Comments on: Horror in southern Russia

By: anon

anon — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 17:09:43 +0000

Hannah, that’s got to be the most hilarious comment I’ve come across here. Us, them, left-liberals, apologists, I love that kind of neat categorisation, very stylish, like ikea boxes with their instruction leaflets inside.

By: Hannah

Hannah — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 15:52:53 +0000

Len, What seems to rile (some) CTers, and especially their apologists, is that Jimbo’s criticism is coming from their left. That’s obviously a very weak flank. They just can’t imagine that left-liberals like us would be so… disloyal.

By: Len

Len — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 15:41:44 +0000

trollage… obtuseness… assumptions… indignation… classic pattern… Circling the wagons, uh, “Anon”? And since you also can’t seem to read the lines for what’s between them, note that Jimbo’s original comment makes it quite clear he regards Chris’ to be an exceptional voice here.

By: anon

anon — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 15:03:36 +0000

Seems pretty straightforward. Indeed: – What I am saying is not that some CTers take positions I disagree with (of course some do)—> pre-emptive disclaimer of trollage, to justify whatever one is writing next – but that they avoid discussing certain subjects—> assumption 1 – assuming a voluntary, politically-motivated avoidance rather than the obvious and declared shock at unfolding events: “tried to write… couldn’t find the words then and I can’t now…” – because the facts don’t fit neatly into their scheme of things—-> assumption 2 – projection of obtuseness and ideological motivations behind lack of commentary on the siege for all of 2 days (how’s that for reading between the lines) – Call it hypocrisy, call it self-censorship, call it a failure of responsibility and imagination.—> list of judgements derived from above assumptions – And if some people are offended by such suggestions, too bad—> 2nd disclaimer (a.k.a. the wrapper) to justify whatever was written before, and declare immunity from (and indifference to) possible responses except the congratulatory kind – I am offended by the alternative.—> the punchline, reinforcing superiority of speaker’s moral indignation. A classic pattern, perfect for rhetorical speeches and sermons. You can package pretty much any kind of strawmen in that format.

By: Len

Len — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 13:42:17 +0000

In the meantime discussion will be more fruitful if people who have comments to make give some indication of just what the hell they mean to say. Hey Kevin, I could have saved you the trouble. What I am saying is not that some CTers take positions I disagree with (of course some do), but that they avoid discussing certain subjects — because the facts don’t fit neatly into their scheme of things. Call it hypocrisy, call it self-censorship, call it a failure of responsibility and imagination. And if some people are offended by such suggestions, too bad: I am offended by the alternative. Seems pretty straightforward. Next time try reading on the lines instead of between them.

By: harvestbird

harvestbird — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 03:14:58 +0000

yes, I thought the remark concerning Darfur might be intended as a conversation stopper, but the question itself is something that recurs and one I’ve asked myself in other contexts concerning other conflicts.

By: anon

anon — Sun, 05 Sep 2004 23:12:18 +0000

Harvestbird, for what it’s worth, I enjoyed reading the commentary on your site. It’s a relief to come across some calm, collected reasoning after this… I had the impression the initial Darfur comment on this thread was sarcastic, though. At least, I’d hope so. Not that this diminishes any of the points you make (god knows the ‘why don’t you care about Darfur’ charge has been raised ad nauseam in other contexts).

By: harvestbird

harvestbird — Sun, 05 Sep 2004 22:57:54 +0000

an empty link above—excuse me. My username followed by the blogspot domain will do the trick as a URL.

By: harvestbird

harvestbird — Sun, 05 Sep 2004 22:53:14 +0000

in lieu of knowledge of how to trackback, some thoughts, (hopefully from a low horse).

By: anon

anon — Sun, 05 Sep 2004 22:43:46 +0000

CT is an excellent site, a regular stop on the circuit, but it has also become smug, self-congratulatory, and politically stilted, a place where lines are quickly drawn and followed, where (some) posters can spend endless columns digging down deeper into the same holes and remain oblivious to what is happening beyond the tips of their noses. In other words, individuals with their own opinions, who tend to write about what they like, rather than what some whingeing bores among their readers expect. Oh, and people who leave comments who consist solely and entirely in complaints that they are not being served the content they want in exactly the way they want it, followed by a set of ridiculous straw men, displays of ignorance, blatant misreadings, righteous indignation and moral condemnation of the lack of humanity of their hosts, are not “ruffling feathers”, they are only a waste of bandwidth, a.k.a. trolls. Some standard of political debate, that. Then again. Small minds tend to ride high horses.

By: kevin donoghue

kevin donoghue — Sun, 05 Sep 2004 21:42:56 +0000

T. Tsilimidos, I never knew CT was advertised as a blog by academics. In case you intend recommending Jimbo’s work to your own students, please take another look at the contributions which you have so warmly endorsed. To begin with, Jimbo’s first comment didn’t tell us what was bothering him (if Jimbo is a woman, my apologies; my best guess is that this is a man’s name). Seeking to divine Jimbo’s concerns, I took a shot in the dark, suggesting that his use of the word “Islamophobia” might be a clue. Accordingly, I pointed out that the recent massacre in Burundi was not carried out by Muslims. His response – opening his shell ever so slightly – was that he didn’t believe “the recent massacre in Burundi ever made it here. Maybe because the Hutu-Tutsi conflict just doesn’t contain any of … [CT’s] ‘usual suspects’.” All right. We may be getting somewhere. The charge is that CT only concerns itself with conflicts which involve the USA and its allies (reading between the lines a little, since Jimbo doesn’t actually lay it on the line). Is there any substance to this? Should CT concern itself with whether Hutus are acting in accordance with the highest standards of Hutudom? Or whether Putin is behaving less honourably than the Politburo of old? In my view this contribution of Jimbo’s is sheer piffle. If you disagree, please explain why. Frankly, you are no more forthcoming than he is. Janet managed to get a bit more out of him, including his remark that it is “a bit unseemly to see Sadr and his ilk get repeated considerate hearings while their victims remain unmentioned.” D-squared responded, quite accurately, that this is “purely and simply a lie.” Jimbo also faulted CT for failing to mention “the kidnapping of two French journalists and its consequences on the anti-hijab law.” So what is being suggested here? That an Australian economist, a (non-academic) American living in London and sundry other unsavoury characters are cheese-eating surrender monkeys? What legal (or other) consequences is he on about? In the end I am no wiser than before about Jimbo’s worries; but my original diagnosis is supported by his comment: “one doesn’t have to be Richard Pipes to consider militant Islamism a dangerous political scourge. Since when has it become ‘right wing’ to oppose religious fascists? We may disagree about how best to combat it, but I reject any attempt to minimize its menace.” Well, at least now we now what Jimbo rejects. He is of course quite right to say that attempts to minimise menaces are reprehensible. Never, ever, minimise a menace! Perhaps in time we will get a clearer picture of Jimbo’s political philosophy. In the meantime discussion will be more fruitful if people who have comments to make give some indication of just what the hell they mean to say.

By: Tsilimidos T.

Tsilimidos T. — Sun, 05 Sep 2004 17:59:17 +0000

Jimbo, If you are still reading this thread, please accept warm thanks from me – and from many others like me, I expect – for having ruffled some of Crooked Timber’s feathers. CT is an excellent site, a regular stop on the circuit, but it has also become smug, self-congratulatory, and politically stilted, a place where lines are quickly drawn and followed, where (some) posters can spend endless columns digging down deeper into the same holes and remain oblivious to what is happening beyond the tips of their noses. I know that they advertise it as a blog by academics, a category that includes me, but they needn’t always demonstrate why the term is so often uncomplimentary when used as an adjective. Again, thanks.

By: ian

ian — Sun, 05 Sep 2004 17:35:03 +0000

I did a quick sample of blogs I normally read and found references to Beslan on maybe 20% of them. Does this mean I can’t read the others now? Actually – I haven’t commented either – I’ll have to stop reading myself. What crap! I think Chris’s comments were spot on – anyone who is a parent will have had dificulty coping with this horror. I see no reason why he or anyone else should have to construct a throw away post just to keep the blog traffic up.

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 05 Sep 2004 16:45:07 +0000

This is boring. I would encourage anyone with any patience to read the discussion at Lenin.

By: anon

anon — Sun, 05 Sep 2004 09:49:02 +0000

Jimbo – for your information, the Italian communist editor you’re talking about, Mr Barenghi, last year, before the US attack on Iraq, wrote another “provocative” editorial where he explicitely wrote he wished lots of Americans would die in a long-draw out war, because the US was asking for it, so massive carnage was preferable to a quick victory, as that’ll teach them about invading other countries. As for the latest “provocation” you quoted, that amazingly original statement in the proud tradition of “US: still not as bad as Saddam/Al Qaeda/random terrorists who behead random people”, he said it was a way of provoking controversy and debate, just like his statements of last year were intended as only a way of provoking controversy and debate, which they sure did. He says he just wants the anti-war to reflect on how much worse it would be if terrorists who behead people at random occupied Iraq instead. (He must think he’s the only one who had this amazing revelation). But he still wants all troops out, right now, no conditions. How exactly is that going to prevent terrorists from taking over Iraq? No explanation. It’s beyond the scope of “provocation” and “stimulating doubt and debate”. Just so you know how logical, coherent and credible the opinion and person you’re applauding is. Or is it anything goes, in the verbal war against straw men? I look forward to the day Milosevic is cited as authority on how to defeat Islamic terrorists.