[Industrialblog,
February 9, 2007]
Overton Window, Contempt and the Marcotte Affair
OK, I'll weigh in. Jane Galt has a discussion here, which some commenters and I think misses the point. The issue is not the target of Amanda Marcotte's ire. She can make fun of Catholicism and Catholics all she wants. It doesn't offend me — after all, if I'm truly faithful, I know that one day she'll come into the presence of God's great love and mercy and realize the full nature of her blasphemy. Just like I will when I face God.
She can also insult pro-lifers all she wants. I no longer argue with pro-choicers — pro-choicers don't have to explain it to me, they'll have to explain it to them. Just like I'll have a lot of explaining to do on a wide range of issues.
And the issue really isn't First Amendment or censorship. She can write what she wants, and no one wants to stop them. But if she is full of contempt for those who disagree — and she is — and is not just gratuiously insulting (which is all right by me) but full of seething hatred, bigotry and paranoia, well, then you're talking about someone who is not fit yet to come into the company of civil individuals and is outside the Overton Window.
Edwards tried to "manage" the situation. Essentially, he tried to clean them up a bit so they may enter into mainstream politics — Marcotte and McEwan had to disavow they meant anything insulting, Edwards said he'd take them at their word, and voila! — they know that to speak in a mainstream forum, they can't speak that way.
Whether they've learned something by this or have merely sold out their deepest beliefs for power is known only by God and in their own hearts. Whether they'll self-destruct, who knows?
She can also insult pro-lifers all she wants. I no longer argue with pro-choicers — pro-choicers don't have to explain it to me, they'll have to explain it to them. Just like I'll have a lot of explaining to do on a wide range of issues.
And the issue really isn't First Amendment or censorship. She can write what she wants, and no one wants to stop them. But if she is full of contempt for those who disagree — and she is — and is not just gratuiously insulting (which is all right by me) but full of seething hatred, bigotry and paranoia, well, then you're talking about someone who is not fit yet to come into the company of civil individuals and is outside the Overton Window.
Edwards tried to "manage" the situation. Essentially, he tried to clean them up a bit so they may enter into mainstream politics — Marcotte and McEwan had to disavow they meant anything insulting, Edwards said he'd take them at their word, and voila! — they know that to speak in a mainstream forum, they can't speak that way.
Whether they've learned something by this or have merely sold out their deepest beliefs for power is known only by God and in their own hearts. Whether they'll self-destruct, who knows?
This is a Free Speech issue. William Donohue and his "Catholic League" (which does not in any way represent the views of all Catholics) do want to stop these people from writing what they want. And I believe you stated your view of this quite clearly last February 3:
"If they can't live with free speech, they need to get the fuck out of our country. Pretty simple."
As Mark Shea puts it, "If this had involved Jews, African-Americans, or gays Mandy and Co. would be so far down the memory hole you couldn't see them. But since this is about the last acceptable American prejudice, the Evil Party types give it a pass. Utterly disgusting."
And btw, sometimes I suspect you think everything I write is skewed :)
As my professor Toby Olson said in his poen"AESTHETICS- 1
*Paint what you see*
is already a philosophical problem:
"
Bill Donohue is, if memory serves, a Democrat. He is not a public official, has never run for public office, and has not one shred of police power. He cannot silence anyone, but he can surely give his opinion about what Edwards must do to retain the interest of Catholic voters.
I suggest that it's Harry who has the problem with freedom of speech -- Bill Donohue's freedom of speech, that is.
Nor does he have the right to dictate who may participate in the campaign of a potential Presidential candidate. By Donohue's criteria, John Edwards would have "no choice but to fire" any blogger (or commentor, or letter-to-the-editor writer) whose rhetorhic has risen to the level he has defined. That means you, Bill. Me. Chris. Pretty much almost every blogger I can think of, with the possible exception of SuperG. ("Chinaman's chance", Mr. Porretto? Oh, dear. Welcome the list.) Everybody on Michelle Malkin's list of heroes from last year's Mohammed cartoons flap, too - unless you can somehow explain how posting those cartoons was not "incendiary" or "inflammatory". Including Michelle Malkin herself.
(And, by the way, Bill - have you read Malkin's criticism of one of the bloggers for allegedly deleting, or "whitewashing", or, as you call it, "redacting" some of the objectionable posts? Of course, when this later turned out to be untrue, rather than admit her error Malkin remarked that this was even worse, since this vile stuff would be allowed to remain online.)
How could she remark that not redacting the posts was even worse than redacting them without acknowledging that they were not, in fact, redacted?
But of course none of us is political material. Does that really surprise you?
Harry: I have not criticized Marcotte for removing posts. In fact, she showed poor judgment by not deleting many of the posts before serving in the Edwards campaign. Online blogs are the property of the owner -- period -- to do whatever he/she wants, for whatever reason or for no reason. It is the "at will" employment of journalism.
While blogs are in fact an online record of someone's thoughts, they are not "abstractly" some kind of permanent testimony that must never be touched lest someone be accused of cover-up and perjury. If someone wants to change past posts to more accurately reflect their current opinions, particularly before accepting a different job, I have no problem with that. I expect people to develop, learn and grow. Particularly young people.
There are other elements of this when it comes to being a professional writer, particularly involving protecting your byline and not embarrassing your employer, that I'll only mention in passign.
I've probably been as disrespectful towards materialism as Marcotte has been towards Christianity. Though on the other hand, I've always understood it better.
The thing that really strikes me about Marcotte is not how disrespectful she is. When you get down to it, there's only so respectful an atheist can be towards a Christian, and vice versa. After all, we do both believe each other to be catastrophically wrong about the most important things in the universe.
The thing which strikes me about Marcotte is how badly she understands Christianity.