Decision ‘08

Terry Moran Knocks Another One Out Of The Park

Regarding the vitriol coming his way for labeling Amanda Marcotte’s vile attack on Catholicism ‘hate speech’ (anyone’s irony meter working at this point?), Moran again is right on the money:

First, it seems to me that trashing the sacred beliefs of another person in sexually explicit or scatological terms for the purpose of wounding and delegitimizing the other person could fairly be construed as hateful. The gutter is always the comfortable resort of haters. That’s why white supremacists use the word “n*****” and slander all black men by portraying them as sexually predatory beasts; that’s why antisemites repeat the blood libel. For another disgusting example of this kind of discourse, check out what “James” wrote about Islam in response to my post on Edwards and Marcotte (at 2:40:24 PM EDT); pure hatred, in my view.

There are all kinds of ways to dispute what another person says or believes. Sometimes, giving offense is a great way to make a point, to get heard, to break through the unspoken oppression of certain views. But to seek to obliterate the legitimacy of another person’s faith or other allegiances–and wound them in the process with the vilest terminology–isn’t debate. It’s rhetorical gangsterism.

…A lot of people have told me that what Marcotte and others (liberal and conservative) are writing is just par for the course out there. Blogs, I’m told, are different. They’re new–they’re edgy–they’re breaking the boundaries of old-fogey media and ushering in a new era of public discourse. I buy a lot of that. But speech is still speech. And hate is still hate. If you call a black man a “n*****” on a blog, it’s just as offensive as shouting it in his face. It seems to me that bloggers (and those who post comments on them) sometimes forget this; the lack of a flesh-and-blood interlocutor and the anonymity the internet offers unleash the rhetorical beast in us. Rage, vituperation, insult, slur, infantile taunting–you see a lot of that on many blogs. That, I am told, is just the rough-and-tumble world of bloggers, having at each other and everyone else with raw gusto, just like those old pamphleteers to whom they are so often compared. OK, fine, whatever. But you don’t get a pass from the tenets of basic decency in civil discourse just because you blog.

Wow…that’s so good, I’ll just let it stand without further comment…

UPDATE 2:14 p.m.: Contrast Moran’s upstanding defense of decency with the loathsome drivel being peddled by Eric Alterman (who, in a moment of staggeringly poor judgement, labels his article “Attack of the Christofascists“), who continues the left’s habit of obscuring the issue by avoiding the quote:

Here’s what happened. Edwards hired two liberal bloggers, Amanda Marcotte of the Pandagon blog site and Melissa McEwan, of Shakespeare’s Sister, to work for his campaign, as all the campaigns are now doing. After they were hired, rightwing pressure groups and opposition researchers turned up a few posts that, read out of context - and perhaps even in context - struck many Catholics as offensive.

Yes, Eric, that’s so intellectually honest of you. For the benefit of those who arrived late, here’s the statement that, “read out of context - and perhaps even in context - struck many Catholics as offensive”:

Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

Hmmm…hard to see that as being offensive. Guess I just lacked the proper context.

Why is it, do you think, that when Glenn Greenwald, Chris Bowers, Eric Alterman, and other leftwing lapdogs talk about this story, they never can seem to find the quote in question? They’re so damn good about looking up all kinds of old quotes from, say, neocons to show what rank hypocrites they all are - but somehow, they’ve never located the copy and paste functions regarding the Marcotte story.

We know the answer…because you can’t defend the indefensible…

16 Responses to “Terry Moran Knocks Another One Out Of The Park”

1 mikebdot Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
But you don’t get a pass from the tenets of basic decency in civil discourse just because you blog

What does that even mean in this context? How is it they got a “pass”? They were allowed to keep their jobs? It’s not as though they plagiarized something.

If someone uses vulgarity when showing you the absurdity of your religion instead of taking offense at the vulgarity perhaps you might want to consider thinking about the absurdity of the religion.

This comparison to racism is just awful. It doesn’t even make sense. You cannot argue about race. There is no intellectual discussion to be had. People are a specific race. Discussion over. With religion it’s completely different because at the end of the day, even after all the parental brainwashing that occurs from day one, you still choose your religion. Each and every day. Being vulgar while trying to make a point about a particular religion (and it’s history) and being racist are not even in the same sport, let alone the same ballpark.
2 Mark Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Hey, you hate religion! Good on ya, mate - but we figured that out from your 169 other comments saying the same thing…
3 mikebdot Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
“hate” is not the appropriate term. I’m in the Vonnegut camp on that one. If it makes you feel good about life, that’s great, good on ya, but if try to pass legislation based on that only, then I will argue logically every time. Not only that, if someone wants to argue with you in a manner which isn’t “civil” I don’t think they should lose their job because of it when they argued on their own site (which they paid their host services for…) and made a vulgar joke to preface a post, which, as it turns out, you didn’t link to…just the Q/A joke…

Oh, yeah, like the other 169 posts/comments from you saying over and over “look at the quote, it’s offensive”…

Drama queen
4 Mark Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Hey, Mike, if you haven’t noticed, the “Drama Queen” thing doesn’t faze me…but hey, if it makes you feel better to call me that: well, some people have religion, and some people have ad hominem attacks…I guess that passes the Vonnegut test, too…
5 mikebdot Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
So it goes
6 Dennis Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
So, since Edwards said he disapproved of what Marcotte said, I guess he’s a Christofascist, too. Wow, these labels can be hardto keep up with…

Mike, for someone who insists on repeatedly calling his host “drama queen,” in the apparent hope of getting banned so you can puff up your chest, you seem to lack a certain self-awareness.
7 Andy Vance Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
“obliterate the legitimacy of another person’s faith”

Gibberish. Terry Moran understands faith even less than he does intolerance and hate.

What kind of poser dives into a subject like this (albeit at the shallow end of the pool) and ends with “can we all lighten up a little?”
8 Gwedd Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Comrade Mike,

I understand completely the definition of hate. I’ve seen it’s ugly and pestulent visage too many times to not recognize it’s vileness and it’s stench. I know full well when I’m in it’s presence, and the good bloggers Marcotte & McEwan are priestesses of hate.

They are no different in their screed than the klansmen or neo-nazis, no less cauldrons of noxious effluvia and snivulent ravings than the Islamofacists who defile civilization with each and every exhulation of their fetid breath.

Marcotte & McEwan are evil, pure and simple, and they know full well of which they preach. Their rantings transcend the boundaries of the 1st Ammendment, and are certainly, to my mind, worthy of consideration for prosecution under extant hate-speech laws.

I was raised a Catholic, and I renounced not only Catholicism, but Christianity years ago. Yet I will not stoop to the level of Madames Marcotte & McEwan in my debates about the validity of this or that dogma or theology. There is an ample vocabulary already in existance to debate the several and salient points. They have chosen to ignore that, and instead, become little less than spittle-spewing monkeys, flinging their own shII in a tirade of adolescent intolerance.

On this issue, I side with the Catholics, and, indeed, decent people everywhere. John Edwards, by his redusing to renounce these two sisters of intolerance, has shown his true colours, and the recriminations he is currently receiving are mild compared to what should be delivered. He is not only an ass, but a pompous ass to stand up to a society that he claims he is qualified to lead, and yet allow these little dames of dribble a feeding spot at his political trough.

Respects,
9 Mark Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Andy, so is this gibberish, too?

…[I]t seems to me that trashing the sacred beliefs of another person in sexually explicit or scatological terms for the purpose of wounding and delegitimizing the other person could fairly be construed as hateful.

In other words, do you still insist that sexually explicit or scatological terms, to use the parlance of Moran, to denigrate two of the most sacred personages of a major world faith with a several-thousand-year history, is perfectly reasonable?

Ah, forget it…answer or don’t answer, it seems that the concept of sacred is just totally without meaning to too many of you, and I’m tired of fighting it.

Laugh if you want to, but I truly mean this: all of this just makes me sad…
10 Andy Vance Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
I’m not laughing. Despite you’re continued misrepresentation of my argument - claiming that I don’t believe there is such a thing as anti-religious hate speech or that the Marcotte example is not contemptible - I believe this subject is deadly serious. I think you do too. But given that you use “offensive” and “hate speech” interchangeably, I’m not sure you understand what the latter is, or the damage that conflating the two concepts can do.

Moran cloaks himself in righteousness and allusion, but that does not make him right. Any competent sixth grader can do that. But anyone remotely familiar with faith would know that by definition it can’t be “delegitimized.” That’s just thoughtless posturing.
11 Mark Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Well, Andy, as we discussed before, I do understand the distinction you’re trying to make, and I don’t totally disagree with it…let me ask you this, if I used “hateful speech” instead, would you agree with me? Because I think the hangup between us is that you’re thinking “hate speech” in a, say, legal manner, and yes, I’m using it as more of an adjective.

I guess I don’t really buy the idea that you have to be in power over someone to inflict “hate speech” on their person…are am I misrepresenting you again?

It’s not my intent to pick a fight here, I’m just somewhat baffled as to why Marcotte’s comments are seen as a rallying point of pride by many (I’m not saying you) on the left…to me, that speaks volumes about the ‘progressive’ blog community’s largely disdainful view of a vast, vast chunk of America…
12 Mason Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
I am thankful that individuals like Marcotte and our dear friend Mike feel the need to display their brilliant insight, demonstrating for us the obvious fact that Christianity is riddled with contradiction and reads like an ancient mytholgical text. It is simply glorious to watch them as they bathe in the pride of their having the supreme intellect that so many of us do not. I mean who would have ever thought that it was highly unlikely and perhaps even absurd to believe that Adam was made from dirt and Eve from Adam’s rib? What a magnificent mind it must take to refute the biblical stories of the creation and the origin of man in light of overwhelming evidence that man is the product of thousands and thousands of years of evolution. We should thank people like these who remind us that we are such jackasses and that they are so enlightened. You wanna talk about brilliance! Look no further than someone who repeatedly calls his host a “drama queen” and at the same time defends a hideously infantile stab at a religion that many, many people (of all political persuasions) have chosen to refute politely and with proper, respectful regard for those among us who do believe their religion to be true, silly and illogical as it might seem.
13 Andy Vance Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
I really don’t think it’s merely a legal or linguistic issue. The way Moran uses the term is to invoke a whole set of moral and historical analogies - which include anti-Catholic hate speech - to prove his point. Then, as if to prove my point, he proceeds to lay out some of these explicitly in the second post. This is a cheap form of argument; it’s an attempt to overwhelm readers with powerful, emotional example while avoiding examination of the Marcotte case on its own terms.

I alluded earlier to how some commentators on the Duke rape trial (yes, this is me making my own analogy) compared it to the Scottsboro Boys case. While there may be some surface similarities - the basic notion of someone being purposely accused wrongly in a racially tinged rape case - to analogize the cases is absurd. The context, and severity of the two instances are completely different. It diminishes one of the iconic, historical examples of injustice done to African Americans, where the entire weight of a racist society came to bear on a few individuals. And to point that out is not an attempt to diminish the injustices of the Duke case - it’s to protect the station of the Scottsboro case, and more generally the memory of Jim Crow, in American consciousness.

Now having said all this, it’s incumbent upon me to explain what I think Marcotte did wrong, and why it doesn’t rise to the level of the examples Moran cites. But I’ll have to do it later, as my wife is literally kicking me to get me off the computer. For some reason she doesn’t buy it when I say I’m saving the world one comment at a time.
14 ThaddeusMcMonster Says:
February 10th, 2007 at 12:28 am
“If someone uses vulgarity when showing you the absurdity of your religion instead of taking offense at the vulgarity perhaps you might want to consider thinking about the absurdity of the religion.”

What you’re saying is analgous to, if a person were to yell at a black person to “get a job n*****”,” that instead of being offended, the black person should instead consider whether or not to get a job?
15 too many steves Says:
February 10th, 2007 at 5:33 am
It’s early and I wanted to point out a few things as I sip my morning coffee:

1. I’ve really enjoyed the thread and the back and forth of the comments; especially the civil, although heated, way in which it has been conducted.

2. John Edwards, with or without Marcotte, et al, and with or without some popular religious affiliation, has not a chance in hell (I use that term as metaphor not to argue the existence of same) of becoming our next President.

See, the problem of arguing about religion and deities and such is that there is no answer - it is all about beliefs. You may believe that the existence of the earth and humans proves the existence of God, while I believe the existence of evil proves God does not exist. You can’t convince me, nor I you.

In her earlier writings, Marcotte has demonstrated a lazy and childish dependence on vulgarity and insults. Perhaps now that she’s achieved grown-up status by being hired (and retained) by Edwards she will invest some time in making her points logically and absent the insults and vulgarity. I would argue that doing so will make her more effective - it’s not that she has bad ideas or invalid points, just that she makes them in inarticulate ways.
16 mikebdot Says:
February 12th, 2007 at 8:52 am
ThaddeusMcMonster (awesome name by the way): No, because “get a job, n*****” is a personal insult intended to personally insult and put the other down. Using vulgar words to make a point is using vulgar words to make a point. There is no personal attack involved even if you are offended by it, it is not a personal attack…as TMS says lastly, it’s just inarticulate. If stupid people offend you, then you’re going to have a very long painful life here in America…

Mason: The issue isn’t that Marcotte is pompous and self-righteous or whatever other evil adjectives you want to describe her with (and, funny thing is, you use the same method to cut us both down…sarcasm)…it’s that due to those traits she deserves to be fired. My argument is no, she doesn’t. Not only that, there is no reason it should be national news.

Dennis: Yeah, I go to the internet for my self-worth…or, I’m sitting at work bored out of my mind…