The battle of ideologies is joined

[thatcrazycajun]

I have just found that a_phoenix_afire had friended me, but I had not returned the favor; I have now done so. This may either be a salutary challenge to my deeply held political views and personal beliefs...or a major mistake.

This man is a longtime acquaintance of my Songbird, which is how he came to be here (he linked through her LJ). And his latest entry rips me to shreds for my earlier post, "The Case for Impeaching the President" (archived here). He accuses me of simply "regurgitating MSNBC headlines" (never mind that I don't even watch MSNBC at all, and didn't even before moving to the new apartment and its cable problems, and only very occasionally visit its website) and not having "done homework." He also claims to be "a minor historian" who reads up on tons of documentation himself. If true, this gives him an unfair advantage, in that most of us do not have the time, energy or familiarity with obscure reference sources that are part of his job (or at least his fairly serious hobby).

Why on God's green and pleasant Earth this man should want to be on the friends-list of someone he obviously considers so ignorant and lazy, I have no vaguest idea. Gods know if he wants to spend time refuting liberals, there's tons of others out there far better at it than me, with more time and resources to devote to it, whom he would doubtless find far more challenging and dangerous than me with my extremely non-famous blog. And why I should invite someone into my circle who evidently not only despises my politics, but expresses contempt for me personally in refuting them, is likewise utterly beyond me.

But if I refuse him access and unfriend him, he can then accuse me of being unwilling to truly engage an informed opponent, of being afraid of having my views challenged, of attempting to censor him. This satisfaction I will not give him, nor anyone else on Earth. I have always said the answer to speech you don't like is never to shut the speaker up, but to bring in more speech—better speech. He will NOT be banned or unfriended by me, even if everyone else were to request it. If I put stuff out there, I should expect to have at least one or two people challenge it.

And as for homework, I have always tried to be better informed than most people who rely solely on one or two TV news outfits or their local paper are, and will continue to seek out evidence wherever I can, even from sources that may be arguably biased one way or the other. For starters, in regard to the charge that the current occupant of the Oval Office lied to get us into the war he wanted, try this book...and then this one. Trust me, these are only the tip of the incriminating iceberg. I'm sure others of you can offer additional references solidly footnoted and impeccably sourced enough to satisfy my new friend.

So I invite all of you to read the original post and his rebuttal, and judge for yourself whether having this fellow's contributions to the discussion is worthwhile. I am not a historian, and while I certainly do seek out books, websites and other non-news-media reference to buttress my views (or change them, as need be), I freely admit I'm clearly fighting out of my weight class here. And to APA himself: Take this as a compliment, not as an attempt to gang-up on you with my other friends. You have caused me to think more about why I believe what I do...which is never a bad thing .

Comments

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

Suit yourself; everyone has their own notions about what their journal is for. I don't personally feel that shutting someone out of my personal LJ is censorship -- they have plenty of places, including their own journal, to make their case. Mine is not an open forum and I don't want to waste its space or my energy arguing. Then again, I'm rarely political in my journal anyway.

[peteralway.livejournal.com]

I'm not actually reading the original post or the response. But reading this:

But if I refuse him access and unfriend him, he can then accuse me of being unwilling to truly engage an informed opponent, of being afraid of having my views challenged, of attempting to censor him

All I can think is--so what? LJ isn't a political debate forum, and I don't think anyone reads your LJ to read both sides of the issues of the day to make up their minds how to vote. As far as I know, the two of you aren't running as opponents for an elective office.

If you enjoy debating with the guy, great. You two have fun. Friend him. But you have no obligation to give him access to friends-locked posts, or to read his stuff whenever you look at your friends pages.

It sounds to me that you are asking for aggravation for no particular purpose.

[maugorn.livejournal.com]

For what it's worth, my journal is wide open. I managed to acquire an anonymous snideper early on, but they retreated pretty quickly when I started to come very close to figuring out who they were. Plus, I managed to work their snidepery into a song while I was at it, one of my better originals. They slunk right back into the woodwork.

And there have been others who've dropped in occasionally to attempt to argue, but somehow, they seem reluctant to piss me off as themselves, the nasties only seem to come as anonymice. Perhaps it's my ability to transform into a tiger...

My LJ biggest trouble actually came from someone out in the real world, and what they found most distressing was the fact that I didn't back down from my absolute right to make a joke.

Oh, and if you want some real real high quality material to bolster your liberal arguments, find twistedchick and her freespeechzone

some additional books

[patoadam]

Against All Enemies

The Occupation of Iraq: Winning the War, Losing the Peace

Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

1. Your journal is your journal. There is no obligation, legal, moral, or otherwise, that requires you to grant anyone in particular access.

2. Accusations are just that. They're the great tool of the Freeper and right-wing crowd, whose philosophy is to attack, regardless of the virtues of the attack, because it's both easier than engaging with reality and issues, and often produces the results they desire (a win for them).

3. This is the same person whose earlier posts here were loaded with ad hominem attacks, generalizations, and spurious logic. While I enjoy a good argument, attempting one with him is the equivalent of attempting one in the Arguments Department of Monty Python's famous sketch, and produces roughly the same level of satisfaction.

4. additional references solidly footnoted and impeccably sourced enoughto satisfy my new friend.. I doubt it. One of the hallmarks of argument of the sort he has presented here is a shifting sands of values; that which is useful to him is legitimate, that which is not is "a headline mill" or some other dismissal. People are only valuable while they are in agreement with his point of view; witness what has happened to those folks who have disavowed the program of the right and spoken the truth.

In all, if you unfriended him, I would understand why.

(Also, I refuse to get caught up in any argument with him. I have enough political grief elsewhere, and it's not fair to you to argue endlessly with a brick wall (which is an insult to the morals and ethics of real brick walls everywhere) on your turf.)

[hitchhiker.livejournal.com]

why bother? i'd say leave him unfriended, allow non-friended people to comment on your open posts, and post those things that you do have the inclination and energy to debate unlocked. and if he does try to argue a point you have no real wish to engage him on, simply let it pass - you lose precisely nothing by doing so.

[mdlbear]

A couple of days ago I went and switched my journal back to allow anonymous comments again. Nearly all my posts are unlocked; I treat my friends list strictly as a reading list, and feel no obligation to add anyone whose journal I have no interest in reading.

Jeeze dude

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

Relax a bit. I figured with the strength of your political stands that you'd be a little thicker skinned than this appears.

-Why on God's green and pleasant Earth this man should want to be on the friends-list of someone he obviously considers so ignorant and lazy...-

Ignorance is not a genetic personality trait, it simply describes the state of not knowing something. Willful ignorance is reprehensible but not unforgivable, and it's eminently correctable in the open-minded. As for lazy, if I explicitly said that anywhere, then I was a total A**h**e. I do think that if one is to argue a topic intelligently, one should at least read the evidence offered by the opposition when it is indeed proffered, but I hope I didn't call you lazy, 'cause I don't think that.

BTW, I'll have to look, but as I recall, you aimed that particular post directly at me, so I rebutted it where it wouldn't offend your readers unless they chose to go read it.

Contempt? NOT!!
=====

-He accuses me of simply "regurgitating MSNBC headlines"-

That was just a figure of speech and a generalization. I could have said CNN headlines or MoveOn headlines. I was talking about the type of opinion which appears to be informed only by cursory reading of the most propagandistic political headlines and by emotion. I lambaste people on the other side of the aisle far more vehemently because I don't want them making "my side" as you'd call it, look stupid for lack of facts. I do plead guilty to being far more versed in debating. I'm a member of several sites, both liberal and conservative. I don't want to get my opinions from others, I want to get my facts from them. Truth is immutable, but points of view come in 57 flavors.
====

As I've said to you, I don't want to get into knockdown dragouts here on your blog. I'm a guest here and I'd be a damned poor one to get vicious with you or your guests. I know that most of them think evil of me for my political viewpoint, but I most certainly apologize to anyone who feels I personally insulted them for their viewpoint. (All except when I dismissed those who were outright rude to me first. Even then I didn't call them names and didn't engage them afterward. ;-) )

I agree with everybody who said you had no obligation to friend me. This is your place and you shouldn't and don't have to put up with anyone who is rude or unwelcome. If I ever am, you should withdraw your invitation.
====

My view is that no matter how versed in politics you are from public sources, you will never know what's really going on until you are yourself a professional politician.

Look at the senate vote to condemn MoveOn's ad. 50 republicans and twenty-five democrats voted to condemn it. Do I think the Dems all really hated it? I'd be an idiot no matter what I want to believe or say in public about it. It was all political maneuvering. Just a side note: It was far more revealing, in my opinion, to note who abstained from the vote than which way someone did vote. Obama voted on another bill not ten minutes before, but couldn't be found in time for this headline maker? In a pig's eye as McCoy would say.
====

I do however, reserve the right to give both barrels to anyone that comes to my blog and tries to treat me like an idiot. Even there, you will find me debating facts and the 'debating tactics' rather than calling names and insinuating personality disorders.

I also have no patience with people who think that they don't have to know the subject matter, simply because they think they hold the moral high ground. Say anything you want, but have your facts in order, and at least know what facts the opposition bases its argument on, no matter how vehemently you disagree with their conclusions.

Some of my favorite debates have ended in me finding out that my facts are wrong, but that's not often.
====

Lastly, political debate for me is fun not life threatening. You are the chosen beloved of one of my longest-held and dearest friends. You have made her very happy by her account. That makes you one of my dearest friends. (even if you are a flaming lib. ;-) )

If politics gets in the way then we'll just have to dispense with the politics.

Peace bro', and thanx for the invite.

PS
@ maugorn I never intentionally post anonymously. ;-)

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

Whether you friend people is a function of 1)whether you want to read their LJ without jumping through extra hoops to access it and 2)whether you want them to read your more private LJ posts without jumping through extra hoops to filter it with something more detailed than a friends-lock. It's not necessarily a symmetrical function.

[crowatdusk.livejournal.com]

Like peteralway said "so what?" I have a feeling there's more than politics in the underlying the tone of this "debate". Don't get jerked around.