Green Room

Fight Them All Together, The Sequel: On Allahpundit’s Questions

posted at 6:10 pm on June 6, 2010 by

Citing the New York Post in a post at HotAir, Allahpundit discusses apparent links between Cordoba Initiative founder Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and the “Gaza flotilla.”  As AP is creditably careful to note, the linkage at this point remains tenuous:  Rauf is a member of… a group that… made the single biggest contribution to… the group that… helped organize the flotilla which… included one ship on which… some passengers ambushed Israeli commandos.

One might hope that, if and when Rauf seeks to explain himself, his political adversaries will apply the same rules of extenuation, attention to context, and open-mindedness that they demand when one of their own is under scrutiny.  As welcome as a clearer picture on Rauf might be, however, it would not bear directly on the piece of mine that AP linked and discussed.  My post was entitled “Fight Them All Together:  The Conservative Reaction to the ‘Ground Zero Mosque,’” and I provide the title in full to emphasize a point (not for the first time in recent days):  The piece was only secondarily about the “Ground Zero Mosque” – Cordoba House – at all.

AP provides his interpretation of my position as follows:

A few days ago, Greenroomer CK MacLeod accused the mosque’s critics of playing into jihadists’ hands by conflating radical Muslims with all Muslims. Why punish all members of the faith collectively by denying them a mosque near Ground Zero, asked CK, when it’s the Bin Ladenites who are culpable for bringing down the towers?

The first sentence summarizes one major theme of my post.  I say “one major theme” because I do not argue only that many Cordoba House critics have “play[ed] into the jihadists’ hands.”  As if that would set them apart from everyone else!  I’d like to think I’ve said much more damning things than that.

The emphases in AP’s second sentence also aren’t mine, but his rhetorical question does go to my central argument, whose basis should be obvious to anyone who does not favor collective judgment as a doctrine or policy – anyone who, for example, supports the Nuremberg approach of holding individuals responsible for what they have done as individuals, neither allowing them to hide within a collective (“I was only following orders”), nor holding them or anyone else responsible for things that others did “in their name.”  At that critical moment following the end of World War II, as victorious Americans sought both to exercise and to show themselves worthy of moral leadership on a global and historical scale, we rejected any species of moral collectivism because it conflicted with our traditions, precepts, and interests.  Put more simply, we rejected collective judgment because embracing it would have turned us into what we had fought against for so long, and had defeated at such great cost, and knew we were already facing again.

In recent days I’ve read confounding and dispiriting attempts, some from friends or possibly former friends, to reject that tradition by in effect denying that Muslims are included among those “created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”  (And, no, I’m not concerned about, afraid of, or offended by Muslim pride in Ummayyad Cordoba – nor do I presume a right to judge.) Much more frequently, I see expressions of opinion that imply such a view.

I won’t provide a handy catalog of derogatory, intentionally blasphemous and offensive, calculatedly extreme remarks of the sort that are easy to search up at HotAir and allied sites.  (Others may prove less hesitant in this regard than I am.)  I’m not just saying that religious bigotry and lesser related offenses appear “permissible” under lax enforcement of whatever Terms of Service or, more charitably, a zealous commitment to freedom of speech.  I mean that such sentiments are common, while protests and counter-arguments are rare and weak, and, when offered at all, are more often energetically denounced than even meekly seconded.  I can’t imagine an average Muslim, or anyone sensitive to religious hatred and blasphemy, feeling comfortable on Islam-related discussion threads at many conservative sites.  What discussions are not taking place that could be – either because people are reluctant to speak up, or have long since moved on?  At what point does a failure to respond – and condemn – become tacit communal approval?

One reason for self-disfiguring and self-destructive insensitivity, aside from common xenophobia and ignorance – amplified by reaction to 9/11 and terrorism more generally, as of course intended – could be the insensitivity and aggressive stereotyping of Muslims practiced by opinion leaders, as represented, for instance, in the material I examined in “Fight Them All Together.”

Now having returned to the actual thesis of my prior post, we can also look at AP’s final question referencing “CK’s logic”:

If some imam decided he wanted to build a mosque on Ground Zero itself, at the foot of the never-to-be-completed Freedom Tower, shouldn’t we indulge him per CK’s logic? And if he decided he wanted to build it in the shape of an airplane — just to “reclaim the symbol” from the evil jihadists who attacked on 9/11, mind you — shouldn’t we indulge him that, too? At what point is it okay to question motives here?

I want and really don’t want to answer “yes,” “yes,” and “for us, maybe never” – to say that we’ve become such irretrievably pathetic mockeries of what we pretend to be, we don’t deserve a Freedom Tower; to say that at most we deserve a “Freedom” Tower or Freedom* Tower – or a burlesque airplane mosque; to conclude that we are in no position to question anyone else’s motives; and to wonder if there are deeper reasons why current progress at the site seems to say “unfulfilled promise.”

AP’s formulation does acknowledge what the convenient shorthand on this issue usually doesn’t.  Cordoba House is not really (planned to be) a “Ground Zero mosque.”  Even if we preserve the incessant and exclusive focus on the mosque, the mosque, the mosque, the actual location presents a difficulty for opponents – or should – in the form of a different question that once upon a time I would have presumed repugnant to an American patriot:  How far does the “Islamic worship exclusion zone” have to extend to be “OK” – maybe a mere yellow on the Outrage Scale?  (And I’ve seen attempts to answer that.)

What I mainly have against AP’s three questions, however, is that they don’t have much to do with “CK’s logic” at all.  CK appealed, in passing, to a conventional sense of proportion about Cordoba House:  “You’re getting this excited about a 15-story building in Manhattan?”  CK can consistently apply the same man-on-Park-Place standard regarding absurd or exclusionary or absurdly exclusionary uses of the actual WTC site.  Additionally, following prior appeals to a conservative’s local preference, CK could consistently, and confidently, defer to the Manhattan Community Board and others if anything resembling AP’s hypothetical ever came up.  CK’s screwy Islamophilia and unfair, unkind, condescending etc. up to evil, morally depraved, and treacherous judgments of good, solid conservatives don’t even enter the picture.

Nor does CK claim any copyright on the logic that tells him the following:  Those upset about any perceived absurd, insulting, or imprudent initiative – for their own sake, for the sake of those in whose name they’re arguing, for the sake of the larger community, and eventually for the sake of the political life of this country and for the sake of its particular aims and mission in the world – should consider how their words and actions are taken by those who are not already inclined to agree with them, and even by some who are or were.  They should consider how they themselves would like to be treated or would like to have their public representatives treated.  They should consider what their words and actions turn them into.

Peace be upon you.

cross-posted at Zombie Contentions

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

And, no, I’m not concerned about, afraid of, or offended by Muslim pride in Ummayyad Cordoba – nor do I presume a right to judge.

You presume wrongly, as you similarly presume wrongly that those who are not living within close proximity have no right, place, or reason to express their displeasure about the Ground Zero mosque. You have every right to judge when a project comes forth to erect a building representing a religion in an area where that said religion brought about the greatest act of terrorism in our nations’ history…and the organization that is doing so bases its name on the centerpiece of that religion’s conquering of Western Europe centuries ago. It’s not at all an exaggeration to say you freely judge many, many others on a regular basis. What then fuels your charge that this event, this group, and this idea, are too high up to be judged by us?

MadisonConservative on June 6, 2010 at 6:25 PM

Those upset about any perceived absurd, insulting, or imprudent initiative – for their own sake, for the sake of those in whose name they’re arguing, for the sake of the larger community, and eventually for the sake of the political life of this country and for the sake of its particular aims and mission in the world – should consider how their words and actions are taken by those who are not already inclined to agree with them, and even by some who are or were.

And those that want to build a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero should consider how their actions and ideas are taken by those who are not already inclined to agree with them.

You have repeatedly made the argument, however, that they shouldn’t. That they should do what they want, and those who are not directly involved should butt out.

MadisonConservative on June 6, 2010 at 6:29 PM

Peace be upon you.

Oh, and commenters…please don’t take the bait. It’s clearly attached to a line the author set up.

MadisonConservative on June 6, 2010 at 6:31 PM

In history, survival comes down to ‘us or them’. These encyclopedic crapfests of whittling down the vagaries of who is it REALLY that wants to kill all we non believers and form the caliphate are the bleating of sheep being herded to the slaughter. You are mostly beta male, wafflers, who I wouldn’t trust at all in a life or death situation. And the sooner you realize what these muslims already know, the better. We now have your ilk in charge of defending this good country. A sad situation at best. Us or them. It will come to that. Make sure you are not in my line of sight. Put the skirt on and get out of the way. Please.

frizzbee on June 6, 2010 at 6:47 PM

the linkage at this point remains tenuous: Rauf is a member of… a group that… made the single biggest contribution to… the group that… helped organize the flotilla which… included one ship on which… some passengers ambushed Israeli commandos.

“Tenuous” links? We’re talking about the same Feisal Abdul Rauf, right?

OhioCoastie on June 6, 2010 at 6:49 PM

CK, how do you reconcile this …

At that critical moment following the end of World War II, as victorious Americans sought both to exercise and to show themselves worthy of moral leadership on a global and historical scale, we rejected any species of moral collectivism because it conflicted with our traditions, precepts, and interests. Put more simply, we rejected collective judgment because embracing it would have turned us into what we had fought against for so long, and had defeated at such great cost, and knew we were already facing again.

… with this?

I can’t imagine an average Muslim, or anyone sensitive to religious hatred and blasphemy, feeling comfortable on Islam-related discussion threads at many conservative sites. What discussions are not taking place that could be – either because people are reluctant to speak up, or have long since moved on? At what point does a failure to respond – and condemn – become tacit communal approval?

Help me understand how this isn’t an example of illogic, cognitive dissonance, or hypocrisy.

As for this strawman argument …

CK appealed, in passing, to a conventional sense of proportion about Cordoba House: “You’re getting this excited about a 15-story building in Manhattan?”

… it’s not just any 15-story building we’re getting excited about, and you know it. It’s a 15-story mosque.

OhioCoastie on June 6, 2010 at 7:01 PM

I can’t imagine an average Muslim conservative, or anyone sensitive to religious hatred and blasphemy, feeling comfortable on Islam-related discussion threads at many conservative Islamic sites. What discussions are not taking place that could be – either because people are reluctant to speak up, or have long since moved on? At what point does a failure to respond – and condemn – become tacit communal approval?

Yeah, how about that? ‘Tacit communal approval’ – not unlike how ‘average Muslims’ seem to ‘tacitly approve’ of terrorism? Wait, not even ‘tacitly’, but openly, in response to polls on the subject.

If an ‘average Muslim’ is uncomfortable with Islam-related discussions on conservative sites, they should perhaps look to themselves and their brethren and ponder their own philosophies for a bit. Should the really be surprised that so many non-Muslims are concerned about their apparent and demonstrated lack of condemnation for the actions of their activist/terrorist brethren?

Midas on June 6, 2010 at 7:20 PM

How far does the “Islamic worship exclusion zone” have to extend to be “OK” – maybe a mere yellow on the Outrage Scale? (And I’ve seen attempts to answer that.)

How about outside the blast radius for starters? Part of one of the airliners landed on the building the Cordoba House builders want to convert into their mosque.

OhioCoastie on June 6, 2010 at 7:25 PM

Chime in anytime here, CK … without deleting comments.

OhioCoastie on June 6, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Objection one … objections two and three … objection four … unanswered by the ever-eager-to-dialogue-but-never-judge CK MacLeod.

OhioCoastie on June 6, 2010 at 8:38 PM

What exhausting flummery. It’s always the same. Perhaps I see now why HA keeps this writer on the rolls: he perfectly represents the strange combination of self-importance and self-loathing of liberal thinking. It is worth being reminded of it, I guess, as we face a future of struggle against an enemy who seems to understand this culturally preeminent liberal guilt and moral confusion and how to play it for all it’s worth. CK Macleod, your idiocy is useful.

rrpjr on June 6, 2010 at 8:43 PM

Am I staring directly up at a nostril or something?

If each sentence is crafted in such a fashion that I have to read it so very thoughtfully to discern its own philosophical merit and contribution to an equally pretentious paragraph, then I think the time spent developing the algorithm is lost on my ennui.

ericdijon on June 6, 2010 at 9:38 PM

I thought we were done with this crap.

And yet, I find myself reading CK’s “writings,” much like an urge to rubberneck while passing a gruesome accident scene. I’m fascinated, even though it’s revolting and I know I shouldn’t be.

gryphon202 on June 6, 2010 at 9:57 PM

I thought we were done with this crap.

gryphon202 on June 6, 2010 at 9:57 PM

I jumped in to root for MadCon’s side. I understand him. If CK worked for me, it would only be for a short time because of the distrust he would quickly instill in me about him. With MadCon, I can be sure he’s got a gun and isn’t jackin’ with me.

ericdijon on June 6, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Since his highness hasn’t found it necessary to come back to what he considers the internet version of Skid Row and bless us with his messages from the ethereal realm of superbeings, I thought I’d repost a real winner from the comments at ZC’s of his:

Again, if the CI screws up, they should and will pay a price. It doesn’t have anything to do with “religion that killed 2,996 people” and “conquer America” and “looming horror” and “Islime” and “I hate Muslims” and “in the name of” logic, all fully in evidence long before some dude may have called the Islimers Nazi-like, and nothing that the Cordobans say or do would justify that. (It’s beneath the dignity of a free man or woman to call anyone, Osama Bin Laden included, “Islime.”)

Wow. So many quotes.

CK MacLeod is more offended at people who are angry about 9/11 than he is offended about 9/11.

MadisonConservative on June 6, 2010 at 11:10 PM

stop feeding the 10,000 words per post concern troll, people. He’s only doing it because he knows it pisses you off mightily.

He ought to be at Huffpo, not HA. This particular series could be posted on Al-jazeera.

Bring back the Mega-Mac posts, AP, and send this guy on his way, please.

rightwingyahooo on June 6, 2010 at 11:56 PM

In recent days I’ve read confounding and dispiriting attempts, some from friends or possibly former friends, to reject that tradition by in effect denying that Muslims are included among those “created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

Muslims are people. They are created equal, and endowed by the Creator with unalienable rights — including the right to observe Islam, or not. They do not have a right to “no consequences”. Any adult who points to the Koran as a holy book shares culpability for the perpetuation of its evil message.

joe_doufu on June 7, 2010 at 12:30 AM

CK appealed, in passing, to a conventional sense of proportion about Cordoba House: “You’re getting this excited about a 15-story building in Manhattan?”

AH wonders, does CK think expresssing an opinion in public constitutes “getting this excited?.” By AH logic, “getting excited” about the mosque would involve, at the least, a staged protest with bullhorns, chanting mobs, and placards galore.

Additionally, following prior appeals to a conservative’s local preference, CK could consistently, and confidently, defer to the Manhattan Community Board and others if anything resembling AP’s hypothetical ever came up.

This is the only part of your post that makes sense to AH. Yes, let the locals decide! I have my own opinion on it, as do many others, but would never want to feds to step in and stop construction because people living elsewhere found it distasteful. AH is pleased with CK.

Nor does CK claim any copyright on the logic that tells him the following: Those upset… should consider how their words and actions are taken by those who are not already inclined to agree with them, and even by some who are or were.

AH rejects CK’s reality and substitutes his own! Presumably your “logic” would apply to me if I was as upset about the GZM as others, yes? And, in voicing my opinion, I should be careful what I say and how I say it because of how others might perceive what I say. That, in AH’s view, is the most repugnant form of servile self-censorship imaginable. While CK’s more evolved sensibilities may give him the ability to detect how others may take his words/actions, and adjust them accordingly to leave not the smallest stain (detectable from those pre-disposed to see such things in the most innocent of words) of unreasonableness/racism/bigotry/xenophobia/hatred/ugliness/hurt-feeling-ness/unpleasantness, AH’s logic tells him that if he speaks plainly and acts openly, there can be no misunderstanding.

But then, AH probably suffers from

common xenophobia

.

Aquateen Hungerforce on June 7, 2010 at 12:45 AM

They should consider how they themselves would like to be treated or would like to have their public representatives treated. They should consider what their words and actions turn them into.

I, for one, do not want to be treated by Islam, or it’s representatives, any more than I would have wanted to be treated by Nazism, or it’s representatives, back decades ago.

Moral equivalence given to evil, whether it be to Islam now, or Nazism decades ago, is depravity.

Tav on June 7, 2010 at 12:46 AM

Peace be upon you.

Peace be upon you is for Mohammad and fellow Islamic believers.

Tav on June 7, 2010 at 12:50 AM

Erdogan: “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets, and the faithful our soldiers , and CK MacLeod our Dhimmi“.

Tav on June 7, 2010 at 1:03 AM

I think I need more popcorn.

Cylor on June 7, 2010 at 5:21 AM

A quote from CK MacLeod the Wise and All-Tolerant at his site:

@ OhioCoastie:

I’ve said my piece, and said it again, and said it again again. My current intention is to review the thread some time, and see if there’s anything worth responding to in it. That could change, but an invitation from you I don’t find very interesting as compared to taking care of some business and conversing with the regulars here as time allows.

Allow me to translate. When CK says “anything worth responding to,” he means “something I have a prayer of disputing.” He knows we’ve already eviscerated the confused mish-mash of PC bull**** sentiment that passes for his argument. Rather than face further embarrassment here, he prefers a fantasyland where we mere plebes are beneath his notice.

You see, we fail to grasp the finely-crafted nuance of his scintillating prose (dare we say poetry?) and his ever-so-droll prolixity. Why, we simpletons have allowed our atrophied cerebella to become entangled by his third-person wordplay and his cutting faux-muslim sign-off. Yes, yes, that’s certainly it. Nothing “interesting” to see here. No time to drop in, there’s a good lad. CK’s much too busy chatting with the two or three near-peers who muster the courage to frequent the comment section of Zombie Contentions. Plus there’s lukewarm Earl Grey tea to be sipped … and those vintage LPs of Philip Glass won’t listen to themselves, now will they? We should be grateful to have caught a whiff of the rarefied atmosphere that clings to his exalted presence. Let us be thankful that he deigns to go slumming now and then amongst us here in the Green Room. We, the lowly unwashed, genuflect before you.

OhioCoastie on June 7, 2010 at 6:09 AM

Tedious dhimmitude.

Disturb the Universe on June 7, 2010 at 8:28 AM

If anything, this moronic post and subsequent fisking on the part of the commentors, maybe it’s about time CK lose access to the Green Room and join the rest of us rubes in Stupidland.

CK appealed, in passing, to a conventional sense of proportion about Cordoba House: “You’re getting this excited about a 15-story building in Manhattan?”

Third person. Yeah. You definately should lose your posting privilege.

Your original post was R-E-T-A-R-D-E-D.

This one was still-born.

uknowmorethanme on June 7, 2010 at 10:24 AM

CK: “Please, Behead me last.”

uknowmorethanme on June 7, 2010 at 10:35 AM

Nope. This one’s not worthy of lamination.

midlander on June 7, 2010 at 11:06 AM

CK,

I and several others have attempted to engage you on the level. Your seemingly constant response to this is to claim that no one really has anything interesting or meaningful to say * in response to your astoundingly circuitous sentence structure and logic.

You are, of course, not obliged to respond to anyone. You should note however, that when you smugly dismiss other’s arguments in your posts and then do so again in the comments, that this does not portray you as a busy man who is reviewing comments and deciding when you should respond, but rather a coward who is using the Greenroom as a platform to passive aggressively attack your opponents.

If this is not the case, stop cross-posting unless you intend to respond to some of the valid criticisms or contentions that are brought up here.

* ar·ro·gance 

–noun
offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.

Heralder on June 7, 2010 at 11:35 AM

Is this post HA’s attempt at appeasing Net Neutrality whiners- a quota sort of thing?

Monica on June 7, 2010 at 11:58 AM

rhetorical tap dancing.

*unconvinced*

ted c on June 7, 2010 at 12:04 PM

If you use this much text to respond to AP, you might have an issue with ….brevity.

ted c on June 7, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Personally, brevity isn’t the main issue, it’s deliberately complicated wording and phrasing.

A normal person might say: “Your shoe is untied.”

Not: “Having observed the following state of affairs wherin I find myself inclined to describe one person – the one person being not in contention, to mean “you” or another suitable pronoun such as, say, “yourself” – of having the fastenings so called as “shoe laces” in a state not akin to being fastened or “tied” over one another. It is then, that my aformentioned observation should culimate in me informing “you” (see previous definition) of the also aformentioned state of affiars.”

Heralder on June 7, 2010 at 12:44 PM

Heralder on June 7, 2010 at 12:44 PM

Common tactic of those who always want plausible deniability for their words.

MadisonConservative on June 7, 2010 at 12:50 PM

Absolutely there’s moral relativism in the post. You can’t function in the real world without it, as far as I can tell.

CK MacLeod on May 10, 2010 at 3:35 PM

a la http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/05/10/conservatives-and-woodrow-wilson/comment-page-1/#comments

Does this particular topic not fall into the realm of the much-vaunted relativism of morality, Mr. MacLeod?

Luke 18 comes to mind whenever I think of you. These posts that you contrive seem to be little other than ritualized self-gratification upon your righteousness (interesting, coming from a moral relativist) and superiority above the rush-to-judge character of your fellow posters.

The bold truth is that the placing of that mosque, at that location, opening on that date is a slap in the face to the entirety of America. I realize that you would prefer to talk about money and ethical shades of gray, rather than confront the world as it is (as opposed to how you wish it to be), but the rest of us are emotionally invested in preserving what’s left of our country from the institutionalized misogyny and genocidal lust that is slowly creeping upon us.

Put succinctly, there is an old adage often used in the Midwest – “Give them an inch, and they’ll take a mile.” Whether or not you agree that the mosque is under design by a man with no small degree of distaste for the United States and your earnestly-desired “relativity of morality” is flatly irrelevant. Even if the mosque is entirely unrelated to Al Qaeda, Iran, or any given “extremist” group – We The People do not want a house of worship of a religion bent on the subjugation of women, extermination of Jews, and Christians, and – frankly, everyone – built at, near, or around a site where three thousand were incinerated, crushed, or thrown to their deaths at the behest of said religion. It is a statement by those with an aggressive view of Islam – you, of all people, CK, ought to understand the power of statement.

Again, as I’ve said in the past – anyone reading the thrice-damned book ought to know how well and truly destructive the philosophy/religion is. It is understood, CK, that you wish to keep your head firmly entrenched in the sand, but do not blame the lot of us for wishing to kick you squarely in the pants while you do so, and objecting loudly at your attempts to demonize us for being angered when innocent blood is mocked.

If you don’t think it’s a mockery, go tell them to not open the damn thing on 9/11. Go on, try. See whatcha get!

KinleyArdal on June 7, 2010 at 2:28 PM

CK,

I and several others have attempted to engage you on the level. Your seemingly constant response to this is to claim that no one really has anything interesting or meaningful to say * in response to your astoundingly circuitous sentence structure and logic.

You are, of course, not obliged to respond to anyone. You should note however, that when you smugly dismiss other’s arguments in your posts and then do so again in the comments, that this does not portray you as a busy man who is reviewing comments and deciding when you should respond, but rather a coward who is using the Greenroom as a platform to passive aggressively attack your opponents.

If this is not the case, stop cross-posting unless you intend to respond to some of the valid criticisms or contentions that are brought up here.

* ar·ro·gance 

–noun
offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.

Heralder on June 7, 2010 at 11:35 AM

We have had reasonable exchanges before, but, on the various comment threads involved, the discussion tended to deteriorate into personal attacks of the sort insisted upon by some of my “fans,” much in evidence in the comments above, as ever.

Incidentally, I don’t see where you get the idea that people who cross-post from their own blogs are obligated to respond to anyone in the comment threads. In my observation, participation by authors in the GR and front page comment threads is much more the exception than the rule. The main thanks I get for doing so is when some people decide that their unique contribution to the ensuring discussion will be to upbraid me for it – for being defensive, for “whining,” whatever.

In your comment, you move in that same pointless, personalized direction. For instance, calling me a “coward” for not responding to you or anyone reduces my interest in having anything to do with you. It suggests to me that, contrary to your claims, you have no interest in a fair, reasonable on-topic discussion.

I’m just not interested in discussing your or anyone else’s perceptions of me personally in a political context. I’m not running for anything. I don’t get paid for the time and effort I expend. I offer my opinions as honestly, forthrightly, and clearly as I can, without the expectation that they will be accepted and understood by all.

In this particular post, I was directly responding to questions that directly referenced me and my arguments, in a thoughtful and on-topic manner, by one of the lead bloggers at this site. That was the main burden of my post and its chief justification.

What others choose to do with the comment thread is up to them. They can, for instance, further evidence my thesis by reciting their favorite anti-Islamic talking points or by posturing with self-pleasuring machismo as wanna-be heroes in an ongoing and escalating worldwide religious war.

Others may dispute my thesis, my evidence, or my analysis. In those instances, if I have something to add, or notice something that I find interesting or challenging, I will respond, time permitting, presuming I feel that I have something useful or interesting to say on whatever is brought up. I may let the arguments stand on their own for others to compare to what I offered originally, and let them reach their own decisions. I may wait to see if someone else wishes to take up my side of the dialogue.

You’re of course also welcome to ask for points of clarification, or, if otherwise dissatisfied with the discussion, to come to my blog or to contact me directly using the readily available form. If you’re a GR author, you can put up your own counter-post.

I of course reserve the right to ignore or, when it’s in my power, to remove harassing, abusive, or off-topic comments and e-mails. And I won’t and can’t get involved in a dispute about me. I also have no interest in special pleading for attention from people who demonstrate (in some cases over and over again) their unwillingness or inability to engage in a good faith discussion about the content of a post, but who instead remain relentlessly fixated on personal issues that exist mainly in their own imaginations.

Scan the comments on this thread yourself. Even leaving aside the ones that have no apparent purpose other than to insult, attack, or otherwise fault me personally or as a writer, do you really think it would be possible for a single individual to respond in a timely manner to all of the presumptions embedded in each comment, to all of the requests for special attention, and also to all of the statements that may (oddly enough) actually touch on the core arguments of the above post or core concerns of prior discussion?

If you are incapable of recognizing the unfairness of such a demand, then I doubt your capacity for fairness of any kind in these matters, and I therefore am left, again, without a good reason to engage you further. And that is the implicit demand you make when you plead for my attention to your claim against me. If I respond to your accusation that I’m “arrogant,” why shouldn’t I respond to every other personal accusation?

More important, what would a discussion of my arrogance or lack of arrogance have to do with the prevalence, depth, and implications of anti-Islamic prejudice across the conservative spectrum? Whether we agree or disagree about my arrogance, the issue that I consider much more significant than anyone’s personal feelings about me or my writing style or my personal intentions remains undiscussed.

If you think it’s more important to attack a blogger you’ve never met and very likely will never meet because he doesn’t have the time or inclination or capacity to participate comprehensively in the comment thread of a post in the HotAir Greenroom, then, respectfully, I disagree, and as far as I can tell, we’ll have to leave it at that.

CK MacLeod on June 7, 2010 at 3:59 PM

If you think it’s more important to attack a blogger you’ve never met and very likely will never meet because he doesn’t have the time or inclination or capacity to participate comprehensively in the comment threads of a post in the HotAir Greenroom, then, respectfully, I disagree, and as far as I can tell, we’ll have to leave it at that.

CK MacLeod on June 7, 2010 at 3:59 PM

Your definition of ‘comprehensive participation’ seems limited to assailing other posters for their prejudice against a religion dedicated to the annihilation of most anyone who disagrees with them, while complaining about the bitterness of the replies your views merit. That’s kinda charming, in a post-modern art sort of way.

KinleyArdal on June 7, 2010 at 4:06 PM

TL;DR – If you can’t stand the heat, stay the heck outta the bakery.

KinleyArdal on June 7, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Speaking in third person is the height of lame snobbery, as is closing with a Muslim phrase specifically to bait people.

Esthier on June 7, 2010 at 4:10 PM

Scan the comments on this thread yourself. Even leaving aside the ones that have no apparent purpose other than to insult, attack, or otherwise fault me personally or as a writer, do you really think it would be possible for a single individual to respond in a timely manner to all of the presumptions embedded in each comment, to all of the requests for special attention, and also to all of the statements that may (oddly enough) actually touch on the core arguments of the above post or core concerns of prior discussion?

Yes. For someone who thinks so highly of himself, you sure whine about having to engage in the conversation you so boisterously claim to covet.

And for all your whining about people making it about you, for the millionth damned time: stop insulting your readers and making your articles personal. Right there lies the answer to your oft-repeated woe. Another prime example:

If you think it’s more important to attack a blogger you’ve never met and very likely will never meet because he doesn’t have the time or inclination or capacity to participate comprehensively in the comment thread of a post in the HotAir Greenroom, then, respectfully, I disagree, and as far as I can tell, we’ll have to leave it at that.

CK MacLeod on June 7, 2010 at 3:59 PM

How f**king dare you. You spit on the very forum you’re invited to participate in, as if you’re anything special. You’re not. See? If you hadn’t made yet another condescending, insulting reference to the community, wherein you post your bleatings because you apparently think they’re important enough that other people to read and discuss, then people would be less inclined to attack you. If you’re going to get personal, stop whining and crying when you get the same back. You’re a horrendous hypocrite, doling out abuse and snide dismissal towards all who disagree with you, and then pulling a Captain Renault when those same people don’t shower you with love and affection. Shocked, shocked you are that your readers aren’t masochists.

I really, really wish you’d at least concede that point. Otherwise, we can only assume that you’re a true narcissist, completely and utterly self-absorbed, to a pathological extent. You just can’t get why people would disagree, or even react negatively to anything you do. Perhaps there really is no way around it. In which case, you should try and figure that out, and let us know. We’ll respect your disability.

MadisonConservative on June 7, 2010 at 4:49 PM

We have had reasonable exchanges before, but, on the various comment threads involved, the discussion tended to deteriorate into personal attacks of the sort insisted upon by some of my “fans,” much in evidence in the comments above, as ever.

You don’t have “fans” CK. You have people who read your article because you are lucky enough to ride on Michelle, Ed and AP’s coattails.

This sentence right here tells us more about you than anything that you could say.

You think you are better than everyone. You think you are morally superior. You think you are “enlightened” for some reason.

In reality, you are blind and deaf and willfully obtuse.

But simply prefer the term ignorant.

Speaking in third person is the height of lame snobbery, as is closing with a Muslim phrase specifically to bait people.

Esthier on June 7, 2010 at 4:10 PM

This. It’s what happens when you give a concern troll a microphone.

uknowmorethanme on June 7, 2010 at 4:50 PM

Incidentally, I don’t see where you get the idea that people who cross-post from their own blogs are obligated to respond to anyone in the comment threads.

You’re right, I don’t think you’re obliged to respond, like I said. I do think it’s good form to respond when you’ve directly referenced people though.

For instance, calling me a “coward” for not responding to you or anyone reduces my interest in having anything to do with you. It suggests to me that, contrary to your claims, you have no interest in a fair, reasonable on-topic discussion.

Even if it was sensical to the circumstance, I apologize for calling you a coward, that wasn’t fair or helpful.

Understand how this devolves though, this didn’t come from nowhere, it took root in Madison Conservative’s original thread on this topic that you and I and others spent a good deal of words debating this issue. You made some unfortunate judgements and resorted to calling the whole of the opposition hateful bigots.

I know you may have retreated from that later and become more diplomatic, or rather more nuanced about it. It still does color future discussions on the subject though.

And that is the implicit demand you make when you plead for my attention to your claim against me. If I respond to your accusation that I’m “arrogant,” why shouldn’t I respond to every other personal accusation?

I’d like to clarify here. I’m not pleading for your attention, and I’ll excuse your perhaps poor choice of words there.

My point was that serveral times you’ve dismissed the whole of comments that you don’t agree with, thoughtful or not, on topic or not. This is your right, but be prepared that dismissing those who are actually attempting to have a debate might turn some sour to further attempts at having honest discussions.

Maybe some more careful verbage would have served better.

More important, what would a discussion of my arrogance or lack of arrogance have to do with the prevalence, depth, and implications of anti-Islamic prejudice across the conservative spectrum?

It has to do with the fact that you have appeared to dismissive about those who would actually have a point a view on said issues … if they don’t agree with yours.

I see your point though, and you’re right. I apologize for calling you arrogant. It doesn’t mean I no longer hold that view, but it’s not exactly appropriate to your essay, even if I could semantically make it seem so.

In summary, lets just say I’ve probably fixated on this topic too much and it is very close to home for me, both geographically and emotionally. In the future, we may be able have other discussions on other issues, but I’m putting this one behind me.

Heralder on June 7, 2010 at 5:03 PM

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

/has a day ever needed more Green Hat than this?

das411 on June 7, 2010 at 6:52 PM

Arrogant, illogical, morally stunted gasbag.

OhioCoastie on June 7, 2010 at 8:21 PM

halo over 8

ericdijon on June 7, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Crawled back into your hole, didja, CK? Do us a favor and pull the lid shut.

OhioCoastie on June 30, 2010 at 9:43 AM