Alright. I understand that this may not be of general interest, but you can read all about what I’m talking about at the following links, which, you must copy and then paste into your browser to access. Kim has seen fit to prevent his server from serving up pages where the referrer is this site or a couple of others. Now, he’s welcome to block tinyurl.com too, I suppose, but then he blocks anyone and everyone now and in the future who has or will use it to communicate "tiny" links to Kim’s posts. I have asked Kim to be sporting enough to remove that block, but no response.
http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/tos-shared/viewcomments/9745/
http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/tos-shared/comments/9751/
The first of those is what kicked it off, with me posting a link to my post about his, and then all the comments ensued, culminating in the action taken which you can read about at the second link. Is it a big deal? Yes, and no. No, in that it’s just a couple of guys battling it out on their blogs. Big deal. Yes, in that Kim is influential and he has done some damage to his integrity, in my opinion.
A note to his dittoheads, and I’m referring to a lot of the comments at the second of those two links: I have no argument with Kim’s right to ban me or anyone else. It is censorship, and he has every right and authority to engage in it. Period. Now, I happen to believe that when you censor tough arguments because they point out contradictions that you even admit to (more on that, below), you’re getting yourself into serious integrity issues if truth has any meaning to you at all. That’s where we’re at, here.
My next point. John T. Kennedy posted a comment at my "Why, Kim?" thread linked above.
I think the criticism of Connie Du Toit has been way off point.
I agree, and hereby concede the point. So, Kim, I have been off base in bringing Connie into this as to the technical issues and exercise of policy on the site (but not in responding to her arguments posted in the comments). It’s your name on the blog, so the buck stops with you. Connie is "Tech Support," that’s clear enough, so there’s really no point in dumping on someone who’s essentially acting as your employee in that capacity.
So, that stops here.
Now to the "why?" of this whole "project." I’ve long been looking for an integrated way to deconstruct conservative republicanism in a way that might be interesting and fun. Keep in mind that I’m from a conservative republican, fundamentalist Christian background (long now an atheist and market anarchist). I think this meets the bill, and so you will find a new category to your left: "Kim du Toit." His dittoheads are welcome, each and every one, if they’d care to defend Kim or challenge their own thinking. No promises, but I’m going to make real efforts to be civil, and I will encourage others to do likewise. Of course, Kim, et al, are welcome to defend themselves or attack me. You won’t find me running away from any arguments. Have at it.
What do I have in mind? Well, the first order of business is to archive the comments I posted in that thread, above, with commentary. There’s an email or two to throw up and comment on, and then there’s whatever Kim happens to post in the future that catches my eye. Now, won’t this be fun? Frankly, I don’t know, and I make no promises. I could tire of it, but it’s a safe bet that it’ll hold my interest for at least the immediate future.
Here’s an item of interest. There’s a comment from Tech Support at the second of those tiny URL’s, in answer to one of their members complaining about it, "justifying" the ban on referral links from this site.
There is only one reason why I will go to all the trouble of adding a referrer block:
— When Libel has occurred.
Now, I’ve read through that whole post and comment thread and can’t even begin to imagine what Kim believes has been libelous. You can review the various legal definitions for libel and make up your own mind, but the key seems to be that it must involve unambiguous statements of fact (not opinion) that are false. And, you have to know they’re false or probably false, they must be intended to cause harm, and the big clincher: they have to actually cause financial harm that can be shown.
I suspect this is why the "libel" wasn’t specified. But, hey, with a chorus of dittoheads backing you up… Well, draw your own conclusions, but I’ll be magnanimous about it. Kim, if you seriously believe there is anything libelous towards you on this site, let me know what you believe it is. The dittoheads are welcome to argue your case. What could be fairer? Now, I think I’ve been pretty objective, here. I edited out insults when I had second thoughts, and I copped to it. I’ve admitted it was a mistake to dump on Connie, and I’ve copped to it. That should be enough to suggest that I’ll give your charge of libel a fair hearing.
Finally, what’s the theme of this whole thing, a theme that will be continually driven home, relentlessly? Actually, it comes from Kim’s own email to me:
Secondly, when one tries to follow a philosophy which encompasses a fair amount of compromise (in order to get things done), that of necessity allows for a degree of contradiction. I’m close to being a Second Amendment absolutist, for example, but I don’t think individuals should be allowed to own fully-armed F16s or Stinger missiles. So if you want to use that to score a cheap debating point off me ("Ha! So you’re no better than Dianne Feinstein!"), go right ahead.
Remember this (if you care), because it’s of utmost importance. Kim admits his position is contradictory. The import of that cannot be overstated, and unless he was just being completely honest, it was a big blunder to admit this. In essence, it means: ‘Richard, all your arguments about principles are right. I even agree with them. I’m going to violate them anyway.’
This project is about driving home the point that such a predicament is absolutely devastating to one’s character and integrity. And, it’s every republican’s Really Big Problem. The dems (commies) don’t have to worry, because they don’t claim to hold any of the principles we’ll be talking about. In other words, they are already evil to the core, so there’s no real point in this sort of project with respect to them.
Here’s the portion of my email response to Kim, to which I have yet to receive any reply:
Kim; contradictions exist no where in nature. Nowhere. They are man-made and are the result of not dealing honestly with reality. Compromise most certainly does not necessarily involve a contradiction of any sort. It simply means that when you claim to hold a certain principle, and your actions contradict it, then you’re lying about holding that certain principle.
That’s a plain fact, Kim, and you know it.
[…]
Kim, the second amendment means: self defense. The gun stuff is peripheral, and trust me that you want it that way (think: for purposes of hunting only). So, if your notion of self-defense has no more depth than the 2nd amendment to a man-made document, fine, I’m not going to argue with you, but don’t tell me that self defense "taken too far" means that I’ve got no choice but to be one button push away from a crazy detonating a nuke in my town by consequence.
Second amendment or not, natural rights or not, self defense of not, some people can’t be trusted with a sharp pencil, much less a knife, gun, F16, or Stinger. That’s the issue and _that_ is how you can be an absolutist in self defense without having to admit your dishonesty by claiming to hold contradictions.
Onward.
Warning: Declaration of FV_TC_Walker_Comment_blank::walk($elements, $max_depth) should be compatible with Walker::walk($elements, $max_depth, ...$args) in /home/freethea/public_html/wp-content/plugins/thoughtful-comments/walkers.php on line 0
Warning: Declaration of FV_TC_Walker_Comment_blank::paged_walk($elements, $max_depth, $page_num, $per_page) should be compatible with Walker::paged_walk($elements, $max_depth, $page_num, $per_page, ...$args) in /home/freethea/public_html/wp-content/plugins/thoughtful-comments/walkers.php on line 0
I've known du Toit was inconsistent on gun rights for a few years now. He admitted back in 2002 he favored background checks and restricting transfers of firearm to licensed dealers. He also favors banning private ownership of weapons of mass destruction which "…includes bombs, rockets, hand grenades, F-14s and any weapon capable of fully-automatic fire which cannot be carried by an individual as a personal weapon."
theothersideofkim.com/index.php/gunthing/123/
To his credit his infringements on my rights would be much more tolerable than the current set of infringements. However, when I called him on it, his reply was polite but firm in that he didn't really want to discuss it.
I've never met Du Toit outside his blog and a couple of emails. My general perception is of a man who has his intuition in the right place but is afraid to let his reason follow. That does not make him evil it simply make him misguided.
I've seen complaints from du Toit's choir and from">http://www.two–four.net/weblog.php?id=P2553">from Beck on the use of the word censorship here:
If we're talking about the English language here (and I think we are), it is completely correct to apply the word to both the government and private practices of censorship. Government censorship is wrong. Private censorship is perfectly legitimate.
What is corrosive is the attempt to comandeer the language and dictate to others how it can be used soley based upon your own ideas of how to steer public opinion.
It's even more corrosive to suggest that Rich said anything but that du Toit had a perfect right to control, that is censor, the discussion at du Toit's own site. I don't know how Rich could have made it clearer when he said:
Alright. On further consideration, I left out and additional distinction that's important.
When the government censors, are we talking about prohibiting my speech or free expression within some limited context, e.g., not allowing me to set up a podium in a public park and preach to passersby, or are we talking about shutting me up completely?
It seems like the former is equivalent to an exercise of property rights, just like a private party would do, but the latter is something that really only applies to government or an agent of the government.
Kim shut me up on his blog, but he certainly didn't silence me, and it's an important distinction.
I argued with Billy in email, but now I'm wondering if he doesn't have a point after all.
John:
OK, how would you differentiate between the government or a private entity covering their ears, so to speak, and the government shutting my mouth?
It occurred to me that the former is best described as an exercise of property rights, and the later as an exercise of censorship.
At any rate, even though I now see and accept Billy's view better, I don't think it's a big deal, either way, so long as the proper distinctions are in place.
That said, of all the distinctions one could make, it seems to me that the most important is the distinction between closing one's ears and shutting someone's mouth (which is clearly no my experience, here), and I'm sure you'd agree that any entity with the power to shut mouths is a government.
Alright. I'm just shutting my own mouth now. Youse guys have me flapping in the breeze like a sheet.
No one here is disputing that what Kim did is different from government does, but to censor is to suppress objectionable material – and that's what Kim did in banning you.
All that's in dispute is whether the word censorship means state suppression. It doesn't.
There's nothing corrosive about noticing that a state action and a private action can fall in a common category, in this case censorship. You avoided confusion by properly quaifying your remarks.
"Let us drink a toast, Kavalerov…We've done a lot of talking about feelings. And, my friend, we forgot the main one. We forgot…indifference. Isn't that right? It is. I think indifference is the best of all possible attitudes of the human mind. Let us be indifferent, Kavalerov. Open your eyes. We have found peace, my dear fellow. Drink! To indifference! Hooray!"
– Yuri Olesha, Envy (1927)
Rich,
"OK, how would you differentiate between the government or a private entity covering their ears, so to speak, and the government shutting my mouth?"
If your book (or blog) were banned in Boston that would be a clear case of censorship, government censorship, and that would be wrong. But it wouldn't be shutting your mouth if you could still publish in Connecticut or California. It would just be an attempt to cover the ears of Bostonians, as Kim has attempted to cover the ears of his choir.
The moral difference between those two cases lies not in covering ears or shutting mouths, but in property rights. Kim is entitled to do it because he owns his blog, the government of Boston is not entitled to do it because it doesn't own Boston.
One differentiates between such cases by noting the the relevant property rights, which you clearly did all along.
The word "censorship" is neutral to property rights. You used it properly.
Just a question to the oom at large: would the term "censure" possibly fit better than "censor" for the type of private censorship ya'll are discussing?
Just asking. I've seen this argument come up a LOT in the graphics arts circles I travel in, and I've seen the word "censorship" tossed around rather loosely there to describe a number of things it seems to fit poorly at best.
I've yet to find a more precise alternate term to counter with, however.
"I think indifference is the best of all possible attitudes of the human mind. Let us be indifferent…"
Oh please. At least we're not involved in debating the monstrous importance of Tit-Gate that's engorged the Left-Right blogosphere the past week or so.
Then again, I *could* get a lot more invested in debating tits…
"The word 'censorship' is neutral to property rights. You used it properly."
Bullshit.
"If we're talking about the English language here (and I think we are), it is completely correct to apply the word to both the government and private practices of censorship."
I have to disagree. You are confusing 'censorship' with 'editorial control' (exercise of which a matter of private property rights). If you submit an article to a newspaper and the editor elects not to publish it, you are not being 'censored' because you have no right to be publish in the first place because the only person with any 'rights' there is the owner of the newspaper. A blog is no different.
I simply do not agree that the term 'censorship' is correctly used in this case. In fact I would say that as the word is commonly used and understood, it is usually (though not always) incorrect to use it in any context other than state censorship.
Are you saying that people do not commonly use the word to describe actions by private agencies, or that that this common usage is simply wrong because you don't like it, regardless of the fact that dictionaries support it?
And of course I don't dispute that Kim was exercising editorial control, but that usage is also neutral to state control. There's nothing incorrect about saying editorial control of content was exercised at Pravda, even though it was a state organ.
Oh and Beck – nicely argued.
Uw online verzekeringsmakelaarEerst Europa Doelstellingen: De Ci2i Verzekering (Ci2i) zal
het nummer een gebrandmerkte pan Europese commoditized online verzekeringsmakelaar door 2010 zijn.