Silly Chickens and Rotten Eggs
by Thomas Fleming
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
The foolishness of political debate in America has discouraged me from writing this column, but I have decided to come out of semi-retirement to ask this chicken-and-egg question: Which came first in America, the narcissistic obsession with personal trivia or the blogosphere? In other words, did Internet blogging reduce the mentality of young Americans to the level of mind-numbing chatter about what they had for breakfast or what they think about Obama or did blogging only give an opportunity for the already brain-dead to talk about themselves?
I suppose I know, already, that the second answer is the correct one. I’ve spent the past 30 years, at parties, conferences, rides on the O’Hare shuttle bus, and coffee hour after church, listening to strangers tell me about the wonders of their RV, their vacations in Disney World, their opinions on pop music, and their political prejudices. Beware of the Republicans, who are plotting to enslave American workers; beware of the Clintons, who are plotting to make themselves dictators. What are most political blogs but cellphone conversations overheard on the runway before the plane takes off. The good thing about blogs–including this one–is that you don’t have to read them, but when the bloggers are shouting into their telephone or cornering you at coffee, they are impossible to escape.
These thoughts were triggered once again by reading the write-backs to a recent Tom Piatak column on my friend Taki’s website. Piatak had taken John Derbyshire, whom he mostly respects, to task for his rather naive defense of Voltaire. He’s in for it now, I thought, and then went on to read one or two or even three polite and thoughtful responses that were virtually buried in the “I like Voltaire because he’ s X, Y, or Z.” Since Tom had already quoted me on the subject of Voltaire, it would have been questionable manners to write in a rebuttal of his critics. Besides, answering the blog-responders is like arguing with a retarded child who thinks breaking wind is a witty response.
I described the blogger mentality as a form of Narcissism, but even that is a compliment. Narcissus was so handsome that he fell in love with his own reflection. The proper parallel would be the writers and political intellectuals who are so brilliant and clever that they have fallen in love with their own voices, but bloggers are like a hideously ugly person who looks in the mirror and says: “The rat’s looking good.” [Note, I have to check the quotation from the recent film of Charlotte's Web, which I watched on a flight to Rome.]
There should be a place for casual, informal conversation on such topics as Voltaire’s malign influence on the Western mind, Abraham Lincoln’s or Woodrow Wilson’s political legacy, the enduring results of WW II, the role of Catholics or Southerners in “conservative” politics, but if we took the trouble to start a conversation, the blogospheroids would jump in, agreeing or disagreeing–it hardly matters–with opinions by the truckload. This might not be so bad, if the truck were not a garbage truck.
Even otherwise intelligent conservative scholars, once they enter the Blogosphere, appear to lose all sense of discretion and regard for facts. In the past few months I have come upon the most amazing assertions about Catholic social teachings or the Southern political tradition, sometimes written by people who should know better, people I had once regarded as friends and colleagues. Inevitably, their unsupported generalizations are seconded, thirded, and fourthed by a chorus of ignorant yokels, whose only weapon is a consequentialist argument hard to distinguish from the post hoc fallacy stated as an enthymeme with an undistributed middle. Southerners tended to back entrance into WWI, while Bryan was from Illinois, ergo…. Ergo what? Bryan’s family were Southern, while Pitchfork Ben Tillman made an alliance with La Follette. Like the South, hate the South–I could scarcely care less. But whatever your opinion is, you can keep it to yourself, if you have no argument better than a temporary whim or a bad bucket of KFC.
There is a lot of conservative chatter out in the blogosphere. Much of it can be reduced to Rodney King’s question: “Why can’t we all just get along.” Unfortunately, most of these would-be peace-makers, drunk on their own ungrammatical effusions, have made themselves appear as stupid as Rodney King–and just as troublesome and even harder to repress. They spend their time lambasting “Paleos,” Catholics, Southerners, and even all Christians, wihtout knowing the first thing about “paleoconservatism,” Christianity, or the South. Then they wonder why they cannot build a coalition. I had hoped, by beginning a serious dialogue on the early Church, Protestants and Catholics might begin to find some common ground. In fact, that is exactly what has happened. Can we develop the same common ground on more political topics? Why not? Where do we begin?
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
1 Comment by PcH on 1 May 2008:
Hilarious.
Etiquette seems to be lagging behind the technology. I know the difference in conversation between a graduate seminar and a church picnic, but I can’t say I have mastered the blog. But with more time and more articles like this, just maybe some of us will figure it out.
On the other hand, there is no way to frown at a 12-year old before he interrupts or at the grown-up who is no different…
2 Comment by James Newland on 1 May 2008:
I was going to respond until I realized that that would just be the brain-dead talking about himself. Seriously, is this a setup?
While I totally sympathize with your desire for rational argument, Dr. Fleming, the sad fact is that many or most people aren’t capable of it. Few are those today with a true liberal education. Much more common is the narrowly trained modern, who assumes that because some so-called university has handed him a signed paper bearing a greek epigram (which now makes him an “alumni,” judging from his license plate) that he is now the intellectual equal of Plato. This flattering delusion has two deleterious effects: one, because he’s narrowly trained, the modern is usually ignorant of how much he doesn’t know. He seems to just assume that if there were anything else worth knowing (or even knowing about), he’d have been taught it. Second, precisely because he’s a modern or has been trained as a modern, he has absorbed through his diaphanous skin an unconscious faith in the Hegelian notion of progress. He thinks that whatever we know today, or, in reality, think we know, is ipso facto superior to what came before, rendering all arguments based upon non-contemporary principles moot. This is the reason, I think, we see so much authoritarianism and dogmatism at work today, as so well exemplified by the Darwinist fanatics, and correspondingly, so little necessity felt on the part of these people to engage in real debate. “Debate” for them can only mean rhetorical sparring and one-upsmanship between the enlightened “anointed” (Thomas Sowell’s brilliant appellation) and the barbaric, recalcitrant hordes.
And then there are the just plain dumb people.
Anyway, to attempt an answer to your question: in my opinion, blogging only gave the already brain-dead an opportunity to talk about themselves. The impulse was already there, you just couldn’t hear it because it had no outlet–although I will say that seeing everyone around them lose their chains seems to have prompted those who might otherwise have kept quiet to jump in and start bleating as well.
3 Comment by Jeff Willbee on 1 May 2008:
I wish I could disagree with Mr. Fleming, but I can’t. He’s on the mark again.
And I wish I could answer Mr. Fleming’s final questions, but, sadly, I am a young person myself, with all of the ignorance of my generation, but without the illusion that my opinion either necessarily important or true.
Now _that’s_ something to write a narcissistic blog about: knowing that one is young and foolish, knowing that one’s fellows are young and foolish and knowing that your elders and betters do not know what to do about it.
4 Comment by robert reavis on 1 May 2008:
Dr. Fleming,
One of the reasons I admire your blogs is that one can really never know where he stands with you or what you are really thinking as you beat aroung the bush, gee -haw around the subject, and mark every word and wrap every mono syllable with such extreme caution.
This post about bloggers is a perfect example. I just wish sometimes you would be more frank and tell us what you really think about certain practices. Other than that, I have nothing but respect for your informed opinions, once I figure out exactly what it is you are really trying to say. I have never known a more patient man among fools. Keep up the PC.
5 Comment by Allen Wilson on 1 May 2008:
Anyone who has worked in a place where lots of temp employees come and go can see the root of the problem with bloggers. Seeing literally hundreds of temps over a period of several years gives one a good handle on the general state of the employable – or supposedly employable – population. Intelligence in our society is at an all-time low. Last winter, I had around 25 Bozos working in my crew, and it was so bad that, in exasperation, I would go around the building humming the theme tune to Ringling Bros, Barnum & Bailey’s circus. I didn’t have to waste one word explaining to anyone why I was humming that tune. Old timers at the place who had some sense would bust out laughing immediately.
When these people get online – and almost all do – we get what Dr Fleming describes here.
6 Comment by Jason Jewell on 1 May 2008:
I was very impressed by the comments on the discussion of 1 Clement, which I discovered several days after the initial posting. By that time, the conversation had slowed
While reading through the eighty-five or ninety comments, I repeatedly braced myself, expecting at any moment to come upon an anti-Protestant, anti-Catholic, or anti-Orthodox rant, but there was none. The tone of discussion was respectful throughout, and most of the comments were insightful. I came away from the thread with a better understanding of St. Clement and an eagerness for more postings on the Fathers.
If the discussion is to shift to politics, perhaps Dr. Fleming could post his thoughts on an issue, such as trade policy, that is touted as being central to the ongoing presidential campaign, but that in reality is being treated superficially by candidates and the media.
7 Comment by Allen Wilson on 1 May 2008:
Has anyone else here gotten the impression that the word ‘blogging’ has come to have a dirty connotation, like it’s something you wouldn’t want to be caught doing? If so, then Dr Fleming has now explained why.
In the roughly five years I have been participating in the blogs here at Chronicles, I have made it a point not to tell people I know or otherwise meet about it. That’s because they wouldn’t subscribe to the magazine anyway, and they would only be additional nuisances in the blogs.
I’ve informed only two about it. The first is a long time friend who has mostly the same views as people who are regulars here, and he doesn’t blog. The other was a mistake, which happened in passing during a conversation. I think he came to this site, said some fairly banal things, got offended, and never came back. If he did, he never told me about it, but my suspicion that he did do this has prevented me from ever mentioning the blog to anyone else, ever.
8 Comment by Grumpy Old Man on 1 May 2008:
Comments here (”Blogging, and especially commenting, combines the vices of spontaneity, isolation, and permanence. We write without thinking much, without the raised eyebrow or the “Ahem!” of our interlocutor to curtail our folly, and our drivel is preserved in pixels and bytes even when we think better of it.”) and here(”For me, the essence of conservatism is a recognition of human fallenness, the danger of tinkering with the unarticulated and inarticulable habits of soul and society evolved over generations, and the probable wickedness and folly of all “progress,” all utopias and systematic programs for change, especially when imposed by a powerful state.”)
9 Comment by Bob Sale on 1 May 2008:
I once urged Dr. Fleming to not enter into blog exchanges with plebs like myself. But I never meant that he should stop posting bits such as the above. This is the Thomas Fleming that America, at least my America, needs to hear from more often. I don’t like it when he’s cranky and silent. I like it when he’s cranky and publishing it on the web and reminding people like me that we need to pull ourselves out of the gutter!
By the way, the exchange about Clement has been a treat. I had been in the middle of F. F. Bruce’s New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable; Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism; and a little old book about Luther called, Let God Be God, when it began, and it’s been the perfect addition (along with Scripture, obviously).
10 Comment by Bob Sale on 1 May 2008:
Since we’re at it: I would love to know what Thomas Fleming has to say (if anything) about the White House having the Marine Choir (or one of the official choirs) sing The Battle Hymn of the Republic for Pope Benedict.
Seemed awfully confusing.
11 Comment by woodcutter on 2 May 2008:
“The good thing about blogs–including this one–is that you don’t have to read them, but when the bloggers are shouting into their telephone or cornering you at coffee, they are impossible to escape.”
Great observations! From time to time I am in this spot mentioned above. Unfortunately as a pastor I am forced to at the least listen politely. Sometimes the hardest thing to do is not break out into guffaws. Some people even today (and maybe in combination with blogging) still bring there confused secularized liberal/conservative ideas to the unfailing ear of the pastor (probably the only one who will listen to their drivel). The last guy that tried this in order extort not only sympathy, but also money, with a threat of suicide, I took by the arm and marched him out of the office and told him not to return. I then called the police who were obligated to take him to the psychiatric ward (ha, ha), even though he denied his rant that took place in my office. How I wish I could have just chose to ignore his blog entry!
Of course all this is at the risk of sounding “brain dead”.
12 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 2 May 2008:
It is not so much that Americans are brain dead. What is really bad is that they are not ashamed of it.
13 Comment by woodcutter on 2 May 2008:
They probably have no idea of the difference. Asleep most of them.
14 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 2 May 2008:
Bob Sale (@10):
Dr. Fleming asked me to write a brief piece on the White House Welcoming Ceremony, but deadlines for Chronicles intervened. Now that the June issue has gone to press, I’ll put up a post this morning.
15 Comment by Kate on 2 May 2008:
If you were brain-dead, how would you know?
16 Comment by TJF on 2 May 2008:
Thanks for the encouraging response. Some of my slowness in posting columns is also related to the fact that I have too much else to write. A short and flippant column, however, can be ripped off in 30 minutes, and if it can start a discussion, then so be it. I should add that I have no intention of ending the discussion we have begun on the apostolic fathers. Quite the contrary. Today or tomorrow I shall try to post a final comment summing up what most of us have agreed to. We can then move on either to the Martyrdom of Polycarp or St. Ignatius or Barnabas. I should warn you all, however, that I’ll be in Serbia and Kosovo all next week and probably not able, for the most part, to do anything online.
Re: The Battle Hymn of the Republic, I have asked Scott Richert to make that the first of a series of online columns that will have to do largely with ecclesiastical issues.
In talking about blogging, a basic question occurs to me: Is blogging the ultimate or penultimate expression of the democratic spirit that reduces all questions of value and taste down to the basest level? I pose it as a question because, in the first place, not all “democracies” are as ideologically egalitarian–or so authoritarian in practice–as our own. But where else would ill-read and thoughtless people get the notion that they have a “right” not only to have an opinion but to express it in public?
One of my complaints is the poor English and not just of bloggers but also of news commentators. I don’t have a lot of time, but I wonder if we could develop a corner where contemporary bad usage was corrected. For example, “enormity” does not mean the quality of being enormous or huge, but rather excessive wickedness. Yet on NPR even British commentators misuse the word. Another irritant is NPR’s inability to pronounce the -ou- dipthong as -oo- in words like tour. Hence we hear every day about some soldier’s “tore of duty.” There is an English word “tor” which refers to some ancient pile of rocks or a rocky pinnacle. I can’t promise a word or phrase or problem a day, but I come across such pervasive mistakes constantly in the course of every day.
17 Comment by robert reavis on 2 May 2008:
” I can’t promise a word or phrase or problem a day, but …”
Tom,
I have been posting comments for the last 6- 12 months, if you run out of new stuff you might look at some of my older posts for fodder.
While I certainly agree that writers should know something about the rules of proper english and construction, I have known some great story tellers who probably could not have written much beyond their name and/or family’s name. In fact some of my favorite souls didn’t write much or very well, Socrates, Christ, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and St. Dominic. BUT of course neither were any of then pretentious bloggers. Belloc who is another favorite, wrote volumes and was master of the essay. He no doubt would have blogged at chronicles if he had blogged at all.
18 Comment by NGPM on 2 May 2008:
Caveat emptor, I suppose. I’m told a Classics professor I had my second year at university explained to one of my classmates, “The Internet is not a source. It is a vast black hole of ignorance.” As for politics, a field in which far too much information is available to far too low a common denominator and everyone has been indoctrinated into believing he has a right to an opinion on any topic, forget it. Best stick to databases and general summaries and take the discussions to the tavern.
(I know that just posting that is a brazen act of hypocrisy; still, I defy anyone to prove me wrong on this.)
“I don’t have a lot of time, but I wonder if we could develop a corner where contemporary bad usage was corrected.”
Personally I’d love to read this. Perhaps throw the ball by posting the subchapter on malaprops from The King’s English?
@16: “I have known some great story tellers who probably could not have written much beyond their name and/or family’s name.”
Indeed. Would that there was a correlation between creativity and coherence, or that unity of thought necessarily spilt properly onto paper.
But if originality or intelligence were prerequisites for a profession in oration or letters, we would never have heard about 98 percent of the names of contemporary journalists or academics.
19 Comment by Bob Sale on 2 May 2008:
Well, I’m no one to talk, but the apparent master orator and heir to Dr. King, Barack Obama, continually says things like, “Reverend Wright married Michelle and I.”
I guess that’s better than, “Is our children learning?”
20 Comment by Grumpy Old Man on 2 May 2008:
I cringe at “anyways” with a final “s,” often with a “t,” and girls who end statements with a question intonation.
However, the moving finger of language change writes, and all our tears will not wash out a word of it. Just listen to a recording of any speech from the ’30s. Nobody has FDR’s kind of patrician accent these days.
That said, I’m all for whining about it.
21 Comment by Grumpy Old Man on 2 May 2008:
I meant, “often” with a “t.”
22 Comment by TJF on 2 May 2008:
It is not just girls who end every sentence with a question mark, though I think the habit began with Valley Girls. I have come to believe that this tic reflects a deep aversion to making up one’s mind or stating it openly. It is the intonational equivalent of the response I always receive, whenever I state an opinion with clarity: “Why don’t you tell us what you really mean?” This remark implies that frankness and clarity are undesirable qualities, irrespective of what the content of the statement is. I think all blog sentences, by the way, should end in question mark.
23 Comment by Paul C Graham on 2 May 2008:
I agree with Dr. Fleming, although I am a blogger myself.
[I feel like I am at an AA meeting: “Hello, my name is Paul and I am a blogger.”
What the hell is the matter with me?
I know no one reads my blog but me (except, perhaps my mother), yet when I see something that I think is important or an article on which I wish to comment, I just can’t help myself.
Even now, I am blogging on your article on blogging!
Is there any help for me, or is it too late?
24 Comment by Grumpy Old Man on 2 May 2008:
Ya think?
25 Comment by MJK on 2 May 2008:
Dr. Fleming –
Courtesy of http://www.merriam-webster.com…According to this outfit, “those who urge such a limitation [of the use of enormity] may not recognize the subtlety…” That’s rich…
“Usage — Enormity, some people insist, is improperly used to denote large size. They insist on enormousness for this meaning, and would limit enormity to the meaning “great wickedness.”
Those who urge such a limitation may not recognize the subtlety with which enormity is actually used. It regularly denotes a considerable departure from the expected or normal . When used to denote large size, either literal or figurative, it usually suggests something so large as to seem overwhelming and may even be used to suggest both great size and deviation from morality . It can also emphasize the momentousness of what has happened or of its consequences .”
26 Comment by Michael on 2 May 2008:
Dr. Fleming, the answer to your question is “narcissistic obsession with personal trivia.” This is as old as gossip, which is as old as Eve’s back fence.
I’m sorry I don’t have a source for it now, but I remember reading long ago that Alexander Graham Bell was deeply chagrined that the telephone, which he had intended as an adjunct to the efficient conduct of business, had become mainly a medium for gossip and casual social contact between idle housewives. He reportedly had telephone service removed from his residence.
One often observes this with new technologies. Remember the raptures that the punditry of fifty or sixty years ago used to go into about the potential of television as a vehicle for education? As the telephone, and the television, so has gone the internet.
27 Comment by TJF on 2 May 2008:
Enormity means literally “outside the norm” and thus meant originally that which violated customary expectations. It then became used nearly always in the sense of extraordinary wickedness. The OED notes that some people use the word to refer to unusual size but describes this usage as “incorrect.” The problem with this incorrect usage is that it deprives the language of a clear and concise term and there are occasions when we don’t really know what a writer/speaker actually means. Consider: “I was astonished by the enormity of his plans.” Without a context, we cannot tell if this refers to vastness of size or great wickedness. Merriam-Webster needs to be chucked permanently. Ditto the Random House dictionary, which I just checked. These lexicographers operate on the principle that since language is simply the way people talk at a certain time, there can be neither prescription nor normative rules.
28 Comment by Ploni Almoni on 2 May 2008:
Since Tom had already quoted me on the subject of Voltaire, it would have been questionable manners to write in a rebuttal of his critics. Besides, answering the blog-responders is like arguing with a retarded child who thinks breaking wind is a witty response.
I don’t know about manners, but I think it would have been more honorable to have answered there than to talk about the blog-responders in this way behind their backs.
29 Comment by Bill Wilder on 2 May 2008:
Thank you for already addressing my comment (as I see from the posting on Scott Richert’s latest piece)–adopting comment moderation. It is my sincere plea that you (collectively) would use that moderation to spare us the ranting of the conspiratorialists (I suspect it’s just one person) ranting about “Jews” or admonishing us for insufficient loyalty to the “white nation” (whatever that is; and , again, I suspect one person.)
Moderation in all things–especially blogs!
30 Comment by TJF on 2 May 2008:
I didn’t quite catch the name. Ploni Almoni or Phoney Baloney. (Yes, I know, it’s from the Old Testament.) Here is a perfect example of the blogger’s mind and manners. Please note that I spoke only in general terms and praised the good contributions. Not at all interested in who said what to whom about Voltaire, I was trying to make a general point. Now, enter the pseudonymous blog-responder. He makes an apodictic pronouncement–it would be more honorable to have responded on the other website–without giving a single reason. It’s his opinion, you know? So he has to share it with the world?
Let us unpack the statement as a kind of moral investigation. In what sense more honorable? I have a website with two blogs to which I hope to attract traffic. Is it really good business to go onto other blogs, especially given the limited time I have, especially when the point is not to criticize any one person or group of persons but only to draw attention to a wide-spread phenomenon? In the parallel case, if I wanted to draw attention to the nature of the imbecility of people who write in to, say, Rolling Stone or Cosmo, would a writer really have to put his comments into one of those magazines? Or, if a Democrat wanted to criticize Republicans, would he have to do it in a Republican outlet. Supposing we throw into the mix the fact that the writer of the piece in question is a friend, that the proprietor of the website is not only a friend but a columnist and editor for Chronicles. Would it really be “honorable” to attempt to persuade the proprietor that some, at least, of his money is being squandered on (insert whatever derogatory adjective you prefer) people like Ploni Almoni. Of course, the tu quoque argument could then be hurled back at me, since our idiot-detector did not block Ploni Almoni when he entered our site and failed to prevent him from wasting this bit of our virtual real estate.
31 Comment by robert reavis on 2 May 2008:
Today, there exist only two instances of honorable conduct in which it is now simply impossible to attempt the last word. ( Before Al Gore invented the internet, there was only one ) First is that ancient and venerable occasion when a man is attempting to speak charitably towards, or apologise to, the irate woman who he has either intentionally or untentionally wronged. Second, with the invention of instant, electronic, mail, is this new beast and tormentor of men’s souls, so aptly described above, the ANONYMOUS SENDER !
32 Comment by NGPM on 2 May 2008:
“Without a context, we cannot tell if this refers to vastness of size or great wickedness. Merriam-Webster needs to be chucked permanently. Ditto the Random House dictionary, which I just checked. These lexicographers operate on the principle that since language is simply the way people talk at a certain time, there can be neither prescription nor normative rules.”
Dr. Fleming, if a letters blog is perhaps asking too much, might we at least see an extended piece or even an entire issue (which the subject merits) on the mutilation of English via “whole language,” “descriptive grammar,” Noam Chomsky, SMS and other such contemporary abominations?
33 Comment by Christopher Baldwin on 2 May 2008:
One of the stupidest mistakes that news anchors, other TV babblers and journalists continually make that drives me wild is use of the word “infer” instead of “imply.” I hear it over and over, everywhere. “President Bush yesterday inferred that the U.S. may resort to force against Iran,” etc. Good grief.
The thing is beginning to make me twitch.
34 Comment by Philip Smith on 2 May 2008:
I think any solution to this problem (and a lot of the related cultural entropy, or worse, that we face) would necessarily require a constriction of discourse. The blogosphere is above all reflective of the fact that at this point there is simply far too much being “broadcast,” and it is an inevitable result of this that the general mentality is increasingly pixilated, immediate, lacking in consistency or depth, glibly reactive, glandularly antinomian, and effectively inoculated against self-awareness.
If you really want to combat this, I suggest the creation of a space in which speech or communication of any sort is prohibited. A chapel of silence. It’s as much a neurological question as a sociological one.
35 Comment by Allen Wilson on 3 May 2008:
Perhaps we can be consoled by the fact that in a hundred years, all the ephemeral blogging going on now will be completely, irretrievably lost as files get deleted or corrupted, drives and servers wear out, crash, or are replaced by newer ones, CDs and DVDs with saved web pages burnt on them become unreadable as the die fades, etc. Some of the idiot bloggers really should be grateful that their grandchildren will never have to see the silly, arrogant, uncivilised, bombastic drivel that their grandpa wrote and so will never know just what an idiotic, horribly ill-mannered, cantankerous nitwit old gramps really was. Of course, they dont have enough sense or shame to be grateful for that.
36 Comment by Michael Warning on 3 May 2008:
Dr Flemming You wrote”Can we develop the same common ground on more political topics? Why not? Where do we begin?”
Lets begin by examining the effects of the writtings of Srdja Trifkovic on the actions of the Serbs in attacking the U.S. embassy. Has your publication helped to fuel this attack? Or do your political writers expect no re-action on the part of their readers? After all its just words. There are no consequences?
37 Comment by TJF on 3 May 2008:
I might be wrong, but I suspect that “Michael Warning” is not entirely ingenuous. In other postings, he has made himself appear as a naive seeker of information on the Balkans, while in this he appears to have a very direct and extreme view. I hope I am right, because otherwise the man needs serious help. 1) In answer to question about finding common ground, he brings up an irrelevant topic and accuses us of fomenting violence. What’s the connection. 2) The US’ recognition of the rogue narco-terrorist “Kosova” was an act in which the US went back on its word and sided with Islamic terrorists. 3) Even NPR reported the attack as that of a small group of hooligans who broke away from an otherwise peaceful demonstration. It was in no way officially sanctioned, planned by a broad conspiracy, or an expression of the popular will in Belgrade. 4) I can think of nothing more preposterous than the charge that a US citizen, writing political analysis on an American website, has by telling the truth driven a group of drunken soccer to commit an act of violence. If Mr. Warning really believes that, he is either an agent of the KLA or mentally defective. Come to think of it, those are not mutually exclusive possibilities.
38 Comment by Michael Warning on 3 May 2008:
Dr Flemming: to defend Chronicles, your readers resort to name calling. See above. You want common ground? Tell us plainly does Chronicles support Serb Nationalism?
39 Comment by R. Oliver on 3 May 2008:
Mr. Warning,
You first suggest that Chronicles implicitly supported an attack on the US embassy in Belgrade. After that was easily dismissed, you ask whether Chronicles supports Serbian nationalism. What’s the point of the question? Are you trying to suggest that support of Serbian nationalism necessarily means support of attacks on the US embassy? Will the next question be whether Chronicles supports Christian nations in Europe to conclude that because it does, it necessarily supports Serbian nationalism, and thus it also necessarily supports attacks on the US embassy?
As a reader, I support Serbian nationalism, if it is the only viable defense against Islamic narco-terrorism spreading farther into Europe.
40 Comment by G.S. on 3 May 2008:
Mr. Warning is best understood as an anti-Semite who has gone on to become an idolater.
41 Comment by G.S. on 3 May 2008:
I.e. — in Mr. Warning’s world, the Serbs are Jews and Franz Ferdinand is Jesus.
And today the perfidious Slavs are only getting what’s coming to them for having slain the king of kings.
42 Comment by Ploni Almoni on 3 May 2008:
Re #30:
Oh, I’m usually willing to supply an argument when asked. Often, though, I think it’s best to make a statement and let others fill in the argument. (See, another “I think”–no supporting argument offered.)
So here’s my reasoning. The group of people you insulted was quite small–I didn’t count the commenters–so your insult wasn’t really anonymous, “general terms” notwithstanding. That’s one difference between your criticism here, and criticizing letters to Rolling Stone. There’s also the fact that taki.com blog-responders are in some sense closer to you than are Rolling Stone letter-writers, or at least they might think that they are.
In this case you could have insulted the blog-responders where they’d see the insult (taking no more of your time than it took to insult me) in addition to posting your article here, or you could have criticized the comments less insultingly here because of the fact that the commenters wouldn’t read your article, or you could have drawn attention to this wide-spread phenomenon in a more general way. The first option might seem even ruder than just posting your article here, but it’s more honorable: insulting someone behind his back isn’t so bad if you’ve already insulted him to his face.
43 Comment by PcH on 3 May 2008:
M. Warning-
Is there something wrong with Serbs wanting their own country back?
44 Comment by Ronduck on 3 May 2008:
Mr. Fleming,
If you want a place where we can discuss the articles posted on this site without the idiots posting their drivel then you need a forum. With a forum like http://www.simplemachines.org you could limit discussion to only trusted Chronicles readers or commentators that you approve of. If someone like Haywood Hale popped up his account could be summarily deleted.
Once installed the blog postings here on the main page would be marked closed for comments and a link could be provided to the thread on the forum. This approach would also allow some of your trusted commentators to be made moderators, limiting your workload in maintaining this blog.
It is just a suggestion, submitted for your consideration.
45 Comment by Ronduck on 3 May 2008:
It seems my comment has not been posted! The link I included may have caused the blog software to consider it spam.
46 Comment by Ronduck on 3 May 2008:
This site needs a forum, where we can comment on articles without fear of being bitten by web trolls. Several of the commentators here can be appointed moderators and can delete bad posts and the accounts of trolls on sight. The articles on the blog can all be closed to comments and instead have a link to the appropriate thread on the forum, allowing us to comment in peace.
47 Comment by Edward on 4 May 2008:
Dr Fleming, with whom, exactly, do you seek political common ground? Do you mean Protestants and Catholics?
48 Comment by TJF on 4 May 2008:
A few short responses, in reverse order, before flying off to Belgrade to incite riots and support the Radical Party.
In questions of our understanding of the Church, with all Christians of good will who are willing to seek historical common ground. In practice, this usually means Catholics, Orthodox, and historically grounded Protestants, such as Anglicans, Lutherans, and educated Calvinists. There are, obviously, individual Christians in nearly every group with whom one can find grounds of agreement, but pickings can be slim. Politically, I would seek common ground with people willing to look at first principles rather than be blinded by current partisan battles.
On the principle of web moderation, we can easily eliminate particular posts and block others. Let us try that as the first step. To that end, I would like to hear from the very sane regulars which posters should be blocked permanently. You can either do that here or in a private email addressed to me via the webmaster. I have already blocked permanently perhaps half a dozen, though some have gone to the trouble, not just of getting new email addresses but of using different computers with new addresses. What desperation.
“Ploni Almoni,” so far as I can tell, offers not a single general principle to support his nasty accusation of dishonor–the sort of thing that once upon a time would get a man shot and not simply ridiculed. Nor did he meet any of the general arguments I put forward. Since he is incapable of reason or good manners, I am requesting the webmaster to block him.
Mr. Warning, ditto. Among people who know each other, a man who has given offense, perhaps unknowingly and inadvertently, can be asked to explain or justify his statements. A stranger not only has no such right, but to ask such questions is nothing short of impudence. If the fellow really is an admirer of the Dual Monarchy, it is astounding that he has learned so little of their code of behavior.
Finally, I have posted a brief wrap-up of what I think we learned from 1st Clement and when I return, we’ll move on to Ignatius and then the Martyrdom of Polycarp.
49 Comment by Edward on 4 May 2008:
The reason there are not more Chronicles readers is because of the unwillingness to discuss first principles. It is also why I found ‘modern conservatism’ so very unsatisfying.
50 Comment by G.S. on 4 May 2008:
Regarding elevating the conversations about politics… if I’m not mistaken, it’s worth noting that there have not been too many trolls on any of the past discussions of classic playwrights & philosophers such as Sophocles, Plato, etc.
I don’t think trolls’ attention spans are up to it; they’d rather be prowling the discussion boards of Yahoo!News to find a hot issue (and an adversary) to shriek at.
Hence I’m inclined to doubt that political discussions which center around, say, the thoughts & theories of writers such as St. Augustine, Edmund Burke, Samuel Johnson, Plutarch, John Calhoun, etc., etc. would attract too many miscreants.
Perhaps I’m being overoptimistic, I could be wrong.
But … at the time, I did find it an oddly striking relief (although unsurprising in retrospect) that none of the “white nationalist” crowd even bothered trying to butt in on the discussion of Beowulf.
51 Comment by Allen Wilson on 5 May 2008:
G.S. is right. I also expected the swastickards to pile in on the Beowulf discussion. Perhaps we should discuss philosphia perennis, Homer, Dabney, Chrysostom, Psalms, etc., just for camouflage. Anything truly intellectual or dealing with the spiritual is as garlic to a vampire for them.
52 Comment by TJF on 5 May 2008:
About to leave for O’Hare, I do want to say that my colleagues have instituted a process that is weeding out the undesirables. I won’t give away the details, because knowledge might give power to the brown shirts and crazies. The system is working pretty well and should quickly become better.
53 Comment by Ronduck on 5 May 2008:
48TJF
….On the principle of web moderation, we can easily eliminate particular posts and block others. Let us try that as the first step. To that end, I would like to hear from the very sane regulars which posters should be blocked permanently. You can either do that here or in a private email addressed to me via the webmaster. I have already blocked permanently perhaps half a dozen, though some have gone to the trouble, not just of getting new email addresses but of using different computers with new addresses. What desperation. ….
If you use a forum you can limit discussion to those you approve of instead of having to police the comments after they have been posted. Also, trusted readers can be made moderators, and can thus delete the accounts of trouble makers when they cause problems.
Chronicles readers can start discussions of their own, and rooms on the chat board can be set aside for certain topics.
This could be tried without having to redesign the main site, simply close future articles to comments and have a link to the relevant discussion thread on the message board. The forum software doesn’t require a separate domain such as forum.chronicles.org but instead can be put on Chronicles.org/forum. If the expirement doesn’t work after a few months the board can be closed and future articles can be open to comments.
54 Comment by John Press on 5 May 2008:
Well put James Newland!! Your observation that Americans, in particular, do not see the past as a trove of wisdom, but a long nightmare from which they are trying to awaken rings of truth.
(And I apologize about bastardizing a non-American to describe Americans).
But, Mr. Newland and Mr. Flemming, might we not be guilty of falling into the same logical trap? Prior to the notion of progress, how many people questioned the assumptions of their culture? When did the average person on the street bolster their opinions with references to classical literature?
Whenever I read a statement about something being new, I am sceptical. After Athens, when might we have had a more literate (though perhaps not well read) population? During our Revolutionary War? What would blogging have looked like in 1950s America? I am curious to know when you’d guess the three most enlightened epochs for the populace were.
Please know that, as a non-sophist, I am asking in the kindest spirit of inquiry.
http://www.culturism.us
55 Comment by P. Henderson on 5 May 2008:
Some people just don’t get it. There is no unpasteurized conservative opinion on TV or in university classrooms or at Barnes and Noble the last time I checked. The internet is, for the moment, a venue where genuine dissent can be expressed. It will grow more restricted over time, and even now I am worried by things like Google’s reportedly saving everybody’s searches. But if you think the negative trends in society are helped along by a biased and censorious media that doesn’t (yet) speak for the majority of Americans, here’s your chance to talk back. Just be careful not to offend anyone, cuz Big Server is Watching.
56 Comment by Derek Leaberry on 5 May 2008:
One of the several things that I find contemptible about blogging is this use of pretend names of most posters. It is as if most bloggers don’t have the courage to stand up for their words and ideas. If you are somehow ashamed of what you write, then don’t write it.
57 Comment by G.S. on 5 May 2008:
Just for the record, my real name is actually…. Wolfowitz.
Paul Wolfowitz.
No relation.
I did try using my actual name here at first, but found that the inevitable misunderstandings, though amusing, were a bit too disruptive to allow for any worthwhile discourse.
58 Comment by M.A. Roberts on 5 May 2008:
Another insightful post, especially regarding all the “noise” one finds on the internet.
Dr. Fleming: “I had hoped, by beginning a serious dialogue on the early Church, Protestants and Catholics might begin to find some common ground. In fact, that is exactly what has happened. Can we develop the same common ground on more political topics? Why not? Where do we begin?”
Many of the disagreements paleos have (e.g. Protestantism versus Catholicism, etc.) are bridgeable, in my estimation. Those differences, however, that exist with libertarians (e.g. immigration, free-maret worship, etc.) may not be. You may have some knucklehead posters from time to time (if you think these are bad, go read the nonsense over at FreeRepublic or Little Green Footballs, where most commenters call Buchanan a “nazi” because of his recent straight-forward op-ed on demographics, or an “Islamofascist sympathizer” because of his opposition to the war), but it seems to me that your average paleoconservative is smarter than your average conservative, which is both a blessing (better conversations) and a curse (no true movement following).
59 Comment by M.A. Roberts on 5 May 2008:
Dr. Fleming: “The foolishness of political debate in America has discouraged me from writing this column, but I have decided to come out of semi-retirement to ask….”
Are you really retiring? Will you continue to write your column for Chronicles? If not, it will be an unfortunate loss for us readers….
60 Comment by woodcutter on 6 May 2008:
Dr.Flemming, please excuse my poor english. I went through a public school system that really did not excel in working with students with poor marks. It was at a time when confusion reigned (the sixties and seventies). My only good teacher is now my best friend. Ironically he was my English teacher. He continues to this day to try to straighten out my grammar. To his credit I did remember a couple (just a couple) of things he taught me.
Your friend in Christ,
Rev.Mr.Stephen Bourque
61 Comment by Ronduck on 9 May 2008:
55Derek Leaberry
One of the several things that I find contemptible about blogging is this use of pretend names of most posters. It is as if most bloggers don’t have the courage to stand up for their words and ideas. If you are somehow ashamed of what you write, then don’t write it.
I prefer the use of pseudonyms for posters on this blog. Pseudonyms give the people the chance to wander in and post the occasional relevant comment, and they allow us to post anonymously so that only our ideas come up for discussion, not our circumstances or occupations. If someone here wishes to identify themselves the can, but I prefer not to at this moment.
62 Comment by G.S. on 10 May 2008:
Earlier whimsy aside, I agree with Mr. Duck, and would go even farther.
Practical concerns about the SPLC and other thought-policing agencies aside, there’s something existentially creepy to me about my name floating out in cyberspace, accessible to every last twisted freak on the planet.
Of course that’s a situation the staff of this website has to live with — but in that case I guess it goes with the territory.
63 Comment by TJF on 12 May 2008:
I returned Saturday night and yesterday was greeted with the dismal news of the Serbian election. I am not sure it is even worth posting a brief comment on my trip to Serbia and Kosovo, because if Tadich succeeds in forming a government, Kosovo is gone for good–whatever he might say–and Serbia is probably doomed to go the way of every other historic nation swallowed up in the cesspool of the EU.
64 Comment by Derek Leaberry on 12 May 2008:
Dr. Fleming, forever is a long time. The European Union might not even last past the demographic collapse of the European welfare states. True, Kosovo looks lost for the Serbs yet there was once a time when California looked forever lost for the Mexicans.
65 Comment by michael warning on 13 May 2008:
TFJ you wrote: “Where do we begin?”
“Serbia is probably doomed to go the way of every other historic nation swallowed up in the cesspool of the EU.”
Ok, so the EU & UN are corrupt organizations, they are not capable of guiding nations and states to their True End. So you can identify the problems, good, but can you surely identify a solution to clean up this mess? What is to replace the EU & UN? What would chronicles readers like to see replace these corrupt governmental institutions? Introduce another wave of democratic governmental institutions and alliances such as the League of Democracy?
Or will just a change in personnel do it? And leave the UN & EU untouched but change hearts and minds of those who sit in these governmental institutions? Probably not.
One liberal is as good as a conservative in this modern day and age. Is there any real difference between liberalism and conservatism? Both ideologies have recourse to the same institutions. And after all were not most of the men who created these organizations, conservative to some degree in thought, word, and action? So what’s to change these governmental institutions: EU & UN for the better.
Stand behind a President McCain and his League of Democracy?
Again: “Where do we begin?”
66 Comment by robert alpert on 21 May 2008:
Do you think Mansfield Park refers to Lord Mansfield whose house was burnt down during the Gordon riots?
67 Pingback by Barely A Blog » The Blight of The Blogosphere on 21 May 2008:
[...] post is “Silly Chickens and Rotten Eggs.” As with all Dr. Fleming’s writing, it’s well-worth the read. Share and Enjoy: These icons [...]