|
How is Spencer a liberal? Let me count the ways.
I haven’t read the whole discussion yet, but some people have posted at Jihad Watch taking issue with Robert Spencer’s attack on me as a person who believes in “repugnant … white supremacism.” In particular I recommend the excellent comment by Stephen F., who gets several points just right. Stephen had written to me about it:
I thought it was pretty low of Spencer to describe you as a white supremacist, especially after claiming he’d be interested in discussing the issue of race with you were it not for your “behavior.” You are right—it does bring out his liberal instincts. However, I limited myself to pointing out that his was an inaccurate categorization.Also, glancing through the thread, I notice that Spencer, never failing to demonstrate to the world his amazing blindness to himself, describes my reply to him today as showing an “obsessive” attitude. Gosh. He writes an article calling me an exponent of white supremacism, but if I answer, I’m obsessive. So I guess I’m not supposed to respond at all. And this is yet another typical liberal trait, added on to the several others Spencer has already manifested, such as knee-jerk recourse to the racism charge, such as saying that criticisms are bad because they “divide” our side, such as saying that liberalism and conservatism are no longer useful terms and ought to be abandoned for some more inclusive language that will unify us. Along with such tactics, liberals simultaneously smear those who challenge liberal orthodoxy, and seek to take away their ability to speak in their own defense. Of course Spencer will deny that he wants to silence me. But if that is the case, why does he call me obsessive for replying to a name-calling attack that he initiated? True, Spencer knows the tactic won’t work with me, and he will probably let me reply at his site if I want to. But look at the crap I have had to take in order to engage in a discussion with him. Most people would not want to put themselves through that, and would decline to confront Spencer at all. And such intimidation is the real purpose of his personal attacks on me, ranging from his opening sally when he called me a “dyspectic misanthrope”; through his calling me a racist and then denying he had done so; to his lie that I had “bombarded” him with follow-up e-mails, trying to make me sound like a nut, when—a fact he concealed until I revealed it in a comment at his site—he sent the same number of e-mails to me that I sent to him; and now his description of me as obsessive for replying to his latest attack. Finally, please note that I don’t call Spencer obsessive for replying to my criticisms of him. I think there are real issues between us that are worth discussing, such as the meaning of liberalism and conservatism, such as whether Hirsi Ali is a good representative of the West, such as whether we have the moral right to defend the West’s historical racial character, along with its historical religious, cultural, and political character. But Spencer both wants to engage in a discussion of these issues, and feels victimized when the other guy answers.
Email entry |