Nasty, brutish and short: some Harry's place comments

 

Harry's Place is a political and cultural blog. I support many or most of its policies. For example, it  opposes Islamism and antisemitism. (My page Israel, Islamism and Palestinian ideology gives a detailed account of my reasons for supporting Israel and my criticisms of radical Islamist ideology and Palestinian ideology.) It opposes religious and political censorship. Harry's Place has pointed out, according to Nick Cohen, that 'a section of the left is allied with religious fanaticism and, for the first time since the Hitler-Stalin pact, […] has gone soft on fascism.' I think Harry's Place is a very flawed blog and in this section, I concentrate on the failings rather than the strengths.  

 

Address of 'Harry's Place:' www.hurryupharry.org

First, some comments aimed in my general direction by Commenter/Commissar Vildechaye:

'You need to remove whatever is jamming up your pompous arsehole and piss off.'

'up your bum.'

A slighter longer, more carefully considered comment on me:

'Just saw this. You're right, i'm not one of the moderators, dickhead. Now be a good little narcissist and fuck off.'

His first comment after finding that I intended to add this piece to the site, with mentions of him:

'You can add this comment to your piece: GO FUCK YOURSELF.'

Followed in next to no time by another comment ending with

' ... go fuck yourself.'


Vildechaye was born in Francophone Montreal, so there's a good chance that he understands this - but I give a translation, all the same:

'Cet animal est très méchant:
Quand on l’attaque, il se défend.'

'This animal is very wicked.
When you attack him, he defends himself.'

Vildechaye's  comments directed at other people. A small selection, which obviously satisfied the moderator (moderating 'Harry's Place' must be one of the easiest jobs in the world):

'fuck off.'

'you can fuck off too.'

'you really enjoy talking out your arse, don't you?'

'actually you're just a bigoted asshole with a thin veneer of intellectual pomposity who cherrypicks sources -- on Youtube! -- and thinks he's being clever. uh uh.'

'yes we're all listening to the likes of you now, you lying sack of shit. Care to tell everyone where I wasn't brought up again.'

Vildechaye is tireless as a Disqus commenter. He's not so tireless as a blogger. He writes under the name 'Henry' and he's the creator of a blog, 'Henry's Place.' Not really its name. The official title is 'Henry's cheap eats and treats in Vancouver.' In his blog profile, he describes himself as 'writer/editor.'

The address of the blog:

http://vancouvercheapeats.blogspot.com/

The introduction to the blog:

'I never liked paying a lot of money for food, and now, with 3 kids and a mortgage, I like it even less, especially since even the fanciest, priciest foods can't compete with the foods I really like. I continue to discover lots of cheap eats and treats in Vancouver, and the purpose of this blog is to share them with you. You'll save money, eat well and feel good. Bon appetit!'

The blog's informative material amounts to the solitary comment, 'No posts.'

A thorough commentary on the blog:

It's been in existence for many, many years. And in all that time, how many posts has he written? 0, none, zero. The hungry hard-up people of Vancouver must be getting restless. Hurry up, Henry! Time to make an effort. An introduction to a blog won't feed the masses!

Vildechaye to me:

'You've chosen just the right kind of job for a person of your intelligence and ability -- reviewing empty blogs, I wish you luck in your latest endeavour. It definitely suits you.'

Then there's mettaculture, another scathing critic of me. He's quoted extensively below. It was one of his comments, with the phrase 'fucking cunting fuck-cunts,' and my response to the phrase, that marked the beginning of a wide-ranging dispute. After I responded to his criticism, coincidentally perhaps, he contributed practically nothing to the site.

Marko Attila Hoare mentions mettaculture on his blog 'Greater Surbiton:'

https://greatersurbiton.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/the-trouble-with-harrys-place/

'Greater Surbiton' really is a proper blog, with many, many entries, including one called 'The trouble with Harry's Place.' I agree  with his general criticisms of tendencies at 'Harry's Place.' I'm not in a position to endorse his particular criticisms of mettaculture. I've no evidence to guide me. Below, I give mettaculture's allegations against Marko Attila Hoare, in the piece which mentions that he's a barrister and clearly warns me about some possible consequences for me - in his opinion. I don't endorse mettaculture's allegations against Marko Attila Hoare either, of course. Again, I've no evidence.

Marko Attila Hoare writes in 'The trouble with Harry's Place,'
 

'As someone who has written posts in defence of HP on more than one occasion, and who stood up for you when you were driven off the internet by a libel threat, I don’t think I can be accused of political or personal hostility to you. But the more familiar I become with this blog, the more distasteful I find the atmosphere here and the more questionable I find your ethics.

 

'For me, the turning point was having threats repeatedly posted against me by Mettaculture: he threatened me physically; threatened me with a libel suit; threatened to contact my employers. He also attacked me for the colour of my skin,  and tried to intimidate me with graphic descriptions of anal sex, having previously tried to bully me into silence with references to my class background and foreign name. Not to mention all the vicious personal abuse (‘whore’, ‘douchebag’, etc.).

 

'I'm not intimidated by this; Mettaculture’s kind is a dime a dozen, and I’ve had my share of such creatures attempting to intimidate me. But it does constitute harassment; it has nothing to do with ‘freedom of speech’. Not only does HP not condemn such behaviour, it encourages it, providing a forum in which every little anonymous internet psycho or stalker can engage in such activities. When I tried to defend myself by outing Mettaculture, I found that I was the one whom HP censored.'

 

Lamia to me (written before I'd included the examples of comments Marko Attila Hoare alleges were written by mettaculture):

 

'Utterly extraordinary. If you are going to repeat such incredible accusations then I think you ought to say eho [sic] they are by - otherwise people might conclude that you have just made up a load of defamatory rubbish about mettaculture. I don't believe he has done any of that.

 

Marko Attila Hoare's gives examples of comments he alleges were written by mettaculture. All I've done is copy and paste these comments. I don't have any evidence to confirm their authenticity and veracity:

 

‘We are all racist’s [sic] according to the pasty white boy. He know’s [sic] you see, being a spolit middle class narcissistic solipsistic pasty white brat.’

 

‘No I am really fucked off and am out of here. I am out of here for my Turkish lesson where I hope to learn the correct conjugations of fuck, fuck my ass, suck it etc. Then I go to dinner with a new beau, he’s Anatolian and very dark and speaks a funny language only if you are a moron or are scandelighted by saying it. When he is sliding his very dark dick into my ass at my recently learned Turkish encouragement, i shall think of your pasty smug face and your prim white ass and what it is evidently missing. Now clutch your pearls in horror why don’t you.’

In a reply to me, mettaculture told me that the word 'scandelighted' is a neologism coined by him and the same word is used here but I don't claim  this as evidence that he did write those comments.

 

Marko Attila Hoare is an academic with a very good publication record and very interesting personal experiences: he witnessed the Kosovo War of 1999, covered the fall of Milosevic in 2000, worked as a Research Officer for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in 2001, and participated in the drafting of the indictment of Slobodan Milosevic.

 

In general, my political views are opposed to his. In general, unlike Marko Attila Hoare, I'd endorse the views and writing of Douglas Murray, for example - but not all of them. I'm a subscriber to 'The Spectator,' where Douglas Murray often publishes.

 

This is mettaculture's comment on my use of the quotation from the blog 'Greater Surbiton:'

 

'In fact be very careful if you do not know the context you are being foolish. I did indeed state that I was not be prepared to be defamed as a racist. You should be aware of reproducing such libellous comments too.

'I do take action against baseless false accusations of racism. I kindly asked Socialist Unity to stop from reproducing defamatory accusations of racism and they did.

'If you think it is clever to falsely accuse people of racism then you are not being wise not at all wise.

 

'This person this prior would be defamer, for what it is worth, had personal issues with me and he was chastised for revealing my identity on HP. He did not seem to understand that some of us really are at personal risk from Islamists and their supporters.

 

'I think he never got over being told off. I would rather say that he was the bully thinking that an anonymous poster was a nameless loser who he could traduce with false accusations of racism.

 

'I am not a racist and I will not tolerate you or anyone else reproducing comments that state that I am without giving me the right to defend myself.

 

'Now is this perfectly clear to you?

 

'If it helps you to know that I am a barrister, then perhaps you might understand the waters you are wading in.

 

[dmra accused me of 'telling people who have long been valued contributors how they should conduct themselves' in a 'pompous manner' but do I detect a trace of pomposity in mettaculture's warning here? I did detect a trace of pomposity in an earlier comment of his, 'Oh of course you completely missed my cultural references!' He's referring to his 'fucking cunting fuck-cunts' and he's completely correct in one way. I completely missed the cultural references in 'fucking cunting fuck-cunts.' Back to mettaculture's warning to me.]

 

'I have no idea who you are, nor do I wish to. I have no inclination to engage with you or cause you harm.

I cannot understand your actions other than as someone who has come into a conversation, sided with the unconscionable (Jihadis who call for the death of homosexuals), and taken objection to the use of English profanities (which are incapable of being libellous, they are merely vulgar insult).

'Whether you picked a fight or are overly sensitive or are simply trolling for attention and traffic to your own website is of no real importance.

 

'It strikes me, however, that it is reasonably clear to an impartial observer who sees the whole picture, that rather than being some kind of defender of free speech and Internet free speech at that, that you are for whatever reasons, interested in persons and vindictive smearing of persons rather than in the actual substance of ideas and discussions.

'I will not allow you to defame me by further reproducing statements that are clearly libellous.

 

'Do you understand?

 

'I have taken screen shots of the full context so that no-one may be in any future doubt as to what transpired.

 

'It is you that now appear here with a thinly veiled threat to begin to dredge up and re-produce an old smear attempt, that you would do well to inform yourself of, that you are aware I consider (and it is a legally well informed opinion) defamatory.

 

'I sincerely hope that you reflect carefully upon this and do not drag yourself into further foolishness.

 

'The commenter who you seek to resurrect did not ultimately do well out of such pettiness posing as analysis. This had nothing to do with me rather more with the way that such actions were perceived by neutral observers.'

 

After reading all this, I could have asked, 'What do I do now? Beg for mercy?'

 

Martin Seymour-Smith, 'Guide to Modern World Literature:'

With the advent of the Second World War Edith Sitwell adopted a new, earnest, apocalyptic manner, which culminated in her (surely too triumphal) entry into the Roman Catholic Church in 1954 ... Edith Sitwell attempted to fuse the richness of Yeats, a grand high style, and the seventeenth-century complexity of such poets as Crashaw and Vaughan. The result is pretentious, vacuous, rhetorical, as at the beginning of 'Dirge for the New Sunrise' ... Rhapsodies of praise flowed from certain knighted cultural entrepreneurs but not from critics. These later effusions of Edith Sitwell - Dr Leavis, having been read one of them in a suitably lugubrious manner by an enthusiastic pupil, is supposed to have asked 'What do I do now? Ejaculate?' - are now for the most part unread. But the vigour of her early poetry, for all its emotional emptiness, should never be forgotten.'

 

This document of mettaculture's  doesn't worry me in the least. Does the barrister's brain of mettaculture register that I wrote, 'I'm not in a position to endorse his [Marko's] particular criticisms of mettaculture?' If mettaculture has failed to take legal action for libel against Marko Attila Hoare of Greater Surbiton then he certainly won't be taking legal action against me.

I'm not in the least bit worried about anything else mettaculture can do. (After his brief display of outrage, I've heard nothing further.)

 

Mettaculture posted seven comments on 'Harry's Place'  within a short time of this article first appearing here, including the one quoted above. This was ludicrous. He was posting these comments, including the one which conveys his barrister's expertise, in a section which has now disappeared from 'Harry's Place!' Although they've sprung up here.

 

He's welcome to publish his comments, including his outspoken criticisms of me, in the comments section of this page. But he has his own blog.

 

https://mettaculture.wordpress.com/

 

This is a very poor blog. It provides a few comments posted at 'Harry's Place' in January and June 2013. (Some of my comments at 'Harry's Place' and other sites are given in the section What's new, or was new: sections list of the page 'About this site.')

 

 His blog could be used for other purposes. For instance, why doesn't mettaculture respond to the allegations made at 'Greater Surbiton' on his blog? It seems an obvious thing to do. What's stopping him? He can't comment - or issue more warnings - in that thread at 'Harry's Place.' Comments are now closed at the thread.

 

Lamia rushed in to support metaculture (I don't claim that this is an instance of 'fools rush in where angels fear to tread.')

 

Lamia to me:

''Utterly extraordinary. If you are going to repeat such incredible accusations then I think you ought to say eho [try using the edit facility provided by Disqus] they are by - otherwise people might conclude that you have just made up a load of defamatory rubbish about mettaculture. I don't believe he has done any of that.'

 

Lamia was writing before I published the extraordinary comments which Marko alleges were written by mettaculture. There was an abrupt change at this point. A very strong reaction could have been expected from Lamia but in no time at all, Lamia went from shocked to weary.

 

Lamia to me:

 

' ... Paul, this argument is of only fading interest to myself and, I suspect, mettaculture ... '

 

To judge from mettaculture's response to this piece - seven emails in quick succession and clumsy attempts to intimidate by alluding to his power as a barrister - I don't think for one moment that mettaculture will have regarded the further publication here of the comments Marko alleges were written by mettaculture as 'of only fading interest.' Perhaps one person in a clique was trying to protect another person in the clique.

 

I haven't made up 'a load of defamatory rubbish' then. I've simply quoted from Marko's site. 

 

One very surprising fact. Sarah AB is one of the moderators at 'Harry's Place' (a very ineffective moderator) and a frequent contributor, of articles as well as comments at the site. She has a blog, 'Ariachne's Broken Woof: The Weblog of Sarah Annes Brown www.adjb.net/sab/  Sarah Brown is the Professor of English at Anglia Ruskin University. The blog gives a 'blogroll' of favourite or recommended sites. It's no surprise to find 'Harry's Place' listed. It certainly is a surprise to find the blog of Marko Attila Hoare listed.

 

Although mettaculture can dish it out, can he take it? This was his reaction when I informed him that I'd be writing this  piece. It's followed, after some comments of mine, by one of the seven posts he directed at me in a short time after the piece was published. A sign of panic, perhaps? He gives me a severe warning, 'If it helps you to know that I am a barrister, then perhaps you might understand the waters you are wading in.'

 

His reaction before seeing this piece:

 

'Oh yes please go ahead and quote me entirely out of context, it will not be the first time that has been done.

'I am sure that you can harvest a few profanities that all were in relation to the abuse of the concept of freedom of speech by Jihadists, Islamists and their apologists.

 

'If you cannot see that a person who is targeted for death (me, a gay man) by a pernicious ideology, for the sole reason that I exist, is, at the very least, entitled to express his contempt for their incitement for my murder (an actual abuse of free speech) by swearing at such malevolence, then there is something very, very, wrong with you.

 

'That you respond to my (simply vulgar) use of free speech by expressing a desire to 'shut me down' or 'expose me' via your little blog and say nothing about the actual incitement to murder that is routinely propagated by Jihadis and their apologists, puts you with in the ranks of Jihadi apologists and firmly with the enemies of both free speech, free association and the basic right to life that all people should expect to be, well basic rights.

 

'Rest assured however that those of us whose existence is threatened by Jihadist apologists abusing the concept and actuality of free speech will not allow ourselves to be cowed.

'Now please quote this. After all you are not a narrow social sectarian pushing your preferred ideology, you do support freedom of speech right?'

 

Another of the seven posts aimed in my general direction by mettaculture included this:

 

'If you wish to create a post that (because of its selective quoting) misrepresents HP then go ahead but it is your own reputation you are tarnishing.

 

'You have been treated to a great deal of reasoanbly polite interaction on this threas.' [Spelling as in the original.]

 

Well, by these relaxed standards, mettaculture might even describe a knee in the groin and a thump on the jaw as 'reasonably polite interaction.'

 

I do the best I can. I'm under no obligation to enhance the reputation of mettaculture but I do what I can to avoid distortion. If he imagines that I carry the entire burden of presenting the issues and quoting from the participants, then he's very much mistaken. I received this communication from him not long after stopping work on this section for the day. I'd already written a large proportion of what's here, after many hours of work. I'd done preparatory research well before dawn.

 

If  the outcome of my work isn't to his liking, then  mettaculture should collate the sources, do the writing and publish his account - in the comments section of this site, on 'Harry's Place' or on his own blog. If he doesn't care for the thesis, then he could make the effort and write his own anti-thesis.

 

I'm sure that mettaculture, a barrister, isn't in favour of a legal system where the defence team does all the work and has the responsibility of conducting the prosecution case as well, or the prosecution team does all the work and has the responsibility of conducting the defence.

I'm not in the least danger of ignoring the  strengths of 'Harry's Place.'  I'm not in the least danger of overlooking the fact that the poor comments of the people I criticize in this section are outweighed by others, far superior ones. After an exchange with Lamia on the subject of torture and the death penalty - I consider Lamia's views abhorrent - 'Kolya,' who no longer posts comments, defended Lamia and wrote about the quality of many of her comments. I agreed with him.

 
The profession of barrister has come a long way. In 1960, in the case R. v. Penguin Books Ltd, Mervyn Griffith-Jones was the prosecutor. Penguin Books was on trial for publishing D. H. Lawrence's 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' and the use of 'four letter words' in the book was part of the prosecution case. Prosecuting council came out with this gem: 'Would you approve of your young sons, young daughters - because girls can read as well as boys - reading this book? Is it a book you would have lying around your own house? Is it a book that you would even wish your wife or your servants to read?'

Now, in these very different times, another barrister comes out with 'fucking cunting fuck-cunts.' Will there be further loosening of the norms? Probably nothing to compare with the changes we've witnessed. I doubt if defence counsel will ever address prosecuting counsel using the words 'Fuck off, you cunt.' (At least, not in court.) Obviously, mettaculture wouldn't defend this language in this setting. I criticize the use of this kind of language in the setting of 'Harry's Place.' This is in accordance with my view of the site, as a prominent site for presentation of the pro-Israel case and for presentation of other distinctive views - and, I'd hope, a site which can promote responsible activism as well. Some commenters may have very different ideas.

We have the clash of two very different interpretations. If mettaculture's interpretation outweighs mine, then I'm hopelessly misguided, for my original objection to 'fucking cunting fuck-cunts' and for quoting (but not endorsing) the criticisms of Marko given next. He should remember that I criticized 'fucking cunting fuck-cunts' on various grounds, including its blurring of essential distinctions (as I see it) between Amnesty International and an Islamist person and organization. I know that dmra supports mettaculture's original statement and opposes my original objections. She may or may not support his later statements on the Marko criticisms.

 

I'm not a beginner as a polemicist. The image at the top of the Home Page gives 'Polemics' as one of the themes of the site. I've seen off far more formidable people than him.

 

As mettaculture is a barrister, there's perhaps a greater chance than usual that he understands Latin. If I could choose a motto for myself, it might be 'Nemo me impune lacessit.' 'Nobody harms me with impunity,' or 'Nobody harms me and gets away with it.'

 

Although my attitude is more complex than that. This is from my polemical page Crap and credulity:

 

' ... I'm a polemicist to a certain extent, no more. I'm not a born complainer. I've practically never complained about anything - inedible food, shoddy workmanship, or anything else. On the few occasions when I have, I've almost always regretted it, even if it could easily be justified. The critic's role comes much more easily to me than the role of complainer but I often have qualms. My criticism isn't relentless. For example, I contacted one person who had given the whole of 'The Daily Telegraph' online report on his Website, pointing out the errors in the report. I made a few critical comments on the person's Website on this page. Within a short time, I removed all reference to this person and his Website, simply because I had respect for his achievement, not any achievement in his Website, but the achievement of his business, which I thought was a courageous one, undertaken in very difficult circumstances. Later, one of his friends or colleagues contacted me to say that the material on me had been removed from his Website. I hadn't asked for it to be removed. I've never asked that anyone should remove - or alter - any material critical of me. He said that the Website would be closed down, owing to pressure of work.

 

I don't have vindictive feelings towards mettaculture or any of the other people criticized here in the least. I find mettaculture quite a sympathetic person - by which I don't mean, of course, sympathetic towards me. He seems much more amiable than Vildechaye. Other people's experience of him may be very different from mine. I considered removing all the material on him here. I think it's best if it stays, for the time being at least. I'm not going to do anything offensive with it.  I think his response was very reckless and that he could do himself real damage if he tries anything at all similar in the future. The material here may possibly deter him from trying it on in the future with people more ruthless than me. This isn't intended to be condescending, and this is obviously based on hypothetical suppositions, but it seems to me that it's in his own interest that he doesn't attempt anything similar in the future.

 

When I found, from my infrequent looks at 'Harry's Place,' that he hadn't contributed a comment for quite a time, I actually began to get very worried about him. I thought it likely that the material here had had an effect on him, and sent this email to Sarah AB, moderator at 'Harry's Place:'

 

Not long after I'd removed his real name, he posted this at 'Harry's Place:'

 

'I have just spent the last three weeks in Turkey (hence my non appearance)' and 'I had a great time. I attended both a gay event (several in fact) and the Istanbul film festival.'

 

He refers to visiting Turkey and there are Turkish associations in the piece which Mark Attila Hoare alleges was written by mettaculture and which was directed at him, but obviously I don't claim that this is proof that mettaculture did write the piece:

 

mettaculture regards me as a Jihadi apologist, an enemy of free speech and someone indifferent to the plight of homosexuals.  I'd previously given this information in a reply to him  (If he never read it, it's not my fault):

 

'I'm not gay but I've opposed Islamist views of gay people in very forthright tones in public at various times. I attended a debate organized by the Palestine Society at one of the city's universities not so long ago and spoke. One of the things I mentioned was the plight of gay people in Gaza (as you probably know, homosexuality isn't illegal in the West Bank.) In the days before the debate, I contacted members of the LGBT society committee at the university urging them to attend the debate too if at all possible, giving reasons.

'You write about 'the festering climate of anti-semitic and homophobic hate that is growing unchecked' thanks to people like me. Your allegation parts company with reality.'

Well before he wrote that, I'd posted a comment on 'Harry's Place' which included a quote, a plea by 'Mitchell' for freedom of speech and for the rights of homosexuals in opposition to the views of Haitham al-Haddad:

 

'The liberal principles cultivated in the West will not be sent to the moral mass grave of Islamic ‘values.’ We will not capitulate to unreasonableness, and we pride ourselves on the enlightenment values of Mill, Voltaire and Shelley. Alan Turing, Steven Fry, Douglas Murray ... these men are of solid moral fibre and to condemn how they love [Mitchell is wrong in supposing that all of these are or were homosexual - the first three weren't] is to make a mockery of anything a decent religion would stand for. Churchill spoke of the retrograde nature of Islamism. Second class citizenship for homosexuals will not cut it. Your right to your opinion is there, but if you wish to flex your theocratic muscles, please do it to the tune of masturbating Ayotollahs and 
fawning Sheikhs, for you will not mobilise your totalitarian forces on the shores of rational, liberal democracy. I urge you to embrace the principles that built the World Trade Centre rather than the world-view that toppled it.'

 

I include the whole comment, including this quotation, on the page 'About this site' which gives a selection of my comments at 'Harry's Place.' It has the title Banning extremist speakers (1).

Polemics are only one facet of this site. Technical discussion with a degree of rigour is very, very important to me. I'd claim that my page Metaphor and {theme} is an example. If people like Eleanor Turney and 'Lorelei' write condescending crap about me, ' 'Oh dearie me, someone needs metaphor explaining' then they can expect some sort of polemical response. They duly received a response, in the section The first casualties of the page 'Crap and credulity,' and by other means, as did 'Macheath,' who wrote, 'The concept of metaphor, or of extended imagery, seems to have passed him by ... ' (In the case of Macheath at least, there was appreciation as well as criticism.) Putting my name and metaphor into Google would have given them evidence in no time at all that I wasn't completely ignorant of metaphor.

 
dmra added a comment to the comments page linked to this page to complain that 'I'd described her as 'irritating' but that I'd failed to give any evidence.  I replied. I could have added that when people use a mild word like 'irritating' or a less mild word like 'dickhead,' they don't always provide evidence, exhaustive or otherwise. She'll find that Vildechaye didn't produce the evidence for the claim that a commenter at 'Harry's Place' is a 'lying sack of shit.'

Vildechaye and mettaculture seem to me by far the most far-gone of the people criticized in this section, whilst dmra is 'sensible' and 'moderate,' even if she doesn't seem to object to Vildechaye's not overwhelmingly sensible and moderate comments or quite a number of other comments aimed at me during the dispute. She does concede (in one of her replies to me) that 'some of the comments may have crossed the line slightly.' She doesn't give any examples, but perhaps she'd concede that  ''You need to remove whatever is jamming up your pompous arsehole and piss off' is a comment that 'may have crossed the line slightly.' In general, dmra is quite an impressive commenter, but not during this dispute, I think.

 

Far-gone people are often strong, but I don't think that Vildechaye and mettaculture are strong, not in this dispute. There's a pathos in pathetic or partly pathetic people like Vildechaye and mettaculture (not in the least pathetic in many ways). I think of this (it was used by Tolstoy in 'War and Peace,' Chapter XXVIII):

'Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner.'

'To understand all is to forgive all' [but not always.]

 

Sarah AB suggested during the dispute that Vildechaye's 'fucking cunting cunt-fucks would have been a nicely chiastic alternative' to the formulation in the original comment of mettaculture, 'fucking cunting fuck-cunts.'

 

Sarah AB is Sarah Annes Brown,  Professor of English at Anglia Ruskin University. Her real name was given at 'Harry's Place'' years before I mentioned it. (KBPlayer's article above the line, December 20, 2013.)

 

She has a blog, but there's a vast gulf between the blog's promise and fulfilment. The list of topics on the archive page is promising

 http://www.adjb.net/sab/archives.php?showall=1

 

but clicking on any of them leads to this error message, time after time:

 

500 - Internal server error.
There is a problem with the resource you are looking for, and it cannot be displayed.

 

There may be a simple explanation for these errors, but for the time being, the blog is almost unusable. Some of the  content isn't relevant to people in my circumstances. This, for example:

 

'06/29/07
It’s nearly holiday time so this is simply a (disinterested) plug for a UK hotel group, ’Luxury Family Hotels’, which is good (but quite expensive) if you have children.

'We discovered Luxury Family Hotels when our son (now 9) was a toddler. Further details of all their current properti ' (the blog gives no further information, but it can be stated, with a high degree of confidence, that  'properti' is short for  'properties.')

 

There's also this, on another aspect of Fine Living:

 

05/20/07
I went to Paris last week with Alex to continue our investigation of France’s grandes tables. Our last such outing was to the memorable Guy Savoy. This time we decided to try Alain Passard’s controversial L’Arpège.'

 

A normblog profile - a set of answers to questions - gives this as the answer to the question, 'What would your ideal holiday be?' 'A leisurely tour of French Relais et Chateaux hotels and/or Michelin-starred restaurants.' This answer, with other answers:

 

http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2009/09/the-normblog-profile-313-sarah-annes-brown.html

 

I do, though, have a strong interest in cooking, including French cooking, although only in the cooking which is vegetarian or can be adapted to a vegetarian diet. My collection includes a few books on French cooking: part of Michel Guérard's 'Cuisine Gourmande' (the systematic section 'The Principal Methods of Cooking' - I threw away the rest of the book to save space), Anne Willan's 'French Regional Cooking' and the two very thorough treatises, Volume I and II of 'Mastering the Art of French Cooking' by Simone Beck and Julia Child, which are often not just thorough but excessively thorough. Examples. On beating eggs during the making of the omelette: '30 to 40 vigorous strokes should be sufficient.' Practising the technique needed to make 'L' omelette Roulée by practising outdoors with half a cupful of dried beans. But when I do make an omelette, I follow consciously the general method of the book's directions for making 'L' Omelette Brouillée.'

 

The only posts given in full date from June - August, 2012. The blog seems to have been abandoned after that time. Clicking on the list at the bottom of the page to view  earlier pages leads to the error message.

 

I've come to some conclusions about Sarah AB but they're tentative and provisional, based on what I've been able to read of her blog, which isn't very much. Her life is a very pleasant one. I wouldn't say that it's lived under cloudless skies, but only because it seems to be an indoors life, in which agreeable academic conferences figure prominently.  (The Normblog profile gives in answer to the question 'What commonly enjoyed activities do you regard as a waste of time?' this: 'Country walks.') The academic conferences are nothing like the tedious, time-wasting exercises in futility which anti-academic generalizers mistakenly claim are the norm. In the main, they seem full of interest, for anyone with an interest in the field. Her comments are generally interesting too, but don't often go deep. Ovid, one of her cultural heroes, isn't an unexpected choice. This is a poet whose work I don't know well, although I translated sections of the 'Metamorphoses.' (The site includes one translation of a poem in Latin, not by Ovid but Horace - the translation of 'Carmina' 1, 34, after my discussion of Seamus Heaney's version, on the page Seamus Heaney: translations and versions.)

 

Chris Wurster on the superficiality he finds in Ovid's poetry:

 

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/lithum/gallo/wurster.html

 

From Teresa Ramsby's review of her book 'The Metamorphosis of Ovid: From Chaucer to Ted Hughes.' (Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2000.03.30):

 

' ... her treatment of the material is sophisticated and well informed by past and current scholarship. Brown displays a masterful understanding of the Ovidian canon and the importance of Ovid's influence on some of the West's most cherished literature. In addition, Brown's work makes the important contribution of effacing that boundary between the disciplines of Classics and English and Comparative Literature, so that we can hope for more works in the future that trace the influences and communications between the works of antiquity and those of modern times. I highly recommend The Metamorphosis of Ovid.'

 

In my page on Rilke and Kafka, I refer to the 'surface profundity' of Rilke. I think that Sarah AB's blog calls for another complex, such as 'intelligent semi-superficiality.' Her writings at 'Harry's Place' are available in greater quantity and share much the same qualities, I think. It's possible that I'd need to revise my view in some ways if I read the books she's written or edited, such as her book on Ovid and the one 'Tragedy in transition.'

 

She declares herself a feminist. One view not in need of possible need of {modification} is the view that her feminism is one of the familiar forms of academic feminism, not one which has made the effort to understand and appreciate the skills and the hard physical work of such people as miners, quarrymen, bricklayers, roofers. My page on feminism stresses among other things the material conditions of life.

 

The Disqus archive of mettaculture's  comments, which gives them all, leaves no room for doubt about one matter, I think - he's an intelligent man. I can't reconcile his better writing with the very poor comments he sometimes writes. The contradictions of mettaculture, like the contradictions of vildechaye and the others I criticize in this section, are very striking, instances of one of the central concerns of the site, referred to in the  Home Page, 'Linkage and contrast provide a powerful way of viewing human personality in its frequent mixture of strength and weakness and the often grotesque contradictions to be found in societies ... ' From my page Aphorisms: 'As for human nature, human strengths and weaknesses, be surprised by nothing.'

 

Just as I defend Amnesty International, despite its severe faults (quotations given below) and the Labour Party (even though I vote Conservative) despite its severe faults, I defend mettaculture and vildechaye despite their severe faults, and the others, whose faults are less serious, as I see it. I defend 'Harry's Place,' despite its faults. I oppose the reflex response, confusion of the part with the whole, rejection of the whole on account of the faultiness of a part (but sometimes, the faults in a part are good reason to reject the whole.) This tendency is common enough in 'Harry's Place' and very common in other places. This isn't to claim that people and organizations with serious faults emerge with reputation not affected in the least. Serious damage can't usually be concealed.

 

In all these instances, the question has to be asked, 'Do the faults outweigh the strengths or do the strengths outweigh the faults?' I discuss my use of outweighing in the page 'Ethics: theory and practice' (the middle column.) Outweighing has more general application, though.

The BBC is criticized on this page but the BBC is yet another organization not to be dismissed on account of its faults, such as its grossly biased coverage of Israel's 'Operation Protective Edge' against Gaza, and Israeli issues in general. The BBC is  deeply impressive as well as deeply flawed. To give just a few examples of its deeply impressive broadcasting: the programmes broadcast on Holocaust Memorial Day 2015 to mark the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau.

 

There's not much about 'Harry's Place' which can be called deeply impressive, but the strengths just about outweigh  the glaring faults.

 

The comment of mettaculture that led to the conflict I discuss here, 'fucking cunting fuck-cunts' (applied to Amnesty International and other organizations, extremist or badly misguided) can be objected to for  various reasons. One is that it's the product of lazy-minded thinking. Coming out with a statement like that takes next to no thought.

 

At least I exert myself. I loathe bullfighting but instead of simply writing 'Fuck bullfighting' I've written close to 100,000 words on Bullfighting: arguments against and action against.  I loathe the bullfighter Alexander Fiske-Harrison but instead of writing 'Fuck Fiske-Harrison' and leaving it at that, I've given a detailed demolition of his views and actions. I loathe the writing of  A L Kennedy on bullfighting, whilst admiring some of her writing on other subjects. I've devoted an extensive page to appreciation of her as well as criticism.

 

I oppose feminism, particularly radical feminism, but instead of just saying 'Fuck feminism,' again, I've written close to 100,000 words on Feminist ideology. When I'm sarcastic, it's not as a substitute for analysis and I use sarcasm in a way which involves some inventiveness at least. I'd claim this for the material on Triona Kennedy at the top of the anti-feminist page.

 

When I'm ridiculed in 'Harry's Place,' I don't say, 'Fuck you, Harry's Place,' I write this critical piece, which doesn't include nearly enough appreciation for 'Harry's Place' but which includes some. I don't in the least claim that a long discussion is always necessary. Again and again, I've been impressed by short, sometimes very short, comments in 'Harry's Place,' including comments by people I criticize in this section. I wasn't in the least impressed by 'fucking cunting fucking-cunts.' This was a comment that needed to be longer, much longer, to do justice to the issues. A dismissal of Amnesty International should have been argued for, with evidence.

 

mettaculture mentions 'traffic' to this site as a possible motive for my comments on 'Harry's Place.' Google has been good to me, very good. The site has very high rankings for a large number of search terms. But people who write simply to achieve high rankings don't achieve them. I write about matters which interest me and of which I have knowledge. Rankings can take care of themselves.

 

My page on Israel, Islamism and Palestinian ideology, topics discussed at  'Harry's Place' also, but not the only topics, will never be able to compete with 'Harry's Place' for comprehensiveness, or in most other ways. In my page I've devoted a very great deal of space to profiles of academic and non-academic anti-Israel-pro-Palestinian people. This was to support my campaigning against these people. I've emailed almost all of them - but not  the Palestinian supporters murdered by Islamists.  I wanted to do what I could to deter future academic and non-academic action against Israel, such as boycotts. I knew that there would be next to no benefit for the site's rankings in Google. I expected only a few people to want to read my profile of Dick Pitt, emeritus, formerly of Sheffield Hallam University or the Sheffield Quaker Gordon Ferguson, for example, or any of the other profiles for that matter. Activism is that important to me. If I were going all out for higher rankings, I wouldn't have spent all that time doing the necessary research and writing the profiles. There are other sections on the page which are likely to benefit rankings for the site only slightly, ones concerned with local issues - the section on the Showroom cinema, Sheffield, and on the Sheffield Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

 

Nobody sets out with the ambition of achieving success in Google rankings by writing about line length in poetry. I certainly didn't. The very high rankings in Google for search terms to do with line length in poetry have been completely unexpected.

 

Instead of patiently adding content to his blog, mettaculture has chosen the easier way - posting comments on the high-profile site 'Harry's Place,' where his comments will be read by many, many people. I've chosen to patiently add content to my Website. When I wrote comments for 'Harry's Place,' far, far fewer than mettaculture's, it was for tactical reasons, such as arguing for changes to 'Harry's Place,' so that 'Harry's Place' became less of a talking shop (even if the pleasurable chatting is quite often high quality chatting),  less self-indulgent in the war of words.

 

I'm sure that mettaculture overlooks one very important fact. I didn't set out to achieve temporary prominence in 'Harry's Place.' I made a  point about a phrase but one thing led to another. Very quickly, there were more and more criticisms and accusations. I defended myself vigorously and called upon any evidence I thought would be useful at the time, which led to such unlikely exchanges as ones on sarcastic and humorous poetry.

 

Faced by comments like this one of 'Colin,' ' ... the depressing reality that PH is a dwarf of culture and intelligence' I stood up for myself, using evidence from different sources. Before all this, I'd commented at 'Harry's Place' only on a few occasions (I intend to comment in the future much more rarely - never, or practically never.) I commented many, many times during this dispute, but not for any reason to do with 'traffic to the site.'

 

If I'd conceded defeat at an early stage, none of this would have happened but I was determined to oppose the accusations and criticisms. Some of them were completely bizarre. To laugh them off or treat them lightly would have been wrong. If some people want to escape boredom or want to escape the difficulties of their lives for a short time by posting a childish comment on me I see no reason to humour them. If they want to have fun - or forget the realities of their lives - there are many other ways of going about it. I don't see any reason why it should be at my expense.

 

Some statistics. At the time of writing, Vildechaye has contributed 14,091 Disqus comments, mettaculture 5,581 and Lamia has contributed 7,728. All or almost all of these were posted at 'Harry's Place.'  I've contributed 120. It would have been far, far fewer if it hadn't been for this dispute.

 

Time to quote some more comments made during the dispute, from a wider range of commenters.

 

I'm tired of the laziness of some commenters at 'Harry's Place.' That's why I objected to this comment. Anton Deque to Guest, in a comment beginning with a quotation:

 

' "Anyway I am waffling."

 

No comment.'

 

PH to Anton Deque:

 

'You're obviously taking the easy way out. Are you that lazy? If you object to the statement 'Anyway I am waffling' in the comment of this guest, then at least take the trouble to explain why you find the statement (or the entire comment) not to your liking. Don't just write, 'No comment.' There are worse examples than this, but too many commentators on the Web seem to take the instant and effortless route to superiority (supposed superiority, that is): a few quick words are all that's needed.'

 

Colin to Jacob Arnon:

 

'Naughty, naughty word association. Obama says stop it.'

 

Jacob Arnon to Colin:

 

'Who is Obama?'

 

Which barely counts as facile.

 

amie to PH:

 

'Are you a FOE* by any chance? Your pearl clutching (as another commenter was wont to call it) prompts the question *(friend of another person who can't abide profanity.)'

 

PH to amie:

 

'A weird and pointless comment, to me anyway. What weird and pointless and time-wasting little games a few 'Harry's Place' regulars seem to enjoy so much. If you're trying to make a clumsy suggestion that I can't abide what you call 'profanity,' (an old-fashioned word) then you're badly mistaken. This poem of mine was published in 'Krax,' the magazine of humorous poetry ... ' [Followed by the poem and  discussion of the poem. It's published on this site too, in the section 'Humour and sarcasm' of the page Poems.]

 

Another weird and pointless comment.

 

Ludwig the Terrible to me:

 

'Silence, you mewling quim!

Hey, I enjoyed that :)'

 

Andrea Collins to me:

 

'Quim' obscure?'

 

Ludwig the Terrible to Andrea:

 

'He hasn't seen 'The Avengers,' obviously.'

 

I replied.  I was probably mistaken. Better not to have wasted my time.

 

PH to Andrea Collins:

 

'Sorry. Not a word we use here in Sheffield, South Yorkshire. Never heard of it before now.'

 

Edward Tring to me:

 

'Look in the mirror. You're one.

 

PH to Edward Tring:

 

'Your comment is facile and instantly forgettable, to me at least. Why do you bother?'

 

I didn't look up 'Quim' at the time. The 'Urban Dictionary' gives this:

 

'The noun quim was a Victorian-era word that was used specifically to refer to the fluids produced by the vagina, specifically during orgasm. In modern usage it is primarily heard in British slang and is a derogatory or vulgar term for the vagina itself.'

 

This is a comment on 'mewling quim' from the blog 'Britishisms:'

 

'It deals with a moment in the new film “The Avengers”–written by the Americans Joss Whedon and Zak Penn–when Loki addresses Black Widow with the two-word epithet that’s the title of this post. Loki hails from outer space (John informs me) but, perhaps significantly,  is played by a British actor. John writes:

 

'this is possibly the most offensive line in the film, beyond even Wolverine’s in X-Men: First Class. It is just that some people aren’t too familiar with the derivation. In more modern English, this would be “whining cunt”. In American English, “cunt” is generally used as a misogynistic insult, mostly used against women, insulting their very nature of being female. British English doesn’t use the female-specific aspect of this in an insult, which loses much of the mysogynistic tone. Indeed, it’s more likely to be used against a man, an exaggerated form of “wanker”. But “quim”, though rarely used, is done so in a misogynist fashion.'

A response from on 'Britishisms' by Mark Leavitt on 'mewling:'

 

Mewling comes down to us from Shakespeare’s monologue, “All the World’s a stage, ” in which appears the line: “Mewling and puking in his nurse’s arms.” It refers to the restless sounds a hungry or uncomfortable baby makes.'

 

This monologue of Jaques in 'As you like it' (Act II Scene VII) is familiar to me.

 

The response of JRock:

 

'“quim” is not as common as “cunt” in the US. It is as foreign as Mandarin to most. The only reason it passed censorship scrutiny is that no one knows what the hell it means stateside.'

 

The response of Rob:

 

'Quim seems such an archaic word to me. I honestly don’t think a lot of Brits would even know what it means. I’ve never heard anyone using it in any part of the UK ... '

 

Back to 'Harry's Place.' A futile interchange between two commenters. Colin to mettaculture:

 

'I have a suspicion that PH is figment of your imagination - invented by you to make you appear a towering giant of culture and intelligence.'

 

mettaculture to Colin:

 

'Now there was me thinking that PH is one of your sock puppets.'

 

mettaculture, now at his most high-minded, to colin. This is a moment to be treasured:

 

'I can truthfully swear that I have never created a sock puppet either as a foil or a promoter of myself.

 

'I have never created avatars for such a purpose.

 

'It is quite difficult enough dealing with the disconnected weirdness of so many e-avatars. I see no point in making them.

 

'No I have very old fashioned Socratic ideas of the importance of the unexamined life.

 

'I blog in order to meet those in the Agora who wish to discuss ideas.

 

'Thats it.'

 

The gulf between the ideal - 'The unexamined life is not worth living' - and the reality, at least in this part of the site - moronic and semi-moronic time-wasting - is immense.

 

Yet another weird and pointless comment.

 

Lamia to amie:

 

'Hahaha. It took me a little while, but I have just got it.

'Do you have a shrine to Laurie Penny in your bedroom, Paul?'

 

PH to Lamia:

 

'Ah, this is Lamia the humourist in action, rather than Lamia the scourge or Lamia the thinker!

 

'All I know about Laurie Penny is that she's a feminist. For my views on feminism (against) see my page on the subject 
www.linkagenet.com/themes/femi... '

 

I was wrong about one thing. This wasn't Lamia as humourist but Lamia as pathetic.

 

I looked up Laurie Penny later. She's the mind behind the blog 'Penny Red: every human heart is a revolutionary cell'

 

http://pennyred.blogspot.co.uk/

 

where she describes herself as 'feminist, socialist, utopian ... ' (not a description I find in the least bit endearing or attractive. I'm not just anti-feminist but anti-socialist and anti-utopian as well.')

Now she has a new, unimproved site

 

http://laurie-penny.com/

 

One of the articles on offer is 'Fifty shades of socialist feminism.'

 

I'm anti-socialist, but it depends what you mean by socialism. I detest smug socialism,  but not the socialism which worked so hard for fair treatment of workers during the very long period when working conditions were atrocious, intolerable, the socialism which took full account of many other realities. My anti-feminist page has a great deal on the men and women, boys and girls in the mines of this country. (I point out that after 1842, it was only men and boys who toiled underground - an inconvenient fact for feminists.)

David Thompson has a very good page on Ms Penny.

 

http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2011/01/the-penny-hasnt-dropped.html

 

He writes:

 

Back to my issues. One of the moderators of the site intervened, obviously not because she recognized that things were getting out of hand and to stop the site becoming a complete madhouse but to inject a little more madness. Her comment left me more mystified than ever.

 

Sarah AB to me:

 

'To explain, it is suspected (probably not seriously) that you are Michael Ezra, who is famous for hating swearing, voting for Ken, and liking Laurie Penny ... '

 

Famous? I'd never heard of him. If 'Ken' here is Ken Livingstone, then I'd never vote for him and I'm not in a position to vote for him, any more than for George Galloway. I haven't the patience to find out more about Michael Ezra. Finding out more about Laurie Penny was more than enough. This glimpse into a private world of fixations on Laurie Penny and other delusions was more than enough.

 

Sarah AB is generally a very 'sensible' writer, one of the many moderate writers at 'Harry's Place' (unfortunately, moderate and sensible writers often have very little insight into people very different from themselves.) Some people would accuse her of taking moderation to extremes. This is Sarah AB writing effectively (with mentions of mettaculture and vildechaye, as it happens - the piece has the title 'A response (or perhaps a metaresponse - to mettaculture):

 

http://hurryupharry.org/2012/11/25/a-response-or-perhaps-a-metaresponse-to-mettaculture/

 

The striking thing in Sarah AB's comment is 'probably not seriously.' If anybody takes the claim that I'm Michael Ezra seriously, this is almost as mad as the average conspiracy theory. Secularists - you too can be barking mad. What's that I hear coming from 'Harry's Place?'

 

A libertarian comments policy doesn't entail a complete lack of effective moderation. Moderation is about far more than censoring and deleting. Moderators can intervene and calm things down when they've got out of hand, moderators can address obnoxious behaviour without needing to act like nightclub bouncers and throw people out regularly.

 

Occasionally, moderators may need to get rid of people, just as a site may need to get rid of useless moderators.

Sarah AB should have got a grip before time-wasting and space-wasting digressions got out of hand - for instance the ones involving Laurie Penny, Michael Ezra, the mewling quin and PH as a dwarf of culture and intellect. All I did was respond and point out the ridiculousness of the points. A good moderator would have intervened to end the dispute. From time to time the Speaker of the House of Commons calls out 'Order! Order." Sarah AB is a poor moderator of the site and an often lacklustre contributor of articles above-the-line. There's a case for saying that Sarah AB should be sacked/fired/deprived of this outlet, except as a generally lacklustre commenter below-the-line/deprived of her sinecure/given every opportunity to spend more time with Ovid - obviously with thanks for her 'contributions to the site over the years.'

 

Sarah AB did intervene, eventually, but not in the least effectively.

 

Sarah AB to me:

 

' 'Any chance of a comment from one of the mods of this site on mettaculture's 'fucking cunting fuck-cunts?' ' It was a bit repetitive I guess.'

 

Sarah AB to KBPlayer:

 

'fucking cunting cunt-fucks would have been a nicely chiastic alternative.'

 

A comment on the rhetorical form chiasmus doesn't do justice to the objections to the original comment.

 

To give some background information on Lamia, another prolific commenter at 'Harry's Place' and for a time quite a prolific commenter on me. I'd previously had some exchanges with Lamia. I give some information on the page 'About this site,' in the section Torturing and executing. As I mention there, I only found out later that Lamia is female, not male. Nobody put me right at the time. This is another disadvantage of anonymity - for more on this, there's Website and blog comments: the veil of anonymity on this page.

 

Before disputing with me and whilst disputing with me, Lamia found the time to dispute with someone else. One comment, not directed at me:

 

'Go and get mental treatment ...'

 

And,

 

'Fuck off you insane troll.'

 

Someone thought Lamia was telling me to fuck off. She explained that she was telling a 'guest' on the site to fuck off. Later, Lamia explained that she never used the phrase at all:

'Fuck off, you insane troll' was posted by my eleven year old niece using my handle while I was out of the room.'

 

Anyone who has read a great many comments on 'Harry's Place' will have come upon 'Fuck off' or 'fucking' many times. It doesn't have the least shock value to come upon it again. This is language which has largely lost its vigorous or vital or visceral qualities. It doesn't take the least imagination or inventiveness to come up with it.

 

These are people  who have a genuine concern for Israel and a genuine opposition to Islamism, but, rightly or wrongly, I think that some of them are people who are self-indulgent. Spending time in the talking shop which is 'Harry's Place.' (it's also far more than a talking shop) posting comments of the childish kind is congenial to them.

 

I have a strenuous attitude to campaigning. Anyone who takes part in  counter-demonstrations, as I do (ones I've arranged myself) would get nowhere if they simply said to the opposition 'Fuck off!' Granted, people tend to have very different identities, but I regard using 'fuck off' or 'fucking' on a site like 'Harry's Place' as counter-productive. It can alienate visitors to the site who aren't prim and proper in the least but don't like the language or who see no need for the language on the site, who think that the language adds nothing and has no advantage.

 

When I saw this comment on 'Harry's Place' and posted a reply, it was the start of a process of recriminations directed at me which has fundamentally altered my attitude to the site. The comment was posted by mettaculture in reply to this comment of Barad:

 

'Apologies for pointless profanity but feck Begg, Cage, Amnesty and the Quakers. If there turns out to be a hell, I hope they all burn in it for a long, long time.'

 

mettaculture to Barad:

 

'Why apologize? profanity is not pointless in relation to these fucking cunting fuck-cunts.'

 

Barad's comment and mettaculture's comment are hopeless, classing  Amnesty International with the apologists for Islamist extremism Begg and Cage, all of them supposed to be 'fucking cunting fuck-cunts' or to burn in hell 'for a long, long time.'

 

An interchange in a later thread, 'Class conflict in IS?' after mention of the first Western woman to be killed fighting IS.

 

Barad to mirax:

 

'Contrast with the three "British" whores for ISIS who Sky, BBC et al are so convinced we all want back since they went "missing".'

 

Edward Tring to Barad: 

 

'Not sure 'whores' is the right word to use, as we have no proof that they are willingly having sex with murderers/perverts/scum for cash. What's the word for Muslim low life who shag other Muslim low life for free? Can we get Oxford University to adjudicate for its next dictionary? Is Islamosluts a neologism? '

 

Jurek Molnar to Barad:

 

 'I strongly recommend not to engage in such a language.

 

Jurek Molnar to Barad:

 

'  ... I can see no reason to call them "whores".
A derogatory term does not change the reality of their departure and their lunatic frame of mind.
To despise them does not mean to engage in language that is simply dehumanizing them. That is something we should avoid, in my humble opinion.'

 

As usual, it was left to commenters to do moderator's work. I've no sympathy for the three girls but Barad was wrong, very wrong, to describe them in the way he did.

 

Back to this thread. I replied to mettaculture:

 

'Any chance of a comment from one of the moderators of this site on mettaculture's 'fucking cunting fuck-cunts?' Does the site still have moderators? If they do exist, I only hope Vildechaye isn't one of them.'

 

The interchange that followed:

 

mettaculture to me:

 

'Oh of course you completely missed my cultural references! The phraseology that you are so scandelighted by is from 'Jerry Springer the Opera' ('with a reflexive nod to Trainspotting').

 

Such a shame that the level of contemporary cultural awareness is deteriorating due to the contaminating influence of Gilbert and Sullivan and those long running musicals at Cambridge Circus, absolutely dreadful middlebrow dreck.'

Not quite a defence of high culture rather than middlebrow culture, of course.

 

PH to mettaculture:

 

'Are you saying that my level of cultural awareness is poor, just because I don't know anything about 'Jerry Springer the Opera? A person's cultural awareness can't possibly be all-inclusive. My own cultural interests are in literature rather tha music (although I've never read Irvine Welsh's 'Trainspotting.') Even so, my musical interests are wide, including opera (particularly the operas of Mozart), chamber music and orchestral music. I've played in various string quartets and orchestras. None of the works I've played have been 'dreadful middlebrow dreck.'

 

mettaculture to me:

 

'Ah you want the profanity Police censors do you? I am sure that avoiding nasty words will make you feel very safe.

'As a gay man I no longer feel safe from Jihadi and their fucking apologists. My profanity is reserved for Jihadis and their apologists.

 

'But you prefer to condemn my use of words found in the Harraps dictionary of slang rather than the festering climate of anti-semitic and homophobic hate that is growing unchecked thanks to people like you.

 

'Congratulations for acting so prissily maiden auntish in hte [sic] face of hatred and incitement.

 

'Well done. God knows what goes on in your rotting brain but someone has 'to tell um that you aint got no cerebelum.'

PH to mettaculture:

 

'Obviously, just because words can be found in a dictionary doesn't mean that their use is a good idea in some circumstances. Calling someone 'a festering turd' or 'fucking scumbag isn't always a good idea, for instance ... '

 

And a further reply, PH to mettaculture:

 

''Don't be ridiculous. I'm not offended by what you call 'nasty words.' I've no interest in censoring at all. I just think language like that is counter-productive on this site. My view is pragmatic.'

 

'As for not having 'no cerebelum,' this should be 'no cerebrum,' the site of consciousness, and whilst I'm at it, 'cerebelum' has the spelling 'cerebellum.'

 

Vildechaye to Emma Elder on spelling:

 

'learn to spell, then learn to think.'

 

PH to mettaculture:

 

'Barad's equating Amnesty International and the Quakers with Begg and Cage is beneath contempt. I know all about Amnesty International's and the Quaker's bias against Israel and detest their bias but Barad (and obviously Met) don't seem able to grasp the point that organizations, like people, can be badly wrong about one thing or many things but still have strengths. Amnesty International's work is impressive in so many ways. Its bias against Israel is on the debit side but failures and weaknesses don't necessarily cancel strengths, leaving the person or organization with nothing to their credit at all.'

 

This is information about Amnesty International's Urgent Action Network, action for people in immediate danger.

 

This is just one Urgent Action case from the Amnesty International files:

 

 

'Please write immediately in Persian, Arabic, English or your own language:

 

*Calling on the Iranian authorities to overturn Arzhang Davoodi’s death sentence;

* Calling on them to release Arzhang Davoodi immediately and unconditionally, as he is a prisoner of conscience, held solely for the peaceful exercise of his right to freedom of expression;

* Reminding them that under international law, the death penalty can be imposed only for “the most serious crimes”, interpreted as “intentional killing” and after proceedings that comply with the most rigorous internationally recognized standards for fair trial.

 

The page Urgent Actions Q&A,

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/sites/default/files/urgent_actions_q_and_a.pdf

 

gives good, sensible, realistic advice on specifics, far removed from the self-indulgent time-wasting of some 'Harry's Place' commenters. Reading the complete page is highly recommended. It includes interesting material on the disadvantages of emails for some Amnesty International work. The advantages of hand-written letters are mentioned. Harry's Place and other sites with similar objectives (not at all similar in some other ways, I'm glad to say): Amnesty International gives a superb model to imitate and use - Amnesty International's generally thorough, meticulous provision of background information as well as useful practical information for contacting people and organizations in positions of power, whether the power is enormous or comparatively small. (I make completely clear my opposition in general to one aspect of Amnesty's work, its work on Israel and Palestinian issues.)

 

I acknowledge some difficulties. When I was a member of Amnesty International, I produced a document on campaigning techniques and spoke in favour of a motion I'd formulated at an Amnesty International AGM, on campaigning techniques. I made the point that Amnesty International needed to scrutinize the campaigning techniques it used. Some were demonstrably ineffective. I pointed out that if Amnesty International had existed in the 1930's, it would have organized letter-writing to Dr Goebbels and other Nazis, along the lines, 'Dear Dr Goebbels, we are concerned about the imprisonment without charge of ... We regard him/her as a prisoner of conscience and call for his/her unconditional release.' But these Nazis were completely beyond persuasion. Amnesty International's distinctive methods are often very successful, but are sometimes unrealistic. What works in some circumstances may not work in others: hence the massive importance of military strength for this country and other democracies.

 

At the same AGM (held in Edinburgh) I spoke on human rights abuses in China and the need for Amnesty International to give greater priority to opposing these abuses. At a previous AGM, a motion I'd formulated on anti-personnel mines was presented, although I didn't speak on the motion (at the time, Amnesty International didn't have a policy on anti-personnel mines.) All these motions were passed overwhelmingly but I can't claim that they were implemented conscientiously.

 

How easily personal setbacks and difficulties which were important at the time can recede and become insignificant. I remember now that I almost didn't make it to the Edinburgh Amnesty International AGM. The vehicle I have now, a Citroen Berlingo white van, is the only one I've owned up to modern standards of reliability. I couldn't afford anything but cheap cars. The car I was driving to Edinburgh wasn't the least reliable - my first car was much, much worse - but it kept stopping and the fact that it kept stopping in the picturesque Yorkshire dales. was no consolation. I realized what was the cause - a blocked fuel filter - but I didn't have a replacement fuel filter with me. I ought to have called out the breakdown service but I didn't. (Until I bought the van, I tried to be as self-sufficient as possible in mechanical matters, including major mechanical work on the engine. Lacking a garage, I've had engine parts on the pavement in front of the house.) In the end, I made it to Edinburgh. When I broke down on the return journey back to Sheffield, I conceded defeat and got help. Now, I don't even change the engine oil and oil filter, not personally. I can't work on the carburettor, because there isn't one. Fuel injection systems, electronic engine management systems, are beyond my scope. Although struggling with corroded fixings, underneath the vehicle at the side of the road isn't beyond my scope, it's not something I do any longer. There are brute realities in other spheres of experience, as well as brutal realities.

 

Back to mettaculture - mettaculture to me:

 

'God that was banal drivel. I'd rather you don't refer to me at all but do as you wish. I can't imagine anyone does more than skims your reader's digest, digests. [sic]

 

'Of course my vulgarity got your attention and a fairly close reading and accurate quotation. Such is the way among those with easily scandelighted content free, poorly assembled, neural tissue.'

 

PH to mettaculture:

 

' ... skims your reader's digest, disgests' and 'Such is the way among those with easily scandelighted content free, poorly assembled, neural tissue.' But the first sentence of your second paragraph is just as bad. A reminder that Disqus allows comments to be edited - and improved - after they've been posted.

 

'It's easy to see that you're no perfectionist.'

 

After this piece was published, a comment of mettaculture's, one of the seven directed at me in quick succession, was genuinely genial - I'm thankful for that. It gave this information:

 

'Scandelighted ™ I'll have you know, is one of my very best personal neologisms ever.'

 

Another neologism, 'mettacultural.' I've got my own idea about the complex of characteristics which makes 'mettacultural' so distinctive, a blend of _, _ , _ and _ .

 

As for 'scandelighted,' it seems to mean the same as 'scandalized.' It doesn't add to the resources of English. The Emperor Joseph II said of Mozart's 'Marriage of Figaro' (he was misguided, I'm sure) 'too many notes.' To me, 'scandelighted' has too many syllables.

 

There were times when objections were made which had a lot to recommend them, such as this objection of Lamia, who can be a very effective writer. She begins by quoting some words I'd used:

 

'Barad's equating Amnesty International and the Quakers with Begg and Cage is beneath contempt.'

 

'Amnesty and Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust chose, despite plenty of warnings, and plenty of available information, to link themselves with and fund an organisation [Cage] that they knew was only in favour of the 'human rights' of Islamists in prison, including convicted terrorists in British prisons who were not remotely suffering any deprivations, while at the same time being utterly opposed to human rights for anyone else. Amnesty threw principled people like Gita Saghal to the wolves ... '

 

PH to Lamia:

 

'No, he isn't logical and justified in his estimation. This is to blur the differences between an organization which is completely beyond hope, 'Cage,' an an organization which isn't completely beyond hope, not at all, despite its serious faults. Do you think that nobody should vote Labour in this country because far too many Labour MP's have revolting views on terrorism and Islamism? Does this negate the work of all the Labour MP's who don't share their views? Do the Labour Party's defective policies regarding Israel mean that all the Labour Party's policies are defective? (I vote Conservative, by the way.)'

 

Sarah AB to me:

 

'I agree that Amnesty is tainted, but still do good work. And I agree about the Labour Party.'

 

PH to Lamia:

 

'You say that you won't vote for the Labour Party 'until it has sorted itself out.' The Labour Party, like Amnesty International, has a history of achievement which can be respected, in fact admired, in many ways. Both the Labour Party and Amnesty International are badly in need of being 'sorted out' but this will take effort, action, commitment on the part of many people. The Labour Party and Amnesty International aren't unreformable basket-cases. This is a general comment, not directed at you, but involvement in the virtual world of Websites and blogs may often make people less likely to make an effort, less likely to take action outside the virtual world. Taking action may involve turning out on a cold, rainy evening to attend a meeting which is certain to be much less enjoyable than using the computer.'

 

PH to Lamia:

 

'I didn't say it [Harry's Place] was doing nothing. I said it could do much more - and it could. In the sphere of practical recommendations for action, practical guidance for action, practical information for action, this site is nowhere near as energetic as many anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian sites, I think.'

 

mettaculture to me:

 

'Well I am glad to hear that you have positive comments to make about this site. I am also genuinely glad to here of your personal involvement in campaigning.

 

'You do however seem to have a controlling need to wish to influence it according to your own preferences ... '

 

All I did was argue for some changes, not to the liking of some cliques at 'Harry's Place' whose members are happier just exchanging views with people similar to themselves, rather than reaching out to opponents, including people in positions of power, such as MP's, and others. Anti-Israel-pro-Palestinian people are often much more energetic, I think. But the changes I argue for and my point about cliques are separate matters.

 

If mettaculture prefers to keep 'Harry's Place' the way it is and is warning me to keep quiet, then this can be viewed as attempted control.

 

Jurek Molnar to Sarah AB:

 

'It is interesting, that Amnesty is often denounced as a far left organisation and at the same time considered as a Western imperialist Human Rights propaganda tool by others.

'Depends on who you ask, in the meantime they do good works in most of the areas they are operating.'

 

FormerCorr to PH:

 

'I might have said the same thing as you a few years ago, but sadly Amnesty isn't what it used to be.'

 

PH to FormerCorr:

 

'You're quite right that Amnesty isn't what it used to be - which is why I left after being an active member for twenty years - but it hasn't lost all its strengths. For Barad to suggest that Amnesty International deserves to burn in hell for a long, long time is deranged.

 

5_30 to PH:

 

'IMO, once they effectively joined as non-combatant wings of the war against Israel, both Amnesty International and *especially* the Quakers have lost their strength and betrayed their mission.'

 

PH to 5_30:

 

'Amnesty International betrayed their mission in one very important way, by their shameless bias against Israel. They haven't betrayed their mission in most other ways. Amnesty members around the world still send letters and emails in vast numbers to a very wide range of people - members of governments and many more - not just in well-known cases like the blogger Raif Badawi in Saudi Arabia but on behalf of unknown people in obscure countries.

 

'I only hope that many of the commenters on Harry's Place make a comparable effort and aren't content to just talk to the converted ... '

 

Amnesty International has now published a report on Palestinian conduct during Operation Protective Edge,

 

https://www.amnesty.org/en/articles/news/2015/03/palestinian-armed-groups-killed-civilians-on-both-sides-in-2014-gaza-conflict/

 

An extract:

 

'Palestinian armed groups, including the armed wing of Hamas, repeatedly launched unlawful attacks during the conflict killing and injuring civilians. In launching these attacks, they displayed a flagrant disregard for international humanitarian law and for the consequences of their violations on civilians in both Israel and the Gaza Strip,” said Philip Luther, Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Amnesty International.

 

'All the rockets used by Palestinian armed groups are unguided projectiles which cannot be accurately aimed at specific targets and are inherently indiscriminate; using such weapons is prohibited under international law and their use constitutes a war crime. Mortars are also imprecise munitions and should never be used to attack military targets located in or near civilian areas.

 

' "Palestinian armed groups must end all direct attacks on civilians and indiscriminate attacks. They must also take all feasible precautions to protect civilians in the Gaza Strip from the effects of such attacks. This includes taking all possible measures to avoid locating fighters and arms within or near densely populated areas,” said Philip Luther,  Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Amnesty International.

 

...

 

' ... 13 Palestinian civilians – 11 of them children – were killed when a projectile exploded next to a supermarket in the crowded al-Shati refugee camp in Gaza on 28 July 2014, the first day of Eid al-Fitr.

 

...

'Although Palestinians have claimed that the Israeli military was responsible for the attack, an independent munitions expert who examined the available evidence on behalf of Amnesty International concluded that the projectile used in the attack was a Palestinian rocket.

 

...

 

There are no bomb shelters or warning systems in place to protect civilians in Gaza.

 

'The report also details other violations of international humanitarian law by Palestinian armed groups during the conflict, such as storing rockets and other munitions in civilian buildings, including UN schools, and cases where Palestinian armed groups launched attacks or stored munitions very near locations where hundreds of displaced civilians were taking shelter.'

 

Back to the little local dispute. There was one person who was completely undeterred by the ridiculous sniping.

 

Guest to Lamia:

 

'It seems to me that Paul is being ganged up on and is being treated harshly. I can see that there are a few differences of opinion but they seem to be relatively minor things. You and Mettaculture normally have very good points to make but it seems today you both are being quite aggressive. Anyway I guess all these comments will vanish in 7 days time.'

 

Guest is wrong about only one thing. Many of the comments haven't vanished in 7 days. They're here.

 

Guest to me:

 

'I dislike playground bullies. I found this site a few weeks ago and I am getting to learn about it. Different people with different experiences with different self-interests with different emotions, comment on it.

 

'I am drawn to it because of its subject matter and overall point of view. Sometimes I am repelled by it - of individual comments of commenters ... '

 

Guest to me:

 

' ... You were right about Anton Deque and I was wrong. I give people the benefit of the doubt until I have sufficient reason to think otherwise. The comments is a bit like Hobbesian sociopathic barbarism. Many of the aggressive commentators appear to be internet veterans fighting their own wars - seeing people as enemies to be destroyed or allies or nobodies. It's exhausting with no 'winners' - just a polarisation of opinion. What an unbelievable palaver you were put through. Best wishes.'

 

Another dispute at 'Harry's Place'

 

Address of 'Harry's Place:' www.hurryupharry.org

 

More of the same, but not a re-run - a second dispute at 'Harry's Place,' this time in the thread 'Gender bias in STEM subjects and science fiction.' The article was written by one of the moderators, SarahAB. This time, she joined in the attack on me in the Comments section.  The commenter Vildechaye appears once more - he describes me as a 'fucking nutter' and a 'babbling psycho' - but not mettaculture. Another regular commenter,  KBPlayer, was prominent in this dispute but not the one before. She described me as 'barmy as a box of frogs' (SarahAB abandoned any pretence at moderators' detachment and upvoted the comment). She obviously liked the phrase so much that she used it, or something very like it,  three times in three comments, although without being specific or providing evidence. The commenter Kolya made multiple accusations against me, implicit or explicit -  accusations of harrassment, of 'purely destructive behaviour - a bit like revenge porn - without any mitigation,' and said that he would have banned me from the site. In the first dispute, I suggested that the phrase ''fucking cunting fuck-cunts' was unwise and unfair because it was applied to Amnesty International as well as Islamist extremists and blurred the all-important differences between them - not just because the language could alienate some people - and a torrent of abuse was released. I suggested that 'Harry's Place' was too much a talking shop. It could be playing a much more effective role in combating some abuses. In this second dispute, I made a contribution to the debate on gender issues and came under attack almost at once, because I was the person who had made some comments not to the liking of the cliques. At the top of the Home Page there's the proud and impressive slogan

 

Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear.

 

Time for 'Harry's Place' to shed some of its pretence, time for 'Harry's Place' to remove this embarrassing little platitude.  So many 'Harry's Place' regulars want nothing but to carry on chatting and to me at least they seem to be claiming,  Aren't we interesting? Aren't we wonderful people? They don't want to hear anyone who takes the liberty of expressing contrary views. When they're allowed to exchange pleasantries amongst themselves, they seem very pleasant people. When they hear things they don't want to hear, they don't appreciate the exercise of liberty, they suddenly turn unpleasant, sometimes very unpleasant.

 

'Liberty, if it means anything ... ' is what I'd call a 'non-reflexive' slogan -  applicable to other people and organizations, but definitely not to 'Harry's Place' itself.

 

The dispute started with a comment of mine on gender issues.  I refer to it here. PH to SarahAB:

 

'I posted a comment. It could have been discussed, criticized - criticized severely - and that would have been it. If the etiquette of fair-minded debate had been followed, more or less, there would probably have been no wide-ranging dispute. But you, a moderator, couldn't resist making these disparaging and condescending remarks, almost certainly encouraging other people to join the attack. As I've made clear, if I'm attacked, I defend myself.

 

Yet again, the standard of moderation has been abysmal during this dispute. Moderation sometimes calls for intelligent, enlightened intervention. 'Do nothing' seems to be the guiding principle, if you can call it a principle, although you failed to follow the principle when you upvoted the comment on me, 'Barmy as a box of frogs.' In that case, doing nothing would definitely have been the wiser course of action. For someone who seems determined to give the impression of moderation and reasonableness, you can be surprisingly reckless on occasion.'

 

PH to Kolya:

 You wrote,

 

'Outing people's real-world identity merely because you disagree with their views is tantamount to harassment. Anybody choosing to play that game deserves to be banned.'

 

'I think outing people is truly vile. It can cause considerable distress and even wreck lives. It should result in automatic banning.'

'It's purely destructive behaviour – a bit like revenge porn – without any mitigation.'

'A sadistic power trip for the person doing the revealing.'

According to the Website of 'Public Interest Investigations,' a commenter with the pseudonym 'Morgoth' posted this comment at 'Harry's Place:'

 

'Is it me or is Foley turning into another Robert Fisk? Should we arrange for some Pashtuns to beat the shit out of him?'

 

If an individual gave the real name of 'Morgoth' would this be tantamount to harrassment, capable of causing Morgoth considerable distress and capable even of wrecking his life? Would this be a 'sadistic power trip for the person who revealed Morgoth's real name?

 

On this thread, Vildechaye has referred to me as a 'fucking nutter.' Some Vildechayan comments directed at other people:

 

'fuck off.'

 

'you can fuck off too.'

 

'you really enjoy talking out your arse, don't you?'

'actually you're just a bigoted asshole with a thin veneer of intellectual pomposity who cherrypicks sources -- on Youtube! -- and thinks he's being 
clever. uh uh.'

 

'yes we're all listening to the likes of you now, you lying sack of shit. Care to tell everyone where I wasn't brought up again.'

If I found out Vildechaye's real name and published it, would this be tantamount to harrassment, capable of causing Vildechaye considerable distress and capable even of wrecking his life?'

 

PH to Kolya:

 

'You completely neglect a very important topic - the distress caused by anonymous commenters at 'Harry's Place.' Their anonymity sometimes allows them to cause damage which would be far less likely if they wrote under their own names.'

 

PH to Kolya:

'KBPlayer wrote this about me,

'Oh that one. Barmy as a box of frogs.'

'The comment was upvoted by you, SarahAB and Suada. You and Suada have chosen to keep your comments on Disqus private. You value your privacy and whatever accusations you make, your privacy won't be disturbed. I write under my real name. I don't see any reason why people who make accusations shouldn't have their comfortable privacy interrupted. I sent an email to SarahAB which 
contained this,

'I wouldn’t claim that moderation during the recent dispute marked a new low in moderation at Harry’s Place because the standard was very low already, but your endorsement of the comment ‘ mad as a box of frogs’ was a bad mistake. Moderators can be partisan, when they comment themselves, they’re entitled to give a view and to defend a view, but upvoting that facile comment is very different. 
Greater detachment can be expected of a moderator. (I regard upvoting in general as futile and not useful. Gene has pointed out how easily the figures can be manipulated.) If a Professor of English gets up to these childish antics, I don’t see why I should be reticent.'

 

[I've cited some recent Google rankings for the site as a quick and convenient way of providing evidence that some people might like to take into account when they've been outspoken in their criticisms of my alleged limitations. Without any shame, I do that yet again. There's a list of recent Google rankings at

 www.linkagenet.com/about.htm#advertisements

 

'Of course, I've yet to receive from anyone who has made outspoken criticisms anything so commonplace  as an actual defence of their instant dismissals. These people seem to regard their own immense superiority to such poor misguided plodders as me as beyond dispute.]

 

'Do you have any comment to make on this? Do you seriously maintain that giving SarahAB's real name is a bit like revenge porn, without any mitigation? If so, then I regard your view as very disturbing.'

 

KBPlayer gave SarahAB's real name, Sarah Brown, years before, in an article. I knew that this wasn't the Sarah Brown who was the wife of the Labour politician Gordon Brown.

In my email to SarahAB I also wrote this,

'I’m not conducting a vendetta against Harry’s Place. Material about ‘Harry’s Place’ occupies a completely peripheral and a very minor role in the site.'

 

If you look up the home page of my site,

 

www.linkagenet.com

you'll find abundant evidence that this is so. There's a list of topics, very, very varied - which 
include gardening - and if you look at a selection of pages and find abundant evidence that I'm 'barmy as a box of frogs' then feel free to email me, with the evidence. If you value your  self-respect, and I'm sure you do, and obviously I could 
mention other people too, then the time has come to put some effort into defending your remarks.

 

KBPlayer wrote, 'A serious academic who I do respect but who had had run ins with HP was tweeting Culture Industry as proof of our badness.'

 

That same academic has written, in connection with Morgoth's comment, 'Morgoth calls for Conor Foley to be beaten up, and Conor’s wife is reduced to tears reading his comment. HP actually has the cheek to complain that Conor is unreasonable for being upset about this. Of course, your anger is never directed at any one of your revolting, anonymous little groupies, but only at the people who have the temerity to complain about their behaviour.' 'Revolting, anonymous little groupies' isn't my description. I give my own views on the 'Culture Industry' page.

 

This marks the end of my comment, published at 'Harry's Place' a short time before the disappearance of all the comments from public view. Some additional remarks:

 

Kolya advocated my banning from 'Harry's Place' and dmra upvoted his promotion of banning. A question: who has the power to ban people from 'Harry's Place?' Would one of them be the moderator SarahAB. She's a Latinist, so she'd understand the significance of a quotation not seen nearly as often now as it used to be: 'Quis costodiet ipsos custodes.' (Juvenal, Satires, Satire VI, lines 347–8.)

 

I don't mind if people criticize me or my views severely, provided there's the attempt to provide evidence. In that case, I'd see no need at all to divulge their real name, if I know it. If they want to engage in smearing and insult, then they shouldn't be surprised if I show much less goodwill.

 

Dispute No. 1, documented at much greater length in the section above, 'Nasty, brutish and short ... ' gave plenty of evidence that I can defend myself very vigorously. If some people decided to try it on this time, then they shouldn't be surprised at the result. I contributed a comment on gender bias to the thread, and very quickly, SarahAB came out with this:

 

 

A comment for 'dmra' on the site 'Harry's Place,' www.hurryupharry.org

 

A reply was given by dmra and I found that a previous comment of mine on 'Harry's Place' criticizing 'Lamia' was mistaken in one way - Lamia is female, not male! In this reply, I stated that I didn't know whether dmra was male or female. Later, I felt sure that dmra was female not male. In a comment, dmra had mentioned attending a girl's school. Much later, I found that dmra was male, not female. He mentioned that he was one of the few boys to attend a particular girl's school.

 

I argue here that anonymous comments tend to diminish the richness and complexity of human interaction but I give other arguments as well. Strictly, 'anonymous' should be 'pseudonymous.' I mention the  alternative male/female but this is far too simple for some people. I suppose the proper question to ask is, 'Are you male or female, neither or both?'

 

I think that the arguments for banning the full veil in this country outweigh the arguments for allowing it. It's been argued that when a woman wears the veil, anyone speaking with her is denied so many visual cues, so much supplementary infomation. The conversation is likely to be restricted by that. A conversation with someone whose face we can see is very different. (An obvious counter-argument: what about the experience of blind people? Perhaps the aural cues are enough, perhaps not.)

 

I'm not equating wearing the veil and the anonymity of commenters. All I'm doing is pointing out some obvious disadvantages of anonymity. Exchanging views on this page with you, dmra, involves lack of some useful information for me. I don't know if you're male or female, for example! I don't know if vildechaye and mettaculture are male or female. I don't assume that because vildechaye and mettaculture seem to have a very aggressive side they must be male. [I now know that they're male.]

 

I strongly believe in the importance of openness. Whatever I write, I do it under my own name. I don't have an ex-directory telephone number, either. I'm listed in the phone book. If people want to criticize me on the internet, they can go ahead and do it and the results will show up in Google, whether it's on Page 1 or Page 20,000. Conversely, if I criticize someone who isn't anonymous, the criticism will appear in searches for the real name somewhere in Google, in the case of Richard Alleyne journalist (now ex-journalist, I'm glad to say) very prominently, on Page 1 for the search terms "Richard Alleyne" journalist.

 

Using 'dmra' for your writing is choosing the safer option. It offers protection from critical comment published on the Web, for one thing. Whatever critical comments may appear for 'dmra,' the life you live under your real name remains separate and isn't affected. There may be very good reasons for anonymity on the Web . People may have a job which makes it very difficult to write freely under their own name. (All the same, when, eventually, I found conventional employment, I carried out some high profile campaigning which caused me difficulties with my employer but thought nothing of it.)

 

I'd suggest to anonymous commenters on this site: consider whether you really do have to be anonymous I hope dmra, mettaculture, Vildechaye and others will consider 'coming out.' I realize there may well be perfectly valid reasons why this isn't a realistic option.

 

I'm glad that so many people whose views are similar to the general viewpoint of 'Harry's Place' do use their actual names. They include people who would be safer writing anonymously but don't. 'The Times Literary Supplement' used to have anonymous reviewers. This had severe disadvantages. A hostile review of a book left the author and readers wondering about the background of the reviewer and possible sources of bias. Now that reviewers are identified, there are so many sources of information about the background of the reviewer. It may be that the reviewer has been criticized by the author of the book, or that the reviewer isn't the best person to review the book because the reviewer has no background in the field. Or it may be that the background information leaves every reason to think that the reviewer is knowledgeable and fair-minded. However, in the case of anonymous commenters, Disqus does give all the Disqus comments, unless the commentator chooses to make their activity private.

 

Some pages which include criticism of anonymity for comments, even if the focus is on sites of a different kind. The New Yorker article also gives arguments for anonymity.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

 

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/...

 

Harry's Place and deleting comments

 

A moderator is sometimes entitled to exclude comments for pragmatic reasons, by using robust common sense, not the high and noble principles of free expression (and not by thinking about consequentalist or deontological or neo-Thomist or neo-Aristotelian arguments for publishing or not publishing.)

 

Argumentum ad hominem, criticising not the arguments but the person who gives the arguments is, in fact, a realistic and valid way of approaching the arguments of some people: to give not much thought at all to the arguments but to summarily decide that the person has a negligible contribution to make. If a grown adult sends a description which is completely sentimental and includes an image of a teddy bear and promises to send further contributions, then, unless the site is a sentimentalist site and isn't deterred by unnecessary images of teddy bears, then the moderator will probably decide that the character of the person makes intelligent contributions very unlikely. A woefully underpowered car won't be allowed in a high-powered race. There's no need to measure the speed of the car. A look at the car is enough.

 

If a humanist Website or blog is besieged with comments from born-again Christians 'proving' that X is evil and giving abundant scriptural 'evidence' then the moderator may decide that enough is enough. If a Website or blog has the central aim of publishing material on modernist architecture or abstract art and is besieged by people commenting that modernist architecture or abstract art is 'a load of rubbish,' or words to that effect, then excluding these comments isn't the exercise of censorship. To uphold free speech isn't to uphold the right for someone to comment at any Website or blog.

 

The comment below, posted at 'Harry's Place,' refers to a very prolific commenter who happened to be a Moslem. After I added the comment, he asked for all his comments to be deleted and referred to my contribution as the reason.

 

'El Cid has swamped this Comments section with his Islamist views. Enough is enough. Even the most patient of people (even Sarah AB) may have found their patience close to exhaustion in the face of El Cid's prolific and predictable 'proofs.' If ten or twenty other people with similar views decided to join the 'discussion,' then the scale of the problem would be even more clear, the need for effective and realistic moderation even more obvious. Harry's Place may have its detractors but it also has a deserved reputation for interesting and informative comment to accompany the articles. If the problem continues (it may not, of course) and nothing is done, then I for one would regret it very much.

 

'Websites and blogs concerned with evolutionary biology or secularism or enlightenment values or the defence of Israel should give objectors the opportunity to disagree and should uphold freedom of expression but are under no obligation to present Comments sections overwhelmed by people hostile to evolutionary biology or secularism or enlightenment values or the defence of Israel. These Websites and blogs are entitled to have an identity, they are entitled to present their viewpoint, but never to the exclusion of contrary views.

 

'It's reasonable for the discussion sections of 'Harry's Place' to be a place where people can disagree about many, many things but are in general agreement that disagreements aren't solved or resolved by appeal to the Qur'an or the Bible or the works of Marx, for that matter.

 

'If El Cid knows of Islamist Websites and blogs where anti-Islamist comments are not just allowed but published in large numbers, then do please let us know.

 

'A suggestion: 'Harry's Place' could consider creating a new Comments section, called 'The Other Place,' perhaps, where El Cid and others would be free to present their doctrines and their 'proofs' and to answer any objections. I'd hope that Islamist Websites and blogs would make similar provision for the expression of dissenting views, though. If not, why not?'

 

After the comment was posted, I found one Islamist Website which freely publishes comments written by anti-Islamists, the Website of the extremist Haitham Al-Haddad, www [dot] islam21 [dot] com I gave him credit for his policy in a comment of mine at 'Harry's Place,' Comment (HP): banning extremist speakers (1)