I realized with a start that just the other day I linked to (gasp) Michael Moore, a man who, despite his protestations of patriotism, many would consider an anti-American bigot of the first order. Nothing new there; I often link to things I disagree with. If I only linked to stuff I agreed with, I'd be too bored to blog. Michael Moore is an easy example, because I disagree with almost everything he says and I dislike him personally. But there have been plenty of times I have agreed with a blogger I normally disagree with, or disagreed with a blogger I normally agree with.

In every one of these cases, I have linked to whatever it is that's caught my interest.

While it's not my style, I suppose it's possible that I might stumble onto something so onerous that I'd refuse to link to it or even mention it in my blog. I'm not quite sure what that would be, but supposing for the sake of argument that I really didn't think an idea should see the light of day. I'd probably not promote it or mention it in any way. Certainly, shouting about it in my blog would hardly be the way to ensure that no one would hear about it. Bear in mind, though, that I've never done this, because I think the best way to oppose bad ideas is to discuss them.

What I find myself at a total loss to understand is this idea that if you don't like a blog or a blogger's ideas, that you start a blog devoted to attacking that blogger. This only draws sympathetic attention to the blog, and makes people want to read it -- a sort of blogger backlash syndrome. This sort of "attack" (if it can be called that) was launched against La Shawn Barber, and now I see the same technique directed against Clayton Cramer.

Clayton Cramer is quite popular, and is one of the few bigger bloggers to have actually voiced support for sodomy laws. Obviously, I disagree with him, and I did so in some of my first posts in this blog. I've found him to be a gentleman despite my disagreements, and while I marvel over the fact that he'd apparently put people in prison for such private conduct, I don't see any harm in dialogue -- and I'd feel that way even if I were so unfortunate as to have been imprisoned under the now moot laws he has advocated. Plenty of people want to imprison others for private consensual drug use, and I disagree with that too. The idea that I shouldn't link to these ideas if they appeared in a blog is preposterous. Even more absurd is the notion that I should never be allowed to link to someone with whom I disagree if that person says something I agree with. (I happen to agree wholeheartedly with Clayton Cramer on Second Amendment issues, for example.)

So shame on me for linking to Clayton Cramer! No, really:

Bigot-Linking

Clayton Cramer is the gold standard for bigot-linking.

Most of these pundits don't generally support Clayton's attitude toward homosexuals, but it's a bit shameful that they give him the link publicity anyway.

Shame on you, Classical Values.

You too, Mr. Red Letter Day

Instapundit, don't you think this is taking your "open-minded" thing a little too far?

In very poor taste, Mister Atlantic Blog!

Lazy Pundit, get off your ass and delete! Delete!

Vodkapundit, I expected better from you.

Claremont Institute, I'm not surprised.

(While I'm tempted to interpose that my shameful linking is actually shameless, it's bad luck to argue with success.)

There's a serious side to this, and obviously Clayton Cramer Watch thinks it's doing the right thing. It's open to question though, whether publicizing something you abhor will make it go away. In some cases, that might be true. In other cases, not. (Anita Bryant did more to advance the modern gay movement than she did to stop it.)

Aside from the issue of the effectiveness of this strategy, I have a problem with anyone telling me to whom I should link or not link -- whether Clayton Cramer (who probably deserves shame for his comments about Classical Values), David Neiwert, Duncan Black, Howard Veit, Michael Moore, or Ted Rall. (Why stop there? I'm sure plenty of people would hate me for linking to Glenn Reynolds. . .) Telling me I shouldn't link to a blog is bad enough. But when the people telling me that not only provide links to the same blog, but have devoted an entire blog to attacking the blog, well, that strikes me as bordering on arrogant.

I don't mean to sound like an ingrate, because I really do appreciate the honor of shame.

I'm never satisfied, I guess. . .

(And I'm probably a little hurt by the fact that no one has started a Classical Values Watch.)