Go for the ball, not the man
I've never blogged about blogging before but the behaviour of certain Joeusers over the past few weeks leaves me feeling like I have no choice but to respond. Such has been the venom directed at me by certain other people that I want to write a blog about debting etiquette on this website.
I'm not going to name names, but those about whom I'm about to write know who they are and they know what I think of them. I don't want to get into a slanging match, though that may be a forlorn hope, I just want to have my say and to highlight what could be general trends with reference to the particular.
It's been five months since I started blogging here and most of that time I've enjoyed it immensely. I stumbled on this site by accident one day. It was only after writing my first few blogs that I realised the true character of Joeuser. Most bloggers here are American and a good few of them are conservatives. Indeed, by European standards, some of them would be considered extremists.
This delighted me no end. There's nothing more tedious than preaching to the converted, though of course I appreciate those who leave supporting comments. It's much more interesting to engage with those who not only differ from you a little, but actually disagree with you on the fundamentals.
This is how intellect improves, through challenge and dissent. If you keep being told you're right all the time, the mind will go flabby. It's certainly how writing improves. I know that a sweeping statement or a clumsily-worded attack will be siezed upon by my ideological opponents at Joeuser to undermine my entire argument. Many's a time I've deleted something thinking "No, I can't defend that if it's challenged." I'm sure many of my fellow bloggers go through the same thought process.
So I enjoy debating with those who disagree with me. Some of the conservative bloggers on this site are excellent debaters. While they often vigorously disagree with me, they don't engage in name-calling to try to win an argument. Sometimes there is a meeting of minds, or an agreement on some common ground, often there is not. Either way, the exchanges are conducted in an adult and civil atmosphere.
However there are some right-wing Joeusers who don't want to debate, to challenge, to exchange points of view. Rather they seek merely to insult, to wisecrack, to give vent to their visceral hatred of all those who don't share their worldview. When I try yo counter this tendency, the people in question either issue further insults or else disappear. I've found that a blogger's propensity to insult is in inverse proportion to their willingness to debate.
Last weeek one such blogger described me as "pro-terrorist" on the grounds that I am pro-Palestinian. The remark was presented in a wise-ass manner but the intent was abundantly clear. It was to present the point of view that anyone who wasn't 100% behind Sharon must be 100% behind Hamas.
Nowhere in any of my blogs have I advocated the use of force by the Palestinians.Indeed I believe that Palestinian violence, especially suicide bombing, is profoundly counter-productive to their very legitimate cause. But, in this blogger's twisted mentality, such nuance doesn't exist. You're either with Israel (or rather right-wing Israelis) or you're with the suicide bombers.
Either that or else the blogger in question knew that I wasn't pro-terrorist but made the jibe anyway, knowing that focusing on Palestinian violence was the only argument they had left. As it transpires my unfortunate attacker ended up tying themselves in knots, at one stage claiming the ability of clairvoyance. I'm sure they won't admit it, but I think they regret ever issuing the insult.
Also last week I was, in effect, accused of plaigarism by a right-wing blogger. "Re-arranging bullets" from left-wing websites was the euphemism employed. Subsequently this person has denied that they meant to accuse me of plaigarism but they have refused to retract the initial allegation.
The blogger in question objected to my article "Bush's War, Bush's Fault" as a rip-off. They allege that another online article exists with the same or simiair title. They claim to be able to produce proof but unwilling to make the effort. But even if they were to produce such evidence, so what? With all the material online these days, it's entirely possible that two like-minded writers could produce two articles with identical titles entirely independently of each other. I happily admit that the title "Bush's War, Bush's Fault" was not my most inventive.
This blogger also claims that the content of that article was taken from someone else's work and re-arranged to give the appearance of originality. Again no proof has been offered to support this allegation. When challenged on this they responded in effect that there are many anti-Bush articles on the web and that I have obviously read some of them.
Again, so what? This is not proof of plaigarism. My accuser posted an article welcoming the assassination of Ahmed Yassin last month. By this rationale, if they had read anything supporting Israel's action before they posted the article then they would be a plaigarist. Of course this is a ridiculous attitude. Do they honestly expext those who write to abstain from reading?
As I've said, the person in question has produced no evidence, I repeat no evidence, that I have passed off someone else's work as my own. That's because there is no evidence. It is a baseless slur which they should withdraw immediately. Significantly the person in question, whose articles are rather light on text, has refused to engage with me in debate; either about Palestine or Iraq.
I've learnt from personal experience that getting personal only undermines your case. It may make you feel good to deride those who disagree with you but, in the end, you're only hurting yourself. I found this out the hard way a few months ago when I read an explicitly racist article on this site. Rather than tackle the blogger on their views, I chose to mock them for their sloppy use of the English language.
I regret doing this, not because I feel sorry for the person in question, I don't, but because I hurt my own case. By being cruel to them, I directed attention away from their bigotry and on to my pettiness. Put simply, I shot myself in the foot.
Since then I've tried to avoid personally abusing those with whom I disagree. I hope that at least one of the people who punched me below the belt last week will take a similair attitude in future.