I realized with a start that just the other day I linked to (gasp) Michael Moore, a man who, despite his protestations of patriotism, many would consider an anti-American bigot of the first order. Nothing new there; I often link to things I disagree with. If I only linked to stuff I agreed with, I’d be too bored to blog. Michael Moore is an easy example, because I disagree with almost everything he says and I dislike him personally. But there have been plenty of times I have agreed with a blogger I normally disagree with, or disagreed with a blogger I normally agree with.
In every one of these cases, I have linked to whatever it is that’s caught my interest.
While it’s not my style, I suppose it’s possible that I might stumble onto something so onerous that I’d refuse to link to it or even mention it in my blog. I’m not quite sure what that would be, but supposing for the sake of argument that I really didn’t think an idea should see the light of day. I’d probably not promote it or mention it in any way. Certainly, shouting about it in my blog would hardly be the way to ensure that no one would hear about it. Bear in mind, though, that I’ve never done this, because I think the best way to oppose bad ideas is to discuss them.
What I find myself at a total loss to understand is this idea that if you don’t like a blog or a blogger’s ideas, that you start a blog devoted to attacking that blogger. This only draws sympathetic attention to the blog, and makes people want to read it — a sort of blogger backlash syndrome. This sort of “attack” (if it can be called that) was launched against La Shawn Barber, and now I see the same technique directed against Clayton Cramer.
Clayton Cramer is quite popular, and is one of the few bigger bloggers to have actually voiced support for sodomy laws. Obviously, I disagree with him, and I did so in some of my first posts in this blog. I’ve found him to be a gentleman despite my disagreements, and while I marvel over the fact that he’d apparently put people in prison for such private conduct, I don’t see any harm in dialogue — and I’d feel that way even if I were so unfortunate as to have been imprisoned under the now moot laws he has advocated. Plenty of people want to imprison others for private consensual drug use, and I disagree with that too. The idea that I shouldn’t link to these ideas if they appeared in a blog is preposterous. Even more absurd is the notion that I should never be allowed to link to someone with whom I disagree if that person says something I agree with. (I happen to agree wholeheartedly with Clayton Cramer on Second Amendment issues, for example.)
So shame on me for linking to Clayton Cramer! No, really:
Bigot-Linking
Clayton Cramer is the gold standard for bigot-linking.Most of these pundits don’t generally support Clayton’s attitude toward homosexuals, but it’s a bit shameful that they give him the link publicity anyway.
Shame on you, Classical Values.
You too, Mr. Red Letter Day
Instapundit, don’t you think this is taking your “open-minded” thing a little too far?
In very poor taste, Mister Atlantic Blog!
Lazy Pundit, get off your ass and delete! Delete!
Vodkapundit, I expected better from you.
Claremont Institute, I’m not surprised.
Wow. I’m listed ahead of Mike Silverman, Glenn Reynolds, William Sjostrom, Kevin Shaum, Stephen Green, and (gulp) the Claremont Institute. I’m quite proud to be the senior recipient of such hard-earned shame. Only in America can a modest blog like mine achieve such success.
(While I’m tempted to interpose that my shameful linking is actually shameless, it’s bad luck to argue with success.)
There’s a serious side to this, and obviously Clayton Cramer Watch thinks it’s doing the right thing. It’s open to question though, whether publicizing something you abhor will make it go away. In some cases, that might be true. In other cases, not. (Anita Bryant did more to advance the modern gay movement than she did to stop it.)
Aside from the issue of the effectiveness of this strategy, I have a problem with anyone telling me to whom I should link or not link — whether Clayton Cramer (who probably deserves shame for his comments about Classical Values), David Neiwert, Duncan Black, Howard Veit, Michael Moore, or Ted Rall. (Why stop there? I’m sure plenty of people would hate me for linking to Glenn Reynolds. . .) Telling me I shouldn’t link to a blog is bad enough. But when the people telling me that not only provide links to the same blog, but have devoted an entire blog to attacking the blog, well, that strikes me as bordering on arrogant.
I don’t mean to sound like an ingrate, because I really do appreciate the honor of shame.
I’m never satisfied, I guess. . .
(And I’m probably a little hurt by the fact that no one has started a Classical Values Watch.)
Comments
12 responses to “Classical Values wins Hall of Shame Award!”
You notice that the “watch bloggers” don’t use their real names. They’re anonymous rats hiding out in their rat holes. I love it!
Yet another extremely interesting post. I oppose what Clayton Cramer advocates, but he does have an interesting _style_. I rather like my enemies on the Right. I like many of my enemies on the Right a lot better than I like many of my supposed allies on the Left. I like the _name_ Clayton Cramer. And I will say this for Clayton Cramer: While he might send a Moral Gestapo into my bedroom to stop me from masturbating over Lesbianism, he will at least defend my right to keep and bear the weapons where with to defend myself against such a Gestapo. The paradoxes of spectrumology….
LB:
Quite right about the envious little rats who run those “watch” blogs. I’d like to start a Classical Values Watch myself, except that all I’d have to say on it is what I’m already saying in these coimments here.
I really need to start blogging again. At this rate, the only “watch” I’ll ever get is the one on my wrist.
If Claytoncramerwatch links to Clayton Cramer to attack something he said, then would it be on its own hall of shame?
Fantastic post! I’m guilty of not linking to The Daily Kos in posts where I mention it… No more.
Well, we wouldn’t want to be reading, much less linking, anyone with whom we don’t already agree 100%. Might lead to self-criticism, skepticism, and the disinterested pursuit of truth.
Jeez. There are times when I wish it really were possible for certain people to become ex-gay.
(Disclaimer that probably isn’t needed: I don’t think the proprietor of claytoncramerwatch says he’s gay in any of his posts, but you usually don’t find even the most sympathetic straight people getting that burned up over anti-gay remarks.)
Damn, Eric. I’m insulted – no one ever takes me to task for linking people. What makes YOU so special? 😉
*shrug* There’s people I tend to not link to a lot from distaste, but I’ve never seen the point of the “Massive Public Outrage Cry of De-Linking!!!” high school bit. That’s always struck me as a “looky how virtous I am!” attention play. Bully for them.
Way I see it, it’s a big fucking Internet – and no one has been elected “High Lord Exhalted Keeper of the Holy Internet Morality”. I read whomever I want, or not. I link whomever I please, or not. If someone doesn’t like it, they can walk south til their hat floats and bubbles stop coming up.
Do what pleases you, Eric, and don’t concern yourself with thems as don’t like it.
Saturday reading – bits and pieces
We are having some beautiful weather today in So. Cal. It’s about 70 degrees out, sunny. I hit the ground running this morning — dropped off the car for new tires and alignment, hit the hardware store for gardening stuff…
Interesting conundrum, diffusely argued. Doesn’t get much better than that.
I keep two blogrolls, one of blogs I dump on, one of blogs I don’t plan to dump on. Both lists are short at the moment, but Classical Values has been on one of them for a while, mainly for its unconventional thinking.
I forgot all about Clayton C. Which list to put him on? This requires cogitation ….
Just to be clear about sodomy laws. There’s no question in my mind that they are constitutional. That does not mean that they are necessarily laws that I would vote for.
I really don’t see it as a very useful activity for the government to tell two adults what they can do in private–but that is clearly within the government’s authority–at least as much as it is within their authority to tell an employer that can’t discriminate against an employee because of sexual orientation.
Thank you, Clayton, for chiming in and showing what you are made of.