I wasted quite a bit of time today arguing with the owner of Library Grape, Metavirus, who banned me from his blog after I dared post a comment. Since I couldn't comment over there, the debate -- such as it was -- was conducted at even yet another blag, in the comments of a post responding to my earlier piece on Camille Paglia. It illustrates pretty much everything I said earlier about certain types of left-wingers. Metavirus quickly categorized me as an evil "wingnut," because I don't share his assumptions about the use of torture. Therefore he feels justified in blatantly mischaracterizing my arguments, implying that my views are based on racism & bigotry, and generally failing to even grasp any of my points. Since he disagrees with me, he doesn't need to employ basic common courtesy, because I'm unworthy of his respect.
Despite my repeated statements that I'm not making a legal argument about torture, and that I am specifically arguing that sometimes the law should be violated, he responds to just about everything I write by pointing out why torture is illegal and quoting laws. He's unable to understand the simple concept that "illegal" & "wrong" don't mean the same thing. Seriously. Then he actually comes here and puts up a comment saying that he banned me because I'm not capable of rational argument. Oh, and of course because I offended his delicate sensibilities by putting myself in the position of the Iranians and saying they would be justified in torturing a CIA operative to protect their country.
For background on the conversations, I would encourage your readers to see the back-and-forth in your earlier post for context: http://unreligiousright.blogspot.com/2009/04/left-in-action.html
ReplyDeleteTo your points, some corrections:
"Metavirus quickly categorized me as an evil 'wingnut,' because I don't share his assumptions about the use of torture."
I never called you evil. I did, however, note that you asserted on my blog that "Iran would be well within its rights to torture any CIA operatives it captures." Someone who says this in order to make a claim that its also OK for the US to torture its prisoners is indeed a wingnut. As I noted in your earlier post, "I made a decision a long while back to not provide a forum for trolls and wingnuts. I run a small, personal blog that doesn't make any money and has a great group of intelligent, rational commenters that I've come to know pretty well. I've seen a lot of blogs over the years get bogged down in devil's advocates and wingnut trolls -- only to have the existing commenter community leave as a result. My blog is my house and, in my house, I choose not to engage in rational debate with those who willfully refuse to acknowledge facts or engage in rational debate."
"Therefore he feels justified in blatantly mischaracterizing my arguments, implying that my views are based on racism & bigotry"
I never implied that your views are based on racism or bigotry. I did, however, imply that your views are based on an inability to receive facts contrary to your rigid and unyielding ideology. No racism there.
"Oh, and of course because I offended his delicate sensibilities by putting myself in the position of the Iranians and saying they would be justified in torturing a CIA operative to protect their country."
I would suggest that you walk into any firehouse, school or city council building in any city in the U.S. and tell people you think that the Iranians would be justified in torturing the brave men and women who serve in the CIA and see how they would react. I suspect most anyone you reveal this to would be pretty horrified as well.
"I never called you evil."
ReplyDeleteNot directly. True.
"I did, however, note that you asserted on my blog that "Iran would be well within its rights to torture any CIA operatives it captures." Someone who says this in order to make a claim that its also OK for the US to torture its prisoners is indeed a wingnut."
No, it's someone who is logically consistent. If I argue that spies (like terrorists) fall into a category of person that can justifiably be tortured, then it follows that the same logic can be applied to U.S. spies. It's not that difficult to understand, and it has nothing to do with being a "wingnut." Plus I was responding to a specific attack on that very point.
"I run a small, personal blog that doesn't make any money and has a great group of intelligent, rational commenters that I've come to know pretty well. I've seen a lot of blogs over the years get bogged down in devil's advocates and wingnut trolls -- only to have the existing commenter community leave as a result"
Except that I wasn't trolling. I made a polite response to something that was said about me. I didn't comment on any of your other posts, or do any of the things trolls usually do.
"I never implied that your views are based on racism or bigotry. I did"
Yes you did. Look back through your comments. You suggested that my views were based on hatred of "brown people" and Muslims.
"contrary to your rigid and unyielding ideology"
If you even scan my various positions on issues, you might see that the idea that I have any sort of easy to define ideology (let alone a rigid one) is pretty ridiculous.
"I suspect most anyone you reveal this to would be pretty horrified as well."
I was making an academic point as a response to a specific assertion. I would certainly do that anywhere if such a debate on torture were in progress.
By the way, I welcome all civil debate here. If you don't like my arguments, feel free to come attack them. But please respond to my actual stated positions.
ReplyDeleteJust a quick correction for you.
ReplyDeleteI wrote: "I would suggest that you walk into any firehouse, school or city council building in any city in the U.S. and tell people you think that the Iranians would be justified in torturing the brave men and women who serve in the CIA and see how they would react. I suspect most anyone you reveal this to would be pretty horrified as well." in response to your suggestion that I had "delicate sensibilities".
How would you define "delicate sensibilities"? Sensibilities that are objectively delicate? Sensibilities that are subjectively delicate (as in, delicate as compared to other people)? I suspect you'd probably go for the latter, which is why I made my point above. In general, if you were to walk down the street and tell 50 random people that you think it would be okay for the Iranian government to torture a captured member of the CIA, I am confident you would get at least 49 (and probably 50) horrified negative responses. Would you consider their "sensitivities" to also be "delicate"?
What if we were to conduct a Gallup poll of a representative sampling of all Americans, asking the question, "Do you believe that the Iranian government would be justified if it tortured a captured member of the CIA?" I can confidently predict that at least 90+% (likely more) would respond "NO". Would their "sensibilities" also be "delicate"?
Metavirus, I don't think it's wise to ban commentators you disagree with, even if they seem immune to facts or reason. I would only ban someone if they post too much repeated nonsense or are abusive.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with UNRR very strongly on torture and various international relations issues, but I read his blog because I'm interested in opposing views.
I don't think he's irrational so much as operating on different assumptions about how to deal with terrorism, the value of human life, universal rights, dignity, international cooperation, the importance of following the rule of law (apart from civil disobedience actions). In particular he seems to have great faith in the military & executive's ability to do the right thing with no checks or oversight.
Again, you are missing the point. Someone made an assertion that my positions on torture would change if the Iranians were doing the same thing -- basically accusing me of hypocrisy. I'll give you a more detailed hypothetical example. Maybe that will clarify what I was saying.
ReplyDeleteTensions have heated up between the U.S. & Iran, and the Iranians believe that a U.S. attack may be imminent. They capture an intruder on the grounds of one of their main nuclear facilities. They investigate him and find overwhelming evidence that he is a CIA covert operator. They are unable to extract any useful information from him. Convinced that he might have critical information necessary to protect their nation against U.S. attack, they resort to torture.
Looking at things from the Iranian perspective, in that case I would argue that they are justified in using torture. From a purely U.S. perspective, I don't want him caught in the first place, let alone tortured.
And before you accuse me of evading your questions... Yes, if I were to simply say out of the blue: "Iran would be justified in torturing captured CIA agents," that would not be a popular position. But that's not what I did.
Also, if you have political blog and cover controversial topics on which people hold strong and sharply differing opinions, you have to expect to hear some comments that you might personally find appalling.
If you had said something like: "Look, here at Library Grape we have a consensus on certain topics. We feel that any advocacy of torture for any reason is out of bounds. Don't comment here if you are going to take such a position because it isn't welcome." I would have respected that and not returned.
Gherald,
ReplyDelete"I don't think he's irrational so much as operating on different assumptions about how to deal with terrorism, the value of human life, universal rights, dignity, international cooperation, the importance of following the rule of law (apart from civil disobedience actions)."
That pretty much nails it. You and I (and presumably Metavirus), look at those particular issues based on extremely different underlying assumptions.
"In particular he seems to have great faith in the military & executive's ability to do the right thing with no checks or oversight."
My arguments in favor of the torture option in certain cases do not apply to the military. I do not want the military torturing anyone, and the Bush administration's attempt to blur the line and use numerous questionable techniques in military interrogations were a bad idea.
As for the executive, I'm not opposed to checks and oversights, but I give the executive branch a lot more leeway in times of conflict than you feel is wise. It's a matter of degree.
UNRR: "Again, you are missing the point. Someone made an assertion that my positions on torture would change if the Iranians were doing the same thing -- basically accusing me of hypocrisy."
ReplyDeleteWell, you corrected any aspersions of hypocrisy right quick. I'm not sure what is worse, potential hypocrisy or the affirmative justification that Iran would be right to torture the brave men and women who serve in the CIA. I lean toward the latter.
UNRR: "Yes, if I were to simply say out of the blue: 'Iran would be justified in torturing captured CIA agents,' that would not be a popular position."
Well, frame the question however you want -- it still wouldn't change the outcome. Let's frame the Gallup poll thusly: "Please consider the following situation: Tensions have heated up between the U.S. & Iran, and the Iranians believe that a U.S. attack may be imminent. They capture an intruder on the grounds of one of their main nuclear facilities. They investigate him and find overwhelming evidence that he is a CIA covert operator. They are unable to extract any useful information from him. Convinced that he might have critical information necessary to protect their nation against U.S. attack, they resort to torture. Question: Do you believe that Iran would be justified in torturing the captured CIA agent in this circumstance?"
Again, I am confident that at least 49 people on the street and last 90% of the people asked the question in a Gallup poll would still respond with a horrified "NO!". Again, I then ask you, would you consider their "sensibilities" to be "delicate"?
Gherald: "I don't think it's wise to ban commentators you disagree with, even if they seem immune to facts or reason."
I take your point but I don't ban just any commentators I disagree with. I did, however, make a decision a long time ago, to not allow my blog to provide a forum for wingnuts and trolls who have no interest in absorbing facts and informing their position. I've read hundreds of blogs over the years and have seen far too many of them be whittled down to shadows of their former selves by the rising force of wingnuts and trolls peppering the comments with indefensible nonsense with the sole aim of eliciting furious reaction only to drive off the core group of rational, reasonable people who visit the blog to enter into rational discourse and agree to disagree in a way that respects differing views that aren't based on fact-free nonsense. There are a number of thoughtful commenters on my blog who I disagree with on a lot of issues. Thus far, I've only had to ban a few people for coming to the blog and offering up wingnut-inspired nonsense that can easily find its voice on any number of sites that cater to gun-nuts, wingnuts, and torture apologists. I appreciate your views on the topic and will be ever-mindful of my standards and plans for the site alongside the value of respectful and rational dialogue.
"Again, I am confident that at least 49 people on the street and last 90% of the people asked the question in a Gallup poll would still respond with a horrified "NO!". Again, I then ask you, would you consider their "sensibilities" to be "delicate"?"
ReplyDeleteThat would depend on why they answered no.
"I take your point but I don't ban just any commentators I disagree with."
That explanation makes sense, but since none of it applies in my case, that's why it appeared that the banning was merely an attempt to stifle any dissent.
"That would depend on why they answered no."
ReplyDeleteWell, if I were to speculate, I would say that nearly everyone that responded with a horrified NO! would say that the reason behind their response is that foreign governments should never be allowed to torture the brave men and women who serve their country in the CIA.
"That explanation makes sense, but since none of it applies in my case, that's why it appeared that the banning was merely an attempt to stifle any dissent."
I can see how you could see it as an attempt to stifle dissent. I can't create a set of bright-line tests to include in the terms and conditions under my comments section because the list would run to several pages (e.g. this is not a forum in which to glorify Xenu and the 15 tenets of Scientology; this is not a forum in which to reveal the virtue of the newly beatified Saint George W. Bush and his ability to heal the sick and infirm with a simple touch, etc.)! There is a lot of back-and-forth that goes on and lots of people disagree with me and the people that visit the site (as a former Republican, Independent and Libertarian who is now a left-of-center Democratic sympathizer right now, there is a lot to disagree with me on!). However, there is a fuzzy line (which, I'll admit, is hard to pin down at any particular moment) over which comments section just descend into fact-free nonsense based on a usually strategic campaign to pepper opposing sites with fact-free nonsense with the express purpose of inflaming a comment war and crowding out the rational debate that would otherwise take place. There are lots of places where people who think that Iran would be justified in torturing CIA agents can hang out and exchange notes on the subject. I don't intend my site to accommodate any such descents into madness.
It's only pixels, and we're all virtually anonymous, don't waste your time on irrational nicks and the alphanumeric nonsense they produce. The thing to remember is, it's your computer, you bought it for your pleasure, not for the pleasure of others. However, if you write and publish with your real name, under the auspices of your real being, then challenges should be vigorously engaged in; what we do otherwise, online, is .. simply a practice match.
ReplyDeletenyomythus: a fair point
ReplyDeleteI don't see the problem with extending rights to others that we claim for ourselves.
ReplyDeleteI'm reading the question to be it's wrong to torture a CIA agent, period. That says nothing as to whether torture itself is wrong. If it is wrong for the USA to torture, it's wrong for Iran to torture.
But that doesn't seem to be the question, if I'm reading these comments correctly.
Donna,
ReplyDelete"I'm reading the question to be it's wrong to torture a CIA agent, period. That says nothing as to whether torture itself is wrong. If it is wrong for the USA to torture, it's wrong for Iran to torture."
Yes, and I was making the reverse argument -- that it is sometimes ok for the US to torture. Therefore if there are cases in which it is ok for the U.S. to torture, it would logically follow that there are also cases where Iran could torture.
nyomythus,
That's true and maybe I shouldn't have even responded. But obviously I like to argue, or I wouldn't even have this blog. And I don't like my arguments misrepresented, regardless of whether I'm posting them anonymously or not.
Metavirus,
I occasionally bash other bloggers on my site, people who I think have irrational/ridiculous arguments & positions. If one of them shows up here and says that I mischaracterized his positions, and responds with specific points as to why, my reaction would be:
1) I'd be happy that he noticed my blog in the first place. If I didn't want people to read my opinions I wouldn't be putting them online.
2)Even if I thought the person was a left-wing whack job, I'd also have a bit of respect that he was willing to come into hostile territory and defend positions knowing that they would be highly unpopular.
3) I'd read his arguments and answer them to the best of my ability. As long as he was reasonably courteous, stayed on topic, and was not otherwise abusive, there'd be no problem.
This thread is a prime example. When you showed up here to respond, do you think I'd have been justified in posting a dismissive response to your first comment and then banning you, preventing you from answering?
"When you showed up here to respond, do you think I'd have been justified in posting a dismissive response to your first comment and then banning you, preventing you from answering?"
ReplyDeleteAs a general matter, I wouldn't care one way or the other. I would dispute that our interaction would fit within my definition of the content I choose not to host at my site -- but that's a determination that's up to you. You are welcome to set whatever standards you want for the site. Moreover, I don't harbor much interest in hanging about, but rather just wanted to jump over and have a bit of fun engaging you on the matter at hand.