Reality Check, part 2
Regardless of what I think of Jeroen's "catalogue of shame" idea, no reality check is complete without an examination of one's own behavior. I know for a fact that several of us have drawn negative conclusions about Jeroen's character based on the style and content of his arguments. I don't think it can be denied that several of us have crossed over on multiple occasions from attacking Jeroen's arguments to attacking his motives and beliefs as we've inferred them from his arguments; that is, we have attacked his person. Although I do try to attack the argument and not the person, I believe I must number myself among this group. I belive that anyone, myself included, who considers himself likely to be featured in Jeroen's catalogue needs to ask himself, "Is it time for me to back off? Is it time for me to grant Jeroen his opinions, no matter how odious I think they are, without attacking Jeroen himself? I can still attack the opinion, after all." This is a question that's important whether Jeroen makes a catalogue or not. By "to back off" I mean, to refrain from drawing public conclusions about Jeroen himself based on the content of his arguments. We all know the distinction, and I think that no matter how angry we get at what someone says, we need to hew more strictly to the letter of the Brin-L guidelines. It's a difficult task, because drawing and expressing such conclusions is what we do naturally. But if our goal as a list is to be a bit better than that, perhaps we should resist that which comes naturally. To give the most obvious example: rather than saying that an opinion of Jeroen's is anti-semitic as such, or that Jeroen is an anti-semite, one instead should press Jeroen for a detailed defense of the idea one finds objectionable. If that defense is lacking, one must say why in terms of fact and logic, and ask pressing questions. If Jeroen fails to answer them, and if the list doesn't take issue with the questions one has asked, then one should trust the other listmembers to judge well between your argument and Jeroen's, and leave it at that. And if the argument itself has grown tedious and repetitive, then we need to be willing to unilaterally drop it without worrying about who has "won." By that time few will care much anyway. I believe that the consensus on the list has always been that free speech trumps fair speech. The existence of a "no personal attacks" rule in the guidelines means, to me, that we agree that publicly drawing conclusions about listmembers' characters inhibits the free flow of ideas. "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." For those of us who frequently and vehemently disagree with Jeroen, I think we need to take this motto especially to heart and without regard for whether, in our opinions, Jeroen himself lives up to the ideal. I realize that to some this might sound like bowing to pressure or like urging you to dissemble about your true feelings. But since all that's at stake is our opinions, and egos, and the atmosphere of the list, I don't think that's really the case. I don't mean that we should tie our hands if we feel we have been attacked, for instance, and I don't mean that we should just shut up. But let's do our best to meet the highest standard we'd ask another to adopt; let's relieve ourselves of the burden of judging one another's personalities; and let's stick to the arguments. Marvin Long Austin, Texas
