One of things that I find so frustrating about blogging is dealing with people who are either stupid, venal or willfully choose to misrepresent your views. More often than not, these people post anonymously and decide to tar their opponents with the epithet "racist", "homophobic" or "fascist" in the hope that by using such a description, debate is closed down and they win by default. Such is their intellectual insecurity that they will not engage in honest debate and instead they resort to infantile abuse in an attempt to stifle debate. I cannot help but wonder whether these people would not prefer to live in a police state where only certain views (theirs) are allowed to be held because the venom and vitriol that flows when you dare to stand up to them is quite astonishing. It says a hell of a lot about them and their upbringing.
All too often those of us who dare to have a differing worldview will allow themselves to be bullied into submission for fear of being labelled as a racist, homophobic fascist (even David Cameron). Not that it makes any difference to these onanists but it is the case that all of us they label as being racist, homophobic fascists are neither racist, homophobic or fascist in our worldview. I wonder whether they even know what these words mean - they are so overused, they risk losing all meaning.
The fact that, for example, I am a free-market classical liberal and a passionate defender of democracy, the rule of law and freedom of speech is ignored by my detractors: because they hate my views, I am automatically a fascist. Yesterday a website I had never heard of accused me of "pandering to racist attitudes and promoting a manifestly fascist vision of society" notwithstanding the views I hold and express. Because they call me a fascist, ergo I must be one - so runs their "logic"!
The fact that I do not believe in multiculturalism, cultural apartheid or so-called positive discrimination automatically makes me, in their eyes, a racist - despite the fact that in opposing these beliefs I share the same worldview as the likes of Martin Luther King, Bishop Nazir-Ali and Trevor Phillips.
It says a lot about these people that they are desperate to import negative motives into the actions of those with whom they disagree. Not only does it show intellectual weakness on their part but it suggests they are deeply unhappy, insecure and lonely people. Their bitterness at life radiates from every sentence they write. You wonder whether they'd be better off ending it all so as to avoid the further trials and tribulations of life.
Because I dare to express my views with vigour - and, it would seem, to some effect - this has led to me being attacked with tedious predictability and regularity by many political opponents. I make no complaint that I am attacked on the blogosphere in this way - indeed the amount of effort that goes into those attacks suggests I may be even more successful (and a threat to their worldview) than I might dare to believe. It's better than being ignored!
14 comments:
Give it a few years, and British political debate might start to resemble what I've seen from the US: i.e. a big shouting contest from both sides, with neither pole on the spectrum having a coherent discussion with the other at all. (I could be wrong about that description of US politics; I haven't actually been there and this is purely based upon what I've seen on the blogs and US news channels. You're in a much better position than I to judge that country, I must admit).
Despite my rabid pro-Americanism, Tozznok, your point has actually made me stop, think and concede you are right. Political debate in the US - while vibrant - is very polarised indeed.
That post was not only right on the mark, but very well stated. You'd destroy the cretins in a debate if they ever had the courage to face you.
I will take a small exception to the fact that there is polarization in American politics as this isn't necessarily a bad thing, though the majority of that point is correct about the vicious nature of how debates are handled over here in the US nowadays. What is tragic is that there is the willingness to ignore the inconvenient facts and, in all-too-many-cases, to willfully defend outright lies on the issues we face. And the misuse of the term 'fascist' is just one example of how sorry the state-of-affairs has been, and still is.
Given your love of debate and free speech, and your opposition to those who seek to close down debate, what do you think of people who hire tax lawyers to threaten bloggers with legal action?
Look on the bright side. When they are attacking you, they are obviously rattled.
Keep up the good work.
“I am a free-market classical liberal and a passionate defender of democracy, the rule of law and freedom of speech.”
Good, but I think your statement “the fact that the [Asian Network] is allowed to exist at all is to my mind grossly offensive” suggests otherwise, and that has perhaps caused some confusion and led to Unity’s post over on Liberal Consipiracy.
“Whenever you challenge them to debate, they run a mile.”
Have you challenged Unity to a debate? He has certainly challenged you to one via his blog post, and you haven’t attempted to respond to the substantive points in his post.
“The joy of political debate is in seeking to persuade others of your viewpoint.”
Each to their own, but for me it is as much about testing my opinions out on others and learning what they think and what makes them tick; without this it isn’t debate, it’s rhetoric.
donpaskini: *sigh* - a lame debating point which proves precisely what I am saying about how unsatisfactory the blogosphere can be. You can still believe in free speech while also believing that people have the right to defend their reputations through the use of defamation law. That, after all, has been the very essence of free societies throughout the world. For the record, I am not a tax lawyer. I hate to break this to you but just because something is on Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean it's true! I am a litigation lawyer - always have been.
quinn: your contribution isn't much better either. I cannot challenge Unity to a public debate because he/she cowers behind anonymity. Who is he/she? And as I said, I had never heard of Liberal Conspiracy before. My objections to the existence of BBC Asian Network were, perhaps, not made clearly enough. As a supporter of free speech, I have no objection to specific channels existing for specific markets. My objections to the BBC Asian Network are twofold. First, it is taxpayer funded (which suggests it couldn't survive in a market environment). And secondly, it is the hypocrisy of the law. I would far rather we didn't have the panoply of illiberal anti-discrimination laws that have outlived their usefulness. But for as long as we do, such laws need to be applied even-handedly. They are not. Hence we allow discrimination against white male middle class heterosexuals (a minority group) but not against other minority groups. That's my objection to it but, as I said, you clearly fall into the group of people who wish to attribute different motives to me.
I cannot challenge Unity to a public debate because he/she cowers behind anonymity. Who is he/she?
www.ministryoftruth.me.uk
There's this thing called the Internet, it's like TV that you read. You don't actually need to debate them by post, tha knowst.
Further, can we have your view on, say, "Guido Fawkes"'s use of anonymity?
Donal,
As previous comments will have shown, I disagree with certain views that you hold.
I hope that I have not given you reason to think that I have given knee-jerk reactions.
In any event, I am more than happy to have a face-to-face debate with you if you wish.
My contact details are on my homepage at http://thoughtpad.net/alan-dean.html
I left a comment on this post yesterday that appears to have got lost, so I will try again.
“You clearly fall into the group of people who wish to attribute different motives to me.”
How do I clearly fall into the group you describe? What have I written that has brought you to that opinion?
“We allow discrimination against white male middle class heterosexuals (a minority group) but not against other minority groups.”
Any examples to hand, other than hearsay, anecdote or urban myth?
“I cannot challenge Unity to a public debate because he/she cowers behind anonymity.”
More a pseudonym rather than anonymity, but you could debate publicly in the comments on Liberal Conspiracy, or by writing a blog post in response. If you want to debate in person then whether using his real name or a pen name it makes no difference, you can contact him via his website if you so wish.
Alex: I personally find people who hide behind pseudonyms as being rather silly. That is a personal view. Given that everyone knows who Guido really is, I'm not sure what point you're making.
Alan: I'd be happy to debate you at your university if you wish.
Quinn: your paranoia as to the fact that your supposed original comment wasn't posted is rather disturbing. As are the threats that I have received from some people in the past 48 hours (which I have been left with no alternative but to report to the police). I'm happy to debate people on here in a civil manner but when it comes to threatening me and my family, that sums up quite how unpleasant blogging can get.
Donal,
There must be a mis-communication somewhere. I am not at University. (I am a 38-year-old professional software developer).
The offer to debate still stands. I don't have a ready forum - perhaps you do?
I'm open to ideas - if nothing else, we could always debate in true English style: over a pint!
Hi Alan: I'm trying to get a venue for quarterly debates between leftists and rightists. The debates would be held according to traditional British debating rules. I'd really welcome the chance for Unity, Garry et al to come and take part. I'm sure a true forum for debate - which we could maybe film too - would do more for advancing ideas on all sides of the argument than anonymous blogging.
"Your paranoia as to the fact that your supposed original comment wasn't posted is rather disturbing."
No paranoia required; my previous comments didn’t appear, that is a statement of fact. I'm truly sorry that you have received threats, that is disgraceful, but from the off I have conducted myself in a polite manner and asked reasonable, straightforward questions directly pertaining to things you have personally said; in response you said that I “clearly fall into the group of people who wish to attribute different motives to me”, a group you previously wondered about as being onanists, intellectually weak, deeply unhappy, insecure, lonely, bitter and “better off ending it all”. I didn’t much appreciate being lumped in with such a bunch, and now you accuse me personally of paranoia; and this from someone who charges others with using terms that close down debate?
So, I am glad you are happy to debate with people in a civil manner, as that is all I have done. Now, is there any chance of you responding to my previous questions?
Post a Comment