what's true
October 23, 2002
There's a good bit of information that I think my readers should know. To those who come here for the silliness, the ramblings about New York, the pontificating on technology, I ask your indulgence. I'm going to talk about stuff that I'm not as adept with as those topics.
I'm not, these days, very political. I used to have strong opinions about current events and policy in my late teens and early twenties because, well, that's when those things are easy and everything yields to an idealistic world view. Today, the more I see of the extremes, and as I see every issue reduced to some binary us vs. them debate, I'm too disgusted to be engaged. But I still have opinons, of course.
I've discussed a few times over the years here of my distaste for religion, especially in its contemporary trappings, where spirituality is forsaken in favor of ritual and doctrine. If I find Bush's attempts at allowing federal funding of religiously-affiliated programs offensive and the BJP party's poisoning of the Indian government with Hindu nationalist toxicity abhorrent, it goes without saying that I think all of the contemporary Islamic theocracies currently in power are evil and corrupt and ought to be replaced with secular democracies.
What's more, I see millions of Muslims suffering under the brutal regimes of these leaders, and I grieve for a culture that's been hijacked by extremists. I've studied the history of my parents' culture and seen India fall from greatness to a relative mediocrity, punctuated by flashes of a brilliance that recalls its past seat as the world leader in culture, technology, and art. I see echoes of that past in my culture, in my proud home in New York, in America.
After last September's attacks, I was surprised by some of the changes in attitude I had. I semi-publicly wrestled with the fact that I had always considered myself a pacifist, but suddenly felt that resorting to violence in self defense was a viable, even necessary element of national policy. I still wrestle with that realization, but it troubles me less now to realize it might be a reluctant obligation.
I went searching for information. I wanted to be able to make a case to those with whom I had formerly had nearly congruent political beliefs. I knew that as someone who had fought unsuccessfully to reclaim the word 'liberal', the labels I'd grown up with didn't really fit all of my beliefs any more.
Another thing I realized for the first time after the attacks was the number of people who didn't see me as a "real" American. I'd never given thought to having to prove such a core element of my identity before, but it became a requisite when I saw that regular Americans like me were being killed by other extremists, these ones in our midst.
So it became even more important to me that we do justice to the ideals of eliminating bigotry and extremism. That we make sure we don't judge a group by the actions of some of its members and hold the entire people responsible. That we not make the same justifications that the murderers behind the attacks did.
Background
Charles Johnson and his brother Michael run a company called Little Green Footballs, and on their company site, they've got a weblog. I've discussed it on this site before, once explicitly, and more recently as a tangent from a slightly cheekish rant about the language used by some political weblogs. In short, Charles went from a standard weblog about technology and general topics to one focusing on extremist Islam and its attendant dangers. His shift wasn't different from my own, reflecting a new sensibility and perhaps alienating people whom he'd once considered politically similar.
In my first comments about the weblog, I lamented the singularity of focus of Charles's site. People have mistaken this to mean that I either intended to choose topics for him or that I didn't feel he had the right to forswear his earlier focuses. The point I was attempting to make was that, having gone through a similar shift, I felt there comes a time to restore balance in one's life. A fixation on an evil that can't be affected by words on the web is more perilous to the writer than to the topics of the posts. Worse, Charles had, in his focus on his single topic, allowed himself to be joined in voice and tone with visitors to his site whose examinations of this evil were not motivated by a like desire to solve the problem, but by their own bigotry and xenophobia not just towards religious extremists, but towards all of those who shared similar traits, either physical or by their religious identification.
It flipped my triggers. No doubt about it, they hit a sore spot. I saw the taint of hatred amongst the legitimate points and I lashed out. I don't doubt that I probably did as much disservice to my points as I did to advance them. But the reality for me is that I feel like the relative lack of domestic terrorist attacks has left things such that I'm as endangered by an American extremist as I am from an Islamic extremist. Apparently, I'm not alone; I've family and friends of various ethnicities in the Washington, D.C. area who tell me they feel the same way right now.
But let me be clear. I don't think Charles is a racist. In the heat of argument with his rather relentless supporters, I've come close to saying it, but I don't believe it's true. I think that Charles has good intentions and even performs an important service in pointing out links from reliable sources to stories that are critically underreported in mainstream media in this country. In that sense, the very best of what the "distributed media" aspirations of weblogs can be. But I am convinced that a policy of increasing tolerance for blatantly anti-Muslim bigotry has seethed into the site. I'm not the only person so convinced, some regular visitors agree that anti-Muslim vitriol is not censored with the same consistency that anti-Jewish statements are.
After my initial post, comments quickly got heated. I emailed Charles a sincere apology that I had chosen the wrong tactics to communicate my point. He accepted my apology but largely dismissed my criticisms as inaccurate. His position, as I understand it, is that the only hate on his site is that which he reports on, originating from fundamentalist Islamists. I told him that we'd agree to disagree on that point and that, my last direct communication with Charles, ended on a tense but civil note.
Descent Into Madness
Last week, MSNBC's Will Femia named LGF as a "Best of Blog". Apparently, people who objected to the tone or content of LGF then emailed Femia and stated their objections, prompting Femia to append a disclaimer and some questions to his post. I've never emailed anyone at MSNBC for any reason, and I had no awareness of the post about LGF on MSNBC, until it was rather dramatically brought to my attention.
Before I explain what happened, it's worthwhile to take a detour (if anyone's still reading) to explain a bit about responsibilities that a site's owner/creator has for its visitors' posts. I don't, frankly, think a website's owner should be responsible for any writing but their own. I certainly don't think Charles should be considered racist because some of his posters are, just as I think it preposterous that I should be held responsible for Will Femia's writing on MSNBC, or for the random attacks on me posted in yesterday's comments. Charles has a disclaimer above his comments reflecting a similar idea, but has argued frequently and persuasively, and with the support of his audience, that the owners of sites such as an anti-semitic website called clearguidance.org be held responsible for not fighting the hateful comments on their sites. References to this belief can be found on several threads on Little Green Footballs.
But Charles and his audience believe that I was responsible for MSNBC's comments about LGF, either through direct instigation, which is false, or through indirect provocation through my two posts mentioning the site. In a public appeal, Charles inarguably led his audience to respond to the accusations, linking them to my site, MSNBC's site, and Will Femia's email address. Clearly, if clearguidance is culpable for providing of a forum for hate, and my earlier comments' mere presence is responsible for Will Femia's writings, then Charles' repeated public calls-to-arms bear the onus for the existence and tone of the campaign that followed.
And followed it did. In the course of the next few days, I received nearly 100 emails that either directly or indirectly related to the LGF site, on top of the normal volume of email I get. Seventy of them were, as best I can tell, against my statements about LGF, or at least against what they thought were my statements.
Exactly half of the emails I got accused me of trying to stop Charles from talking, or of trying to shut down his site, or of denying him his right to free speech. My response to all of those allegations is to invite any reader of his site to frequent any of the numerous threads in which I stated my true goal, which is to do justice to the noble cause of exposing extremist corruption of Islam for the evil it is, free from the taint of bigotry which would cause the valid points made to be dismissed as the rantings of a different bunch of extremists.
Twenty of the emails accused me of being anti-semitic, which is a fiction that's entirely made up. Two of them made specific reference to a document called the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is apparently a bogus screed venerated by anti-semites as "evidence" of a vast Jewish conspiracy. I found that up while trying to figure out what charge, exactly, I was defending myself against. If the charges weren't so grave, it would be almost amusing. As a true-blue member of the New York City liberal media, and having spent years working with and in the entertainment industry, I thought I'd heard every manner of bizarre conspiracy theory about Jews and the media. The creation of an anti-semitic media conspiracy theory is at least a novel bit of hateful lying.
Massing the Troops
There's lots more foolishness, of course. I think all but 15 or so used variations on my first name that ceased being clever when I turned twelve years old. Yes, yes, my first name looks like "Anal". Knock yourself out, fellas. Even the people who think I'm wrong about Charles and LGF find that "joke" tiring. There was one arguable death threat, saying that I deserved the fate that had befallen the victims of the suicide attack on the Israeli bus. There were a few funny ones, mostly unintentional, that had such execrable grammar and spelling that I couldn't fully decipher what particular evil the senders were ascribing to me.
And then there were the 25 that maligned Muslims or Islam by name, without distinguishing between the several thousand evil muslims who pervert the religion and the millions who live peacably around the world.
"LGF is right on for exposing Muslims for what they are, murdering fanatics." "Jews aren't a bunch of murderers: musilms [sic] are." "the islamofascists want to kill you, too." and on and on. A token few went the extra mile and made sure to mention other evils like gays, "black rapper muslims", and my personal favorite, "all the non-whites trying to poisin [sic] america with lefty bullshit."
The thing that struck me is, I don't need to be convinced of the evils of radical Islam. Despite my family's work for decades in India for the rights of outcastes, Christians, and Muslims in India's increasingly Hindu fundamentalist political atmosphere, they've still known the same horrors we know here, of friends and friends of friends lost to suicidal killers. Indeed, I got an email from my uncle in India that was sent at 9:38am on September 11th. The last lines of his message say, "Here, we are used to terrorist violence (of course not of such a magnitude ) You people must be wondering about why such senseless acts are commited. But then, there is really no difference between a religious fanatic and a lunatic. They need no reason or excuse to behave as they do. Incidents like this only show how people go [crazy]."
That's not all. At Charles' behest, his weblog community banded together to show support for LGF by emailing MSNBC, Will Femia, and of course by linking to my site with disparaging remarks. The same baseless charges of anti-semitism, anti-americanism and support of terrorism showed up across several of the sites. Notably, a number of strong voices were able to post their disagreement, and sometimes vehement distaste, for my comments while still being respectful or while taking the time to engage me in a dialogue before labelling me with vicious and untrue statements.
Most of the sites that were critical of me while being respectful raised signficant and important points about being responsible with accusations of racism and bias, and for that I thank Meryl Yourish, Mike Sanders, and Mike Silverman. Though sorry, Mike, I'm not a Mac user. I'm assuming that doesn't put me spinning back on the Axis of Evil. Heh.
Groupthink
The concern that all of this raises for me is that I went in, admittedly with a lot of bluster, but also sharing most of the same values and ideals of the people with whom I engaged in dialogue. Over and over I was faced with various types of litmus tests, questioned on whether I was against terrorism, or whether I made excuses for suicide bombers, or any number of questions far more offensive than any accusation of hosting a website that tolerated bigotry. And the fact that these questions came fast and furious, for days before there was any sort of response on these forums that maybe the criticisms were legitimate, indicates to me that a type of groupthink has taken over. That a misguided minority is swaying a legitimate band of political comrades towards extremism. It's the same charge leveled against the anti-semitism seeping into the anti-war movement, which threatens to marginalize a valid political viewpoint.
And that's the important thing. I can still see the validity of various viewpoints. While clearly, I place a higher priority on preserving the safety and civil liberties of Americans of Arab, Muslims, and South Asian descent than some others, I can see that they're not evil. I can see that they're not apologists for terror. I am disappointed that some would choose to marginalize themselves and seem like ranting lunatics by accusing me of being in favor of different types of evil.
But some people can't make these distinctions. James Taranto revealed himself to be both credulous and amateurish; The latter's a common but forgivable trait amongst journalists, but the former is truly unprofessional. At the behest of enraged LGF readers with more venom than fact, Taranto managed to commit exactly the sin which he criticizes in his column. He cites MSNBC as "smearing" LGF by merely asking if the site is hateful. Yet he artlessly segues from my criticisms of Charles's site to the prior protestations of some virulent anti-semites. If asking a question about a site is a smear, then surely describing me, describing some anti-semites, and then declaring "This is the real face of hate." counts as slander. It's frightening that Taranto's desire to divide well-intentioned Americans into two groups so that he can have an enemy to write about is so strong that he'll even risk lashing out at those who agree with him.
Taranto attempts to discredit me by scare quoting a phrase from another quote, that one written by a person who thought I was too harsh on Charles and LGF. But even a theoretical compatriot is no match for his hunger for a straw man to attack, and Taranto forges bravely on, unaware that he's maligning those who would be his allies. America's a better place than your behavior demonstrates, James. I'd invite you to treat your fellow Americans with the respect they deserve for sharing with you the privilege of living among them.
Silence Behind Me
But Taranto's flailings and failings aren't my greatest disappointment in this entire misadventure. They're not even in second place. That disappointment would be the timidity of the response of those who agree with me. I am grateful to Nick Denton for being an early and vocal supporter of my criticisms of LGF, along with the kind words and emails expressed by Andrew Northrup and Max Sawicky.
Also significant to me was the support shown by Matt Haughey, whose willingness to speak out was especially valued after the truly hateful vitriol aimed at him and his site MetaFilter, despite the fact that Matt's onine community was calling out the Taliban for its evil policies months before the attacks, back when Charles was still writing about obscure technical points. But I am still left disappointed because I know from conversations I've had with others that there are many, many people who agree with me, who reject the extremist tone of many of the comments on LGF, but are too cowed by fear of hate mail like I got, or of the inconvenience of saying something.
It's a surprise to see that sites like those listed on Charles' sidebar don't express their distaste for some of his visitors' comments, despite the fact that their names are displayed right next to these words. It's been a moderate surprise to see that a community that would rally to support various other political causes in esoteric realms ignore false attacks by the worst elements of the weblog world. I try not to be too cynical about it, but I wonder if perhaps more people would have rushed in to defend me if the zealots had hijacked my domain name instead of merely emailing death threats and making baseless accusations against me.
But that's not my biggest disappointment, either. I can understand the fact that there are bigots. I can understand that Charles would rather focus his audience's wrath on me or Mr. Femia than on those responsible for the outbursts of bigotry on his company's website. I can understand that many who support what I've written would choose not to get into a pissing match that's this unproductive and that got this ugly. I can even grudgingly concede that there are people who would rather marshall their forces to publish hundreds of words, on dozens of different sites, and in hundreds of email messages, than exert those energies on confronting the hatred in their own community. I can undertand, despite their disinterest in toning down rhetoric laden with words like "paleostinian" and "idiotarian" even though it means that an average reader, not steeped in their insular culture's buzzwords, will probably find their message obtuse, obscure, or distasteful.
Conclusion
I do have a main disappointment. I didn't do justice to the important idea I was trying to communicate. I have long believed that a flawed messenger for an important idea is better than none. But I won't let my frustration with my flawed attempts compromise the fact that being infiltrated and corrupted by bigotry is the biggest threat to the legitimate criticisms of Islamic extremism that are necessary for the safety and well-being of millions of people around the globe. I won't back down from the fact that dialogue is as important as confrontational engagement, both in our internal discussions of policy and in our interactions with those who would wish us harm.
So, finally, I'm done asking your indulgence. If any of you have read through all of this, thank you. I would ask only a few things. I would like Charles to explain why critics of content on his site are bigger enemies than the bigots who poison legitimate attempts at criticizing fundamentalist extremism. I would ask those who agree with my points to either speak up or admit the fact that they find the existence of these problems in our weblog community either too inconvenient to comment on, or too distant a threat to be worth pursing. I would ask everyone to understand the true dangers of extremism, in all its forms, and to see it for the evil that it is.
And, oh yeah... James Taranto? I'd like to ask you to kiss my big brown ass.
Update: Comments are gone on this thread, too. As much as I'd like to continue a conversation about this, it still seems like people can't discuss this stuff in a civil manner. I'm disappointed in communities on both sides of this debate, and I hope we can all remember our goal is to reach a solution to the problems of violence and hatred, and that we all have the same fundamental desires to see those things end.
7:11 AM
9 TrackBacks
I was just doing some blog hopping... it's been a long time since I had time to do much surfing Read More
Read Anil's Dash lengthy, patient discussion of the contretemps between himself and the readers of Little Green Footballs. Anil considers Read More
Hey, everyone, it's my last post on all this foolishness. I'd like to get back to the fun stuff. First, Read More
Recently, there has been a Read More
...arguing with extremists directly probably is futile... we're not likely to change many of their minds. However, the fortitude to make the arguments, and publically, is necessary nonetheless, despite the inevitable abuse one is likely to endure. You ... Read More
Once again by way of Instapundit, we bring you James Lileks on politics. This time he's talking about the inevitable Read More
Regular readers may remember an unpleasant contretemps a while back with regards to the Little Green Footballs weblog. Well, being Read More
This is a difficult post to write. It's difficult because I've avoided writing it for far too long. It's difficult Read More
Read this and weep. Read More
138 Comments
Leave a comment
- Earlier: manhattan math
- Next: what's new with what's true
That is a great post. I would love to see some othe bloggers ask why the commenting community at LGF cannot be more responsible and curb the excesses of a few of that group.
imho, i think that you put things wonderfully, and your posts are interesting as well as informative. you are saying things that others want to, but cannot, say so eloquently.
i think that you wanted to convey something, and i think that you should understand, that although you've got some people condemning you for saying it, there are alot of those, who are more knowledgeable now b/c you said it. comprenez? (and i don't just mean your fans, your daily readers...)
Read it. Twice. It's amazing how you are holding the fort when faced by a mob.
"Now more than ever we must keep in the forefront of our minds the fact that whenever we take away the liberties of those we hate, we are opening the way to loss of liberty for those we love." -- Wendell Wilkie (The Last Great Republican.)
Well said. Now, will it make things worse or better?
Bravo Anil. Sadly the Web is a very rough environment for a decent conversation and nowhere is this better exemplified than in this particular case you go through. I admire your upright stance.
Beyond that I'd like to say that while LGF's venom is mostly directed at Muslims and Arabs in a broad sense, others too have occasionally been targeted in a similar fashion: Palestinians, Europeans, the French, Germans, liberals and of course more recently idiotarians, which is the conveniently elastic definition of those not having the right ideas and beliefs.
And Canadians.
I think I've found a "manifesto" I can believe in.
Keep fighting the good fight, Anil. I'm in your corner. And though I'm not the James you're referring to, I'd kiss your big brown ass anytime :)
Don't worry, even if you are not a Mac user, you are still an OK person :-)
Great post, Anil.
(I propose the 'What would you be called in LGF?' quiz. Me:"EUnuch" and "Idiotarian". Great starting points for a civil argumente, those)
Don't you know, Anil, this is the thanks you get for trying to be fair & even tempered? haha. Nobody wants that! ;) You either have to say you want to bomb the hell out of the entire middle east... or you have to say you hate americans. Anything inbetween does not count as particularly interesting. So if you don't comply, we have to put words in your mouth, or quote you out of context in order to make you sound more interesting.
;)
It's so strange how if you criticize someone's site, or even say you don't like it, people suddenly think you want it shut down. Maybe that's because they judge other people by themselves - and if they don't like a site, they want to have it shut down, so they assume everyone else's mind operates the same way.
I had a similar local phenomenon myself. And in my opinion, there's one source to blame - the media. The bottom line for most of the media is to amass readers in order to attract advertisers. And one thing is sure to do that - controversy. And controversy requires extremes.
In my case, I was accused of having someone's site shut down because I was quoted in the newspaper as finding the site offensive. (The site's operator used the word "ragheads" liberally.) The newspaper reporter didn't bother to quote me as saying that I believed that the guy had every right to his personal site, so long as he wasn't breaking any laws. So, because I said I disagreed with his extreme views, I was accused of trying to suppress his free speech, (which of course is ridiculous considering I'm not the government, and that's what the ammendment refers to - if anyone even bothers to learn that these days).
I believe that local reporter neglected to mention that part of my belief because it was more 'exciting', more controversial, to just simply pit me against this local web site guy by painting me as being the other extreme from him, even though I'm not.
I, myself, did have correspondence with the Will Femia @ MSNBC.com.
I wrote him saying that the reason that some people get upset about that Little Footballs site is its sarcasm in cases like 'the Peaceful Youth of Islam' as a subject heading for a piece about one obscure web site run by a few youngsters claiming to be Muslim & spouting hateful crap.
I personally thought it was very unfair of the little footballs site to make a sweeping generalization about 'the youth of Islam' based on one obscure web site, with their sarcastic crack, even if it was just meant as a joke.
And I told William Femia of MSNBC.com that perhaps people objected to the little footballs site being listed in 'best of the blogs', with barely a description, because it may have given the impression that MSNBC.com, a major media source, was condoning that kind of unfair sweeping generalization of religions.
THE IMPORTANT PART HERE:
I went on to tell Will Femia that just because I don't like a site, find it distasteful, or disagree with its opinions, doesn't mean I think it can't be one of 'the best'.
I was listed a couple of weeks ago on 'best of blogs', and I found that pretty amusing. If we went by popularity, SURELY the green footballs site definitely has more reason to be on that list, or just about any list.
I went on to describe my past experience with the local newspaper quoting me out of context, and the threats & harrassment that ensued because of it, and implored Femia NOT to quote me, unless he included the part where I said I did NOT think the footballs site ought to be ripped from 'best of blogs'.
Is it any surprise he then decided not to quote me at all? I think not.
You know why he didn't quote me? You only have to read Weblog Central's latest post to know that my quote would've gone DIRECTLY AGAINST the controversy Weblog Central was pushing.
Therefore, his post lost all credibility with me because I wonder how many other people, like me, wrote in saying the same things I did... but were also ignored because we just weren't extreme enough in our views to be 'newsworthy'.
I'm not here to defend or feel bad for Anil Dash. (Sorry guy. haha.)
Heaven knows he's outspoken & argumentative. hah.
The reason I am posting here is to remind everyone who the real cause of this is... it's the media.
And it's not because Weblog Central criticized the green footballs site... It's because Weblog Central wanted to stir up controversy - out of almost nothing!
Sensationalism in the media, people. That's the problem here!
Give Will Femia the heat... he gets paid to take it!
Oh yeah, and sorry Anil... the reason I'm taking up space here instead of posting this on my own site...
Well, for one thing, nobody would ever read it if I posted it on my own site. haha. 75% of my readers (all 10 of them - haha) are people who know me personally in-person. And I have a suspicion that pre "best of blogs" link listing, a full 50% of my hits came from whoever was asking me for a date at the moment. haha. ;)
But mainly, I have better content to host on my limited server space. ;) And this whole topic has become such a tedious bore to me that I refuse to have it soiling with ennui, my own weblogs. haha.
So please don't bother visiting my site if you're looking for this debacle. It's not there.
And as an occasional reader of this site... I would like to see more posts about trips to the cinema & bagel shops. They're much more to my liking than this. :) I'm not tellin' ya what to write, I'm just sayin' what I like. :)
Great post.
And very, very true.
Why is real life more like a Tom Tomorrow cartoon (speficially, "Why Do You Hate America So Much?") every day?
I support you. As I've posted in Andrew Northrup's comments, and will post on my blog when I get around to it, I find the tenor of LGF's comments section seriously off-putting.
Even if it's not racist, it sets off the 'taking it too far' Spidey-sense enough that I just can't comfortably read the material.
Note, please, that like you I'm distinguishing between Charles, who is opinionated but not by any means racist, and some of his commenters.
I don't believe there is any need to distinguish between a blogger and those whose comments he chooses not to edit. If LGF solicits comments from anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim bigots, and does not either delete or criticize said posts, it's a hatesite, pure and simple.
Just out of curiosity... am I the only one who thought a headline saying "the peaceful youth of islam" for a piece about violent Islamic extremists was unfair?
I'd really like to know if I'm the only one who noticed that or paid attention. It's bothering me.
Bravo. I've been following this dust-up but refrained from commenting until now. I used to post at LGF but quit going there awhile back because I got tired of dealing with the increasing number of relentless bigots in the comments section. There were always a few around, but it seemed to me like they were beginning to take over the joint and to make rational discourse all but impossible. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that you are by no means alone in your opinion.
Steve Smith:
Write to timesleader.com and tell them they're responsible for what's said by callers on their SAYSO section.
If even the media won't take responsibility for reader opinions, when they're deliberately publishing them... how do you expect personal web site operators to take responsibility for comments that happen to be posted on their site?
Great tract, Anil. But I hope you truly do understand how deeply many of us who agree with you feel about not getting involved in something that has already proven itself to be capable of turning into a total disaster; I honestly think that there's nothing to gain by directly joining into the fight against the hatred at LGF, because I think that the clear majority of people who post and read there could not care less about the opinions of people who disagree with them. As the tone gets more hateful, the screeds encompass more horrible generalizations, and the authors of comments come closer and closer to a single mindset that can have no alternative viewpoints, the site becomes both boring and pointless -- a huge exercise in "Me, too!" and "Great point!" and "Awesome find!". Yes, hate-filled, and yes, repugnant, and yes, completely losing sight of the forest for the trees, but boring and pointless to boot.
So... I'm right there with you in spirit, but there's little to no chance that I'll pitch in more than the occasional effort to engage a group of people who behave like myopic hyenas.
A fine way to deal with a problem - open, honest, clear. I agree with you that LGF has taken a slight bias and somewhat obsessive interest in the Middle East/Islam, though Charles has every right to do that. There really is no site on the web that digs up as much interesting, shocking information on the topic. He provides evidence and it makes people mad. They lash out unfairly against Islam in general. When it gets right down to it, though, people are dying. Palestinians to a large degree want to kill all Israelis. You can't sugar coat that. The few hate-mongers on LGF can't be misconstrued as LGF temperment in general. I think the big trouble started because you were a bit heated in you initial discussion about LGF - which you have every right to do. It just sucks when people lose perspective and self-critique and start acting foolish as do many of the hate-monger posters.
Blah blah.
Anyway, your story is well received and a testament to civilized red blooded American debate. Logical, fair argumentation is valuable. Keep it up.
Good post, Anil. For what it's worth, I'm with Jason -- I've been trying to develop a policy of non-engagement with people whose rhetoric and intellectually dishonest debating style are just not worth the energy. I do applaud your efforts, though, and will ponder what productive follow-ups might be.
Another wonderful post. Thanks again.
(And yes, Chloe, I think those sarcastic titles are unproductive, too. That's why I liked Anil's anti-idiotarian post so much... dismissive terms like that, and things like Sullivan's "Sontag Awards" where he just quotes and puts a sarcastic label on it, expecting whatever negative traits he finds to be self-evident, contribute nothing to a discussion that requires nuance.)
"It's a surprise to see that sites like those listed on Charles' sidebar don't express their distaste for some of his visitors' comments, despite the fact that their names are displayed right next to these words."
As one of the folks you're referring to there - for what it's worth, I support you. (I think LGF only links to me because I created the program it used to run on, and I tried to help Charles out with some of those "obscure technical points" when he needed support with my program; I haven't posted there since 9/11, and I almost never write about politics on my own site.) As Jason and Medley said above (and said it better than I can), I see nothing to gain by "joining the fight," and too much to lose, if only in terms of pure mental health; I've been around more than long enough to have waded in my share of public muckfests (and become the target of private death threats) - and if any genuine good ever comes out of them that's truly worth the sheer mental and emotional toll of the crap you have to put up with to get to it... well, I must admit, I've yet to see it in all the years I've been online. Trolls (of all stripes) have no constructive purpose but to disrupt, drain and destroy, and the only effective way I've ever seen to deal with trolls is to ignore them, which I'm usually all too happy to do.
But again, for what it's worth, you have my applause for your post and my heartfelt support - if not on the "front lines", as it were, then at least as a sympathetic voice in spirit.
Listen, Anil, nothing gets the WSJ opinion page madder than hearing about a website, a publication, a tv show, a city government, or a college that's been called to task for its racist or sexist conduct and that's actually apologized as a result. The courage to rectify hateful word or deed is seen instead as cowardice or hypocracy. That's what happened with MSNBC, and with that germ, Taranto started flailing around, trying to build a column around it. Along the way down, he dragged you in. I'm sorry about that, and I'm just as sorry that the bigots at LGF (sure, sure, the bigots who post there, not necessarily edit there) decided to pay this nice patch of Internet a visit.
But you have nothing to apologize for. Your comments since 911 have been principled, thoughtful and appreciated. Your discussion of LGF may or may not have been a breach of decorum in the blogger world that you inhabit (me, I'm content to limit my web participation to this comment and to posting pictures of the most beautiful eight-month-old in the world), but your treatment of LGF was nothing but a part of your larger analysis of how this War on Terrorism of ours is affecting us.
So don't be bullied by a misinformed and dishonest WSJ columnist. Don't feel that anything that's happened this week merits a reevaluation of what you've written or said. Anonymous racists, in aggregate, are a grave concern, one you're valiantly addressing; anonymous racists who one by one fill your inbox with their idiocy deserve no thought at all.
I used to be a jew but god betrayed me, I was a 'blog of note' but the web betrayed me, I used to talk on the left but (I'm told) the cause betrayed me, I thought I was in love but I betrayed myself, I poked a powerless wounded bitter gorilla with a sharp stick in his open sore and with its last gust of energy he screamed and hit me so hard I was seeing stars for a full minute.
The closing comment directed at James Taranto undercut your lengthy and restrained post....and reminds one of the kinds of comments that occasionally show up in the LGF comments.
Jason, Medley, & Noah:
I have a lot of respect for you guys coming here & saying what you have, about wanting to keep out of it. When you're in the line of fire, being attacked, and people say nothing, and don't even mention why they're not... you can feel very alone & undefended... as if nobody cares that people want you dead.
Though it seems to me like Anil's a bit too much of a hard ass to really care... or be hurt like I was when it happened to me... it sure is nice that you took the time to say a few words, even though what little you've said could still draw fire from certain fanatical quarters.
And, Noah, your "I see nothing to gain by "joining the fight," and too much to lose, if only in terms of pure mental health... I couldn't have expressed my opinion better than that - not sure anyone could. ;) I only wish I had the sense to follow that wisdom, or at least the fortitude to withstand the onslaught.
Gregory:
Give Anil a break. This IS a personal web site. He's entitled to end a very serious post with a little humour, even if it is goofy. It's not like it was a personal attack - merely a crack.
I don't think it undercut anything... I was happy to see a genuinely human response... when everyone's trying so hard to make this about issues... when it's about people, and feelings - and nobody wants to admit it.
Anil,
Although I disagree with a lot of your political beliefs I want to compliment you for apologizing for somewhat overreacting.
To some of those who expressed their support while saying that they didn't want to get caught up in this mess: I hear ya. I'd like the luxury of writing these people off as extremists and ignoring them. But doesn't it seem peculiar that dozens and dozens of webloggers can rally behind a campaign against Verisign, a multimillion dollar company, and not be cowed, but a few guys with blogspot sites reduce everyone to hemming and hawing about how, "well, they're just going to send *me* nasty emails and..."
I care a lot about the medium of weblogs, I've worked with damn near every person who makes the tools to publish them, and all of those who are advancing the medium, to make sure this important new medium survives. It's been hijacked in mainstream consciousness by those who would tolerate bigotry, and it will make us all look foolish. Just look at Taranto's example, and realize that he's shaping what people are seeing journalistic weblogs as. Are you really all *so* disgusted if you can't email Charles and ask to be taken off of his list of links? If you can't link to statements that cricitize the extremists?
We can debate the validation of a syndication feed in various formats, but when a discussion of this topic comes up, nobody really has a comment? That's fascinating.
I've never asked anyone else to storm onto LGF and fight the good fight. Hell, you'd have to be nuts to do so. But the fact that people I consider friends or peers don't have the balls to even put up a link that says, "hey, Anil's not actually an anti-Semite", but that they can muster up the energy to remind everyone that Mickey needs to be Freed, reveals a lack of perspective I find disappointing. Especially when dozens of them can take the time to whip up a paragraph about how evil I am.
It's easy to agree in private, but I'm wondering why Charles is the only one who has friends who stand up for him in public. I realize I'm just bitter today, and it'll pass. But it's still a valid criticism that needs to be leveled.
Anil is my friend. He is not an Anti-semite. I am not so good at writing paragraphs.
Anil
Thanks for the nice words. Kudos for your apologies and attempts at reconciliation.
By the way, anti-idiotarians is a term meant to be obnoxious and annoying. Ain't nothing wrong with being obnoxious sometimes - is there?
Anil's "fight" was against senseless hatred. Yet I see glimmers of such hatred towards LGF'ers from commentors in this thread.
People in glass blogs might think twice before they throw their "intellectual" and "I am right" stones.
Reread Anil's post and think about who you love and who you don't. When do those feeling approach hate? The good fight starts inside of us.
Anil, it could just be that you're wrong. It could also be that you were trying to beef up your hit counter at LGF's expense. I've never met you, I've never met Charles. I've never voted for a Republican, all three of these things would probably put me in good company here. But I think the difference is that Charles engenders more support because he (and Taranto) are in the right.
Anil:
The reason people have no problem debating things is because strong feelings aren't involved. Here, in this situation... strong feelings are involved. People's lives, their feelings. These people they'd be standing up against fight dirty - they're not polite, they're enraged. It's not fun, as you well know, to be the victim of vitriole. It takes up a lot of time, and it can hurt.
Some people have agreed with you publicly here. I think I might actually be among them.. ahem, ahem. ;) Cut them some slack. They've admitted openly, as I have, that they're just not strong enough or available enough to take what comes with an all out fight with 'these people'.
The reason Charles (and others) have 'friends' who stand up for him in public?
Think about it... These people who are "standing up for him" aren't the level-headed kind people you want to have over for a quiet dinner, are they? I know I don't enjoy indigestion. haha. If they were, they'd want to stay out of this shit too, just like you & I do.
It's about mental health. Battling these kinds of ugly battles, with ugly scenes, ugly issues... it's just not condusive to serenity. Something I think we both agree the world can use a bit more of.
You said it yourself:
"A fixation on an evil that can't be affected by words on the web is more perilous to the writer than to the topics of the posts."
You have your answer in your own words, I think.
I've commented here at much peril to myself.
And I don't mean by drawing attention to myself - because I could've done so anonymously - even though I believe in standing behind my words, as a real person.
I mean, I've put myself at risk emotionally, and I've spent my time.
Show a little appreciation, Anil, for those who have been supportive of you here - like medley & noah & james.
And 'Don't throw pearls to swine.' ;)
hehe.
the fact that being infiltrated and corrupted by bigotry is the biggest threat to the legitimate criticisms of Islamic extremism that are necessary for the safety and well-being of millions of people around the globe.
I humbly disagree with this statement. The biggest threat to legimimate criticisms of Islamic extremism is a fatwah on your head....
Now there's no black and white in the world, just many shades of gray -- but I would generally hold the fatwahers a little further down the gradation than the vocal minority in the U.S.
But sure, a death threat is a death threat regardless of where it comes from....
Unless of course I completely misunderstand your comment and it is exactly those fatwahers you are calling the bigots. That'd be fair...
You's people are so funny. I love the moral high ground you's people have taken. This is typical for people like you's. You attack, but when there is a response and people return the favor, you's back down. You's pretend you's are too good for this kind of stuff. Please. Anal, the reason people stand up for Charles and not you is simple. The people who view things with common sense and agree with Charles are real. Real emotions, real opinions. The people that tend to agree with people like you are phony and hypocritical. When it comes time to stand up for what they say or what they believe in, they sit down. Kind of like that long, boring, I have no balls article you wrote here.
But I think the difference is that Charles engenders more support because he (and Taranto) are in the right.
Anil is wrong that it's good to stand up to bigotry, hatred and stupidity? If that's true, then I guess it doesn't make sense to argue with you.
The people that tend to agree with people like you are phony and hypocritical. When it comes time to stand up for what they say or what they believe in, they sit down.
*stares*
Wow, that's priceless.
"It's easy to agree in private, but I'm wondering why Charles is the only one who has friends who stand up for him in public. I realize I'm just bitter today, and it'll pass. But it's still a valid criticism that needs to be leveled."
Thing is, I find it much easier to make a big deal of this on a blog. What takes some backbone, in my opinion, is to actually live it out. No, I don't get political on my blog. And, while I may take exception to some of the more extreme viewpoints elsewhere, and may even speak up in the comments on occasion, that's not where the political rubber meets the practical road for me.
See, it's easy to talk on a blog. You don't see me, I don't see you, and I could, theoretically, say a bunch of things I wouldn't have the huevos to back up in person.
Instead, I choose to leave my blog free of that.
My involvement in politics and social issues extends to how I vote, for whom I actively campaign, where my money goes, and what causes/issues/charities/etc I support (both in time and money) as an extension of my worldview and beliefs. I'm not worried about talking it. I'm worried about walking it.
Of course, Anil, I'm not suggesting that you don't walk it. But what I'm saying is, maybe your disappointment is not necessarily directly proportionate with inaction. People who aren't fighting for your cause on a blog may instead be giving money, volunteering, etc. And for what it's worth, I'd personally rather see that. But, then, I come from the school of 'don't tell me -- show me,' and that's not everyone's cup of tea.
As to why LGF may have more vocal supporters? Just a theory, but I'd hazard a guess that he's got a lot of folks who feel angry and powerless and who have far too much time on their hands scribbling away their vitriol in his comments. I don't have the luxury of that sort of time. And the time I do have? I'll channel that in ways that are proven to actually make a difference: volunteering, campaigning, funding, letter-writing (to those in office), etc.
This is not to say that this is the all-encompassing best way for all who walk this earth -- but it IS the best way for me. If it disappoints you, keep in mind that my goal is not be true to your beliefs and method of expressing them, but to my own.
Very valid and important points, Jen. As I said, I was probably just feeling bitter, but that's what confrontation does to people. I'm gettin' over it. :)
Why is nobody attacking what I said as the reason more people don't get vocal on the side of Anil Dash?
Is it because nobody can come up with a good argument against my theory?
Is it because it's no fun to hurt a lady's feelings, and you know of no other way to attack my argument without getting personal?
Are you afraid of a girl? haha!!
Come on, maybe 7 years ago I would believe that it was because I was just so damn beautiful, no man (or lesbian) would disagree with me lest they lose that shimmer of hope they could win my heart. But now, at my age & all, I wouldn't tend to believe it. hahaha. ;)
So what's up? Apparently Anil Dash is the only one around here who has 'the balls' to take on my arguments recently.
And you question his 'resolve'?
I think I know who the "real" men around here are. haha.
(NOTE: This post has been brought to you by Chloe's tendency toward kooky off-colour humour and is not meant to be taken seriously, as I think it's wholly ridiculous to drag gender, sex, & genitalia into unrelated topics. haha.)
JEN:
Thank you!
VERY VERY VERY well said.
Very level-headed assessment of the situation. And a very admirable way to live. I wish I could express myself like that. Personally, I'm pretty sure you've nailed the whole thing on the head. Plus, made some excellent points I think we'd all do well to keep in mind more.
I know I'm going to think more about keeping that in mind.
The satirical title "the peaceful youth of Islam" is indeed titular hatred. As I've argued on my site, Charles Johnson is attempting to castigate Islam itself on the basis of the deeds and words of a few. This is one Anil's points in his marvelous essay here, which I commend him for.
Chloe, it's not a litmus test. I'm not gonna chastize my friends for staying out of the line of fire of a bunch of idiots. I was just venting my sentiments at the time, whereas now I realize that I'd probably not choose to get involved in this idiocy if I weren't already. Frankly, I'm bored with it all and want to get back to the fun stuff that I'm good at.
I care about weblogs too - and I was one of the first who made a tool to publish them with. And I just don't believe that the medium has been (or *can* be) hijacked or destroyed so easily, any more than the 9/11 terrorists can destroy all that is good in Islam. LGF or MSNBC is no more the last word on weblogs than you or I am, no more than Stephen King is the last word in the literary medium; we're as infinitely diverse as humanity itself, we write about the lives we live, and most of us try to be good people. There's too much diversity and goodness in this medium now - as in every other artistic medium - for any small-minded trolls to destroy, or for any manipulative media force (another thing I've had firsthand experience with) to diminish.
I didn't ask Charles to link me, so I see no point in asking him not to - I don't think anyone who's read his site and mine (as if there could be much overlap) could possibly take his linking to me as my endorsing what he and his commenters have to say, or vice versa; anyone that could hasn't paid much attention to either of us. I write what I write on my site to serve no one's needs but my own, and I wouldn't want someone telling me I can't link to them on my own site if I wanted to - for any reason, positive or negative - so I'm not going to do the same. I don't lose sleep over who does or doesn't link to me; I know who I am and what I believe in, as do the people I love and care about, and whoever chooses to care about me in return - and for me, that's all I need.
As you said yourself, this whole thing is not only ugly, it's unproductive. Anyone capable of writing death threats, or stirring up controversy and negativity purely for its own sake, isn't going to be swayed by anything I say - they'd only use it as more fuel to keep the whole damned thing going. That's the difference between this and Verisign - in that case, people got on the bandwagon because there was at -least- a hope that something of definite good (a restoration of the domain and an improvement of Verisign's policy) could come out of it, but here there is no such hope; this isn't a good fight, it's a feeding frenzy for hateful trolls and a manipulative media outlet, and we don't face it because we're cowards, but because we've got healthier and happier things to do with our lives than give them more fuel. As Jen said, we all try to find the ways of dealing with things that are best for us; my way of dealing with the hate in the world is nothing more or less than trying to be a good influence on the people and environment around me, and to try to be the most loving human being that I have the (frequently lacking) wisdom and (frequently imperfect) maturity to be - and I have a feeling that most folks who usually avoid conflict (online or off) in their daily lives aren't much different.
Weblogs aren't endangered by this incident any more than a mosquito endangers a whale; we are a good community and a good medium, with too many great things and too many great people in it, to be torn down by something so petty and pointless. We'll be just fine, I think. =)
I completely support you, Anil, and have linked to your comments in the past (and will link to this one). I can't speak directly to the comments made on LGF simply because I choose not to visit the site -- I have my hands full fighting bigotry and hatred in my own extended family, so I don't have time to argue with people I don't know. But I'll stand behind you, and lend my support to your cause.
The people you're against don't recognize the difference between criticism and hatred, and they use bully tactics to drown out and intimidate anyone who disagrees. They're similar to the fans of Mancow, Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh -- they see someone prominent behaving badly, and they take it as open license to behave even worse.
Who are these 'footballs' of which you speak?
Anil, I used to post from time to time at LGF trying to temperate and reason the mob. To no avail, they tore me apart. So I gave up in disgust. LGF is a hopelessly damaged community. It's a yelling room and Charles is just happy feeding the mob with prejudice-confirming and -enhancing news. The stridency of the site's message is still mounting. One of Charles' posts today undifferentiatingly speaks of "Islam�s hatred of the West".
It might comfort you to know that this will ultimately push and isolate LGF into an undeniably ugly area of the web and even Taranto will avoid pointing to it. It's happened to Anne Coulter, it'll happen to LGF. While I really share your view and admire your initiative to denounce LGF for what it is, I see it as a hopeless endeavor. The transparency of the web is a wonderful thing, but it can also hurt when one comes across such a revolting place. Turn away from it all and look at the countless precious things life in the internet offers.
Buck up there, little camper -- we know that you don't need no defendin'. :)
Or, more directly stated: I feel strongly that a reasonable person who spends a week reading both your site and LGF will come to the conclusion that the thoughts and words stated here tend towards the rational and well-stated, whereas the content there veers strongly to the lunatic fringe. By only firing a few salvos in the Good Fight, I feel that I'm letting the strongest argument shine through -- the argument made by the sheer character of the vitriol posted daily, nay hourly, over at LGF. Reasonable people see it as extremism of the worst kind, as bad as the extremism that it professes to expose and combat; unreasonable people not only don't see that, but aren't even willing to read a post that disagrees with them without then shouting down the speaker and receding to the groupthink battlefront.
I think that a good demonstration of this is this very thread -- a few people who I feel are pretty damn well-respected have come out and said that there wasn't a moment that they were fooled by the hatemongering that takes place elsewhere on the web, but rather, were choosing not to engage purely due to feeling that it served no purpose.
(I have to admit, though, that I briefly entertained the idea of convincing a group of about a dozen or so quick-witted, intelligent, and well-read people to get together at my apartment, hop onto wireless laptops, and take on the masses. But then I remembered why I'm avoiding it in the first place -- it'd be an easy victory, but without a point.)
Anil,
When the KKK march, there's vastly empty streets and a small counterprotest. It's easy to get discouraged by the smallness of the counterprotest, especially when you are in the counterprotest. But instead try being a little encouraged by the vastness of the empty streets.
I'm not advocating to ignore the problem of hate. I'm not minimizing the danger you and your family feel in any way. I'm not implying that the tiny world of blogging is too large a part of your world and you've lost perspective.
I do stuff. I write MSNBC in protest, I vote Democratic, I put content online that's an alternative to hate, etc. Maybe I make the world a better place just by getting through the day without making a death threat or saying a racial slur, etc.
I'm sorry for all your recent headaches, lost time and disappointments. I'm sorry your old buddy who runs LGF now finds himself running a hate site and he's not doing anything about it. I'm sorry that the MSNBC protest made you the poster boy.
But don't call me out if you dove into that insignificantly-tiny viper's-nest echo-chamber of right-wingnut websites, and I didn't follow you in. There's no dialogue with those people. Or don't you know yet?
Hey guys, you're right. In case I didn't make it clear, my own "call to action", as it were, was off target and inspired mostly by battle fatigue on my part. The last thing I'd want to do is have my friends have to interact with the idiots I've had to suffer in my inbox.
The reality is, I can think of three of four people who've emailed that they had their minds changed by my efforts. And I saw a handful of comments on LGF that indicated a bit of self-analysis going on in that community. So my comments had an effect far greater than I'd anticipated. I wouldn't ask for anything more than that.
It appears easier for the likes of Mark to construct strawmen rather than to actually debate intelligently...or maybe Anil's supporters know just how wrong they are.
Anil:
Seems to me like you focus so tightly on what you disagree with at LGF that you put the rest of the site out of focus. Which is more important - the items that Charles posts, which wouldn't be covered by CNN, MSNBC, or any other major US based webnews agency, or the comments others leave about them?
I skip over the ranters - they're not worth the time to read. The real meat is in things like
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=3346
and the comment about the picture in the above link by jeanne a e Devoto in http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=3362
"Oh good GOD. I just noticed something, looking at the larger photo of the little girl: there's a man playing the part of "victim" lying in front of her - you can see his hair behind the corner of the model of the mosque, with a white shirt and black pants, and fake blood all over the shirt. Maybe everyone else noticed this in the first place and I'm just the last; but no one seems to have mentioned it.
They didn't just have her dip her hands in fake blood. They didn't just re-enact the gesture of raising the hands. They re-enacted the murder itself, and they made this child participate. She's not just playing a fun game with red paint, with the adults hiding its worst significance from her; she knows what's she's playing at involves killing.
I feel sick all over again."
Is it to be ignored? Discounted, because people are made angry by what seems to be a deliberate and calculated teaching of genocidal hatred? Because people are mad when they see 5-year olds indoctrinated into a culture that would love to see them strap on an explosive vest when they hit 18 and go out and kill some Jews?
Because people are worried and frightened when they see threads on ClearGuidance where the kids tell each other about the location of snuff films, and describe how they'd like to gut some juicy Jews in the US and UK?
I don't know, Anil - I can understand why your buttons are pushed by some of the comments you've seen. But I've seen a lot of things on LGF that push MY buttons. Protection of my family, protection of my country rank highly with me, and what Charles posts hits those triggers. It's not an "all Muslims are evil" trigger, either - it's a "There's Muslims out there who would cheerfully kill my family and me and subjugate my country, because I don't believe the way they do" feeling.
And I've not been reassured by the very few articles I've found or seen on Muslim groups condemning the extremists - your comments excepted. And Charles has been VERY willing to put up articles about Muslims condemning the extremists. But there's not been nearly as many as I'd hope to see. In fact, they're far too rare for my comfort.
Anil, I support your right to post what you want and feel how you want to feel. You think LGF is a hate site, that's fine. Myself, I think you're examining a large tapestry with a microscope and complaining about the shade of dye on a couple of the threads being a bit off, but that's your privelege. Me, I'm trying to take a wider view - to take in the whole complex picture and not worry if a couple of the threads don't match... even if I dislike very much parts of what I'm seeing. You're right to stand up to bigotry and hatred - but I think you're focusing in the wrong direction.
J.