While I wish I could have attended Blog World Expo, there's just no way that I could have done that this week. So I've had to content myself reading about it at InstaPundit and at Pajamas Media.
the blogging pond has gotten very big, and there are a lot of big fish in it now. I think that's a huge success for the blogosphere.
While I was out running errands yesterday, I turned on the car radio and, while flipping through the dial, I overheard Roger L. Simon being interviewed at Blog World on Hugh Hewitt's radio show. They were chatting quite amiably, joking about Roger's Hollywood background as well as their political differences. Hugh Hewitt is a conservative, while Roger is a liberal on social issues, but they agreed on foreign policy. (I only caught a few minutes of the show, but the gist was that both support the war this country happens to be in, while disagreeing on other issues.)
Not that this was the biggest deal in the world. But it was a reminder of the civility that can exist in the face of political differences.
Atrios sees things very differently, and he links a post titled "To Fathom Hell" for the proposition that Pajamas Media is "shameful."
Not just shameful, but "The most shameful thing I have ever heard of":
Roger Simon + Charles Johnson + "Pajama Party" = Just. Fucking. Kill. Me.
It's Vegas. Couldn't they do something more tasteful, like go to a leather n' livestock sex show or something? Hugh Hewitt in footie jammies... Pray for death.
Sometimes I really, really hate blogs.
"Please Kill Me Too," echoes Atrios in the title of his post.
The "death wish" stuff, it's all a figure of speech, right? Political hyperbole?
Of course, "pray for death" may be a snarky reference to the crackpots who used to pray for the death of Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun. (At least I think it was Blackmun; correct me if I'm wrong.)
I've been through a period of life when I wanted to commit suicide, and there have been many times when I have been nauseated and appalled by the political opinions of other people. I never saw a political opinion that made me want to die, and I really can't imagine that anyone would feel that way about a political opinion. Even advocacy of Communism, Nazism or genocide; I'd be motivated to oppose them, but I can't see wanting to die because of what other people advocated -- even if they advocated killing me. Obviously, the death stuff is overwrought political hyperbole, meant as humor.
However, I don't think the use of the word "shameful" is that. I've been reading Roger L. Simon for years, and I've been a Pajamas Media blogger for years, and it just never occurred to me that I was part of something "shameful."
Shame is a pretty strong concept, and I've written many posts arguing against it -- usually in the context of human sexuality. In fact, I just wrote yet another anti-shame post yesterday, because I disagree that there is anything intrinsically shameful about kinky sex (whether practiced by Republicans or Democrats).
I refuse to succumb to shame in a sexual context. People who disagree with me can say whatever they want about the shameful nature of this or that sexual activity, but that shame is in their minds, and not mine. For me, it is an externality.
The same can be said about shame and shamefulness in the political context. People who think the political opinions of others are shameful are most likely engaged in projection. Because they disagree so vehemently -- to the point of being deeply offended, they find themselves morally offended, and because they would be ashamed of themselves to be associated with Pajamas Media, they declare PJM and its activities shameful. (Bear in mind that I think politics is the reason for the shame Atrios links, and not the wearing of pajamas.)
Is shame spreading?
I mean, here's my concern. I don't think sexuality should be a source of shame, and I have argued against it. I have also argued against the manufacture of what I call new morality, in a variety of contexts, whether it be connected to global warming, gun ownership, drinking bottled water, buying dogs, telling people they are not "real" libertarians, or telling people they should be ashamed of what their alleged ancestors did. But shame is used to control people -- almost as a weapon. There seems to be more of it now than their was in the old uptight days.
Is there a need for shame? Is it (like the need for heresy) part of the human condition? If it is, attempts to wipe it out in one area might just lead it to spring up in another.
Hmmmm...
Maybe the attempt to shame PJM is not about politics. Perhaps it's just over the gambling (and possibly other, traditionally shameful activities).
UPDATE: My thanks to the shameless Glenn Reynolds for shamelessly linking this shamefully shameless post!
A warm welcome to all!
posted by Eric on 11.10.07 at 10:14 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/5773
Actually, there probably *is* a human need for shame, or a feeling of shame. It's undoubtedly related to making reciprocal altruism working.
That said, I have a single question. Why the hell is the Left (as typified by Atrois) so angry if they're *really* winning (i.e. 70% anti-Iraq War, 70% in favor of impeachment [of somebody, for sure], 70% in favor of a single payer national health care system, and assorted other claims of how the American public is in essential agreement with The Left)?
Maybe they're not so sure they're winning? Or, perhaps they're feeling the 'win' of 2006 is slipping away? Hillary is showing her true colors, Obama is callow, Edwards is a wimp, etc?
Atrios, at least, is starting to sound hysterical.
JorgXMcKie · November 10, 2007 05:02 PM
Maybe their idea of winning isn't what it seems.
guy on internet · November 10, 2007 05:34 PM
MSimon:
I think the Left are so angry because they won the Congressional elections -- and the Conservatives didn't all vanish in a puff of greasy smoke. We're still around, still vocal, still campaigning for what we believe in. And that's what liberals nowadays absolutely can't tolerate. They don't just want to win, they want to permanently silence any dissent.
Trimegistus · November 10, 2007 06:10 PM
Bite me, Atrios. Who invited you to the party? Afraid that somewhere someone you dislike is not as miserable as you? Not everybody has your gift, you dumbass.
Dan Collins · November 10, 2007 06:10 PM
Shame is a second-order effect. It arises from the individual's perceived need for inclusion in a group to assure his security. Groups, however, naturally develop hierarchies whose ranking members attempt to wield power over the "lower" members of the group. If they don't possess political power -- arbitrary privileges of coercion -- then shame is what they're left with.
But shame only works if accepted and internalized. It has no effect on an inner-directed person secure in his values and convictions. What such a person learns from "being shamed" is that the security offered by a group, when not wholly illusory, usually comes at too high a price in personal autonomy and dignity to be worth pursuing.
Eric Scheie at Classical Values takes on the issue of “shame” and discounts it.
I don’t.
I think shame is a vastly under-rated human virtue.
For some reason, Eric focuses on sex as the primary actuator of shame. That is only partially true, and a very small part. Because shame encompasses acts and thoughts that are a great deal more universal than what we do with our sex partners.
Take the Clintons, please. (A version of an old Hennie Youngman joke).
The primary reason that people like the Clintons are able to tell the most outrageous lies about themselves, their opponents and their motives is because they have lost the ability to feel shame. Shame is the characteristic that separates the sociopath from the normal, mentally healthy person.
Shame is what we feel when we tell a lie, when we cheat, when we violate out commitments. If we fail to feel shame when we do these things, we become a danger to others in society because we have lost the warning buzzer of our moral compass.
The ability to feel shame is the critical difference between the moral person and the moral monster.
The "death wish" stuff, it's all a figure of speech, right? Political hyperbole?
Um, right.
This has been another simple answer to stupid questions.
commie atheist · November 11, 2007 02:16 AM
Anyone who is in favour of torture should feel shame. Since most of the wingnut-o-sphere favours torture, they should feel shame.
How fucking difficult is that?
M · November 11, 2007 02:23 AM
It's just the usual ad hominem nonsense from the left - anyone who has different ideas is evil
bandit · November 12, 2007 08:37 AM
"ad hominem"? Not especially. It's not that ideas are different so much as being so cognitively dissonant. It's not "fiscally responsible" to pay for the war with a credit card. Throwing out the rule of law in favor of "we know we're right and intrinsically good" isn't particularly "pro-American". Getting worked up over "definition of 'is'" but giving "definition of 'torture'" a pass isn't a position of principle but of partisanship.
It's not the different ideas, it's the double-speak.
LittlePig · November 14, 2007 06:29 PM
[i]Is there a need for shame?[/i]
Ask George Bush Junior. Does he have any shame for invading Iraq on the wrong intelligence? If not, then no, there is no need for shame.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
I like Sally.