0 comment Thursday, December 4, 2014 | admin
At SBPDL, Paul explains his banning of a certain commenter, who tended to dominate (and derail) most discussions on that blog. I've mentioned before that I thought the SBPDL blog would be better without this bothersome commenter and others of that sort, so I think this is a good move.
Predictably, though, a few commenters decry 'censorship' and bemoan what they see as a move towards having an 'echo chamber' or a boring discussion with no opposition to debate. There are always these schools of thought among blog readers.
It's possible to have a free exchange of ideas without tolerating obnoxious commenters or discussion-derailers. We've seen a few passing through the comment section here over the years, and a few of them have been IP-banned, without any appreciable loss to the discussion here.
I think it's more important on a blog to maintain a certain level of civility, and to try to keep things on a higher plane. Abusive or insulting comments degrade the discussion, and when I am visiting a blog that tolerates that kind of thing, I will just remove the blog from my list of daily reads. I am sure there must be others who react similarly to blogs with out-of-control comment sections.
Of course some people are attracted to that kind of rough-and-tumble atmosphere, and to each his own, I suppose, but that's not my cup of tea. It isn't my idea of debate. Maybe the blunt language and rough banter is more of a ''guy'' thing, but it's just not for me. Still, every blogger has his own philosophy of what a blog discussion should be.
I'm all for freedom of speech when it comes to expressing ideas and arguments and points of view, but there is a limit. I will let comments stand even if I disagree with the ideas expressed but I will ban for abusive or aggressive or hostile language, because I believe it's possible to get one's points across in a civil and respectful way. Generally I give people a couple of chances to make their points in a civil way, and if they can't, well, they are gone.
Some of the comments at SBPDL which took exception to the new policy stated the need to 'hear what the opposition is saying.' Personally I find that I can hear what the opposition is saying just about anywhere; read any mainstream news source or blog, and there is nothing else but the 'opposition viewpoint.' So dissident bloggers have no crying need to welcome the opposition; they offer nothing but predictable nonsense and falsehoods, so it's absolutely redundant to have such commenters on our blogs. Such is my opinion, anyway.
Recently on some blog I was reading, a commenter complained about a blogger joining in the discussion on the comment thread; this complainer thought that was very bad form, and should not be done by a blogger. I've noticed over the years that certain bloggers do not join any discussion in the comment section. Personally, when visiting others' blogs, I am put off by that. I remember before I started blogging myself, that some bloggers never came down from Olympus to interact with the readers who commented. I tend to take the opposite approach. I don't know the preferences of my readers, but I recall one reader a couple of years ago, who seemed new to the blog, who left a comment to which I did not, for whatever reason, reply directly to. The commenter took angry offense at my failing to reply, and huffily announced that he would not read my blog anymore and that I was not welcome in his neck of the woods. I was taken aback, because I had meant no offense to that person, but in any case, he took his leave.
I generally like to acknowledge comments and interact because I value comments -- most of them, anyway -- and especially value my regular, faithful readers. I understand, though, that others have a different approach, especially those blogs which have scores of comments on a given post.
There are many approaches to blogging and managing the discussion, so there's no one right way I suppose, although I think we should all be able to agree on rules of basic civility towards one another.
Predictably, though, a few commenters decry 'censorship' and bemoan what they see as a move towards having an 'echo chamber' or a boring discussion with no opposition to debate. There are always these schools of thought among blog readers.
It's possible to have a free exchange of ideas without tolerating obnoxious commenters or discussion-derailers. We've seen a few passing through the comment section here over the years, and a few of them have been IP-banned, without any appreciable loss to the discussion here.
I think it's more important on a blog to maintain a certain level of civility, and to try to keep things on a higher plane. Abusive or insulting comments degrade the discussion, and when I am visiting a blog that tolerates that kind of thing, I will just remove the blog from my list of daily reads. I am sure there must be others who react similarly to blogs with out-of-control comment sections.
Of course some people are attracted to that kind of rough-and-tumble atmosphere, and to each his own, I suppose, but that's not my cup of tea. It isn't my idea of debate. Maybe the blunt language and rough banter is more of a ''guy'' thing, but it's just not for me. Still, every blogger has his own philosophy of what a blog discussion should be.
I'm all for freedom of speech when it comes to expressing ideas and arguments and points of view, but there is a limit. I will let comments stand even if I disagree with the ideas expressed but I will ban for abusive or aggressive or hostile language, because I believe it's possible to get one's points across in a civil and respectful way. Generally I give people a couple of chances to make their points in a civil way, and if they can't, well, they are gone.
Some of the comments at SBPDL which took exception to the new policy stated the need to 'hear what the opposition is saying.' Personally I find that I can hear what the opposition is saying just about anywhere; read any mainstream news source or blog, and there is nothing else but the 'opposition viewpoint.' So dissident bloggers have no crying need to welcome the opposition; they offer nothing but predictable nonsense and falsehoods, so it's absolutely redundant to have such commenters on our blogs. Such is my opinion, anyway.
Recently on some blog I was reading, a commenter complained about a blogger joining in the discussion on the comment thread; this complainer thought that was very bad form, and should not be done by a blogger. I've noticed over the years that certain bloggers do not join any discussion in the comment section. Personally, when visiting others' blogs, I am put off by that. I remember before I started blogging myself, that some bloggers never came down from Olympus to interact with the readers who commented. I tend to take the opposite approach. I don't know the preferences of my readers, but I recall one reader a couple of years ago, who seemed new to the blog, who left a comment to which I did not, for whatever reason, reply directly to. The commenter took angry offense at my failing to reply, and huffily announced that he would not read my blog anymore and that I was not welcome in his neck of the woods. I was taken aback, because I had meant no offense to that person, but in any case, he took his leave.
I generally like to acknowledge comments and interact because I value comments -- most of them, anyway -- and especially value my regular, faithful readers. I understand, though, that others have a different approach, especially those blogs which have scores of comments on a given post.
There are many approaches to blogging and managing the discussion, so there's no one right way I suppose, although I think we should all be able to agree on rules of basic civility towards one another.
Labels: Blog Business, Blogging, Civility, Free Speech
0 comment Tuesday, December 2, 2014 | admin
I am just now noticing some of the comments on the posts from a week or more ago, so if I haven't acknowledged or replied to a comment, it's not that I am ignoring you all; I just now noticed the older comments. I appreciate them.
I rather miss the old Haloscan comment system we used to have; it put the recent comments at the top of my page, so that if someone posted on an older thread, I would see that post and could respond. But for now, until or unless I find another commenting system, we are stuck with this one, where the comments on older threads may go unnoticed. So bear with me please.
I rather miss the old Haloscan comment system we used to have; it put the recent comments at the top of my page, so that if someone posted on an older thread, I would see that post and could respond. But for now, until or unless I find another commenting system, we are stuck with this one, where the comments on older threads may go unnoticed. So bear with me please.
0 comment Monday, November 3, 2014 | admin
The question has been asked, so I suppose the thing to do is to answer it.
The other day, the essayist Fjordman, whom I hold in high esteem, wrote a piece which appeared at Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal. In it, he referenced and linked to a piece of mine, and alluded to me by the feminine pronouns, 'she' and 'her.' This somewhat surprised me, because I have tried to maintain my anonymity online. However, it's a simple matter to learn basic things about anyone who posts online: e-mail addies or other such information. I assume that is what Fjordman did, unless he happens to know one of the few people who know both me and this blog.
So to answer the question asked by one of my regular readers and fellow-bloggers, yes, it's true. I am a she. The Vanishing American is a female American.
Maybe some of you will have guessed; I am told that it is easy for an expert to discern, simply from writing style, word choice, and so on, whether the writer is male or female. I think I always assumed it would be evident.
When I began this blog, my intent was strictly to keep my real-life identity separate from the blog; my intent was not to misrepresent myself as a male. The name 'Vanishing American' was chosen for its symbolism, and not for the sake of assuming a male identity. Somehow, though, I suppose by default, it was assumed that I was a 'he', and I was addressed as such, and spoken of in the third person as a 'he'. At first I found this slightly embarrassing and a little amusing; I mentioned it to a relative, one of the few who knows of this blog, and she said it was an understandable mistake, because of my 'masculine' style of expressing myself in writing. I don't know that I think of my writing style as 'masculine', nor have I tried to affect a male style of writing. I do know that I was told in the past that I had a male style of management, and that I needed to work at cultivating the 'feminine' qualities of giving frequent praise and compliments.
(For those who know anything about the personality typing system known as the Myers-Briggs system, I test as an ISTP, introverted sensing thinking perceiving type: most ISTPs are male. So I suppose my style is attributable to that.)
But for whatever reason, mostly because I preferred to keep my anonymity, I didn't correct commenters who addressed me as a male, or those who referred to me as such. There was never an intent to deceive, but simply to avoid disclosing too much about myself. I am a private person in real life. And I do blog about issues that many people feel very strongly about, controversial issues. There are people in my life who might be embarrassed by my un-PC opinions and the stands I take here. I choose not to embarrass them, or to force them to defend me and my views. Everybody in my personal life knows me to be an opinionated person, so I am not living a double life as a liberal in public or anything of that nature. However, for many reasons, we can't always be as outspoken in real life, for various reasons, personal and professional, without paying a considerable price.
I have noticed that many if not most female bloggers tend to indicate their femaleness either through the name of their blogging persona or the theme of the blog. My intent here was to be a 'type' or a symbol, rather than to represent myself, as one small individual. As I've said, this blog has never been about me, although at times I have alluded to my personal experiences and family background. Still, I've preferred to write about the urgent issues and questions of the day and not about me. And if I had chosen to disclose my femininity, I perhaps thought that I would be pigeonholed as a woman blogger, not just a blogger. I did not want to be thought of as offering the 'woman's point of view', just the traditional American point of view.
Whatever information I have disclosed about my life experiences or my personal history and family history is all accurate; all my thoughts and sentiments and opinions as expressed here are sincere and true. I hope that is what counts, for my readers, and not my x-chromosome.
In a way, I'm glad the question was asked; I am an honest person, and it was uncomfortable for me to allow an incorrect impression of who I was. My preference is always to be who I am, while still keeping my personal life separate from this blog. So in a sense, it will be freeing to be known as a female, because that is the reality. I do hope that my readers will forgive any wrong impression that I allowed to go uncorrected; it was not my intent to mislead anyone. So I hope this will set the record straight.
And I appreciate my readers; I hope you will continue to read and offer your thoughts here on this blog.
The other day, the essayist Fjordman, whom I hold in high esteem, wrote a piece which appeared at Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal. In it, he referenced and linked to a piece of mine, and alluded to me by the feminine pronouns, 'she' and 'her.' This somewhat surprised me, because I have tried to maintain my anonymity online. However, it's a simple matter to learn basic things about anyone who posts online: e-mail addies or other such information. I assume that is what Fjordman did, unless he happens to know one of the few people who know both me and this blog.
So to answer the question asked by one of my regular readers and fellow-bloggers, yes, it's true. I am a she. The Vanishing American is a female American.
Maybe some of you will have guessed; I am told that it is easy for an expert to discern, simply from writing style, word choice, and so on, whether the writer is male or female. I think I always assumed it would be evident.
When I began this blog, my intent was strictly to keep my real-life identity separate from the blog; my intent was not to misrepresent myself as a male. The name 'Vanishing American' was chosen for its symbolism, and not for the sake of assuming a male identity. Somehow, though, I suppose by default, it was assumed that I was a 'he', and I was addressed as such, and spoken of in the third person as a 'he'. At first I found this slightly embarrassing and a little amusing; I mentioned it to a relative, one of the few who knows of this blog, and she said it was an understandable mistake, because of my 'masculine' style of expressing myself in writing. I don't know that I think of my writing style as 'masculine', nor have I tried to affect a male style of writing. I do know that I was told in the past that I had a male style of management, and that I needed to work at cultivating the 'feminine' qualities of giving frequent praise and compliments.
(For those who know anything about the personality typing system known as the Myers-Briggs system, I test as an ISTP, introverted sensing thinking perceiving type: most ISTPs are male. So I suppose my style is attributable to that.)
But for whatever reason, mostly because I preferred to keep my anonymity, I didn't correct commenters who addressed me as a male, or those who referred to me as such. There was never an intent to deceive, but simply to avoid disclosing too much about myself. I am a private person in real life. And I do blog about issues that many people feel very strongly about, controversial issues. There are people in my life who might be embarrassed by my un-PC opinions and the stands I take here. I choose not to embarrass them, or to force them to defend me and my views. Everybody in my personal life knows me to be an opinionated person, so I am not living a double life as a liberal in public or anything of that nature. However, for many reasons, we can't always be as outspoken in real life, for various reasons, personal and professional, without paying a considerable price.
I have noticed that many if not most female bloggers tend to indicate their femaleness either through the name of their blogging persona or the theme of the blog. My intent here was to be a 'type' or a symbol, rather than to represent myself, as one small individual. As I've said, this blog has never been about me, although at times I have alluded to my personal experiences and family background. Still, I've preferred to write about the urgent issues and questions of the day and not about me. And if I had chosen to disclose my femininity, I perhaps thought that I would be pigeonholed as a woman blogger, not just a blogger. I did not want to be thought of as offering the 'woman's point of view', just the traditional American point of view.
Whatever information I have disclosed about my life experiences or my personal history and family history is all accurate; all my thoughts and sentiments and opinions as expressed here are sincere and true. I hope that is what counts, for my readers, and not my x-chromosome.
In a way, I'm glad the question was asked; I am an honest person, and it was uncomfortable for me to allow an incorrect impression of who I was. My preference is always to be who I am, while still keeping my personal life separate from this blog. So in a sense, it will be freeing to be known as a female, because that is the reality. I do hope that my readers will forgive any wrong impression that I allowed to go uncorrected; it was not my intent to mislead anyone. So I hope this will set the record straight.
And I appreciate my readers; I hope you will continue to read and offer your thoughts here on this blog.
Labels: Blogging
0 comment Saturday, October 18, 2014 | admin
In a recent discussion thread, a reader left a comment that might easily provoke controversy.
At the time the comment appeared, I judged that the comment might provoke such a response, and I considered how best to handle the situation. However, probably to my discredit, I was guilty of choosing to sidestep the issues raised by the comments, which was probably not courageous on my part. So I let the comment stand.
At the same time, the Haloscan glitch occurred, and I was unable to access my comments, manage them, or write any responses. And today when I was able to access my comments, I saw that there was a disagreement going on, with one commenter requesting that the original offending comment be deleted.
This is not an easy call for me; I've deleted comments rarely during the 15 months or so that this blog has existed. However I can and do ban people who have been uncivil and who make profane, pointless or inflammatory comments.
For some people, an anything-goes atmosphere epitomizes freedom. I disagree; I don't believe that free speech means there are no rules or standards. I don't see how a traditionalist could support that idea of freedom.
On the other hand, I am committed to following the truth wherever it leads, as I said to another commenter on another recent thread. I'm not inclined to forbid certain opinions or lines of questioning out of hand, because that approach is simply not consistent with seeking truth or having an open and honest discussion about the very real threat to our country and our culture and our very survival. These are not trivial and inconsequential matters we are discussing here, but the continued survival of our country and our posterity. America and the West are under threat from within and without and to refrain from discussing our predicament and its causes from all angles is to further diminish our chances.
Those who have read my blog for any length of time know that I am a sworn enemy of political correctness in all its forms. I find it much more than a mere annoyance, and far more than just a quaint absurdity, as some people regard it. Political Correctness is the mortal enemy of truth and honesty and fairness. As such it is one of the main factors in the compromising of our national immune system; it is one of the main weapons with which our enemies, internal and external, keep us weak and divided, and keep us from examining the truth with honesty. Political Correctness has to go if we are to continue to exist as a country, and if we are to have real freedom of thought, freedom of belief, and freedom of expression. Political correctness and sacred cows will find no friends here.
I've quoted a phrase of Carleton Putnam more than once here, and the quote seems apt here:
'I never hated anything in my life except two things: dishonesty and the appeasement of evil. These I hate with every fiber of my being. I would rather face controversy and bitterness indefinitely than surrender to either one.''
To me, avoiding the exploration of any question regarding America's predicament amounts to dishonesty. How can I forbid the asking of certain questions, especially when I oppose political correctness, and I refuse to put any group of people above criticism or questioning?
Many people who are as concerned with America's survival as I am are angry at 'White Anglo-Saxon Protestants', especially those of New England stock who all too often are liberal elitists, eager to sell America out in order to be seen as philanthropic and enlightened. I was just at another web forum where WASP New England liberals were taking quite a thrashing from several posters. Now I've said before that I have Puritan New England roots, (as well as much more numerous Southern roots), so some of the worst culprits among WASP politicians are in fact distant cousins of mine. I could name names, but I will refrain; fill in the blanks as you like. Suffice it to say that I have been critical here on this blog of individual political figures who are my own kin, albeit distant kin. As I said, I am no respecter of persons, and yes, there are too many old-stock New England elites who have no allegiance to this country and who are, quite bluntly, a disgrace to our common Puritan ancestors. So my own ethnic kin and my own extended family members are not above criticism; there are no sacred cows here.
I could, following the fashion of the day, take personal offense when someone insults WASP elites and liberal New England people, but I don't, because I recognize that there is more than a grain of truth in the insults. I could protest that there are exceptions, and complain about stereotypes and bigotry but I acknowledge there is truth in the stereotypes. That there are welcome exceptions among the 'New England WASP elite', such as my distant cousin Carleton Putnam, does not disprove the rule. He was an exception, and not typical overall.
I've been fairly hard on people of Irish and Italian immigrant stock here, but I have nothing against individuals of those groups if they are not rabid open-borders advocates or anti-American.
So when a commenter made remarks which were critical of Jews, I was torn as to whether to let the comments stand, and I ultimately allowed them. If the commenter had made similar comments about Irish-Americans, who tend to be very pro-immigrant and pro-open borders, would the same offense have been taken?
I know that the comeback would be: but the Irish have not suffered the persecution that Jews have suffered; there is no organized anti-Irish hatred whereas there is very real anti-Semitism which has resulted in genocidal violence at times in the past.
However some Irish partisans will answer that they themselves were 'targeted for genocide' by the British, and that they almost died out during the Famine of the 1840s. So on and on it goes.
But is it legitimate to place a group of people off limits for critical comments, based on past persecution? And is a fear of current persecution legitimate or overblown?
If I place one group above criticism, how does that square with honest discussion?
I can and occasionally do delete comments which are abusive, race-baiting, and slanderous. I have let stand many comments that I found to be personally insulting and rude, although I usually ban such commenters in the future simply because I am resolved that this blog will not be dominated by incivility or personal squabbles; I've seen it happen on far too many forums and blogs. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, the conflicts tend to drive away others who prefer not to witness the disputes.
My concern is to keep the discussion here as civilized and as objective as possible.
Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. Freedom without responsibility is license and sometimes ultimately anarchy.
We have free speech in this country but this blog is not obligated to allow any and all comments in the name of 'freedom.' I do require that my commenters make their points as civilly and as reasonably as possible, and refrain from personal comments and insults.
So was the controversial comment bannable? If so, in order to be consistent and fair, I would have to ban harsh comments about all ethnic/racial/religious groups if I banned the comments in question. And I and my commenters make some rather harsh comments about certain groups here, being no friends of political correctness. But we do so in the spirit of telling the truth and letting the chips fall where they may. In a country which has become increasingly afraid to speak difficult truths, we have to kick over the traces or we will be history.
So it's a dilemma. I will not make a blanket pronouncement about any group being exempt from criticism or questioning, but I will ask that commenters temper their comments, and refrain from making inflammatory or malicious statements, realizing too that the definiton of what is inflammatory or malicious is open to some subjective interpretation.
I will say, on the Jewish question, that I've been among many paleos who seem concerned with Jews in particular, and I have found that often their beliefs in a ubiquitous Jewish conspiracy sound eerily like the complaints heard from militant blacks who think Whitey invented AIDS to commit genocide against them, or that Whitey induces blacks to eat pork products because they contain a brain parasite which suppresses black functioning.
On the other hand, because I differ with paleocons on this one issue, I am not inclined to dismiss everything they stand for because I consider them tainted by this one opinion. I know this is the approach of many on the 'respectable right' but I think it is shortsighted. Because I disagree with one emphasis of the neocons, I can't declare them discredited completely, as some other conservatives do -- although I think they are wrong far more often than the paleos, and wrong more often than they are right.
In the end, I confess I am not comfortable with the conspiracy theories which portray Jews as all-powerful; it really reduces us, the majority, to being helpless pawns and victims, and to think of ourselves as victims and pawns is not a healthy state of being. Our forefathers would not have brooked that kind of thinking.
I do accept as reasonable that most minority groups who have experienced persecution, or who believe themselves to have experienced it (as with Irish-Americans) there is a kind of self-protective us-against-them mentality, a sense of grievance which leads to intense ethnocentrism and often a desire to promote one's ethnic group at the expense of the feared majority. Groups do act in self-interested ways; there is no denying that, and minority groups especially so, perhaps defensively at times.
But I prefer to keep discussion here on a higher plane if possible. Most of my commenters do so; I'm generally well-impressed with the quality of most of the comments I get here.
However we are adults here, and if a comment is made that you disagree with or find objectionable, refute it if possible; show where the facts are wrong, the reasoning is flawed, or the conclusions unfounded. Most of my commenters are good debaters and can do that with ease. I WILL step in and delete and ban where warranted , although our respective judgments on just what is acceptable and what is not may differ. It's much better to refute a falsehood than to merely silence it, but granted, sometimes feelings run high and the debate becomes heated.
I will put the question to my readers, or those who are still with me, anyway: should I ban certain topics or questions or issues here? If so, which ones? Or do I make a blanket ban on all ethnic generalizations? If so, then do I then become the people I've decried so often, such as the 'anti-illegal immigration' fighters who ban people for saying 'wetback' or who banish people for criticizing Hispanic culture? What topics and questions are forbidden?
I honestly hope that I will not lose readers over this issue, but truth is paramount here. I do pledge to try to be fair and honest and to keep the discussion civilized.
I realize I probably won't please everybody here; that's not always possible. But I hope that those who have added so much to the discussion on this blog will continue to visit and comment.
At the time the comment appeared, I judged that the comment might provoke such a response, and I considered how best to handle the situation. However, probably to my discredit, I was guilty of choosing to sidestep the issues raised by the comments, which was probably not courageous on my part. So I let the comment stand.
At the same time, the Haloscan glitch occurred, and I was unable to access my comments, manage them, or write any responses. And today when I was able to access my comments, I saw that there was a disagreement going on, with one commenter requesting that the original offending comment be deleted.
This is not an easy call for me; I've deleted comments rarely during the 15 months or so that this blog has existed. However I can and do ban people who have been uncivil and who make profane, pointless or inflammatory comments.
For some people, an anything-goes atmosphere epitomizes freedom. I disagree; I don't believe that free speech means there are no rules or standards. I don't see how a traditionalist could support that idea of freedom.
On the other hand, I am committed to following the truth wherever it leads, as I said to another commenter on another recent thread. I'm not inclined to forbid certain opinions or lines of questioning out of hand, because that approach is simply not consistent with seeking truth or having an open and honest discussion about the very real threat to our country and our culture and our very survival. These are not trivial and inconsequential matters we are discussing here, but the continued survival of our country and our posterity. America and the West are under threat from within and without and to refrain from discussing our predicament and its causes from all angles is to further diminish our chances.
Those who have read my blog for any length of time know that I am a sworn enemy of political correctness in all its forms. I find it much more than a mere annoyance, and far more than just a quaint absurdity, as some people regard it. Political Correctness is the mortal enemy of truth and honesty and fairness. As such it is one of the main factors in the compromising of our national immune system; it is one of the main weapons with which our enemies, internal and external, keep us weak and divided, and keep us from examining the truth with honesty. Political Correctness has to go if we are to continue to exist as a country, and if we are to have real freedom of thought, freedom of belief, and freedom of expression. Political correctness and sacred cows will find no friends here.
I've quoted a phrase of Carleton Putnam more than once here, and the quote seems apt here:
'I never hated anything in my life except two things: dishonesty and the appeasement of evil. These I hate with every fiber of my being. I would rather face controversy and bitterness indefinitely than surrender to either one.''
To me, avoiding the exploration of any question regarding America's predicament amounts to dishonesty. How can I forbid the asking of certain questions, especially when I oppose political correctness, and I refuse to put any group of people above criticism or questioning?
Many people who are as concerned with America's survival as I am are angry at 'White Anglo-Saxon Protestants', especially those of New England stock who all too often are liberal elitists, eager to sell America out in order to be seen as philanthropic and enlightened. I was just at another web forum where WASP New England liberals were taking quite a thrashing from several posters. Now I've said before that I have Puritan New England roots, (as well as much more numerous Southern roots), so some of the worst culprits among WASP politicians are in fact distant cousins of mine. I could name names, but I will refrain; fill in the blanks as you like. Suffice it to say that I have been critical here on this blog of individual political figures who are my own kin, albeit distant kin. As I said, I am no respecter of persons, and yes, there are too many old-stock New England elites who have no allegiance to this country and who are, quite bluntly, a disgrace to our common Puritan ancestors. So my own ethnic kin and my own extended family members are not above criticism; there are no sacred cows here.
I could, following the fashion of the day, take personal offense when someone insults WASP elites and liberal New England people, but I don't, because I recognize that there is more than a grain of truth in the insults. I could protest that there are exceptions, and complain about stereotypes and bigotry but I acknowledge there is truth in the stereotypes. That there are welcome exceptions among the 'New England WASP elite', such as my distant cousin Carleton Putnam, does not disprove the rule. He was an exception, and not typical overall.
I've been fairly hard on people of Irish and Italian immigrant stock here, but I have nothing against individuals of those groups if they are not rabid open-borders advocates or anti-American.
So when a commenter made remarks which were critical of Jews, I was torn as to whether to let the comments stand, and I ultimately allowed them. If the commenter had made similar comments about Irish-Americans, who tend to be very pro-immigrant and pro-open borders, would the same offense have been taken?
I know that the comeback would be: but the Irish have not suffered the persecution that Jews have suffered; there is no organized anti-Irish hatred whereas there is very real anti-Semitism which has resulted in genocidal violence at times in the past.
However some Irish partisans will answer that they themselves were 'targeted for genocide' by the British, and that they almost died out during the Famine of the 1840s. So on and on it goes.
But is it legitimate to place a group of people off limits for critical comments, based on past persecution? And is a fear of current persecution legitimate or overblown?
If I place one group above criticism, how does that square with honest discussion?
I can and occasionally do delete comments which are abusive, race-baiting, and slanderous. I have let stand many comments that I found to be personally insulting and rude, although I usually ban such commenters in the future simply because I am resolved that this blog will not be dominated by incivility or personal squabbles; I've seen it happen on far too many forums and blogs. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, the conflicts tend to drive away others who prefer not to witness the disputes.
My concern is to keep the discussion here as civilized and as objective as possible.
Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. Freedom without responsibility is license and sometimes ultimately anarchy.
We have free speech in this country but this blog is not obligated to allow any and all comments in the name of 'freedom.' I do require that my commenters make their points as civilly and as reasonably as possible, and refrain from personal comments and insults.
So was the controversial comment bannable? If so, in order to be consistent and fair, I would have to ban harsh comments about all ethnic/racial/religious groups if I banned the comments in question. And I and my commenters make some rather harsh comments about certain groups here, being no friends of political correctness. But we do so in the spirit of telling the truth and letting the chips fall where they may. In a country which has become increasingly afraid to speak difficult truths, we have to kick over the traces or we will be history.
So it's a dilemma. I will not make a blanket pronouncement about any group being exempt from criticism or questioning, but I will ask that commenters temper their comments, and refrain from making inflammatory or malicious statements, realizing too that the definiton of what is inflammatory or malicious is open to some subjective interpretation.
I will say, on the Jewish question, that I've been among many paleos who seem concerned with Jews in particular, and I have found that often their beliefs in a ubiquitous Jewish conspiracy sound eerily like the complaints heard from militant blacks who think Whitey invented AIDS to commit genocide against them, or that Whitey induces blacks to eat pork products because they contain a brain parasite which suppresses black functioning.
On the other hand, because I differ with paleocons on this one issue, I am not inclined to dismiss everything they stand for because I consider them tainted by this one opinion. I know this is the approach of many on the 'respectable right' but I think it is shortsighted. Because I disagree with one emphasis of the neocons, I can't declare them discredited completely, as some other conservatives do -- although I think they are wrong far more often than the paleos, and wrong more often than they are right.
In the end, I confess I am not comfortable with the conspiracy theories which portray Jews as all-powerful; it really reduces us, the majority, to being helpless pawns and victims, and to think of ourselves as victims and pawns is not a healthy state of being. Our forefathers would not have brooked that kind of thinking.
I do accept as reasonable that most minority groups who have experienced persecution, or who believe themselves to have experienced it (as with Irish-Americans) there is a kind of self-protective us-against-them mentality, a sense of grievance which leads to intense ethnocentrism and often a desire to promote one's ethnic group at the expense of the feared majority. Groups do act in self-interested ways; there is no denying that, and minority groups especially so, perhaps defensively at times.
But I prefer to keep discussion here on a higher plane if possible. Most of my commenters do so; I'm generally well-impressed with the quality of most of the comments I get here.
However we are adults here, and if a comment is made that you disagree with or find objectionable, refute it if possible; show where the facts are wrong, the reasoning is flawed, or the conclusions unfounded. Most of my commenters are good debaters and can do that with ease. I WILL step in and delete and ban where warranted , although our respective judgments on just what is acceptable and what is not may differ. It's much better to refute a falsehood than to merely silence it, but granted, sometimes feelings run high and the debate becomes heated.
I will put the question to my readers, or those who are still with me, anyway: should I ban certain topics or questions or issues here? If so, which ones? Or do I make a blanket ban on all ethnic generalizations? If so, then do I then become the people I've decried so often, such as the 'anti-illegal immigration' fighters who ban people for saying 'wetback' or who banish people for criticizing Hispanic culture? What topics and questions are forbidden?
I honestly hope that I will not lose readers over this issue, but truth is paramount here. I do pledge to try to be fair and honest and to keep the discussion civilized.
I realize I probably won't please everybody here; that's not always possible. But I hope that those who have added so much to the discussion on this blog will continue to visit and comment.
Labels: Blogging, Free Speech, Freedom Of Expression, Political Correctness, Truth
0 comment Saturday, October 4, 2014 | admin
The recent trend towards more comments on this blog is a welcome thing; I generally like seeing more people join in the discussion. However it seems that the uptick in comments has brought with it some problems, among them, the inevitable spam, which is an annoyance to deal with, and then there is a tendency to get off-topic in some threads.
The off-topic posts are only a minor problem, but if possible let's keep to the subject being discussed; if there is a burning issue you want to discuss or a link you feel compelled to share, the forum would be a great place for that, since all who are registered can post topics and links. And yeah, I know the forum is something of a ghost town at the moment, but it looks like there has been a little increase in activity, so it need not stay deserted over there; it's you, readers and commenters, who will make or break the forum.
Another more difficult problem to deal with is the free speech issue. I've come down pretty firmly in favor of allowing ideas and points of view that others might exclude on the basis of political correctness. I am an enemy of PC in all its forms -- but how do we maintain a high level of discourse, which is what I am attempting to do, if we don't have standards, and if the standards aren't enforced?
I would really be sorry to see the discourse deteriorate here on this blog as has happened in many places; it doesn't take much to bring that about. So I am going to go through one of my draconian phases and start editing or censoring and banning if need be. Free speech is good but there is no absolute free speech anywhere, at least if some level of civilized discourse is to be maintained.
I ask rather little, really: just civility, no personal attacks towards me or other commenters, no obscene or blasphemous comments, no crude language generally. We should be able to put our ideas across or make our points without such language. And advocating violence or force is not something I tolerate here. It just isn't.
After a warning or two, (and I've been pretty lenient with people who are on 'our side' while I generally cut leftists and liberals no slack) I will ban those who disregard my basic rules. That's just the way it works here.
Rather than become too lax and tolerant and let the discussion be adversely affected, I will act when I need to, to keep things civil and mature here. I know most of you will honor my rules. Thanks.
The off-topic posts are only a minor problem, but if possible let's keep to the subject being discussed; if there is a burning issue you want to discuss or a link you feel compelled to share, the forum would be a great place for that, since all who are registered can post topics and links. And yeah, I know the forum is something of a ghost town at the moment, but it looks like there has been a little increase in activity, so it need not stay deserted over there; it's you, readers and commenters, who will make or break the forum.
Another more difficult problem to deal with is the free speech issue. I've come down pretty firmly in favor of allowing ideas and points of view that others might exclude on the basis of political correctness. I am an enemy of PC in all its forms -- but how do we maintain a high level of discourse, which is what I am attempting to do, if we don't have standards, and if the standards aren't enforced?
I would really be sorry to see the discourse deteriorate here on this blog as has happened in many places; it doesn't take much to bring that about. So I am going to go through one of my draconian phases and start editing or censoring and banning if need be. Free speech is good but there is no absolute free speech anywhere, at least if some level of civilized discourse is to be maintained.
I ask rather little, really: just civility, no personal attacks towards me or other commenters, no obscene or blasphemous comments, no crude language generally. We should be able to put our ideas across or make our points without such language. And advocating violence or force is not something I tolerate here. It just isn't.
After a warning or two, (and I've been pretty lenient with people who are on 'our side' while I generally cut leftists and liberals no slack) I will ban those who disregard my basic rules. That's just the way it works here.
Rather than become too lax and tolerant and let the discussion be adversely affected, I will act when I need to, to keep things civil and mature here. I know most of you will honor my rules. Thanks.
Labels: Blogging, Civility, Free Speech, Freedom Of Expression
0 comment Saturday, September 6, 2014 | admin
Glad to see a faithful few here on the blog, despite my extended silence lately.
Some of you may have seen me commenting here or there on other blogs, but the few comments I've posted elsewhere have been all the writing I've done lately. It will take a bit to get warmed up to this again, so please bear with me.
These last weeks and months have been a rather difficult time what with personal and family concerns, which I won't bore anyone with here. During all of this I have also had my dominant hand immobilized in a splint (due to injury) which makes it a little hard to do any typing except for the laborious hunt-and-peck kind. But it looks like things may be calming down just a bit -- apart from my internet connection being down yesterday, delaying my blogging efforts.
I realized that my 'blogiversary' came and went while I was absent; it was on April 9 in 2006 that I first began this blog. Time goes quickly, doesn't it? Some of you have been reading and commenting here for much of that time and some of you are more recent. But I appreciate your presence.
Some of you may have seen me commenting here or there on other blogs, but the few comments I've posted elsewhere have been all the writing I've done lately. It will take a bit to get warmed up to this again, so please bear with me.
These last weeks and months have been a rather difficult time what with personal and family concerns, which I won't bore anyone with here. During all of this I have also had my dominant hand immobilized in a splint (due to injury) which makes it a little hard to do any typing except for the laborious hunt-and-peck kind. But it looks like things may be calming down just a bit -- apart from my internet connection being down yesterday, delaying my blogging efforts.
I realized that my 'blogiversary' came and went while I was absent; it was on April 9 in 2006 that I first began this blog. Time goes quickly, doesn't it? Some of you have been reading and commenting here for much of that time and some of you are more recent. But I appreciate your presence.
Labels: Blog Business, Blogging
0 comment Saturday, August 23, 2014 | admin
In our neck of the woods, we are expecting yet another winter storm, this time with considerably more snow, and high winds, unfortunately.
So far, we've been spared power outages, though we have been pummeled by a lot of winds and cold. So here's hoping and praying that we do not lose our power when these winds come through here tomorrow. Actually, the winds are kicking up now, as I write this, so if I fail to post on the weekend it will probably mean that I am not online, probably without power, due to this storm.
At any rate, it looks like a White Christmas is almost a certainty this year. I am no great fan of cold weather and snow, so I wouldn't be disappointed if the snow passed us by. I am actually dreaming not of a ''white Christmas'' but of a Christmas in sunnier climes in the not-too-distant future.
Meantime, I expect many of you are experiencing much the same as we are here, with the snow, ice, wind, and Arctic cold. Here's hoping all of you are safe and snug at home, and not having to be out on the treacherous roads this weekend, and that you are not finding yourselves without power or other such comforts.
So far, we've been spared power outages, though we have been pummeled by a lot of winds and cold. So here's hoping and praying that we do not lose our power when these winds come through here tomorrow. Actually, the winds are kicking up now, as I write this, so if I fail to post on the weekend it will probably mean that I am not online, probably without power, due to this storm.
At any rate, it looks like a White Christmas is almost a certainty this year. I am no great fan of cold weather and snow, so I wouldn't be disappointed if the snow passed us by. I am actually dreaming not of a ''white Christmas'' but of a Christmas in sunnier climes in the not-too-distant future.
Meantime, I expect many of you are experiencing much the same as we are here, with the snow, ice, wind, and Arctic cold. Here's hoping all of you are safe and snug at home, and not having to be out on the treacherous roads this weekend, and that you are not finding yourselves without power or other such comforts.
Labels: Blogging, Christmas, Holidays
0 comment Wednesday, August 13, 2014 | admin
Just to let my readers know, in case I am offline for a day or two, it will be because of computer problems.
What are the odds of two computers crashing on the same day? My old desktop and the newish laptop both decided to go south at once. After hours of stress and vexation trying to get both or either of them working, I finally managed to get the old computer to boot in safe mode, and now it is working -- for the time being at least.
But if I fail to post over the next day or two, it will be because of computer woes.
However I hope to be here as usual, and hope my readers will be here, too.
What are the odds of two computers crashing on the same day? My old desktop and the newish laptop both decided to go south at once. After hours of stress and vexation trying to get both or either of them working, I finally managed to get the old computer to boot in safe mode, and now it is working -- for the time being at least.
But if I fail to post over the next day or two, it will be because of computer woes.
However I hope to be here as usual, and hope my readers will be here, too.
0 comment Sunday, June 29, 2014 | admin
Lately it seems as if the number of blogs I read daily is dwindling as some of those I formerly read have become defunct or gone on hiatus, and others have gotten too PC for me (or maybe I've gone farther to the right). I find less and less interesting or inspiring material. I feel a trifle discouraged with what is out there in the blogosphere. Maybe things are changing for the worse out there, or maybe I just need some new sources of information or inspiration.
Do my readers have any links to 'right-wing'/traditionalist/nationalist/pro-West/realist blogs or other websites which I or others out there might find stimulating or interesting? Or informative, blogs which are not on my blogroll(s)? Plug your own blogs if you like, or direct me to links you've found, if you please. Thanks.
Do my readers have any links to 'right-wing'/traditionalist/nationalist/pro-West/realist blogs or other websites which I or others out there might find stimulating or interesting? Or informative, blogs which are not on my blogroll(s)? Plug your own blogs if you like, or direct me to links you've found, if you please. Thanks.
Labels: Blogging, Blogosphere, Conservatism, Nationalism
0 comment Wednesday, June 4, 2014 | admin
In this article from the not-too-distant past, a blogger comments on a news story about -- what a coincidence -- blog wars.
...the kind of exchange that regularly lights up the blogosphere in varying degrees of nastiness. Feuds spill into vast corners of typo-ridden cyberspace as bloggers post and repost passages for paint-by-number demolition and incendiary comments fan the flames.
You can't help but think that Thomas Jefferson himself would be pleased to know that out there in the awesome equalizing social force that is the Internet, people armed with the power of free-flowing ideas are busy pummeling the crap out of each other.
More than that, they're doing it in public, with an often participatory audience. Blog fights are verbal steel-cage smackdowns with a revolving door. Says Ariel Meadow Stallings, a Seattle writer who posts her random musings at Electrolicious.com: "Bloggers are an inflammatory bunch."
It seems that even the innocuous topics, like parenting, often lead to ugly exchanges on the Internet. It isn't just politics that sparks this kind of thing. I was once on a message board discussion about a TV show that erupted into an ugly flame war.
So how does a blogger avoid being embroiled in this kind of thing, or defuse it once it's started?
Is it possible to unilaterally opt out of a blog war? Is it ended when one side stops fighting back?
...the kind of exchange that regularly lights up the blogosphere in varying degrees of nastiness. Feuds spill into vast corners of typo-ridden cyberspace as bloggers post and repost passages for paint-by-number demolition and incendiary comments fan the flames.
You can't help but think that Thomas Jefferson himself would be pleased to know that out there in the awesome equalizing social force that is the Internet, people armed with the power of free-flowing ideas are busy pummeling the crap out of each other.
More than that, they're doing it in public, with an often participatory audience. Blog fights are verbal steel-cage smackdowns with a revolving door. Says Ariel Meadow Stallings, a Seattle writer who posts her random musings at Electrolicious.com: "Bloggers are an inflammatory bunch."
It seems that even the innocuous topics, like parenting, often lead to ugly exchanges on the Internet. It isn't just politics that sparks this kind of thing. I was once on a message board discussion about a TV show that erupted into an ugly flame war.
So how does a blogger avoid being embroiled in this kind of thing, or defuse it once it's started?
Is it possible to unilaterally opt out of a blog war? Is it ended when one side stops fighting back?
Labels: Blogging, Blogosphere, Civility, Internet
0 comment Saturday, May 17, 2014 | admin
It's going on a year now since I last posted a real post here on this blog. During that time I've done a lot of thinking about why I began blogging back in 2006, and wondering whether my presence in the blogging world is even called for, whether I have an audience, whether there is a niche for my message, such as it is.
At the time I quit blogging last year, my faith in my fellow human beings, specifically my fellow Americans, had begun to waver considerably. The divisions among us are disturbing to me, and the seeming inability -- or is it unwillingness -- to try to put aside the minor differences to work toward the cause of our preservation. This still troubles me, quite honestly, as I see little sign of it abating. Is there any hope of changing that?
When I last stopped writing posts for this blog, for some time I just went cold turkey and abstained even from reading news sites and like-minded blogs. I just had to step back from it, so emotionally charged had it become for me.
Lately I have been following certain sites just to keep up with what is going on, and the discussion around the news. Lately I've read some very good pieces which have somewhat inspired me and led me to the decision to tentatively stick a toe back in the water. So here I am. Whether my readers are still out there remains to be seen.
Those who read my blog since its inception probably saw my slow change over the months and years toward a harder line, and more of a jaundiced eye toward the 'system' as it exists. For some people, I became too 'right-wing' and for others, my rightward shift was not nearly far enough. At this point, I will say I will no doubt be unable to please everybody, and I am resigned to that. I have to write what I feel moved to write, in the way in which I know how to write, and I am saying up-front that I will not offer something for everybody. It's impossible.
Like most people on the right, the developments of the past year have appalled me, and surprised me; as some will remember, I predicted things would take a great turn for the worse after the last election and yet even I have been surprised by the speed with which things are deteriorating. Can my one voice in the wilderness make any difference? Probably not; it seems my few years of blogging are as if they never happened. I seem to have left no footprints and had no discernible effect on the discourse. Perhaps I should never have expected to do so. But I still feel moved to write because I feel duty-bound, compelled to do so, regardless of whether I am pilloried for it, praised, or simply ignored.
Here I am. I hope there are some of you still out there.
At the time I quit blogging last year, my faith in my fellow human beings, specifically my fellow Americans, had begun to waver considerably. The divisions among us are disturbing to me, and the seeming inability -- or is it unwillingness -- to try to put aside the minor differences to work toward the cause of our preservation. This still troubles me, quite honestly, as I see little sign of it abating. Is there any hope of changing that?
When I last stopped writing posts for this blog, for some time I just went cold turkey and abstained even from reading news sites and like-minded blogs. I just had to step back from it, so emotionally charged had it become for me.
Lately I have been following certain sites just to keep up with what is going on, and the discussion around the news. Lately I've read some very good pieces which have somewhat inspired me and led me to the decision to tentatively stick a toe back in the water. So here I am. Whether my readers are still out there remains to be seen.
Those who read my blog since its inception probably saw my slow change over the months and years toward a harder line, and more of a jaundiced eye toward the 'system' as it exists. For some people, I became too 'right-wing' and for others, my rightward shift was not nearly far enough. At this point, I will say I will no doubt be unable to please everybody, and I am resigned to that. I have to write what I feel moved to write, in the way in which I know how to write, and I am saying up-front that I will not offer something for everybody. It's impossible.
Like most people on the right, the developments of the past year have appalled me, and surprised me; as some will remember, I predicted things would take a great turn for the worse after the last election and yet even I have been surprised by the speed with which things are deteriorating. Can my one voice in the wilderness make any difference? Probably not; it seems my few years of blogging are as if they never happened. I seem to have left no footprints and had no discernible effect on the discourse. Perhaps I should never have expected to do so. But I still feel moved to write because I feel duty-bound, compelled to do so, regardless of whether I am pilloried for it, praised, or simply ignored.
Here I am. I hope there are some of you still out there.
Labels: Blogging