FCC: Hate Speech Okay. Pixilated Breasts Not Okay.
I submitted this complaint to the FCC on May 14th. I never heard back from them. Maybe because they only listen to the Parents Television Council who are responsible for 99.8% of all complaints to the FCC.
Since hate speech with intent to incite violence is protected speech(why?)but language that describes patently offensive excretory organs is not, I focused on putting that part of his hate tirade in this FCC complaint.
Remember Kids, the FCC themselves say, Filing a Complaint with the FCC Is EASY. Just remember, Violent hate speech is okay, so watch for those dirty words and exposed nipples and prepare to be offended!
Dear FCC:
I would like to file a complaint about a recent Michael Savage broadcast.
On May 11, 2004, during his regularly scheduled broadcast between 4 pm to 7pm PDT on radio station KNEW 910 am broadcast in San Francisco, CA -- I heard the following comment by Michael Savage regarding the prisoners held in Abu Ghraib, Iraq.
I find his comments repulsive and obscene. In addition to inciting lawless, horrific violence be committed by American soldiers to the men, women and children detained in Abu Ghraib, Iraq, his comments may also be indecent, The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community broadcast standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.
I have attached the clip of the specific comments I'm referring to. In order to hear them in context, I've also attached a clip of the comments before and after the comments in question. Other clips and transcriptions can also be found at Media Matters.
You may note that KNEW's owner, Clear Channel, has recently instituted a zero tolerance policy for indecent content.
Below is the address of KNEW 910 am and it's program schedule in San Francisco, CA showing the hours that he broadcasts.
Talk 910 KNEW
340 Townsend Street
San Francisco, CA 94107
Business Line: 415.975.5555
Monday through Friday
Michael Savage-- Pre-Show Warm Up
4 PM - 7 PM:
Michael Savage -- The Savage Nation
7PM - 10PM:
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Mr. Spocko
1234 Fake St.
Springfield, USA
cc: Carl Levin, Senator Michigan, Armed Services, Ranking Member
Howard Berman, Congressman 28th District California, member FCC oversight committee
Lowry Mays, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Clear Channel
Andrew W. Levin, Executive Vice President for Law and Government Affairs and Chief Legal Officer, Clear Channel
Ed Krampf Regional Vice President for Clear Channel Radio
60 Minutes II, CBS News
Mark de la Viña, Mercury News
Jack Messmer, Executive Editor, Radio Business Report
Don Asmussen, San Francisco Chronicle,
Cass R. Sunstein, Karl N. Llewellyn Dist. Service Prof. of Jurisprudence, Law School, Dept. of Political Science and the College
University of Chicago Law School
Since hate speech with intent to incite violence is protected speech(why?)but language that describes patently offensive excretory organs is not, I focused on putting that part of his hate tirade in this FCC complaint.
Remember Kids, the FCC themselves say, Filing a Complaint with the FCC Is EASY. Just remember, Violent hate speech is okay, so watch for those dirty words and exposed nipples and prepare to be offended!
Dear FCC:
I would like to file a complaint about a recent Michael Savage broadcast.
On May 11, 2004, during his regularly scheduled broadcast between 4 pm to 7pm PDT on radio station KNEW 910 am broadcast in San Francisco, CA -- I heard the following comment by Michael Savage regarding the prisoners held in Abu Ghraib, Iraq.
Instead of putting joysticks I'd like to have seen dynamite put in their orifices and they should be dropped from airplanes. How's that? You like that one? Go call someone that you want to report me to, see if I care. They should put dynamite in their behinds and drop them from 35,000 feet, the whole pack of scum out of that jail.--Michael Savage on The Savage Nation heard on KNEW radio, broadcast in San Francisco, CA.
I find his comments repulsive and obscene. In addition to inciting lawless, horrific violence be committed by American soldiers to the men, women and children detained in Abu Ghraib, Iraq, his comments may also be indecent, The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community broadcast standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.
I have attached the clip of the specific comments I'm referring to. In order to hear them in context, I've also attached a clip of the comments before and after the comments in question. Other clips and transcriptions can also be found at Media Matters.
You may note that KNEW's owner, Clear Channel, has recently instituted a zero tolerance policy for indecent content.
Mays said the company will institute a zero tolerance policy for indecent content which will include company-wide training and automatic suspensions for anyone that the FCC alleges has violated indecency rules on the air.
If the FCC accuses us of wrongdoing by issuing a proposed fine, we will take immediate action, Mays said. We will suspend the DJ in question, and perform a swift investigation. If we or the government ultimately determine the offending broadcast is indecent, the DJ will be terminated without delay, Mays said.
John Hogan, Chief Executive Officer of Clear Channel Radio added, If a DJ is found to be in violation of FCC rules, there will be no appeals and no intermediate steps. If they break the law by broadcasting indecent material, they will not work for Clear Channel. In addition, the company announced that all of its contracts with on-air performers are being modified to ensure that DJs share financial responsibility if they utter indecent material on the air.
Below is the address of KNEW 910 am and it's program schedule in San Francisco, CA showing the hours that he broadcasts.
Talk 910 KNEW
340 Townsend Street
San Francisco, CA 94107
Business Line: 415.975.5555
Monday through Friday
Michael Savage-- Pre-Show Warm Up
4 PM - 7 PM:
Michael Savage -- The Savage Nation
7PM - 10PM:
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Mr. Spocko
1234 Fake St.
Springfield, USA
cc: Carl Levin, Senator Michigan, Armed Services, Ranking Member
Howard Berman, Congressman 28th District California, member FCC oversight committee
Lowry Mays, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Clear Channel
Andrew W. Levin, Executive Vice President for Law and Government Affairs and Chief Legal Officer, Clear Channel
Ed Krampf Regional Vice President for Clear Channel Radio
60 Minutes II, CBS News
Mark de la Viña, Mercury News
Jack Messmer, Executive Editor, Radio Business Report
Don Asmussen, San Francisco Chronicle,
Cass R. Sunstein, Karl N. Llewellyn Dist. Service Prof. of Jurisprudence, Law School, Dept. of Political Science and the College
University of Chicago Law School
16 Comments:
I thought you might find this bit of information interesting as well.
http://www.canada.com/sports/story.html?id=0a5d43ce-99c6-4ed0-b80e-37808cd9a937
Good luck with your pursuit. Sadly, it's unlikely you'll get any satisfaction.
On an unrelated note, I apologize that I've been forced cut off allowing comments. I guess I attracted some trolls, and decided it wasn't worth it to allow them to continue to harass my blog.
Thanks for posting Sarah. Yeah I saw the troll fest on your blog. I was going to congratulate you on them. You went from zero in troll in less than two months! It took me MONTHs to attract the attention on even ONE!
You have to decide how to deal with them. There are other ways to deal with them (I'm not sure how, but I think blogger has some features to 1) Not allow anonymous posters and 2) Ban certain posters.
I'm expecting I'll probably get some Michael Savage Nutball protesters. But if I do I'll deal with it when it happens.
I always appreciate your posts here, you are very articulate and add to my knowledge of the issues. I consider your comments and reading of this blog a real honor. (As well as comments from Ellroon, thehim, gradeshoolteach, Prisoner 7104 and other regulars)
Thanks! Yes, all that vitriol was quite a surprise. I'm waiting for feedback from Blogger about how to block specific users, because I couldn't find anything online. For now, I just thought it better to shut down the comments portion. The benefits of it being 'my' blog. ;-) I'll pass on anything I hear. Forewarned is forearmed.
It was really nice to hear some positive feedback, though, so thank you very much. I greatly appreciate it. I thoroughly enjoy both your site and your recommended links as well.
Speaking of which, I wanted to let you know that your atrios link, oddly enough, sends me to an 'Abundant Bible' site. I read the Eschaton site, so know your url is correct, but for whatever reason it sends me elsewhere. It very well could be my computer, but I wanted to let you know in case it wasn't. I must admit it was quite an ironic mix-up. ;-)
Thanks again!
Sarah: OH those tricksy Christians! They took the urls
www.atrios.blogpot.com and atrios.blogpot.com subtle, but you can see that they left out the 's' in blogspot.
It's an old trick mostly used by pornographers. Find a popular webpage and then register the misspelled webpage. I've fixed it. I guess I should be thankful for small favors since it didn't go to some porn site.
Thanks for the heads up. I'll fix it.
Spocko
Hi, I'm the "troll" whose posts made Sarah decide to disallow comments. I'm just wondering what I did that was so offensive that it required banning. Did I act outside the spirit of blogging, engage in personal attacks, or spew hate speech of some kind? I actually agreed with Sarah on at least one point. Meanwhile, another participant engaged in direct personal attacks, calling me smelly, stupid, and pathetic for simply having a viewpoint of my own. Yet it was clearly me, and not the blogger calling me names, that Sarah could not countenance. Apparently, liberals love free speech until they become its targets, and hate censorship right up to the moment they use it.
Fnord: Welcome! I'm so glad you are here. It is great to have you come here to ask what happened.
I'm going to have a serious conversation with you because you remind me of my brother. I expect the same level of discourse back. I'm not going to call you names, but I am going to ask you to look into your heart and ask if you are sincere about your true motivations.
I reread your posts and looked at your choice of words, phrases and arguments thought the exchange. Having done that as a precursor to this post I have to say, "Fnord, please don't try and tell me you have no idea what you did 'that was so offensive that it required banning.' You know why. You very clearly know why."
And sincerely, it is disingenuous for you to play naive on that point over here at my blog. Did you expect some love or a polite "good point, Fnord" given your choice of phrases, arguments and tone of your posts?
Come on Ms. Fnord. Remember this? Do you remember calling someone who wants to bring to the attention of other people a book that is filled with inflammatory mis-information and a pre-enlightened viewpoint "the thought police"? Remember suggesting that liberals put on their "brown shirts" and do some "good old fashion ass-whooping" on others for "for being so intolerant"? I hope your remember that, because those are quotes from your first post.
The tone of your comments are common from certain people who go to known liberal blogs who want to argue. They set up the frame, make assumptions and expect the poster to work inside the constrains of their assumptions and straw man attacks. When the poster doesn't chose to spend the time knocking down assumptions or doesn't play the game based on how the commenter dictates it MUST be played, given THEIR assumptions, they claim that the blogger can’t defend their views or is being a spoilsport. They feel some sort of hollow victory “I won that conversation! Now they will convert to MY way of thinking!” and move on to find someone who wants to play the game by their rules.
Now I'm not saying that YOU are like those people, it was just that your tone sounded very must LIKE those people. You need to ask your self, "Was I really simply disagreeing with what I assume the goal of this post and what liberals who talk about this topic will do?" Or "I wanted to stir some shit up?"
Fnord, you took Sarah's post about this information from a book and you jumped to the conclusion of what should be done. You, not Sarah, assumed that the goal of the post was to censor, ban, remove funding or give them an ass-whooping.
If you look into your heart and your motivation for posting that, were you really simply "disagreeing"? I don't think you were, you weren't simply "disagreeing" you were spoiling for an argument. Now maybe this is your style. Maybe you always talk this way. You make assumptions of others motivations based on your preconceived ideas of who that person is and what they want. If you would have looked a bit closer you might have done a Goggle search on the name Sarah Grimke.
Sarah Grimke, along with her sister Angelina, were the first women in the United States to publicly argue for the abolition of slavery. The person who is blogging with the name Sarah Grimke might, just MIGHT, be very knowledgeable about the issue of slavery and is interested in how it is discussed. I did a search on the name Fnord one definition is “The enlightened can see fnord in the empty spaces between unjustified columns of text in newspapers and magazines.” So, Fnord, look into the empty spaces and ask, did I have to comment like I did? Are my feelings hurt by Sarah’s actions and by the comments by the other poster? Did I really simply want to engage in “the spirit of blogging”? Or did I just want to mess with some liberal blogger who I don’t know and don’t who represents people I do know that have oppressed me, angered me or hurt me?
You could have made you point in a much more civil manner. But I'm guessing (since I read the rest of the responses) that making the same points in a civil manner was not your goal.
Based on what you posted it appears you felt that Sarah's post and all comments about this book had to follow a certain pattern of activities and actions that you ordained. You, not Sarah set up and assumed the course of action. You said, "What do you want to result from your public outcry? Why, nothing less than the de facto banning of certain books." This was right after Sarah said, "I never said anything about banning the book."
You assumed that this was the course of action. There ARE other courses of action. Have you seen a number of books banned by people who call themselves liberals? Is that really their first choice? Is the ACLU out to ban books? Look at the books written on the topic. When books are banned a group that often wants to ban them is Christians. I’m not going to jump to the conclusion that Christian’s first choice of action is to ban a book, but that was your thought about what Sarah was going to do.
I’ve studied what makes people change their mind for the past 10 years. Very rarely are they changed based on someone taunting them, arguing with them or calling them names like “thought police” “brown shirts” and book banners. It requires first a building of respect and trust between the people. Sometimes positions are so deeply held and world views so fundamentally different that the discussion process becomes nothing more that a frustrating act of futility. In those cases if someone is going to change their world view it takes a “conversion” experience, such as finding out they have been lied to by someone who they trust and agreed with. Or finding evidence that is so powerful, insightful and persuasive that it changes the configuration of their thought.
The next time you are bored and stumble upon a blog spoiling for an argument, consider what your own motivations and the ‘personality’ of the blogger in question. I myself do NOT like to argue. I think it is because, based on my research, moving people’s opinions via arguments is not a very effective strategy. I would much rather develop, discover and present information and evidence so powerful, insightful, persuasive or amusing that it will plant the seed of conversion in that person. It is a much more interesting process to me and one that I have a better toolset for doing.
Spocko,
I read your entire post carefully so I hope you'll afford me the same courtesy.
If I understand you correctly, you read my earlier posts on Sarah’s blog and formed a number of opinions, which distill to the following:
(1) You believe I disingenuously pretended not to know why I was banned.
Please read my post (a few slots above this one) more carefully. I asked what actions on my part were "so offensive"—so over the top—that banning became the appropriate response. I gave examples of offenses, such as outright hate speech or personal attacks, which might reasonably have caused ejection. In so doing, I clearly implied that my posts did not rise to anywhere near that level. Further, I pointed out that another participant, who should have been removed for direct personal attacks (name calling to boot!) did not even elicit a raised eyebrow from Sarah, who is ostensibly the moderator. I hoped you would see for yourself that this is the very definition of unfair.
I've participated in online discussions since the mid-80's and I am well acquainted with netiquette. My comments, while confrontational, were well within the spirit of debate that has characterized online discussion since the inception of USENET. I did not commit a sin requiring banishment.
I ask, what sort of response did Sarah expect from the sarcastic title of her blog article: "I Guess the Idaho Aryan Nation Moved a Little Further South?" This sort of headline begs for a reaction. Sarah got one from me, grew quickly frustrated, and moved to censor. In so doing, she handed me a small moral victory--small, but not hollow. :-)
(2) You suggest that my posts were offensive and it was therefore reasonable for Sarah to ban me.
I can see from the entirety of your response that you're a subtle thinker. Surely you can see my initial comments for the ironic hyperbole they were. My reference to "brown shirts" was an allusion to Al Gore's attack on George W. Bush in June of this year, when Gore compared Bush's staff to Nazi "brown shirts." (I wonder, did you write a blog entry at that time lamenting the lack of civility in the Democratic approach?)
Even granting that some of my posts could be construed as offensive, Sarah did not ban me for those. She banned me after I pointed out that her (invalid) linking of Hitler to Christianity invoked one of the most venerable axioms of the Internet: Godwin's Law, which states, "As a USENET discussion grows longer, the probability of someone making a comparison involving Hitler or the Nazis approaches 1." An Internet tradition holds that whoever makes such a comparison automatically loses the argument. From this perspective, Sarah's horse lost before it left the gate. How is this not genuinely funny?
This is where the tale grows sordid. Sarah accused me of making an invalid analogy. I replied that I did not invent Godwin's Law; that the Law arose because of just such people as herself (who reach for Hitler-Nazi analogies). I assume she did not like this suggestion as she deleted my comment. This created an admittedly delicious irony—liberals engaging in censorship—and I said so.
Poof! Banned.
Judge for yourself whether this was the sort of seething, hate-filled, ugly, profane--and perhaps worst of all, misspelled--ranting for which people are normally ejected from such discussions. In all, I think I posted less than 20 times, and there were only a half-dozen total participants. You could hardly argue that I disrupted a well-established discussion and completely tried Sarah's longsuffering such that she finally had no choice.
No, Sarah's action arose from personal frustration alone. I was her first "troll." I know you cannot speak for Sarah, but I wonder: is this how she intends to handle them all? Does she not expect inflammatory headlines to elicit sharp-edged responses? Or perhaps she's hoping to preach only to the choir forever?
In retrospect, I should not have said the words, “people such as you.” That comes too close to a personal attack. I ask for lenience given that my comment followed immediately on the heels of being repeatedly told to “piss off” because I was stupid, smelly, and pathetic.
(3) You stated that there are people who enter liberal blogs seeking to win hollow victories by framing issues to suit themselves, and that my posts were typical of such people.
In every debate, both sides try to set the stage by defining the parameters in a manner that favors their own arguments. This is especially important for someone coming into an environment where his opinions represent an extreme minority. Surely you do not imagine that liberals are less than equally guilty of this.
(4) You suggested that if I search my heart, I might see that I just wanted to stir things up.
No need to search my heart. Obviously I hoped to stir things up! How does that differ from your or Sarah’s desire to stir things up with your articles, except that in this case I am actually the underdog and on your turf?
(5) You believe I misread Sarah's post and jumped to the conclusion that she aimed to censor, ban, or remove funding from the book in question.
As you say, Sarah stated quite clearly that she did not intend to advocate book banning. I did not misread her post, but I did point out the fallacy in her thinking by taking it to its logical conclusion. She claims her article aims only to inform the public regarding this objectionable material, and thus inspire “public outcry”—her words, not mine.
Sarah cannot reasonably expect readers to make no connection between “public outcry” and some tangible outcome. She gave herself away when she asked, “Should [Wilson’s writings] be required reading for my kids?” and then answered, “Not on your life!” Sarah’s children do not attend the Christian school in question, so I assume she means the material should be kept from all children. What, then, is the only action that could realistically accomplish this? Does she expect Douglas Wilson and his church members to humbly acquiesce to her offensive comparison of them to the Aryan Nation? I doubt it. A stirred-up public’s only real recourse is legal action—i.e., book banning. To pretend otherwise is hypocrisy, or, at best, naive. I do not feel inclined to allow Sarah to think her words can be distanced from the ultimate result they imply.
(6) You suggested that I didn't first Google the name Sarah Grimke, didn't know its significance, and thus failed to consider the possibility that a person blogging under that name might know a thing or two about slavery.
You’re almost right. I researched the name sometime after I became persona non grata, but before I found your blog. Far more importantly, this demonstrates how badly you missed my point! My post had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery or Doug Wilson’s book. If you read my comments, you might note that I never disagreed with a single one of Sarah’s points—indeed I did not even address them. I did, in fact, acknowledge that Wilson’s positions, as Sarah reported them, were inflammatory (although I suspected then and now that some of them are miles removed from their contexts).
My point was entirely tangential. It considered the irony of the unenviable position in which Sarah’s article leaves her readers. The point, again, was this: There is nothing liberals can do about Doug Wilson’s book being in a Christian school. Any concrete course of action would belie your own cherished values and rightly brand you as censors and book banners (unless you start adjusting definitions, or appeal to a “higher good,” which I now expect). You can try to say you’re not advocating book banning, but that is dishonest because it pretends not to know about cause and effect.
(Can you see how I might interpret Sarah’s censorship of me in the midst of such a discussion as a small victory?)
(7) You suggested that making my point in a civil manner was not my goal.
Guilty as charged. But am I not in good company among people who seek to change minds while comparing a Christian School to the Aryan Nations?
(8) Finally, you’ve studied the means by which minds are changed, and my posts broke the rules. Also, you do not personally like to argue.
I hardly know how to respond. There is a line from one of my favorite C. S. Lewis stories that goes something like this: "Reepicheep thought of so many things to say all at once that it nearly suffocated him and he fell silent." I’ve spent the past two days reading your and Sarah’s blog entries, which feature no small amount of biting sarcasm, and go to ridiculous lenghths to link Hitler to Christianity (who only managed to call himself a Christian after taking scissors to the Bible, and who denied that Jesus was Jewish) while ignoring the likes of Dietrich Bonhoffer and Corrie Ten Boom.
To my way of thinking, a blog entry is an argument. It is a sermon preached from a soapbox. I guess you mean you don’t enjoy the part of making an argument that might require a defense. Fair enough.
By the way, my choice of the word “Fnord” has nothing to do with any dubious etymology. I picked the name because it sounded funny.
And I’m not a “Ms.,” nor, for that matter, female. :-)
Now please do not post such a long entry again. If you have something to stay, stick to one point that I can mock quickly and move on.
That’s a joke.
Spocko,
I read your entire post carefully so I hope you'll afford me the same courtesy.
If I understand you correctly, you read my earlier posts on Sarah’s blog and formed a number of opinions, which distill to the following:
(1) You believe I disingenuously pretended not to know why I was banned.
Please read my post (a couple of slots above this one) more carefully. I asked what actions on my part were "so offensive"—so over the top—that banning became the appropriate response. I gave examples of offenses, such as outright hate speech or personal attacks, which might reasonably have caused ejection. In so doing, I clearly implied that my posts did not rise to anywhere near that level. Further, I pointed out that another participant, who should have been removed for direct personal attacks (name calling to boot!) did not even elicit a raised eyebrow from Sarah, who is ostensibly the moderator. I hoped you would see for yourself that this is the very definition of unfair.
I've participated in online discussions since the mid-80's and I am well acquainted with netiquette. My comments, while confrontational, were well within the spirit of debate that has characterized online discussion since the inception of USENET. I did not commit a sin requiring banishment.
I ask, what sort of response did Sarah expect from the sarcastic title of her blog article: "I Guess the Idaho Aryan Nation Moved a Little Further South?" This sort of headline begs for a reaction. Sarah got one from me, grew quickly frustrated, and moved to censor. In so doing, she handed me a small moral victory--small, but not hollow. :-)
(2) You suggest that my posts were offensive and it was therefore reasonable for Sarah to ban me.
I can see from the entirety of your response that you're a subtle thinker. Surely you can see my initial comments for the ironic hyperbole they were. My reference to "brown shirts" was an allusion to Al Gore's attack on George W. Bush in June of this year, when Gore compared Bush's staff to Nazi "brown shirts." (I wonder, did you write a blog entry at that time lamenting the lack of civility in the Democratic approach?)
Even granting that some of my posts could be construed as offensive, Sarah did not ban me for those. She banned me after I pointed out that her (invalid) linking of Hitler to Christianity invoked one of the most venerable axioms of the Internet: Godwin's Law, which states, "As a USENET discussion grows longer, the probability of someone making a comparison involving Hitler or the Nazis approaches 1." An Internet tradition holds that whoever makes such a comparison automatically loses the argument. From this perspective, Sarah's horse lost before it left the gate. How is this not genuinely funny?
This is where the tale grows sordid. Sarah accused me of making an invalid analogy. I replied that I did not invent Godwin's Law; that the Law arose because of just such people as herself (who reach for Hitler-Nazi analogies). I assume she did not like this suggestion as she deleted my comment. This created an admittedly delicious irony—liberals engaging in censorship—and I said so.
Poof! Banned.
Judge for yourself whether this was the sort of seething, hate-filled, ugly, profane--and perhaps worst of all, misspelled--ranting for which people are normally ejected from such discussions. In all, I think I posted less than 20 times, and there were only a half-dozen total participants. You could hardly argue that I disrupted a well-established discussion and completely tried Sarah's longsuffering such that she finally had no choice.
No, Sarah's action arose from personal frustration alone. I was her first "troll." I know you cannot speak for Sarah, but I wonder: is this how she intends to handle them all? Does she not expect inflammatory headlines to elicit sharp-edged responses? Or perhaps she's hoping to preach only to the choir forever?
In retrospect, I should not have said the words, “people such as you.” That comes too close to a personal attack. I ask for lenience given that my comment followed immediately on the heels of being repeatedly told to “piss off” because I was stupid, smelly, and pathetic.
(3) You stated that there are people who enter liberal blogs seeking to win hollow victories by framing issues to suit themselves, and that my posts were typical of such people.
In every debate, both sides try to set the stage by defining the parameters in a manner that favors their own arguments. This is especially important for someone coming into an environment where his opinions represent an extreme minority. Surely you do not imagine that liberals are less than equally guilty of this.
(4) You suggested that if I search my heart, I might see that I just wanted to stir things up.
No need to search my heart. Obviously I hoped to stir things up! How does that differ from your or Sarah’s desire to stir things up with your articles, except that in this case I am actually the underdog and on your turf?
(5) You believe I misread Sarah's post and jumped to the conclusion that she aimed to censor, ban, or remove funding from the book in question.
As you say, Sarah stated quite clearly that she did not intend to advocate book banning. I did not misread her post, but I did point out the fallacy in her thinking by taking it to its logical conclusion. She claims her article aims only to inform the public regarding this objectionable material, and thus inspire “public outcry”—her words, not mine.
Sarah cannot reasonably expect readers to make no connection between “public outcry” and some tangible outcome. She gave herself away when she asked, “Should [Wilson’s writings] be required reading for my kids?” and then answered, “Not on your life!” Sarah’s children do not attend the Christian school in question, so I assume she means the material should be kept from all children. What, then, is the only action that could realistically accomplish this? Does she expect Douglas Wilson and his church members to humbly acquiesce to her offensive comparison of them to the Aryan Nation? I doubt it. A stirred-up public’s only real recourse is legal action—i.e., book banning. To pretend otherwise is hypocrisy, or, at best, naive. I do not feel inclined to allow Sarah to think her words can be distanced from the ultimate result they imply.
(6) You suggested that I didn't first Google the name Sarah Grimke, didn't know its significance, and thus failed to consider the possibility that a person blogging under that name might know a thing or two about slavery.
You’re almost right. I researched the name sometime after I became persona non grata, but before I found your blog. Far more importantly, this demonstrates how badly you missed my point! My post had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery or Doug Wilson’s book. If you read my comments, you might note that I never disagreed with a single one of Sarah’s points—indeed I did not even address them. I did, in fact, acknowledge that Wilson’s positions, as Sarah reported them, were inflammatory (although I suspected then and now that some of them are miles removed from their contexts).
My point was entirely tangential. It considered the irony of the unenviable position in which Sarah’s article leaves her readers. The point, again, was this: There is nothing liberals can do about Doug Wilson’s book being in a Christian school. Any concrete course of action would belie your own cherished values and rightly brand you as censors and book banners (unless you start adjusting definitions, or appeal to a “higher good,” which I now expect). You can try to say you’re not advocating book banning, but that is dishonest because it pretends not to know about cause and effect.
(Can you see how I might interpret Sarah’s censorship of me in the midst of such a discussion as a small victory?)
(7) You suggested that making my point in a civil manner was not my goal.
Guilty as charged. But am I not in good company among people who seek to change minds while comparing a Christian School to the Aryan Nations? No doubt you will say I should follow my own advice and see Sarah's comments "for the ironic hyperbole they are." Sadly, the body of Sarah's work demonstrates her deadly seriousness.
(8) Finally, you’ve studied the means by which minds are changed, and my posts broke the rules. Also, you do not personally like to argue.
I hardly know how to respond. There is a line from one of my favorite C. S. Lewis stories that goes something like this: "Reepicheep thought of so many things to say all at once that it nearly suffocated him and he fell silent." I’ve spent the past two days reading your and Sarah’s blog entries, which feature no small amount of biting sarcasm, and go to ridiculous lengths to link Hitler to Christianity (who only managed to call himself a Christian after taking scissors to the Bible, and who denied that Jesus was Jewish) while ignoring the likes of Dietrich Bonhoffer and Corrie Ten Boom.
To my way of thinking, a blog entry is an argument. It is a sermon preached from a soapbox. I guess what you mean is that you don’t enjoy defending your arguments. Fair enough.
By the way, my choice of the word “Fnord” has nothing to do with any dubious etymology. I picked the name because it sounded funny.
And I’m not a “Ms.,” nor, for that matter, female. :-)
Now please do not post such a long entry again. If you have something to stay, stick to one point that I can mock quickly and move on.
That’s a joke.
Spocko,
I read your entire post carefully so I hope you'll afford me the same courtesy.
If I understand you correctly, you read my earlier posts on Sarah’s blog and formed a number of opinions, which distil to the following:
(1) You believe I disingenuously pretended not to know why I was banned.
Please read my post (a couple of slots above this one) more carefully. I asked what actions on my part were "so offensive"—so over the top—that banning became the appropriate response. I gave examples of offenses, such as outright hate speech or personal attacks, which might reasonably have caused ejection. In so doing, I clearly implied that my posts did not rise to anywhere near that level. Further, I pointed out that another participant, who should have been removed for direct personal attacks (name calling to boot!) did not even elicit a raised eyebrow from Sarah, who is ostensibly the moderator. I hoped you would see for yourself that this is the very definition of unfair.
I've participated in online discussions since the mid-80's and I am well acquainted with netiquette. My comments, while confrontational, were well within the spirit of debate that has characterized online discussion since the inception of USENET. I did not commit a sin requiring banishment.
I ask, what sort of response did Sarah expect from the sarcastic title of her blog article: "I Guess the Idaho Aryan Nation Moved a Little Further South?" This sort of headline begs for a reaction. Sarah got one from me, grew quickly frustrated, and moved to censor. In so doing, she handed me a small moral victory--small, but not hollow. :-)
(2) You suggest that my posts were offensive and it was therefore reasonable for Sarah to ban me.
I can see from the entirety of your response that you're a subtle thinker. Surely you can see my initial comments for the ironic hyperbole they were. My reference to "brown shirts" was an allusion to Al Gore's attack on George W. Bush in June of this year, when Gore compared Bush's staff to Nazi "brown shirts." (I wonder, did you write a blog entry at that time lamenting the lack of civility in the Democratic approach?)
Even granting that some of my posts could be construed as offensive, Sarah did not ban me for those. She banned me after I pointed out that her (invalid) linking of Hitler to Christianity invoked one of the most venerable axioms of the Internet: Godwin's Law, which states, "As a USENET discussion grows longer, the probability of someone making a comparison involving Hitler or the Nazis approaches 1." An Internet tradition holds that whoever makes such a comparison automatically loses the argument. From this perspective, Sarah's horse lost before it left the gate. How is this not genuinely funny?
This is where the tale grows sordid. Sarah accused me of making an invalid analogy. I replied that I did not invent Godwin's Law; that the Law arose because of just such people as herself (who reach for Hitler-Nazi analogies). I assume she did not like this suggestion as she deleted my comment. This created an admittedly delicious irony—liberals engaging in censorship—and I said so.
Poof! Banned.
Judge for yourself whether this was the sort of seething, hate-filled, ugly, profane--and perhaps worst of all, misspelled--ranting for which people are normally ejected from such discussions. In all, I think I posted less than 20 times, and there were only a half-dozen total participants. You could hardly argue that I disrupted a well-established discussion and completely tried Sarah's longsuffering such that she finally had no choice.
No, Sarah's action arose from personal frustration alone. I was her first "troll." I know you cannot speak for Sarah, but I wonder: is this how she intends to handle them all? Does she not expect inflammatory headlines to elicit sharp-edged responses? Or perhaps she's hoping to preach only to the choir forever?
In retrospect, I should not have said the words, “people such as you.” That comes too close to a personal attack. I ask for lenience given that my comment followed immediately on the heels of being repeatedly told to “piss off” because I was stupid, smelly, and pathetic.
(3) You stated that there are people who enter liberal blogs seeking to win hollow victories by framing issues to suit themselves, and that my posts were typical of such people.
In every debate, both sides try to set the stage by defining the parameters in a manner that favors their own arguments. This is especially important for someone coming into an environment where his opinions represent an extreme minority. Surely you do not imagine that liberals are less than equally guilty of this.
(4) You suggested that if I search my heart, I might see that I just wanted to stir things up.
No need to search my heart. Obviously I hoped to stir things up! How does that differ from your or Sarah’s desire to stir things up with your articles, except that in this case I am actually the underdog and on your turf?
(5) You believe I misread Sarah's post and jumped to the conclusion that she aimed to censor, ban, or remove funding from the book in question.
As you say, Sarah stated quite clearly that she did not intend to advocate book banning. I did not misread her post, but I did point out the fallacy in her thinking by taking it to its logical conclusion. She claims her article aims only to inform the public regarding this objectionable material, and thus inspire “public outcry”—her words, not mine.
Sarah cannot reasonably expect readers to make no connection between “public outcry” and some tangible outcome. She gave herself away when she asked, “Should [Wilson’s writings] be required reading for my kids?” and then answered, “Not on your life!” Sarah’s children do not attend the Christian school in question, so I assume she means the material should be kept from all children. What, then, is the only action that could realistically accomplish this? Does she expect Douglas Wilson and his church members to humbly acquiesce to her offensive comparison of them to the Aryan Nation? I doubt it. A stirred-up public’s only real recourse is legal action—i.e., book banning. To pretend otherwise is hypocrisy, or, at best, naive. I do not feel inclined to allow Sarah to think her words can be distanced from the ultimate result they imply.
(6) You suggested that I didn't first Google the name Sarah Grimke, didn't know its significance, and thus failed to consider the possibility that a person blogging under that name might know a thing or two about slavery.
You’re almost right. I researched the name sometime after I became persona non grata, but before I found your blog. Far more importantly, this demonstrates how badly you missed my point! My post had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery or Doug Wilson’s book. If you read my comments, you might note that I never disagreed with a single one of Sarah’s points—indeed I did not even address them. I did, in fact, acknowledge that Wilson’s positions, as Sarah reported them, were inflammatory (although I suspected then and now that some of them are miles removed from their contexts).
My point was entirely tangential. It considered the irony of the unenviable position in which Sarah’s article leaves her readers. The point, again, was this: There is nothing liberals can do about Doug Wilson’s book being in a Christian school. Any concrete course of action would belie your own cherished values and rightly brand you as censors and book banners (unless you start adjusting definitions, or appeal to a “higher good,” which I now expect). You can try to say you’re not advocating book banning, but that is dishonest because it pretends not to know about cause and effect.
(Can you see how I might interpret Sarah’s censorship of me in the midst of such a discussion as a small victory?)
(7) You suggested that making my point in a civil manner was not my goal.
Guilty as charged. But am I not in good company among people who seek to change minds while comparing a Christian School to the Aryan Nations? No doubt you will say I should follow my own advice and see Sarah's comments "for the ironic hyperbole they are." Sadly, the body of Sarah's work demonstrates her deadly seriousness.
(8) Finally, you’ve studied the means by which minds are changed, and my posts broke the rules. Also, you do not personally like to argue.
Suddenly I am reminded of a line from one of my favorite C. S. Lewis stories that goes something like this: "He thought of so many things to say all at once that it nearly suffocated him and he fell silent." Except I won’t fall silent. I’ve spent the past two days reading your and Sarah’s blog entries, which feature no small amount of biting sarcasm and go to ridiculous lengths to do such things as link Hitler to Christianity. Hitler only managed to call himself a Christian after taking scissors to the Bible and even denied Jesus was Jewish. Only someone desperately overreaching to make a point would say Hitler was Christian while ignoring the likes of Dietrich Bonhoffer and Corrie Ten Boom. (Godwin’s-Law was invented for just such cases.)
You say you don’t like to argue, but in fact every one of your blog entries is an argument, and each shows you are, to borrow your description of me, “spoiling for a fight,” however much you may protest to the contrary. Politically or religiously oriented blog entries are sermons preached from a soapbox. In your words, you prefer to simply “present information and evidence so powerful, insightful, persuasive or amusing that it will plant the seed of conversion.” You might want to Google “define: argue.” Its first and third definitions are “present reasons” and “give evidence.” So I guess it’s not that you don’t like to argue. It’s that you don’t particularly enjoy defending your arguments.
By the way, my choice of the word “Fnord” has nothing to do with any dubious etymology. I picked the name because it sounded funny.
And I’m not a “Ms.,” nor, for that matter, female. :-)
Now please do not post such a long entry again. If you have something to stay, stick to one point that I can mock quickly and move on.
That’s a joke.
Spocko, I tried three times to post my reply but it never appeared on the blog. Now it occurs to me that all three may have gone through and are awaiting moderator approval. If so, please take my third attempt. I tweaked it after the others failed.
OMG Spocko!! What a wonderful statement! What an amazing indictment of trollism. Well argued, well said, sir! May your DNA recipients increase and bless this land.
Testing, 1, 2, 3... is this thing on?
Ah, I see the log jam finally cleared. Heh.
Fnord: I just read your comment. Thanks for posting a through discussion.
I've got to spend some cycles thinking about it. I appreciate you taking my comments seriously as I will yours. Sorry about the three posts. I blame blogger (insert insipid smiley face here.)
One overarching comment. One thing that I see throwing some sand into these discussions is a fundamental disagreement in base assumptions and expectations. Disagreements can be based on expectations that are simple not shared by both parties. I spent some time working with people 20 some years younger than me and made reference to the Jimmy Carter presidency. They looked at me and said, "I was 4 at the time he was president." I needed to update my reference frame to make my point simply because even though they were smart and knew some history, they hadn't lived through it like I had.
"Seek first to understand, then to be understood."
If I make assumptions about someone's bias, motivations and intellectual background, I'll have a harder time moving a discussion forward.
Sarah and I may NOT reach the same conclusions on the purpose of a blog and the goal of essays. In my blog I earlier wrote a post about "preaching to the choir".
Sometimes that IS the point. Sometimes it is necessary to increase the overall knowledge base of the choir. Not everyone in the choir knows all the parts of the score, and it might make them better if they understand the dynamic of the big picture. That is a worthy goal of "preaching to the choir".
I'll post more on this later. Thanks again for your post.
Spocko, first of all, thank you so much for your eloquent words in my defense. Let me say how horribly embarrassed I am that Fnord has taken to harassing me through your blog. I am so sorry.
Secondly, Fnord, is that what you engaged in was not debate but derisive sarcasm. *No* reply was ever going to satisfy you. Why you chose to target me for this venom, I am unsure. Perhaps I struck a chord? Whatever the reason, it became evident very early on that you were engaged in trying to one-up whatever was said, and your immediate, snide response to my post the next day confirmed that. I said ‘enough’ in the first post you replied to. When I tried to end the discussion by deleting your reply in my later post, you immediately reposted, “For any who may be interested, the censored post said:
"Hey, I didn't invent Godwin's Law. It came out because of people like you."
I have no problem debating issues. This you did not do, and still do not, by the way. Not issuing a book to a school to be required reading is not the same as banning a book. In the same way that a book such as 'Final Exit' is not appropriate to be taught in school, so too is this.
This is not history. This is someone’s attempt to revise it into something they wish it were. It is not appropriate to be taught as a historical text, no matter the viewpoint. We as a country are obligated to insure that education remains uncorrupted. This book teaches a lie.
Southerners had many reasons to justify slavery. Many said "the African race is biologically inferior" or "physically and mentally under-developed". They believed that slaves could eventually adjust to a "better kind of life", be taught new morals and the "true religion" – with the right persuasion. They may have believed slavery was “for their own good”, but the general consensus was not as Wilson’s text would lead the reader to believe.
Plantations were the most basic unit and the most vital element of Southern antebellum economy. Without them and the ingrained hierarchies thereof, slavery most likely would have never survived. It was plantation owners who needed slavery - free labor. Lower class white people weren’t necessarily advocates for slavery because they could not afford to compete with it. Their motivations to defend the South during the Civil War were based more on cultural ‘way of life’ beliefs rather than defending slavery.
I never said the book should be banned, and still don’t. I say it shouldn’t be taught as an historical text in school. Taking a book out of a school curriculum’s required reading list is not banning it. It is not censorship in that it is not banning a book from being available to *be* read. Taking issue with Wilson’s book being taught as history is not hypocritical.
I quit allowing posts because you are not engaged in a debate, but an attack, as your immediate repost proved. I am allowed my opinion, same as you. Let me point out a few things you said:
“I never disagreed with a single one of Sarah’s points—indeed I did not even address them.”
“You suggested that making my point in a civil manner was not my goal.
Guilty as charged. But am I not in good company among people who seek to change minds while comparing a Christian School to the Aryan Nations?”
So what you are saying is that because my post title was provocative, I deserved attack? My post on Hitler wasn’t ‘ridiculous’, and if you’d read the links you would have seen why. I was making a point – one about hate and intolerance, and what it can fuel. Certainly you make my point for me, mocking my beliefs and belittling my opinion at every turn.
Deciding to change my blog to not allow others to post is my decision. I have no qualms with healthy debate, but neither do I believe I’m obligated to argue for the sake of arguing. If you feel that you have won a moral victory - go you. My right to my opinion stands, and the fact that you followed me over to another blog simply to continue your attack certainly proves my point.
This is the last I will discuss this with you. Your posting here indicates that you intend to harass me no matter what I say, and your violation of netiquette decorum by posting your comment in Spocko’s blog but directing it to me shows the lengths to which you will go to continue to try to provoke me. Your comments were most certainly not in the spirit of debate.
Once again, Spocko, I greatly appreciate your defense of my post. Yes, my choice of blog name was no accident, and your points were very well made. Thank you so much once again for your defense, and let me say good luck to you on your complaint with the FCC. May it make the point you wish it to!
Best Blog: Baghdad Burning
Best Series: annatopia
http://annatopia.com/home.html
posts from the GOP convention
http://archives.annatopia.com/cat_nyc_gop_convention.html
Best Group Blog: The Majority Report
Most Humorous Blog: the Onion
Best Expert Blog: Juan Cole
Best Commenter: Patroiterer
( MRR Bloggie http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/ )
Best blogger who didn't get nervous while talking on nationwide radio to Sam Seder and asked a serious question about war dead : Spocko
Posted by: Sunshine Jim at December 16, 2004 10:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home