So let me lay out the issue I have with Jeff Goldstein – not just with Jeff, but with those who increasingly want to hammer down their political opponents.
My view of politics is essentially communitarian – i.e. that it takes place within a community of people bound together in a polity, who agree to be bound by political decisions and who – to some extent – yield their personal power over their public lives to the political community.
This model allows for a wide range of politics – it works as a construct that limits government power by the consent of the governed, and one that expands it (i.e. it’s not inherently opposed to or in favor of any specific exercise of government power). It says simply that we are fellow citizens and that we will, grudgingly sometimes, accept the decisions made by our political process even when they contradict our own desires.
We can’t and don’t grant that power to everyone in the world, it is inherently limited to our community (hence not cosmopolitan).
The American community, as I’ve written in the past, is a community of belief, not one of (as Heiddiger once famously said) blood and soil. So it is expansive, and flexible and inherently generous (which is to me the root of American Exceptionalism). The condition of that power, in the American ideal, is that we all get to possess our share of it. So when Jim Crow worked to keep blacks from their share, or when laws that forbade women the vote kept them from exercising their share – we worked to strike them down and ensure that everyone had some access to the shared political power.
The image of people being kept from exercising that power by force is inherently reprehensible to me; it defines (to me) the opposite of what our system of government and politics should be. It is most awful when the government blocks people from exercising power – when the political rights people should enjoy to participate in the political life of the community are taken away by the government for political reasons. But it’s awful when it is done privately as well.
I’ve been consistent in my writing, I believe, in saying that the worst sin is attempting to push people out of the argument (yes, there are probably views so extreme that they are rightfully pushed aside – but they’re rare in my view. In fact they’d better be…).
When I see Code Pink mobs shouting Karl Rove down at a booksigning, it’s disgusting.
So why, I’ll ask, is it any different when Jeff threatens those who arouse his pique with violence? That’s not an effort to police a conversation or set boundaries; I can’t see it as anything but an effort to bully people out of an argument. To win the game not with thought, skill, or fact, but by shifting the frame of the discussion from ideas to fear.
I don’t see it.
Look, the tone in a place like Ace or Cold Fury or Blackfive isn’t polite or refined, it’s aggressive, it’s profane and kinda rude (and usually funny as hell). They target people who – in real life – have done bad things – for abuse, outing, and where possible, legal action. They don’t (with one justified exception in Mike Hendrix’s case) target people who say things to them.
They don’t threaten to break people’s bones to shut them up or drive them from the conversation. The fact that Jeff hasn’t actually done it may give him some small relief, but in my view it’s pretty small. Intentions count, and as I said above, as vile as Deb Frisch was in her words, her actions really didn’t give a whole lot of factual basis for believing she was going to act against his kids (note that had her comments been directed against my kids, I would have acted just as Jeff did if not more strongly).
That’s my problem in a nutshell. Because I don’t see how you differentiate political style from political substance all that easily. The GOP is out of power because for all their talk of limited government, they tried to chain themselves to the platinum trough (see Steele’s recent spending problems as a good example of the cultural norm). John Edwards was a narcisstic asshole in person, and I find no reason to believe that his politics would have been any different. At an extreme level, the mindless violence that has characterized Palestinian governance since Arafat is a big reason why the only response the Palestinian polity can make to most challenges – is more mindless violence.
I do buy into the idea that our political system is wounded and that as a nation we’re being dragged down by courtiers in thousand dollar shoes. I’m all about kicking them out on their asses and replacing the government by the governing with a government by the governed. I think it’s critical that we do that – and do it soon – or we’re screwed. I’m to the left of Jeff on some political issues, but I’m right alongside him on this.
But – as I said when I challenged Charles Johnson way back when – it’s a problem to me to stand alongside people whose values – as opposed to beliefs – are so different than mine, and whose values I see as being so destructive to what we both profess to believe in.
It’s a problem for the ‘reform’ movement because if we’re busting our asses to replace one set of power-mad bullies with another – why bother?
I’ve got another, personal problem with Jeff, and that is simply that I believe that as a student of violence he has an obligation to raise the standards for his own behavior. I’m not some super-bad stone killer warrior…but I’ve known more than a couple of them in my life, and being the nosy bastard that I am I’ve spent a fair amount of time interrogating them on their values while picking their pockets for skills. And those values are, simply, don’t be an asshole. Don’t be a bully. Defuse conflict when you can, and end it quickly when you must. Use the confidence your skills offer to create the space to minimize the liklihood of violence – not to egg people on and create it.
Those are values I espouse and try really hard to live. They’re 180 degrees from what I see Jeff doing, and I’m sure that’s part of what makes me so reactive to it.
So that’s why I’m comfy with my decision to pull the link to Jeff, and why I’m (potentially) understanding of his teacher’s desire to pull his name from Jeff’s CV.
I wish it was different. I think Jeff is smart and talented and well-informed enough that he could do what he does without the threats and verbal bludgeons. Someday I hope he sees it that way.
–
So why, I’ll ask, is it any different when Jeff threatens those who arouse his pique with violence? That’s not an effort to police a conversation or set boundaries; I can’t see it as anything but an effort to bully people out of an argument. To win the game not with thought, skill, or fact, but by shifting the frame of the discussion from ideas to fear.
Good God Almighty, Marc. What the hell kind of distillation of Jeff’s blog behavior is this? “Shifting the frame of the discussion from ideas to fear?” Since when did Jeff ever back away from an ideas-based discussion? Since when were Jeff’s serious posts about anything but ideas?
And not just any old ideas, but extremely well-articulated ideas, written in such a style that many people find his prose difficult to follow — and not because he can’t put his thoughts to paper, either, but because he is capable of structuring extremely complex sentences without dangling a single participle. (I should know; I’m a professional writer, and if Jeff mucked up a sentence, he’d hear from me.)
Those whom Jeff “threatened” were not ordinary commenters or trolls who happen to “arouse his pique.” I actually followed that legendary argument that carried on for days (you, on the other hand, did not), with Jeff patiently reiterating, rewording, explaining, and clarifying his point — all in a “tone” that was utterly devoid of scorn or even impatience. All the while his interlocutor became increasingly defensive and petulant, until he devolved into a shrieking maniac.
Said maniac’s minions then converged on the conversation and added not substance but vile mockery — attacking Jeff’s home life, his manhood, you name it — in the most vulgar of terms. In the meantime, said maniac was doing his dead-level best to Google-bomb Jeff’s name into oblivion in the hopes of destroying his online reputation.
It was no prank, Marc. This guy had gone ’round the twist, literally CACKLING with glee at the thought of destroying Jeff. I was there to witness how incredibly patient Jeff was in bearing this surreal attack. I’d have resorted to actual violence long before Jeff did.
It was only after THREE DAYS of this kind of bombardment — in a thread where the maniac’s minions were again taunting Jeff like the cowardly hyenas that they are — that Jeff finally invited them to come over to his place and repeat those insults in person, away from the safety of the Internet, and perhaps he’d have to snap their ankles in response.
Surely you’ve noticed how the safety of the Internet makes people free to say things that they’d never say in person. Jeff had been provoked mightily up until that point — said maniac’s minions had even tried to subvert Jeff’s income stream — and those smug little freaks had the nerve to taunt him about how awful he was even as their master set about laying Google bombs wherever he could to make sure that everyone knew that Jeff was evil incarnate.
This was a high-traffic blogger with an effing DAY job who spent inordinate amounts of time to destroy a lower-traffic blogger who had bested him in an argument (twice, actually). The petty little maniac couldn’t let it stand.
The fact that Jeff hasn’t actually done it may give him some small relief, but in my view it’s pretty small. Intentions count,
Oh, and what exactly are Jeff’s intentions? To hunt down the smug little freaks and snap their ankles?
Don’t be a simp: “threats of violence” aren’t threats unless there’s a remote chance that they’ll be carried out.
Check this out: Mark? Whatever it is you have to say to me, come to my house and tell me in person, and I’ll snap your ankles in response.
Did that shut you up? Did that fill your soul with dread? Or did you take it as the garden-variety Internet trash-talk that it is.
So that’s why I’m comfy with my decision to pull the link to Jeff, and why I’m (potentially) understanding of his teacher’s desire to pull his name from Jeff’s CV.
That’s a lie. The facts on the ground don’t even come close to supporting your conclusion, but you don’t care to suss them out before making your monumental decision. You’ve declared Jeff to be “unclean” because everyone else is doing it, and you don’t want to be “on the wrong side of history.”
What a coward you are. What a sniveling, small-minded coward.
Pull the pw link if you must, but don’t you dare console yourself that it’s a high-minded act. You didn’t look to see what the truth was behind the rumors, and that makes you a smarmy, judgmental ass.
—dicentra, who had to sign in as takla makan because Marc’s blog offers few sign-in options
Marc:
I’m here from Protein Wisdom as well. The only thing I can add to dicentra’s excellent comment is that you offer absolutely no example of a single time where Jeff has offered to “hammer down” a “political opponent.”
I’ve been reading PW for years, and the only time I’ve ever seen Jeff suggest violence as a course of action has been when he’s been personally attacked–NOT politically.
It’s disingenuous of you to suggest–again, without a single example–that he suggests violence is a solution to any political disagreement.
–Cowboy
“_To hunt down the smug little freaks and snap their ankles?_”
Who’s requiring a hunt?
“_Since when did Jeff ever back away from an ideas-based discussion? Since when were Jeff’s serious posts about anything but ideas?_”
I shall offer but one example, and I quote – “Because fuck you, that’s why”.
That’s an example of your Dear Leader’s famed seriousness and commitment to ideas.
“_Don’t be a simp: “threats of violence” aren’t threats unless there’s a remote chance that they’ll be carried out._”
That’s a nice theory and all, but that isn’t actually how it works. Just so you know.
Overarching but meaningless, Marc. As Dicentra points out, you aren’t qualified to judge Jeff Goldstein.
Take a look at this simpleton’s hate speech…
http://patterico.com/jury/2010/03/29/i-did-what/
Patrick Frey, Deputy District Attorney of Los Angeles, runs a hate site. There’s no way you can read that post and come to any other conclusion.
That’s a nice theory and all, but that isn’t actually how it works. Just so you know
Oh, please Scott, yes it does. In fact the little off the wall, profanity-laced rant serr8d links to would get any attempt by you to legally challenge Jeff in a court of law over his “threat” laughed right out of the DA office even if the reviewing sargeant at the police department was a lazy bastard and had passed it on. You claim you never felt fear or felt threatened. Bingo. As di points out, at that moment ‘net trash-talk is just ‘net trash-talk.
Like dicentra, I was there, too, so your revisionism is pretty funny in a sad, poor baby kind of way.
But hey, “Scotty”, a fantasy in your own mind is a nice place to be when reality bites.
Stay classy.
Actually, it was offering my address when it was requested, is what would have killed any attempt to press charges or file a complaint.
Do try to keep up.
You imply that a threat requires the target to be made afraid, and that isn’t so. I don’t fear JeffyG, but the threat – the statement of a desired act – still took place.
“You were there?” What, at PW? Yeah, I know you were. You’re one of JeffyG’s Defenders, because he can’t wade into public without sounding like a complete loon.
And Serr8d (hip name, by the way… are you teh hardcorez?), I realize that I might hate JeffyG, but hate for one person (more like absolute distain, really) doesn’t make it a hate site.
Again – show me where I threatened – even once – JeffyG or any member of JeffyG’s family.
I’m still waiting for one of you people to manage that trick.
Scotty child, your rant is posted on Patrick Frey’s dime. It is an obvious hate rant. Patterico is, as he is always pointing out, ultimately responsible. He needs a tighter leash on his ‘jury’ (no hand-picking there, right?).
No use taking it down now, I’ve a screenshot.
And an accompanying post, pointing out Patrick Frey’s tolerance of teh hate.
http://serr8d.blogspot.com/2010/03/patrick-frey-deputy-district-attorney.html
Keep digging, fools.
For these comments of Jeff’s to be concerning to me, the very first thing is that I’d have to find teh comments credible. That is, I’d have to have some reason to beleive that he has he ability to do what is suggested *and* that he would actually do it given the opportunity.
Otherwise, it’s just a rhetorical flourish, noe any given listerner/reader may not like or approve of, but not being remotely the same as a threat.
To begin with, there’s the usual chestnut that holds that everyone has used this kind of rhetoric, without meaing it literally. It wouldn’t be an old chestunt if it didn’t have some truth to it. So that’s one reason that I don’t put any stock in the notion that Jeff would actually hurt someone else, not with out much more dire provocation.
A second reason, is that such rhetorical flourish is 100% in keeping with every otehr aspect of Jeff’s site–the regular linguistic assault on the assumptions and sensibilities of others. I think it appeals to me as a reformed leftoid–a conservative message, but wrapped in a comfortable old peacoat I don’t wear anymore. I get it if you don’t find it appealing, but that doesn’t seem to be cause for condemnation.
Your comdemnation, then, sems to me to have only one viable cause. You must have some reason to believe that these statements have actually been threats. That is that Jeff would actually physically assault people if given the opportunity. There is no justification for referring to his commentsw as “threats” otherwise, because without that intnet,they just plain aren’t actual threats.
So, please. What cause do you have for this belief?
I will add one other possibility. It can also be a “threat” if the target has no knowledge of the speaker’s capacities or abilities.
But I don’t believe that your knowledge of Jeff is so incomplete as to leave you wondering in any honest sense.
Scott,
It’s just that kind of sneering contempt that makes it so difficult for people to address you in a civil manner. When you go out of your way to provoke, it seems hardly sporting to point and shout and condemn when people rise to your provocation.
AL,
I think you do Jeff a disservice, by taking a very small handful of episodes as being somehow indicative of his writing and behavior overall. Yes, he occasionally wishes violence upon those who try his patience. Who among us hasn’t gotten fed up with beating our head against the wall trying to convince an unwanted troll to knock it off?
Frey went out of his way to smear Jeff after Jeff called him on his inappropriate behavior. He did it in the hope that others would disassociate from Jeff in the belief that he was somehow “unclean” and unworthy of consideration. It saddens me to see so many good people cave in to Frey’s strategem.
Respectfully, I hope you’ll reconsider your decision. Either way, I wish you well.
“Scotty child, your rant is posted on Patrick Frey’s dime. It is an obvious hate rant.”
Excuse me, Serr8d, but it’s an obvious illiterate hate rant.
Otherwise, it’s just a rhetorical flourish, noe any given listerner/reader may not like or approve of, but not being remotely the same as a threat.
No, it’s just like Hamas and/or Deb Frisch. I read that on the internet.
Jeff’s too scary for Marc’s site too scary for Marc’s site
Marc’s going to denounce him
Jeff’s too scary for Patterico too scary for Patterico
So scary it hurts
And Jeff’s too scary for SEK too scary for SEK
LGF and Professor Keitley
And Jeff’s too scary for the conservative blogosphere (liberal too)
Too scary for the conservative blogosphere
No way Jeff’s disco dancing
Jeff’s a classical liberal you know what I mean
And he does his thing at Protein Wisdom
Yeah at Protein Wisdom at Protein Wisdom yeah
He does his thing at Protein Wisdom
Jeff’s too scary for a link too scary for a link
Too scary by far (except occasionally by RSM and once in a while by Glenn Reynolds)
And Jeff’s too scary for Roger’s hat
Too scary for Roger’s hat what do you think about that
Jeff’s a writer you know what I mean
And he does his little thing at Protein Wisdom
Yeah at Protein Wisdom at Protein Wisdom yeah
His little armadillo drinks beer at Protein Wisdom
Jeff’s too scary for his too scary for his too scary for his
‘Cos he’s a writer you know what I mean
And he does his thing at Protein Wisdom
Yeah at Protein Wisdom at Protein Wisdom yeah
The little armadillo shakes on Friday nights
Jeff’s too scary for Marc too scary for Marc
Poor pussy poor pussy Marc
Jeff’s too scary for their links too scary for their links
So scary it stinks
And Jeff’s too scary for this song
Having witnessed the events in question, the first comment is much more accurate than the actual post.
Link or don’t link. Your call. Get the facts right though.
you are quite the denouncey one Mr. Armed Liberal person. You head, I piss on it!
Let me add that it was rude of me to call names…
…without providing supporting arguments. To wit:
Here are some non-sanctimonious ways of dropping pw from your blogroll:
1. One day as you’re doing routine cleanup on your blogroll, you come to pw and say, “Meh, we’re not copacetic anymore,” and quietly delete the link. And never utter another word about it except to say, “Meh, we’re not copacetic anymore.”
2. E-mail Jeff, saying “Dude. WTF? What’s with the violence stuff?” which gives Jeff the opportunity to give his side of the story. Then if you’re not satisfied with his answer, you quietly delete the link.
3. You have a proper blogwar with pw, in which you argue X and Jeff argues not-X, and after it is evident to all and sundry that Jeff is utterly incorrigible (or as a bonus, he threatens to snap your ankles), you say, “That tears it. You’re off my bloggroll.”
What you did was no more and no less than an ostentatious display of moral preening, thus to make sure you’re in the good graces of “the right people.”
I was raised in Utah. You think I don’t know what sanctimony looks like?
Wow.
That means my political style / substance is somewhere between linguistic discussions, bravado, Shannon Elizabeth’s nipples, talking jeans, and Leif Garrett’s smack stash. Yes?
Why pick one component of my “style” to isolate? He asked. Not really all that incredulously.
I shall offer but one example, and I quote – “Because fuck you, that’s why”.
Oh, I remember that exchange:
Jeff: [several hundred words to explain intentionalism in language over a period of days and on three blogs]
You: Hey Jeff. You knock up your wife so that you can have a meal ticket? Why won’t you answer my question?
Jeff: Because fuck you, that’s why.
I stand corrected. Jeff totally backed down from the intellectual challenge that day.
Lovely word “violenceâ€. Quite meaningful when applied to acts of nature such as tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes. When applied to humans however it is most useful to spread that miasma of “moral equivalence†thickly throughout an argument. The actions of the BTK serial killer, violence. The actions of his victims defending themselves, why that’s violence too.
See how easily the same word is applied to Jeff bringing a tree to a verbal duel, the rhetorical flourish that seen as such by all who can read, and the murdering of even children along with calls for a new and this time complete Holocaust. “Violenceâ€, it’s for moral equivalence, the nuclear option.
So how many rockets or suicide bombers equal a “rhetorical flourish”?
Have you distanced yourself from the violent fantasies of your own site mates yet, Marc?
I don’t fear Jeff, but the threat – the statement of a desired act – still took place.
Stop clutching your pearls, Nancy. You and your hyena buddies provoked Jeff repeatedly, and now you’re claiming to be the injured party.
What kind of person does that, Scott? How is that not a form of bullying? Or did you never have a little sister who baited you and baited you until you hauled off and smacked her, which was exactly what she wanted, so that she could go crying to mom about her mean big brother?
By the way, Marc: http://proteinwisdom.com/pub/?p=3004
It’s nice to be on the side of angels.
What a bully you are, Jeff. Using Scott’s own words against him.
The idea! Now you’ve made him look bad.
Was this the “Because Fuck You” incident you refer to, AL? (You didn’t link, so I have to rely on google and guesswork to tell…)
Because in context that sure looks like a resort to the only thing Frey could understand, after a very, very, very long attempt to make him grasp the very idea of intentionalism.
And it sure as hell doesn’t look like “bullying” to me.
And ScottyJ can’t abide looking bad.
Well, I’m amused, for sure…
Let do a fast rundown and then a wrapup…
takla – I get it. People are mean to Jeff, and they _make_ him respond that way. In my universe there are a whole array of other tools than personal threats. I don’t find it necessary to make them. I’ve explained why I think they are a Bad Thing and counterproductive – so let’s call it quits on that note.
vadis – OK, let’s grant that. And let’s also grant that Jeff’s debating style is intensely personal, and that he – himself – shifts back and forth between the abstract and personal quite often. And he’s the proprietor of the joint, so the brawls that happen inside his walls are kinda owned by him. But a good point by you…
serr8ted – so it’s kind of a “black thing,” then…only some people can truly understand?
rto – I think you make an excellent point; I have this bad habit, which is that I take what people say seriously. Jeff obviously does as well, because when teh Frisch made her vile comments, he didn’t shrug it off as a rhetorical trope, he called the Man (appropriately).
captain_squid – well, if I hardly ever beat my wife, and she deserves it when I do – does that mean I can still be a good husband? or does the act itself carry sufficient weight that it kind of changes the frame?
Joe (#13) OK, that was great. The (I hope intentional) humor of throwing down a macho challenge using the frame of the gayest song of all time…is just priceless. Thank you for the gift of laughter…
Jeff (#17) – why that one aspect – BECAUSE THAT ASPECT DESTROYS THE SPACE WHERE POLITICS IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN…I thought I said that in the post…
geoffb – well, if the rockets were sui generis, it’d be one thing. But they are the product of a belief structure and a whole lot of people talked a whole lot and built an edifice of belief and language that made firing those rockets the absolutely right thing to do. That’s why.
JeffG (#20) – well, if he said I’m going over to Sen. Schumer’s office with a cutlass and a bucket of tar – it’d be kind of different, wouldn’t it? My point, which I’ll restate yet again, is that driving people out of political dialog by threats and intimidation is a bad thing. I just don’t see that in the cite…
JeffG (#22) Jeff – have you seen me take Scott’s side of claim he’s blameless or perfect or an examplar? But I’ve had jackasses on this site and dealt with them without promising to cap their ass if I ever see them. I’ve even managed to take a few trolls and convert them to debate partners, which means I get to work on making better arguments and hear opinions that force me to look at things in new ways…a win on all sides as far as I’m concerned.
Look folks, I have a finite number of hours in my life, and I really don’t plan on spending lots and lots of them in a “so” “so what” discussion here. I’ve made my point, I hope, Jeff gets it or doesn’t, cares or doesn’t, and we’ll both go strolling along our individual orbits.
I just really hope that at some point Jeff pauses and maybe shifts his view on this a bit. Then we can go back to debating whether postmodernism is in fact an epistemology…
Marc
No. What you’ve done is make assertions that don’t match up to the facts. That you care not to reexamine those assertions is on you.
I have no problem debating issues. To suggest that I respond to political disagreement with threats of violence is absurd.
bq I have this bad habit, which is that I take what people say seriously.
And you illustrate this by failing to take my comment seriously. Cool. Way to show the integrities.
The point with Frisch was, per my seccond comment, that she was a completly unknown quantity with regard to means or opportunities. That’s a problem and the only thing that can be done, aside form barricading one’s home, is “call the man.”
The American community, as I’ve written in the past, is a community of belief, not one of (as Heiddiger once famously said) blood and soil. So it is expansive, and flexible and inherently generous (which is to me the root of American Exceptionalism). The condition of that power, in the American ideal, is that we all get to possess our share of it.
I’m not sure how you square this with your decision that Goldstein isn’t welcome in your community any more.
How is demanding that someone share your values (whatever that means) any different from demanding they share your beliefs (whatever those may be)? It’s obviously your site and you can link and de-link to whomever. I just think you and your site are fractionally poorer for it.
(Oh, and to your last point to RTO, about the supposed chilling effect the mention of violence can have on conversation, did you miss the fact that the “threat” happened in comment 580 or so on the thread? At that point I seriously doubt Jacobs thought the conversation was about politics as a collaborative system.)
Final point: Jeff’s site gets real honest-to-goodness political violence done to it – google bombs, DDS attacks, etc. – because it is threatening to the kind of people who would do actual harm to the polis you and I hold dear. I’m not saying you should love him or his site, but I am saying he’s pissing off the right people, and you are being used badly by the Dark Side in the exchange. Save your righteous anger for them.
People are mean to Jeff, and they make him respond that way.
Mean.
Mean? Are you kidding me?
When a prospective employer of Jeff’s Googles his name, he will see Frey’s handiwork.
Is THAT an appropriate response to a blog spat?
Jeff pointed out that those hyenas were exploiting the safety of the blogspace to say vile and vulgar things to him, things they would not dare to say to him in person.
That’s not a threat, it’s an observation, and an accurate one at that. If it silences his opposition it’s only because they’ve been shamed for their abject cowardice.
Sorry, you’ve produced some awfully thin gruel to support the thesis that Jeff engages in “threats” to intimidate his opposition instead of debating.
Jeff’s arguments alone don’t intimidate his opponents? Then why did Frey endeavor to destroy Jeff instead of write him off as a bad job?
Look folks, I have a finite number of hours in my life
Unlike the rest of us, who inhabit the realm of eternity.
Your sanctimony is still showing, Marc. You’re more interested in straining at a gnat than swallowing the camel, all so that you can maintain your “respectability.”
Why do you assume we’re having a “conversation” when these “threats” are leveled? I don’t consider personal attacks that have nothing to do with any political topic, issued in the space where politics is the ostensible subject, to be part of a “conversation.” Instead, I consider them a bullying tactic that is then met in kind.
Really? You can’t imagine answering repeated personal attack launched by cowards at a safe distance by telling someone that, should you ever meet up, you suspect they’d be hesitant to speak to you thus?
You lack imagination. And you enable the very thing you pretend to hate by essentially giving those initiating the bullying a free pass, insisting that the proper way to “answer” is on their terms and yours.
And, to repeat, I have never issued any such “threats” in response to a political discussion.
Why do you assume we’re having a “conversation” when these “threats” are leveled?
Further evidence that you’re talking through your hat, Marc, to put it nicely.
Those “threats” did NOT occur in the context of a debate over ideas and such. They occured amidst jeering and vulgar mockery, long after the actual debate had degenerated into something pretty ugly.
And the first one to deviate from the path of sane discourse was NOT Jeff but Pat. Pat went completely to pieces, as you can see for yourself if you care to look.
http://littlemissatilla.com/?p=11826
Scroll down to the end of this thread to see Frey utter the following:
Pat’s the one who decided that the gloves were off, BTW. As for having nothing to lose WTF did he mean by that?
And Pat’s definition of Jeff lying? “He didn’t address my post! He didn’t address my point!” even though Jeff did — thoroughly — but Jeff failed to agree with Pat’s genius, so Pat called it a lie.
When you go to the next thread in the series, http://littlemissattila.com/?p=11908, you can be treated to Pat dismissing nearly everything Jeff says with “Liar!” and “Hypocrite!” and “Fraud!” and other equally substantial retorts.
I know your time is more precious than everyone else’s but if you read that thread, you can see for yourself that Pat stopped arguing in good faith and resorted instead to accusations of perfidy, not to mention surreal utterances that stopped making sense in the context of a civil discussion.
Assuming, of course, that truth is a defense in your world.
As style doesn’t equal substance, I’d respectfully submit that you should simply try harder.
You’re just admitting a personal tendency to conflate two separate things. Well, fine. But that’s not really an argument of any sort.
bq. It’s quite likely that no one really believes Jeff is going to come their house and beat them up (I actually assume that to be the case, or people would be calling the cops, and I’d be reacting to Jeff wholly differently).
“Quite likely”? How about wholly apparent on it’s face?
bq. But the effect of the threat – in conversation – remains chilling. The only intent I can imagine for making a threat like that is to either drive someone from a conversation or to force compliance because someone is intimidated – even if not intimidated physically.
Obviously it didn’t chill a thing. We’re still talking about it months after the fact.
What seems to be lacking here, then, is your imagination. Others have sucessfully characterized Jeff’s intent, just as you have failed to. Had you the manners to have asked, rather than failing to imagine, I imagine he’d have told you himself. Others have already pointed out that this was more about your pubic personna than any desire to engage in a common polity, but I don’t mind amplifying.
As for that common polity, public admonition can be a useful tool, but it’s only really appropriate between a superior to a subordinate. Peer to peer should be handled in private. It’s not exactly conducive to polity if you are setting yourself up as the
my point is that Jeff is taking the heated exchanges and trying to end them by threatening to kick the crap out of people.
And MY point is that you are:
(a) Totally misreading what happened. Jeff didn’t issue a threat, he made an observation about his cowardly tormentors, vis-Ã -vis their behavior online versus the meat world.
(b) Engaging in self-righteous pearl-clutching to justify your excommunicating Jeff from the League of Propriety.
As noted above, if I only beat my wife occasionally and late at night it’s still not OK.
QED
attachment to specific styles (like murdering your political opponents) made it impossible for them to ever be politically successful.
That wasn’t a style, that was a tactic.
No wonder we’re having problems; you’re violating the First Commandment of Clear Thinking:
I. Thou Shalt Not Conflate.
Sheez.
BTW, if it’s kosher in your world to rid yourself of Jeff the Unclean for his horrific tactic of Making Threats To Chill Speech, how is it that you’re not also excommunicating Patrick Frey for Doing Actual Damage to another man’s ability to become gainfully employed, which also tends to chill speech, but only as a much-desired side effect?
Please explain how Jeff’s alleged threats eclipse Pat’s actual vandalism.
Because from where I stand, they don’t, which indicates that you’ve got other reasons for despising Jeff, and the “threats” are merely a convenient excuse for your ritual ablution.
Revel in your sophistry if you must, but don’t expect not to be called on it.
You people are persistent, I’ve gotta give you that…
Jeff – it’s YOUR PLACE. You’re ultimately responsible for what happens there. If you don’t like the way the threads are going, there are a world full of alternatives to “come say that to my face and I’ll kick your ass.”
And you’re exactly right that I “can’t imagine answering repeated personal attack launched by cowards at a safe distance by telling someone that, should you ever meet up, you suspect they’d be hesitant to speak to you thus?”
… that’s sorta my point – that I think doing that is a Bad Thing. Otherwise I wouldn’t be hassling you about it.
No, because by the time the threats were made, the discussion had devolved. Yeah, I get it, and no, it doesn’t make any difference to me. If I go to a bar, let someone provoke an argument, participate in and escalate the argument,and then try and justify shooting them because they were yelling at me…I’d be wrong and I’d better start liking bologna sandwiches.
takla, if you’d like to toss out a difference between style and tactic, I’d be interested in hearing it. In the worlds I spent time – people talk about ‘styles’ as a pattern of behavior which may assemble tactics underneath it but isn’t itself a strategy or a tactic.
That’s pretty common in strategy work – but you see it in weaponcraft, martial arts, literature, and a bunch of other places as well.
And gosh, I’m flattered that you see me in jewelry – but maybe that’s an image you’d best cherish in private. Because by your standards, anyone complaining that anyone else is doing something bad is “clutching at their pearls.” Me, I’m just trying to avoid the moose cock*.
*continuous punchline from Pat Rogers, a guy I’ve trained with.
Marc
Armed Liberal, I’d like to see that you’ll be consistent in your shunning.
Lefties are more profane than righties (link), and it’s a reasonable supposition that that reflects less decorum, more intensity, more personal aggressiveness and a higher value set on skilled trash-mouthing.
Consequentially the Winds of Change blogroll should shift right, if you are taking tone seriously. Of course some righties must go, funny or not, but a requirement for a civil tone swings a scythe through leftie blogs.
Because shooting someone is so much the same thing as saying, “Com say that to my face.” Right.
How many work? How many work with someone unhinged already? How many are just so much appeasment?
The idea of confronting a bully with violence is that bullies, almost universally, are only inclined to dish it out when there’s little or no chance of actual retaliation. Just as often as it’s that type of bully, any credible show of resistance ends the problem, at least for the target that showed some backbone. A bully-by-nature will just move on to an easier target. The expectation is not to have to actually engage in the fisticuffs, just to ensure that the bully knows that you intend to if needed. Of course it’s best if you actually can, if needed. It’s also good to be credible in the eyes of the bully as well.
Reasonable readers without some other agenda have understood the exchange in that light. Some others have required it being spelled out first.
Then there’s the class that continue to insist it’s wrong anyway. And just, wow.
Well, then. I take it back and instead shall hereafter challenge them to a duel, instead.
He threatened me with a “turn around or else” and I had a choice…I could engage…or I could turn around and enjoy the concert. he was a douche, but the ensuing silence sure sounded like victory to me.
Oh, for the sake of Pete. You’re comparing a meatspace event to an online one. If in that situation Jeff had threatened to punch the guy in the kisser — or worse, had followed through — I’d condemn him myself.
Again. Thou shalt not conflate.
I’m still waiting to hear your justification for censuring Jeff but not Pat.
Seriously. Any objective observer would see Pat’s actions as far more egregious than Jeff’s and would even laugh that you consider Jeff’s “threats” sufficent grounds to be “comfy” with drumming him out of the Realm of Decency.
Gnats, camels, some straining required.
You people are persistent, I’ve gotta give you that…
Duh.
Bully for you!
But not for moo?
I sue.
Too.
tm – Ha!! We have that cartoon on the whiteboard in the hall!! My wife doesn’t think it’s funny for some reason…
Look, you can’t have it both ways. On one hand “it’s just the internet, let it go” and on the other “this shall not stand!!” – that just seems kinda internally inconsistent to me.
And look, there’s a lot of mapping of behavior between situations – game theory wouldn’t work otherwise and people would just screech to a halt. Second intention works as well in real life as it does in fencing.
That’s it for tonight…go on over to Jeff’s and talk smack. I’ll catch you all later.
Marc
On one hand “it’s just the internet, let it go” and on the other “this shall not stand!!” – that just seems kinda internally inconsistent to me.
Only when you totally miss the point.
Let me be clear (and by that I’m not telegraphing that I’m about to lie through my teeth):
A. I was not arguing that “it’s just the Internet”; I was arguing that your interpretation of events was dead wrong.
B. I also argued that there is a significant difference between what one says in meatspace and what someone says on blogspace, but the difference isn’t that the Internet “doesn’t matter”; it’s that the Internet is a context unto itself, and what is written on the ‘tubez has to be interpreted (INTERPRETED, dammit!) in that light.
C. As for “this shall not stand,” I don’t give a rip whether pw is on your blogroll; however, I DO care when people act based on misinterpretations (malicious or inadvertent) or when they believe lies.
D. Like the other denizens of pw, I’m pretty damned frustrated — not to mention dismayed, outraged, and provoked — by the piss-poor way in which other bloggers treat Jeff.
No, it’s not “poor put-upon Jeffy”; it’s WTF is wrong with you people! How can you behave like such jackasses simply because you got bested in an argument?
And yes, it does trace back to that; Jeff called out some very questionable behavior on the part of some starboard-siders, and instead of learning how and why to avoid buying in to a dubious — and leftist — theory of language, they rent their garments and turned their backs as if it were an online production of The Fountainhead.
They may forgive you for being wrong, but they’ll never forgive you for being right.
As a character reference, allow me to quote cynn, a non-conservative who frequently drives us up the wall over at pw, but who has the moral decency to say this:
Look, Marc. You’ve also been measured in this exchange in the face of full dicentric wrath. I appreciate it.
But that doesn’t change the fact that you’re behaving like a prissy Victorian matriarch who feigns an attack of the vapors to express contempt for those who have crossed her.
If your objections truly were based on the inappropriateness of Jeff’s “threats,” you would be that much more disgusted by what Patrick did to Jeff; unlike Jeff’s “threats,” Pat’s vengeance (what, that’s better than “threats”?) has real-life consequences.
Oh, and as an aside…
Would someone be a peach and let JeffyG know that my number’s changed? I’d hate for him to think that I was avoiding the scheduling attempt.
He’s free to e-mail me if he’d like my new number.
I read this website and Protein Wisdom when I have time, so I recognize some of what everyone is talking about although I’m not an expert on the details. And full disclosure: I guest-blog at Patterico.com.
I don’t see why some persist in attacking or defaming Patterico with comments about his day job, instead of simply agreeing or disagreeing with things he says online. It is particularly surprising since PW folks have a special knowledge of Deb Frisch-type incidents in which someone crosses the line between online debate and personal attacks.
And yeah, I get it, it only happens when he’s provoked or 400 posts down an endless thread. As noted above, if I only beat my wife occasionally and late at night it’s still not OK.
And if you can explain to your wife why “if that prick has the balls to come up to me and say that shit to my face, I’ll break his legs” proves that your continual verbal abuse of her is perfectly justified, then I’ll let it be.
Come on, Danziger, you do better than this. On a regular basis.
(It doesn’t even have to be your wife. A co-worker would do. Or hell, the hobo on the street.)
And Mr. Jacobs, I seriously doubt Mr. Goldstein has any intention of “looking you up” anywhere. On the other hand, if your search for internet fame extends to actually doing something other than spraying pixels, I would guess you can find Jeff when he’s in Chicago. I’d love to see the video. (And for the record, I think it would show nothing other than Jacobs yelling “hit me, dammit!” The wise sadist says “No.”)
phantom, maybe it’s just late but I’m not seeing A > B in your statement. Explain?
And that’s the last mention of Scott’s little mistake by anyone or I’ll pull his comment and edit the ones mentioning it. Period, full stop.
Marc
Note that most of what Scott links comes from the same time period — and were all responses to Frey’s suggestion that I’m some super violence-prone nutjob (assaults to date? 0).
That is to say, I defended — and continue to defend — my right to say what I said, for the reasons I’ve also laid out here.
Jacobs can keep linking the shit; that’s fine with me, because I don’t deny saying it.
It’s the where, the when, and the why that’s important.
And as you can see from the way Jacobs routinely acts when addressing me, the why is easy to figure out.
And yes, phantommut, I’ll be in Chicago the dates I noted on my site.
Meantime, I suggest Marc look into doing a post on Jacobs and his online attitudes. Maybe it will help settle him down before his mouth finally does catch up with him.
I think it’s a straw-man, Marc. It’s that simple. You’ve gone for a visceral argument that has no relation to the facts on the metaphorical ground.
Politics ain’t beanbag. Jeff’s purported threats have no relation on whether or wife-beating is acceptable. To say otherwise is at best lazy.
Jeff’s purported threats have no relation on whether or not
wife-beating is acceptable. To say otherwise is at best lazy.
Sorry, it is late. But I think someone on the internet is wrong.
Absolutely wrong.
These were responses to “Jeff Goldstein Plays the Race Card,” “Jeff Goldstein: Man of Substance,” et al. In fact, Frey had something like 12 posts with my name in the title. I even took a Technorati screen shot.
And my posts were obviously parodying the “argument” Frey was making with respect to race and “subconscious” racism. As anybody who read the posts would readily know.
Unlike the dead serious bullshit Frey was trying to pass off.
I think it’s pretty clear here who wants to keep this “threat” thing alive. But not so much that he’ll actually do anything about it.
That’s while he’ll always be a yappy little dog who shows up at night to bark his little yappy bark.
Also, Marc — why no mention, in all your talk about communitarian politics, that I was banned from Patterico’s? Meaning, I couldn’t engage him on any of his multiple posts, and so was forced to try to argue my position on my own site, where I couldn’t answer either him or his commenter directly?
Or is that just more of the narrative you never bothered to learn about before you decided to pronounce on who its villain was?
Marc, what does banning your interlocutor from your site do in terms of chilling speech?
ScottyJ @ #52, isn’t most of that the comment that Patrick spammed dozens of times of Jeff’s site? While Jeff was (and remains) banned from Patrick’s?
Which site is more conducive to discussion? Which blogger acted more the tantrum-gripped three year old?
That “co-blogger” was me, and it happened once, here, to a comment of Patrick’s trumpeting the aforementioned spam attack and his intent to continue it. I stand by it fully.
It was not just you, and it happened to more than one post.
But even if it *were* just the one time, ever, it leaves open the question of “will it happen again”. The un-noted editing of _any_ comment without acknowledging it right there, where and when it happened, is effectively a ban, yet worse. Not only are the actual words of the speaker removed, anything at all could be put in their place.
For example: Marc could – were he as equally worthless as you, Pablo – replace your last comment with a long and complex diatribe about any subject he wished, having you take any side of that subject that might please him. So long as he never noted that it happened, well… It’s just your word against his, isn’t it?
This reminds me: One of your fellows said that it was no use for me to delete my post, because he had screen-capped it. I have to wonder why he would feel the need to do that, because I can think of only one time that a post at either the Jury or Patterico’s has been deleted, and that was an ill-concieved post about (if I recall correctly) a New Years Eve a year or two ago. None of us are in a habit of making sweeping edits, nor outright deletions, of posts or comments. When changes are made (save for minor spelling corrections), they are noted.
So while I am great-full to your fellow PW-goer for their efforts to retain a record of my works, it is without need.
We Aren’t Protein Wisdom – we don’t do that sort of thing. That’s you folks.
By your own admission.
And JeffyG was banned, I’d remind you, because he threatened me and vowed to “destroy” Patrick.
I wasn’t aware that Patrick was required to provide the service for the man. You’d think someone intent upon destruction could make do with his own blog.
A MODEST PROPOSAL
Would it be possible to ban everyone who has contributed to this thread on the grounds that the extreme obsessive compulsive behavior exhibited by the contributors seems to be contagious (It has jumped from one site to this one) and might well infect the rest of the forum?
toc, I see your point.
I think that no one’s minds are going to be changed; Jeff’s made his point, I’ve made mine; and it’s clear that neither of us is going to budge an inch – nor are the host of other participants.
I’m going to close the thread.
Marc