|
September 13, 2009
Can anti-idiotarianism be kept alive?
Considering some of the nastiness that has been going on in the blogosphere since the election of Barack Obama, "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" is probably good advice right now. Last night, I was a bit taken aback at the level of vitriol directed towards Stephen Green -- for his crimes in linking one blogger and for apparently not delinking another. It's so nasty and contentious that I don't feel like sharing my thoughts about either of the bloggers in question right now. (Sorry, I won't even quote the comments, but trust me. If you don't trust me, then just go for a Sunday scroll.) I'd just like to remember the good old days of a more pleasant world. A world where there was more or less unity against what was called idiotarianism. The term had its origins in an observation Glenn Reynolds made back in 2002: "What bloggers are more than anything, I think, is anti-idiot. That makes life tough for Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, and the Revs. Falwell, Robertson, Jackson, & Sharpton, for reasons that transcend traditional partisanship and ideology."This eventually evolved into a sort of common sense manifesto articulated by Eric S. Raymond: "WE DEFINE IDIOTARIANISM as the species of delusion within the moral community of mankind that gives aid and comfort to terrorists and tyrants operating outside it.Perhaps that was too utopian an idea to withstand the pressures of change. So many people's definitions of what is idiotic have changed that it sometimes seems to me that almost everyone thinks almost everyone else is an idiot on some level. Still, even now, I think the anti-idiotarian cause is a good one. Incurable romantic that I may be, I'm as much against idiots as I ever was. The devil is in the details, though. However, I'd be less than candid if I did not observe that much of what I said over the years (and perhaps the basic philosophy of this blog) would no longer be seen as rightish small l-libertarianism, but as left wing. Criticisms of guys like Falwell are now seen as "attacking Christianity." Even defending Bush (for which I used to get reams of excrement) now looks suspiciously liberal. I often feel as if I can't say anything. Everyone is offended by something now, including me. I'd say I agreed with Pat Buchanan that we are more divided than ever, except I think he's too divisive. Besides, agreeing with Pat Buchanan is almost as disagreeable as linking to WorldNetDaily. Geez, this is looking pretty bleak. I should point out that I like the Tea Party Movement, which I find new and refreshing. Sure, there are a few idiots with idiotic signs, but as Matt Welch notes, they're far outnumbered by the good ones. The movement strikes me as inherently anti-idiotarian in nature. But what about the idiots? Should they just be ignored? posted by Eric on 09.13.09 at 11:59 AM
Comments
So, you had to go and open yer piehole ;-) Interesting that I'm thinking of talking again after a three year break. Seriously Eric, don't stop talking. Ken "nopundit" Greenlee Kenneth Greenlee · September 13, 2009 02:36 PM Steve I agree wholeheartedly! I only agreed with him to demonstrate the complex nature of the predicament. Kenneth, your link didn't work, so I fixed it. (Hope that's OK.) Eric Scheie · September 13, 2009 03:22 PM Hmmm, I always look at it this way. There's a line about, "Sure I can stand your bad opinion, but can I stand your good opinion?" I first really make sure I'm thinking correctly, but then I go with it. I will never use Buchanan to prove a point, but just because he agrees with me doesn't mean I have to change my mind. I won't link World Net Daily if they're the only ones to break a story. I will be more likely to say, "I need some proof if someone else links it." I used to read them all the time, they had a bunch of good columnists back in the day. They were the only non-NRO website with any decent columnists. Homey don't play that. I look stupid often enough on my own, I don't need WND to help me. But again, just because I generally agree with them, doesn't mean I have to change my mind, it just means... uhhh..... I don't know what it means. As for this People are involved. There are always people who will ruin it for everbody else. There are always going to be dishonest people who will try to pervert and/or take over anything to fit their ends. Other people get angry for some reason and then the object of their anger can never be "right" again. Like Andrew Sullivan, John Cole of Balloon Juice and, just lately, Charles Johnson. That's why revolutions so rarely result in anything good. Veeshir · September 13, 2009 03:43 PM What I think we are seeing is a Major sea change in politics. I often wonder how the Republicans came into being so successfully when it used to be the Democrats & the Whigs just prior to the Civil War.... Anyway, I think we are at those same crossroads again. The thought paradigm (Left/Right-Denm/Repub)for the last 150 years is (seemingly) suddenly not descriptive of how we are now thinking. The divisions in our country will be different from now on. I look at the TEA parties and see Dems & Repubs both. I don't know how to prognosticate the future, but to be confused about which "side" certain people are on is a sign of the coming change... I sure hope it doesn't take another 1861-1865 to get over it. Susan Lee Susan Lee · September 13, 2009 05:58 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
September 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
September 2009
August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
What happens there can happen here!
Leviticus "sting" video and other heresies ex post facto jackass punk issues Texas Style We are all "racists" now. Except for the racists. ACORN Is Looking For A Few Good Gynecologists - Or Is Bill Gates In Favor Of Child Prostitution? Vanguard Of The Proletariat "This is a private video." "And I shot him. And he died. Right there." But aren't certain ideas outside the conservative mainstream?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
You can't legitimately agree with Buchanan, even if you actually do in any particular instance. That's a gross violation of anti-idiotarian principles.
Buchanan has put himself beyond the pale. It can be debated if he's really an anti-Semite or only "functionally" anti-Semitic. It can't be debated that he's an apologist for Hitler, an isolationist, and a trade protectionist.
So even if you find something he says to have merit, better not mention it publicly. He's toxic.