Friday, March 02, 2007

BLOGGY DRAMA!!!


POPCORN FOR ALL!!!!

Well this is silly, but exams are over so I commented on it.

Dean Esmay has laid out some er...interesting ground rules.

This is the new editorial policy at Dean's World, stated concisely:
"This is an Islamophobe-free zone."


Fair enough....nay kudos!...it's his blog and certainly I have ground rules too...(but they're SECRET:)

BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE!!

AT NO EXTRA CHARGE YOU ALSO GET THE 5 NONDEBATEABLE POINTS!!

It is henceforth the editorial policy that if you cannot write with the following as your presumptions, you do not belong here:

1) Islam does not represent the forces of Satan or the Anti-Christ bent on destruction of the Christian world.

2) There is no 1,400 year old "war with the West/Christianity" being waged by "The Muslims" or anyone else.

3) Islam as a religion is no more inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most ancient religions.

4) Medieval, anachronistic, obscure terms like "dhimmitude" or "taqiyya" are suitable for intellectual discussion & analysis. They are not and never will be appropriate to slap in the face of everyday Muslims or their friends.

5) Muslims have no more need to prove that they can be good Americans, loyal citizens, decent people, or enemies of terrorism than anyone else does.

That is our stated editorial position. You--and this includes commenters--will work from respect for that, or you just need to leave.


OKAY BuhBye!!

Well...


Dean's world had become a very interesting group blog with 20 or so co-bloggers from across the breadth of the political spectrum. Dean got some criticism as he tended towards the sort of smug condesencion one expects from those who call themselves liberal in this day and age, but he was generally interesting and thoughtful, and the wide range of opinions and civil discorse made the place an almost daily stop.

At least 2 of his co-bloggers bailed after the statement and given that I responded in the comments in a not excactly goostepplingly agreeing manner I'll likely be banned shortly.

My response:

I'm deeply disapointed, I'd actually defended Dean recently.

Point 2 is demonstrably false :Al-Quaeda is fighting the war you so blindly deny...yes Boweman and his cannibal crusaders fought it before they did...in response to...in response to the expansion of the muslims in the first place (denying a thing does nothing to foster understanding of it) .

Point 4 is Orwellian newspeak. Using Mideveal anachronistic obscure terms is perfectly legitimate, indeed necessary when dealing with Mideveal anachronistic obscure branches of Islam.

The kowtowing to Muslim wants regards things like sharia and womens rights in the face of violence IS dhimmitude.
IT'S WHAT THE WORD MEANS! ...at least in it's modern context.
What is going on in Europe with areas of Sharia law being enforced to the exclusion of the laws of the nations IS DHIMMITUDE. Denying people the ability to describe their greviances in words that have any meaning is Newspeak.

1 and 3 I am in complete agreement on.

3 in particular is WHY I supported the invasion of Iraq, I don't think anyone is condemned by their faith and I fervently believe that the Islamic world is capable of throwing off the shackles that despots, colonial administrators and the foetid evils of leftism left on their long suffering lands, ...this is not only possible it is absolutely necessary.

By doing this you only harden the opinion of those who are (with some justification) deeply suspicious of those of us who defend muslims. Closing off dialog especially in the insidious way you have (taking the words that mean anything off the table) does nothing except to reduce mutual understanding.
#5 I agree in principle with, (the # of cresents in Arlington, out of ALL proportion to their numbers in society should ram this home)

...but...

...while we are not fighting a religious war the jihadists are. No one can be blamed for casting an askance eye at people who represent a religion which we are reminded of daily has a VERY vocal element that wants to kill us.
This does not mean we don't offer our hand in friendship.

This does not mean that we don't befriend people and get to know them to the point that extra caution is not necessary.

This means that trepidation around muslims is NOT irrational.It is sad it hurts and it must be DAMMNED galling but it's human nature, it is a survival instinct.

Muslims SHOULD have no more reason to prove that they are good loyal Americans than anyone else...sadly the reality of the jihadists who have so thoroughly bloodlibled them means they do need to set peoples minds at ease. This sucks but it's the way it is.

The impulse to cover up muslim acts of terror, like the recent shooting, again only reinforces the notion that our enemies have as their useful idiots a see-no-evil PC myrmidon squad.

Actions like yours only drive away the people who you and Ali might win over.

I likely agree with you on a great many things and in a less totalitarian enviroment we could quite possibly be friends....but it is an all or nothing thing now and I'm 2 and 9/10 out of 5 which I'm afraid seems to mean I'm not welcome here.

I'll still stop by and I'd like to continue to comment, so, I won't delete my account. I'll leave that decision to you.

This whole thing is surely a tempest in a teapot. It's not like were locked in, but it is an interesting window into the mindset of those who claim that they are...

"Defending the Liberal Tradition"

...I don't think that means what you think it does.....


....of course thanks to a century of actions these 5 points, those who can now call themselves "liberal" and "progressive" tend to be neither.


This kerfuffel is silly of course.

As a Z-list blogger I'm not really getting upset that an A/B-lister is actually taking the effort to start policing his comment section...(not like anyone ought to do more of that...ahem).
Which begs the question of why I wasted several nonproductive minutes even posting a comment....

....the reason it got up my nose at all was point 4. The notion that you can't use the words necessary to describe the problems you have. This is as if you go to a town hall meeting to talk about red-light cameras, short yellows and how the city is using these to pay for extravagent perks for city council....but the city council has outlawed the use of the words "Red" "Light" "Cameras" "Revenue" (and synonyms "Yellow" (and "intermediate")"money" "timing" "council" "street" and "city".

This is exactly how so many "progressives" operate, and it is cloaked in niceties like "sensitivity". Indeed I have no doubt that it is frequently done (stupidly) in good faith but like the religously motivated puratanism on the Right, it serves no good purpose.

Deans World, of course, is just a blog, he is not a gatekeeper and he does not hold us by the shorthairs of an education and hope for the future if we don't tow his line. He won't take us to court if we speak truth to terror.

I see little examples of this almost every day in he Arts and Letters building. This non-event at Deans World, should not have generated such a long post....but it is a reminder of where such thought proceses can lead.

It's a free country. He can do what he wants.

The irony, it hurts.

1 comment:

Poetry said...

We may not solve warfare or famine in your time. But the cure of all disease may be within our grasp. Imagine the if the trillions spent on "Wars of Choice" or "Wars against a concept" was spent testing every natural and artifical substance known to man against every disease known to man. Imagine if we spent the remainder on determinine the molecular structure and sequencing the genes of every disease so that we could construct cures that while harmless and inert to ourselves, are deadly and irrestible to the viruses, anti-viruses, and bacterias that plague us. War is not the triumph of God. War is the failure of men. Though there are necessary wars such as World War II, most wars could be prevented. For instance, if we stopped buying oil from Saudi Arabia, the money that finances terrorism would dry up and the so called "War Against Terror" would be over. It is instructive to note that no major politician has as his chief goal, destroying terrorism in this way. Perhaps they don't really want it to stop....And besides, every major politican is getting bought by foreign oil interests and domestic big oil. We could easily use things such as coal and nuclear energy to be free of those who fund terrorism. Unfortunately, the politicians have yet to find a way to get paid if we switch to domestic energy sources. Every pundit who says we can't switch to domestic energy is also on they pay roll of big oil and foreign oil interests.