Shan’t
Okay, I give up, you win.
For months (months? weeks? years? I forget) I’ve been kind of defending CT to my colleague. Kind of – which means admitting they have a tendency to groupthink, to call people trolls just because they disagree with them, but still thinking they (CT, that is) have their good points. But I give it up.
Everyone knows that comments can get out of hand. A lot of blogs don’t have them; a lot have them only for some threads; a lot have them intermittently, disabling them when things get tiresome. It is also sometimes possible to keep things civil by asking people to be civil, and/or by deleting comments when they’re not. I’ve only deleted comments here once – but then that’s not surprising: the people who read B&W are a civil, polite, rational crowd.
So that’s one way to keep things civil. Another way is just to tell people to go fuck themselves – which seems like a fairly oxymoronic method, frankly. Seems to defeat the purpose. Also it seems ill-advised to resort to it just because you disagree with what a commenter has said, as opposed to because the commenter has gotten out of hand. Well – you know what I’m going to say. No, you don’t, quite, because I didn’t actually get sworn at – I got threatened with being sworn at. But I’m afraid I just don’t find that kind of thing conducive to interesting or rewarding discussion. I can get plenty of that kind of thing in my own living room, thank you very much, I don’t need to go elsewhere for it.
But more to the point, I find it too symptomatic of what Jerry S is talking about – too indicative of what he’s been saying all along. Too groupthinky, too orthodoxy-enforcing. So. I’ll just do my talking here, where men are men and the beer is flat.
You remember a while back I mentioned that I’d been approached by a publisher to write a book on the internet?
I didn’t follow it up; but I think this blogging stuff should be given a proper, rigorous treatment. I have absolutely no inclination to do such a thing in a blogging format (hence my somewhat polemical style here), but if I can summon up the energy I might revisit the book idea.
The trouble is – as it was when I thought about it before – that so few people would read the book; and it’d be a lot of effort to write! So I don’t know…
Yup, I remember that.
Effort? You mean writing books is difficult? Never!
Would you have room for a proper rigorous treatment in an article? Or does it need a whole book. Books are, oh, anywhere from 10 to 20 times more difficult than articles.
“Would you have room for a proper rigorous treatment in an article?”
Maybe. But I suspect that I’d need the rigour of a book to avoid slipping into invective and polemic. I have such a jaundiced view of the state of academia and the Left. I just don’t know. I pretty much have no desire to engage with either. Books are one-step further removed from engagement than articles!
I know you really didn’t want to link to CT, but as an avid reader of both this site and CT I have been following this debate and I still had to look around a bit to figure out what you were talking about. Very confusing.
The overall impression I got from reading the posts and threads was of a whole bunch of people talking right past each other. Maybe I’m just too mushy headed on this subject to have a firm opinion, but part of the fascination was simply trying to comprehend what each side was really getting at.
“What I had in mind was the oddity of (part of) the left’s joining hands with its enemies at the expense of its friends. ” Regarding this comment and the angry reaction it produced, I can’t help but wonder if there is some cultural misunderstanding going on here. In the terms of debate in the US, “the left” includes everyone more liberal than John McCain, and pretty much everyone who disagrees with GWB. That is a huge heterogeneous group. It sounds like you are accusing every Democrat in the country of allying with enemies of democracy. I usually assume that the term must have a more narrow definition on your side of the ocean, because the views put forward on this site, which I mostly share, would most definitely be filed under “the left” if we were evaluating you by American standards.
As for Daniel’s comment, although he is known to fly off the handle at times, my initial reading of it was as a ham-handed attempt at levity. I may have missed something there of course.
Anyway, this debate seems far from over, and I find it hard to believe that CT and B and W will not be engaging in it again in the future.
Oh we are of the left! I certainly didn’t mean to imply that we weren’t. No but that’s just it. We don’t think the left should be hesitating to criticize people like al-Qaradawi.
Sorry I was confusing. But you’re right, I didn’t want to link, because I wanted to, well, express a dissent, without getting too specific.
By the way I am on that side of the ocean – not the other one. In the US, that is.
And besides – as your quote shows – I did say ‘(part of) the left’. So I let the people somewhere between McCain and Lieberman off the hook. (That’s a joke.)
Yes, how shock…
No, I’m going to be honest. I thought dsquared’s “go fuck yourself” was both appropriate and amusing. The person he was responding to was being an asshole.
“By the way I am on that side of the ocean – not the other one. In the US, that is.”
Sorry about that. I have been confused (apparently I do that a lot) about the precise location of B and W’s authors, and based on JS’s short bio and the preponderence of British news sources on the site, assumed that it was thoroughly British.
My assumption all along has been that there is a reluctance among the left, myself included, to engage in harsh talk about Islamism (or “Islamofascism” if you don’t know what fascism is) because there has been so much virulent and eliminationist rhetoric in mainstream debate in the last three years. However valid such criticism, I understand the fear that it would only be used to reinforce such rhetoric at a time when we are barely clinging to the hope of winning the small victory of removing Bush from office.
I also believe that if Kerry is elected, the left will turn on itself like always and these topics will see serious debate. I am not saying this is necessarily a bad thing either.
No, not shocking, obviously. But what I said – not conducive to interesting discussion.
Sure, I realise that’s what the assumption is. But that’s my point. The result is that Islamism gets a free pass from people who really ought to be opposed to it, to put it mildly. The Taliban didn’t suddenly become swell guys because they were defeated. One can oppose both eliminationist rhetoric and Islamism.
I think the whole thing may come down to a matter of the focusing of limited energies. Right now, a lot of people are concerned with the election and other things that appear to be more immediately within their power to affect. It is like the question, “Why criticize Israel so much when the Palestinians commit such atrocious acts?” to which I reply, “Unlike Israeli gunships, my tax dollars do not fund suicide bombers. And if we assume, by charity, that we all abhor such acts, how could my criticism of terrorist atrocities possibly add to the debate?” The feeling may be the same for the current debate.
On the other hand, when I began reading CT it was much more focused on academic debate, and has drifted in to political blog territory. I would find it more satisfying if they returned to the academic stuff, and perhaps did an honest discussion of what the real dangers of Islamic radicalism represent.
As far as the Taliban being swell guys, I have heard many accused of holding this position, but have yet to see anyone who actually holds it.
(Typed this twice because I forget to fill in the name field. This is some punishing comments software.)
“(Typed this twice because I forget to fill in the name field. This is some punishing comments software.)”
Done that myself a couple of times. If you hold “ALT” and then hit the left arrow you will be taken back a page to your intact message and can then add your name without the retype.
Or right-click, then “Back”.
“I think the whole thing may come down to a matter of the focusing of limited energies.”
Hmm. Well, not absolutely all of it, I don’t think. There is still this pervasive idea that it’s bad to criticise Islam itself, because that is “Islamophobia,” which is too loosely construed to mean hatred of Muslims and even people from mostly Muslim countries – or most loosely of all just (possibly disguised) generalized hatred of all brown people everywhere.
“I think the whole thing may come down to a matter of the focusing of limited energies.”
Even if it is, it doesn’t follow that it isn’t indicative of something interesting.
After all, we are partly here talking about priorities; part of what is involved in moral blindness is finding reasons to look the other way.
A question I have had for a while is, if we are to find a good, rational criticism of the Muslim faith, who can I trust to deliver it? All of the people I personally know who are knowledgeable about the specifics of its doctrines, but not Muslim themselves, are Christian theologians.
I do not trust anyone of any faith to be fair on the subject. For example, my seminary dropout best friend has a lot of interesting insights about Islam, but it is always followed by some crap about why Christianity is so great in comparison. Who do have who can comment with expertise on the strictly religious aspects of Islam without grinding any axes? There must be someone.
Actually you didn’t disagree; you accused us of being apologists for Islamic fundamentalists. You might think that that’s less offensive than a four-letter English word beginning with “F”; I don’t.
This sequence reminds me: Thanks again for providing and policing this space. Digital oases may be rarer than the real thing.
Pretending it is wrong to criticise someone or something because it is in the minority or even because it is being attacked by your ‘enemies’ is flawed. Critical thinking does not follow party platforms or choose sides. Even if religious zealots pointed out a valid problem in evolutionary theory, I would expect it to be fairly accepted here. Perhaps not without a fight or some grumbling, and hopefully with some boisterous language, but accepted nonetheless.
“you accused us of being apologists for Islamic fundamentalists.”
No I did not. This is what I said:
“No, that’s not what I was suggesting. What I had in mind was the oddity of (part of) the left’s joining hands with its enemies at the expense of its friends. Being protective of fundamentalists at the expense of for instance feminists and secularists. Feminists and secularists from ‘Muslim’ countries don’t appreciate it, I can tell you that.”
One, I was talking about the left (as a leftist), not Crooked Timber. CT is not synonymous with the whole of the left, after all. Two, I said “being protective,” not being apologists. “Being protective” did refer partly to CT: for instance the running argument about al-Qaradawi. I do think refusing to criticize him because some other people whom you don’t agree with also do, does amount to being protective, but I don’t think it amounts to being an apologist. So that’s why I did not say “apologist”.
I also didn’t say it was “offensive” to say “go fuck yourself”; I said it was not conducive to interesting discussion. I said that because that’s what I meant.
And thanks, Mark.
“Pretending it is wrong to criticise someone or something because it is in the minority or even because it is being attacked by your ‘enemies’ is flawed.”
Well I think so. Though I take the point of the various thought-experiments on the subject. I agree that if I met a drunken BNP mob on the road, I would not regale them with my opinions on sharia. But that’s a different thing from public discussion in newspapers and on websites.
“I agree that if I met a drunken BNP mob on the road”
I must admit that I don’t quite understand why people think that the likes of the BNP or the National Front are going to be particularly interested in what people like us think about sharia.
I read their stuff extensively, and I must say that I’ve never noticed them being particularly encouraged by Islamophobia (notwithstanding the fact that Nick Griffin did talk about Polly Toynbee at one point).
Ah, well you’re way ahead of me then, because I don’t read their stuff. That’s interesting. I have read here and there – I don’t remember where – that the likes of the BNP do make use of criticisms of Islam, sharia etc by decidedly non-BNP-type people. So I assumed there was some truth in it. Especially being a Yank and knowing very little about the BNP, what things are like over there, etc.
“sharia etc by decidedly non-BNP-type people.”
There is a little bit of this by the leadership of the BNP (because they’re pretty sharp operators [it may sound like I’m contradicting myself here, but I’m not]). But the rank and file don’t need any encouragement.
Also, it’s a mistake to think that they’re so daft that they’re not able to make the connections themselves. That are able to; they don’t need us to point it out to them.
So, for example, if you were to read the National Front bulletin board at the moment, you’ll find that it is full of stuff about Russian schoolchildren being murdered by Muslims.
Given that situation, I think it is at least plausible to argue that the job of the Left is to show how you can criticse those aspects of Islam which violate liberal, englightenment values without condemning individuals or groups of people simply because they happen to be committed to particular belief systems.
It shouldn’t be beyond the wit even of people as limited as CTites to do such a thing.
Well, exactly. This is what I keep saying – why it’s important not to confuse religion with race, criticism of Islam with racism.
One would certainly think that ought to be the job of the Left – as opposed to endorsing or keeping tactfully silent about idea-systems that oppress and degrade internal groups.
Oh, I slightly missed the point. Well yes. Also the job of the Left to separate legitimate criticism from illegitimate group-hatred.
Eric, to answer your question – try Ibn Warraq. Why I am not a Muslim and an anthology he edited Leaving Islam. Take a look at his site – which links to other sites. Try some of the links in our In Focus on Cultural Relativism.
The other mad thing about this whole debate which has been going on is that people dress up the blindingly obvious in flashy language and think they’re saying something profound.
Hey guys, you must be aware that language has perlocutionary force. You don’t say. Like we haven’t heard of political rhetoric; or are not aware that perhaps it’s not a good idea to go around encouraging lynch mobs. Do they think we’re so stupid that we’re not aware that words have effects?
Oh, is that all perlocutionary means? Shucks.
[falls about laughing]
Well, they’re alluding to Austin, but yeah, that’s all it means.
I know. I’ve even read a bit of Austin. (A very small bit.) But I haven’t learned to perlocute yet.
Eric Tyler,
Interesting that you bring up the Taliban. One of the most offensive recent references to them on CT was in the “Sadr’s Sharia Courts” thread, when, after implicitly comparing Sharia’s sentencing of women with that of 16-year-old murderers in some U.S. courts, Dsquared added: “In areas where people have a high fear of violence, they tend to be surprisingly supportive of draconian courts” (stoning adulteresses?!), and “That’s how the Taliban got in place in Afghanistan; to begin with they were very much welcomed by the locals because they cracked down on an epidemic of drunken rape.”
To which another commenter responded: “Yeah, right, it was all done to “protect” Afghan womanhood!”
That was an interesting thread; I hadn’t read it before. (I still haven’t read most of it, it’s as long as War & Peace.) Strange views on sharia, sure enough – and not just Dsquared’s. One guy kept saying that it’s up to the Iraqis to decide whether or not to have sharia courts, including right after he had mentioned the secular and Christian minorities in Iraq. So of course what he’s saying is that it’s up to ‘the Iraqis’ to decide to take away the rights of the minority (to wit anyone who votes no). Hurrah for democracy. Amusingly, the guy who said that is the same guy who had a fit when I pointed out that democracy and human rights can be in tension. He really doesn’t grasp that, apparently, he wasn’t just pretending not to grasp it in order to quarrel with me.
Sharia is just a really good example of how very much in tension they can be.