Thursday, December 30, 2010
Hesperado's Banning from Jihad Watch for Idiots Guide
In that thread where I continue, by a fingernail now, to be an off topic, a sub-topic to that off topic has developed concerning my banning from Jihad Watch comments by Marisol proxy for Robert Spencer (I doubt she has the power to ban individuals without his consent, and doubt she ever bans people without him directing her to do so, though perhaps the latter has occurred in extremely rare cases). About that, once again, the long-time Jihad Watch reader and commenter "Kinana of Khaybar" retails more garbled disinformation:
One of the reasons cited for Hesperado's most recent banning was that he claimed that Muslims were not human. That comment, which he went on to defend at length, would be enough for me to ban him if it were my decision...
1) Had "Kinana of Khaybar" read carefully my two comments on that September thread in question, he would have seen that I specified that when I wrote "I have had the epiphany that they [Muslims] are not human", I did not mean "not human" in an "ontological" sense. Thus, I wasn't just ranting "Muslims are inhuman savages!" -- I was articulating a nuanced philosophical observation in a calm and intellectual manner. Marisol, however, chose to cherry-pick that one sentence and use its inflammatory appearance out of context to imply that I was advocating genocide or genocidal rationale.
2) "Kinana of Khaybar" then in the same breath compounds his obtuse misreading (or sloppy reading) by claiming that I "went on to defend at length" the simplex claim that "Muslims are not human" when in fact, what I went on at length to do was defend the distinction between an ontological humanity and a pragmatic inhumanity, with that defense couched in a discursive context of probing the philosophical issue these symbolisms raise.
At any rate, if "Kinana of Khaybar" is going to accuse me of things and be persuasive about his accusations, then he should address my argument, which I laid out in Banned again from Jihad Watch comments: O the humanity (of Muslims)!
And, if he is feeling particularly ambitious (and fair), he can also read my subsequent essays that explore and explain my position on Muslim humanity --
Wildersianism and the "inner Westerner" inside Muslims
Four phases of Western universalism, and the humanity of Muslims
Christian Wilsonianism at Jihad Watch
Correction: Christian Wildersianism at Jihad Watch
Would "Kinana of Khaybar" support the stifling of the free speech of someone without even bothering to read carefully their own articulation of their position? Does he support stifling their free speech on a sloppy reading of their own articulation of their position?
One wonders on what basis "Kinana of Khaybar" supports the stifling of free speech when that speech is calm, mature, intellectual and philosophically nuanced. Is it only because he is paranoid about "the Enemy" exploiting my words in order to defame Jihad Watch? Or does he have a deeper affinity with curbing free speech when he feels that speech disagrees with his ethics?
Had I, in that September thread, simply written "Muslims are inhuman savages!" or "Muslims are not human" full stop, I might tend to agree with him. But I didn't. It is outrageous when otherwise intelligent, educated Westerners like "Kinana of Khaybar" and Marisol (and Robert Spencer) countenance or even aggressively pursue the stifling of speech that is calm, mature, intellectual and philosophically nuanced.
Of course, even my "nuanced" articulation might not be ethical enough for many people and they may wish to safeguard the axiomatic conferral of humanity on Muslims and may feel my articulation threatens that, but to me that by itself (particularly factoring in the deportment of my articulation) is not a fair reason to stifle free speech: if both parties are being reasonable and mature about their manner, it should be discussed, and those with power shouldn't abuse it by stifling the speech of the person they don't agree with.
I have thought for years that the Jihad Watch sensitivity about comments is set a bit too high, based in large part in a paranoia about what "the Enemy" will do if we say things that sound too politically incorrect, or if we seem to foment dissension among our ranks which will somehow impair our unity. If the latter, it would be rather ironic, for the burning of one bridge after another by Spencer with other important individuals in the anti-Islam movement (Debbie Schlussel, Diana West, Baron Bodissey and Dymphna, Michelle Malkin, Andrew Bostom, perhaps also Hugh Fitzgerald) is hardly conducive to the movement's solidarity, irrespective of whether that bridge-burning is "all their fault" as Spencer would seem to have it, or a more or less mutual thing.