I’ve just discovered a quite disgusting exercise in partisan pointscoring by Wizbang via our Technorati links, suggesting that because we (and other left blogs) haven’t had several posts each about the tsunami and its aftermath, liberals don’t care as much as conservatives about their fellow human beings. I’m not going to return the favour by claiming that this post shows us this or that about conservatives, because it doesn’t tell us anything whatsoever about conservatives as a collectivity. It does, however, speak volumes about the person who wrote this sorry excuse for a post.
NB - further attempts to play partisan football in the comments section will be deleted.
The more exposure you give links like these, the more of an “issue” it becomes. Wizbangblog’s entry is an exercise in pointless carping at its pettiest, but a whole CT blog entry dedicated to whining about Wizbang’s carping is even sadder. Why do you care what he thinks?
Delete this comment if you are offended, but IMO you shouldn’t have posted the entry in the first place.
Why do you care what he thinks?
In as much as one cares about standards of behaviour in the blogosphere, it is important to name and shame people who do this sort of thing.
What are the odds that either blog entry will do anything other than arouse the righteous indignation of the faithful on its side of the aisle? More remarks of “Heh, indeed” from CT’s conservative brethren, and cries of outrage from the liberal crowd is par for course, I would think. Hardly worth the extra exposure Wizbang is getting.
fantazia - I thought about those issues before posting, and decided on balance that it was worth doing for the reasons that Dan mentions. Yeah, you’re right - it gives them more publicity - but it also is something that the poster should be held accountable for. As should be clear from my post, this isn’t an exercise in partisan snark - it’s naming and shaming a particular blog which has made a contemptible attempt to politicize something that shouldn’t be politicized.
All I can find at his LGF link is bemoaning the characterization of PowerLine and ranting about Ramsey Clarke being one of Saddam’s lawyers.
From Wizbang’s, er, analysis, I would have thought they would be posting a new charity—ICRC, anyone—on the hour.
Speaking of partisan football, didn’t we just witness the comments section of a blog you’all might know about (Crookedtimber.org) turn a story about the tsunami into an 50+ comment whine fest about American TV by people who apparently didn’t realize that FoxNews had reports on the disaster almost immediately? Wizbang’s little game was galling. I for one am a conservative blogger who hasn’t blogged on the issue because what do I have that is useful to say about a natural disaster that killed 70,000+? But for an example of taking a natural disaster and turning it into partisan talking points you don’t have to look very far. So for the standards of behaviour in the blogosphere, please follow the link and take note of the players.
d-squared:
And what would be the point of naming and shaming? Do you think that will stop this behavior? Tactics like that haven’t worked before. The blogosphere is a human insitution, and loutish behavior will always be part of the human story.
I agree with you guys that that post is disgusting. But this simply gives it more exposure. And the decision to link to and write about it makes me think about the old joke from Northern Ireland about the guy who drives a hundred miles out of his way just to receive an insult.
Just ignore this …you know… with his stupid scorekeeping.
Fantasia, Peter - how much do you know about herd animal behavior? Specifically, what happens if you nobly ignore a specific bad behavior on the part of a horse or a dog?
It translates, in the mind of the offender, to a) a sign of weakness on your part, b) an encouragement to do it again because c) there was no negative consequence.
It may be gauche, it may be tacky, it may take a couple of lessons - but by refusing to enable/empower certain fandom LGF-equivalents, in a rather brutal way a year or so ago, I managed to expose, shame, and disempower the whole horde of them very publically, and by doing so to vindicate the mass of their victims, and make it difficult for them to be taken seriously in the future.
Problems, ignored, don’t go away - they become bigger, stronger, and more entrenched. This is true of kudzu no less than of behavior issues.
I know I’m an idiot for saying this, because it has zero to do with the point, but this:
It translates, in the mind of the offender, to a) a sign of weakness on your part, b) an encouragement to do it again because c) there was no negative consequence.
..is absolutely not true in the case of dogs. There are lots of behaviors that, if ignored, go away. The negative consequence is the ignoring. For many dogs(and a good lot of humans too), ignoring is much worse than negative attention (okay, maybe it does have something to do with the main point).
For my part, in response to the esteemed Prof Holbo, I am pledging my next quarter’s Amazon Associates revenue to relief efforts as well as hosting a link with Amazon’s paybox. No words I can come up with make any difference. What I can, I will do.
Fantasia:
This is just nonsense. You aren’t offering any credible or meaningful threat or punishment here. This post is probably exactly what that guy was hoping for. He wanted to get a rise out of the CT crowd, and now he has confirmation (message received, zero distortion). And herd behavior is not in fact guided always and everywhere by such easy principals.
I have no idea what you are talking about in the second half of your post, but have you heard of any of the powerful and safe new anti-hubris medications on the market? (That was meant to be a good natured joke.)
Look, this is just silly (delusions of power): we have no credibility to punish, and if this guy had any shame he wouldn’t have published that stupid post to begin with.
Fanatsia,
If you think about this as a nasty game that this guy at Wizbang is playing (he is almost certainly watching this conversation) you just gave him what they call a tell in poker: he now knows for sure that in terms of a credible “punishment” we are holding nothing (if he didn’t already). You never, never profit by getting drawn into something like this.
Peter: I have no illusions about whether we can exercise any influence over what this chap puts on his blog and it would probably be a bad thing if we could. But that’s not the only reason for simply saying “we’ve got you sussed”. There is a cumulative effect here that in general, if partisan bullshit goes unchallenged it will proliferate. At least the thinking kind of person will be reminded of what they knew anyway; that posts of the sort that Henry links to are best left unwritten, and that is the only kind of person one can realistically regard oneself as writing to influence anyway.
Everything seems to go meta- so fast anymore I can’t seem to keep up. This is a post about a poster posting about posts, and I need to come up with a polite yet specific and trenchant comment. Or I guess I don’t need to, and nobody will really care if I don’t, so I won’t.
Delete this if you dare Henry, for the Truth will its day.
dsquared:
I think we are on the same page in terms of our feelings about the Wizbang post. I want to be clear about that. But there is no cumulative effect here. There just isn’t. He won’t shrivel up in the light of our annihilating contempt. He’ll just feel warmed by it.
He has one of the diseases (and it is found all over the political spectrum) that humanity will never cure.
This isn’t like some vicious physical action (Hitler invading Poland, for instance) that must be met with a forceful reaction. There is no consequence to ignoring him. None. In fact, to the extent that his behavior has any power at all, it is defined completely by its power to provoke a response from us.
May I offer a quote from Lincoln:
“No man resolved to make the most of himself, can spare time for personal contention. Still less can he afford to take all the consequences, including the vitiating of his temper, and the loss of self-control. Yield larger things to which you can show no more than equal right; and yield lesser ones, though clearly your own. Better give your path to a dog, than be bitten by him in contesting for the right. Even killing the dog would not cure the bite.”
For those of you who are interested, that is from the Captain Cutts letter, Oct. 26 1863.
I’m with you, Peter. And for perhaps the first time I’m with Sebastian.
Henry: I agree with you 90%. For the same reason, I though that Washington Post article criticizing President Bush for not making public comment sooner (cited by Eric Alterman and others) was rather shabby. Bush (or more likely his staff) was clearly doing something; that 4-nation coordination group did not come together out of thin air.
But there’s also a grain of truth in what Wizbang says. The numerous times Glenn Reynolds linked to the Amazon Red Cross donation page doubtless led many people to give — as have your posts on the topic here. Atrios raised quite a bit of cash for various political candidates; how much could he raise for this effort?
The Wizbang post strikes me a bit like those articles about how little various billionaires give to charity — one of which, IIRC, may have helped trigger the creation of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Certainly it shows poor breeding to criticize another’s empathy or charity. But if it redounds to the greater good, where’s the harm?
Wizbang’s argument: “disgusting”?, “contemptible”?, “loutish”?, “nasty”? Isn’t this all a bit petulant and extreme?
Wizbang’s argument is pitiably weak. The conclusion - that it is false that liberals care more about their fellow man than conservatives - is hardly supported by the laughably small sample he brings forward - based as it is on a a tiny handful of weblogs. And even among the small number of individuals in that sample, there are all sorts of possible explanations of the differences in the frequency of tsunami-related posts which he fails to examine.
But I have to reject the notion that there is something inherently awful and disgusting about mounting a partisan political argument on the foundation of this natural disaster.
I’ve notice quite a number of blogs — be they left, right, or whatever — that have posted about the disaster and linked to ways to help, if only by giving money (which is the only way most of us can help). I have no time for Glenn Reynolds, but if he has done so too, then fair play to him. Surely a calamity of this sort transcends any left/right/whatever divide.
If this Wizbang bloke wants to make this a partisan thing, Henry is right to call him on it. And surely everybody who sees the matter for what it is - whether they call themselves left, right or whatever — should treat Wizbang with the contemptuous silence he deserves.
What does he want? Attention!
When does he get it? Now!
Reminds me of this saying I have on my wall: “Never fight with a pig. You get all dirty and the pig likes it.”
It does raise the perennial question; When is it worth engaging in combat? The obvious answer is - when it makes a difference to the reader, particularly when it slows the progress of a twisted meme. Hence all the meticulous work combatting the Klimate Krazies.
But there is a bit of bloodless and dutiful utilitarianism in this. We also do it because we like it. Whack! Bam! Sock! Kathud!
(Ninja Philosopher would make a great blog name.. and a fine intention).
I agree with Henry and Daniel that denouncing this icky behavior is a worthwhile exercise. The value is not necessarily in causing the fellow to feel ashamed of himself (as others have rightly noted, he may well be impervious to such feelings), but in informing other people that this blogger is not worth serious attention.
Tom,
You can’t meaningfully tell people that. If they find his blog (much more likely now) they have to decide for themselves. You can’t inform someone else that a blog isn’t worth their serious attention: its not your decision (or mine) what is worth their serious attention. They must make up their own mind. Moreover, I doubt peer pressure will win us the sympathy of serious adults.* So what’s the point?
I understand the sentiment that provoked this post, but this is throwing punches in the air, with one difference: the harder we throw the more likely Wizbang’s will actually land.
*And I know what I am talking about here: by my calcualtions 56.4% of my decisions are driven primarily by spite.
Being of two minds about this as about so many things, I agree that calling someone out for impugning someone’s compassion for political ends is worth doing, but I’m also reminded of a phrase of (dare I mention her?) Mrs Thatcher’s about denying an enemy “the oxygen of publicity.”
Someone like the person cited (who I had never heard of) will enjoy having tweaked the CT crowd: he likely won’t understand the arguments against such a cheap stunt (scorekeepers aren’t that subtle).
I don’t know what I would do differently: do you? Would more posts equal faster or better relief?
If you want to know what happens when you nobly ignore this sort of behaviour, look around on Usenet…
Have a look at alicublog’s latest shorter lileks on the tsunami for more of same partisan hooliganism (the honourable art of futbol is another thing). Meanwhile, other websites (buzzmachine for instance) seem to think the purpose of those lists of initially pledged aid by nation published in papers is to start a big macho contest to declare which country has the biggest penis, sorry, generosity. Obviously girly hypocritical France loses pathetically while the US, in spite of ‘stingy’ predictions, remains on top. The forces of nature are clearly not powerful enough to drown the need to frame everything in ideological terms. Let’s just hope and pray when the next big one comes, the internet will be the first thing to go. And the media. And the press. News will have to travel slowly by word of mouth and people will have time to think about what they say and no instant mass audience to sermonise to. That’s my dream disaster scenario - no victims and no damage except to push button fatwas.
While waiting for that day of peace and quiet, I have vowed to avoid all political blogs from now on, except the fun and satirical ones. Nothing personal, I just have a weak stomach and it does not improve by following the political blogosphere equivalent of usenet flame wars on any given topic. Farewell everyone, and have a good 2005.
Of course, partisan pointscoring about blogging the disaster has to take a back seat to Sri Lanka’s partisan point scoring about actually assisting in the disaster recovery operations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4130599.stm
” Sri Lanka rejects Israel rescuers”
While waiting for that day of peace and quiet, I have vowed to avoid all political blogs from now on, except the fun and satirical ones. Nothing personal, I just have a weak stomach and it does not improve by following the political blogosphere equivalent of usenet flame wars on any given topic.
I’m in a very similar place right now. I’ve scaled back my blog reading (and commenting) enormously in the last 2 weeks and I feel much better for it. I’m trimming my daily intake down to an essential half-dozen or so, which as of now consists of CT, Wolcott, Berube, Majikthise, Body & Soul, and a few others.
X’s Usenet analogy is increasingly apt, I’m afraid.
You can either ridicule wingnuts or ignore them, everything else is futile.
Speaking of partisan football, didn’t we just witness the comments section of a blog you’all might know about (Crookedtimber.org) turn a story about the tsunami into an 50+ comment whine fest about American TV by people who apparently didn’t realize that FoxNews had reports on the disaster almost immediately?
So what the hell did you want or expect instead? A hundred posts all following each other saying “This is awful”, “Yes, it is awful”, “Indeed it is awful”?
On the one hand you have a leftist blog that discusses TV coverage, with people disagreeing with each other without insult. On the other, you have a rightist blog that attempts to relate the number of meaningless posts (and every post on this subject is meaningless, except those saying how to donate) to “compassion” to score partisan points, with rancour and flamewars in the comments threads.
The left side of the blogosphere is interested in ideas and talking about how they see the world around them. The right side is interested in winning over their self-perceived “enemies”. That says it all, really.
By not caring about others you missed the traffic from thousands of compassionate surfers.
—-
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=1m&size=large&y=t&url=http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/003053.html#top
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=1m&size=large&compare_sites=&y=t&url=http://wizbangblog.com/archives/004640.php#top
The link I provided (to crookedtimber) was not principally about a discussion of ideas any more than the wizbang post. The tone set immediately was of insult. It was also wrong in that it ignored the fact that FoxNews covered the tsunami immediately and with as much depth as was available at every moment along the way. The confusion on that score is especially funny considering that FoxNews is generally considered by people on CrookedTimber to be the most right-wing and least useful news station. To have a post almost immediately afterward which decries partisan point scoring about the tsunami but which ignores the same on one’s very own blog, is a bit rich. It lends the impression that one uses the phrase ‘partisan point-scoring’ in a rather partisan point-scoring fashion.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review