There is a profound difference between a well run factual Blog and the ramblings of
a delusion marntinet. There are plenty of opinions in Blogs but they should be based
in fact. The poster should stand behind his work and defend it. It is easy to cater to an empty head audience but a good blog has dissent. This is what distiguishes a good blog from that of a hack.
The comedic Recidivist claims I want to silence him and discredit him.I have never advocated silencing anyone. As an American I understand and practice the first amendment. I may disagree with a post but the discredit part comes from his own reactions to critique.He discredits himself by avoiding comments that challenge his
own posts. His readership is also not served by his totalitarian ethos. I have endured far more personal attacks than he has. There is no crying in the Blogosphere
and I have responded to those comments. He cries and then calls me a racist, bigot,
liar, hypocrite and tries to claim censorship. He provides no quotes for these claims
but that is the way he runs his blog all opinion and zero facts. He is now trying to
be a victim of a campaign to discredit him and silence him. How does one silence somebody in the blogosphere ? I suppose I coud list his site on Free Republic and encourage people to voice their concerns. However this would not be ethical and I would not do it . Even that would not silence a blog but it would annoy one.
Here is how a responsible liberal adresses critique. I am a fan of David Horowitz who
has read some posts on this blog. Http://thedisgruntled.blogspot.com/2005/03/now-i-just-feel-sorry-for-horowitz.html
I asked seven tough but fair questions. The Chemist and a reader Rhetorician rose to
the challenge. No labels ,no crying and great reading.
1 Have you visited the Archives of DTN ?
2 How many Horowitz books have you read ?
3 Would a similar reference to a liberal as a blow up doll in my blog be sexist ?
(That was the toughest question)
4 Does the public have a right to know who is behind ANSWER, Code Pink etc.
5 Are Noam Chomsky and Raimondo above critique ?
6 Does Horowitz have the same right to free speech as you or I .
7 If he percieves a pattern of Anti Israel mania does he have a right to express his
The first response is from the Rhetorician. He affirmed his commitment to free speech for every one with the " possibility of critique ". His concern that Horowitz
and Coulter are creating paranoia. He feels the Student bill of rights is an attempt to silence the left. He does not perceive that liberals are anti- Jew or Israel. He
sees this as an attempt to get Jews to vote Republican
The Chemist gave an excellent response. He has visited DTN and disargees.He has not read any Horowitz books. He is not a fan of PC. The Public should be informed but points out an example of what he terms an unfair attack by DTN on the ACLU. He agrees
that everybody work should be critique. He affirms everyone's right to free speech. He disagrees with me on the anti Israel mania but defers to other posters.
The above comments are the assessment of people I disagree with yet we share common
themes. Everybody has the right of free speech including Michael Moore, Chomsky, Coulter, Horrowitz and you. We have a right to react to those words in an appropriate manner. Those are the key points of difference between a liberal and a leftist radical totalitarian. I like and respect liberals they are my friends and family. I agree with them on several issues and disagree with them on others. We share a common belief on a variety of levels. Speech codes on colleges come from the left and are totalitarian methods of crowd control. Had the Chemist made the blow up
doll remark on some campuses he would have had problems. I also would be first in line to defend him or even the Recidivist if they were silenced.
Richard Poe advised me that if this blog were targeted by Nazis, Communists I would have hard choices . I have had the opportunity to witness this first hand. I am commited as never before to freedom of speech. The extent of the critique 90% you are a bigot, hypocrite,liar,right wing fanatic and trying to discredit and silence muslims and their leftist allies. It would have been nice if they adressed any of my points. The facts are they can not refute the points so they resort to victimhood and censorship. Were Nazis to come here I would use them for comic relief. Speaking
of comic failures Nemesis do stop in. Make a lengthy post and I will be glad to poke fun at your failed sad act. You have the most illucid blog I have encountered.
The Chemist, Rhetorician and the Recidivist demonstrated Horowitz's point in action.
The Chemist and Rhetorician played the role of responsible accademics. They were challenged we agree on some points disagree on others. This is what responsible conservatives and liberals do . No labels everyone makes their point and nobody is vilified. Sadly, the self righteous and condescending tones are what Israel supporters ,Jews and Conservatives face each day. The radicals bully and attempt to smear and question the motives of the challengers.
In a future post I will have to adress free speech and the workplace. This is at the
core of the accademic Bill of rights. I will also have to adress education vs indoctrintion. The problem is professionalism and we need it in the blogospere as well.