Thursday, December 30, 2010
The Jihad Watch saga continued
I noticed for the first time the following comment from Marisol fresh in the wake of her banning me from participating in Jihad Watch comments, back on September 27 of this year. Her comment I italicize, while my remarks are interspersed in bold:
Captain Nemo: As "Neil," you used the word "raghead." That's what got you banned, and it's pretty beyond the pale...
Oh, but threatening to kill a fellow commenter (as long-time Jihad Watch friend "awake" did to me) is not beyond the pale, eh Marisol? Gotcha.
...playing directly into the hands of CAIR and their ilk.
I guess death threats won't play into their hands, since they understand such fascistic bullying.
... We don't ban without good reason.
But you seem to refrain from banning for bad reasons (viz., awake threatening to kill me).
Hesperado is indeed banned, and has been banned before... The post that got him banned was a culmination of two problems. The first was his long-standing habit of sideline sniping, and I stand by that description. After all, we don't go over to his site and tell him all the stuff he's doing wrong.
If Marisol and Spencer came to my blog and posted comments that offered critiques of my approach in methodology and conception, I wouldn't ban them; I would actually engage in a discussion with them (wow, what a concept!). And I wouldn't tendentiously label it "sideline sniping". And I don't say that as a way of trying to sound superior; after all, in this circumstance, it's hard not to be superior without even trying.
He seems to feel he owns the One, True ideological approach, and to feel entitled to lead the movement, coming across (in my opinion) as resentful and envious of the stature of this ideologically "impure" site.
Even if Marisol's characterization here is accurate, so what? Is that cause to ban someone? If not, why does she mention it in a context of explaining why I was banned?
The second is part of an intensifying trend in his comments over the past year which culminated the other day in denying the human status of Muslims ("does there still linger here an unconditional granting of humanity to Muslims?").
Marisol is unconscionably (or obtusely) cherrypicking that sound bite of mine. For a fuller appreciation of the context, see my detailed argument of the unfairness of my banning.
Obviously, I find this rhetoric appalling, and all too CAIR-friendly.
She finds the cherrypicked sound bite appalling; apparently, the context was lost on her. Or is it her paranoia about CAIR and other PC MC hostiles that is motivating her hair trigger? (Now watch all the Jihad Watchers crawl out of the woodwork to declare that I must think CAIR is not an ideological danger. You'd think that after all the problems Spencer has gone through being misconstrued, they'd have a sense of appreciation for the problem of misconstrual, and therefore of the need to read carefully and fairly.)
Worse yet, he has shown a penchant for belittling those who disagree even among fellow commenters, for, again, he is his self-appointed ideological standard bearer.
To which I repeat what I said above: Even if Marisol's characterization here is accurate, so what? Is that cause to ban someone? If not, why does she mention it in a context of explaining why I was banned?
It was, indeed, a combination of the two factors...
Two factors? She's listed four factors at least. I think the straw that broke the camel's back was that I just rub her the wrong way; then she happened to raise "that Hesperado" up to Spencer one day in an email, and he, remembering this little pesk of a gadfly, said "whack 'im".