I think reasonable people can all agree they should certainly not – but at the same time, we should not ignore or excuse behavior we would not accept from those of other persuasions. (I have a personal litmus test for such situations that I call "the Amish test" — would this behavior be acceptable if the Amish were doing it? As the Amish are generally associated with peaceful Luddism, this exercise tends to decouple the situation from the political morass that discussions of religion have become.)
Should the terms taqqiya and dhimmi be banned from discussion? I don’t think so, myself. I think they’re generally irrelevant in a modern context, and that their importance has been vastly overstated by people like Robert Spencer, but on the other hand by the very act of banning words we give those words power over us. (And we've certainly had some fun mocking such concepts here.)
I would rather see bigotry discussed and discredited, lest we fall into the morally murky trap of the MSM, which simply censors nearly anything that might offend certain groups. The popularity (indeed, the necessity) of Charles Johnson is directly attributable to this attitude, just as Fox News' domination can be attributed to fact the MSM shuns certain viewpoints.
In the past, Dean has been very open about accepting diverse opinions that disagreed with his own (Have Aziz and I ever agreed on anything? But I think we were both enriched by the discussion). It’s one of the things I’ve liked best about DW. So I hope Ron and Kevin and others won’t be leaving, but of course at the end of the day, it is, after all... Dean’s World.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
There comes a point when certain things are simply not sustainable.
Ill-informed religious bigotry is not something I can handle seeing on a regular basis. Not with my name over it.
After thinking things through a bit, I suspect this “line in the sand” thing will only have a temporary effect on the kinds of posts and comments that frustrate Dean and many others among us.
I think a large part of the problem stems from one of the most negative aspects of the blogging medium. Over time, if the blog remains successful, there will be a continuous crop of new readers, commenters, and even posters. And these folks will most likely have little understanding of “the line”, what brought it about, reactions to it, its significance, etc.
With any blog, newbies don’t have a feel for the history, past debates, continuity of thought, etc. And it’s not really fair to expect them to sift through 3-4 years worth of archives just to get up to speed before they join in a particular conversation.
Occasionally, when a lame argument crops up that I’ve seen shot down here a hundred times before, I’ve tried to link to previous discussions to make a point. But sometimes, it’s really hard finding the previous discussion in the archives. And I know what I am looking for. I can imagine how hard it is for a newbie to find something like that.
And if I do find an appropriate past discussion, there are many people who won’t take 5 minutes to follow that discussion. Those are the folks who are most frustrating, and who truly deserve to be banned. But then again, we can never really know if that person was just being intellectually dishonest, or forgetful, or brainwashed, or stupid. Or maybe they just ran out of time that day. It’s truly frustrating.
I’ve been thinking about this problem for a long time. I can understand why it’s a major source of blogger frustration. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen any good solutions. I am actually glad Dean is trying to do something about it. But I’m not so sure his solution will work in the long run.
Maybe something like a wiki of past arguments on particularly contentious topics would help. The first response to one of the text book, offending arguments would be to reply “Did you read the wiki?” and provide a link to it.
Now, something like that would certainly require a lot of effort to build and maintain. And it’s not fair to expect something like that out of Dean. But maybe it could be created and maintained by volunteers. And maybe it could be overseen by some objective moderators, and maybe just be “blessed” by Dean.
There is obviously an over abundance of intelligent and creative people here, and we can surely come up with some way to work through these issues.
The person in question says he or she tried to delete the account voluntarily by deleting the name, and ended up with a nameless account.
jaymaster,
Brilliant diagnosis. I've thought some of the same things, but you said it more completely and clearly. I'm still thinking about your solution.
Thanks. Its a real problem for sure.
To be clear, I’m not too optimistic about what I’ve proposed ultimately being a workable solution. But it’s all I’ve got to offer at this point.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.