Good. And evil. And the need to make a choice between the two.

Charles Johnson writes today that "I’ve been coming in for some (in my opinion) unwarranted criticism for the types of posts that get deleted at LGF."

He then reprinted several posts that would be deleted under LGF's deletion policy. As many once-LGF fans know, however, the problem with Mr. Johnson's deletion/banning policy isn't with the comments he deletes; it's with the comments that he leaves up and (at times) appears to tacitly endorce. I thus responded to Mr. Johnson with the following comment, which I reprint below (typos in the first paragraph have been corrected -- hey, I'm a post-modern Grammar God):

Charles --

The examples you set forth are all forms of idiocy and depravity. Although I think that it's useful to hold them up (and tear them down) as a teaching lesson and warning, I certainly don't dispute your choice to delete them; they're poison.

I think, however, that critics of your deletion policy (of which I am one) have more in mind your failure to apply the policy consistently. For example, you did not apply the policy to the following posts (all from the same thread, all by apparent LGF regulars):

Camel Prophet started it off: "If you want to lecture NPR, you can't do it credibly as a pollyanish dhimmi. Don't hope for reform in these dens of muslim social idiocy. Look for hope in the B1 bomber pilot who takes one last look at this place in his rear view mirror:"

Reader FH (correctly) protested Camel Prophet's views. Evariste responded as follows: "I mean, not everyone supports nuking Mecca. I do, and lots of other people here do too." (Emphasis supplied.)

Next, Jheka helpfully cut and pasted a past discussion on LGF regarding the benefits/detriments of nuking Mecca.

Camel Prophet then returned, and descended into naked bigotry and prejudice: "muslims cannot live under any other law but their perverse shariah, except as a means to implant shariah on the country that they subvert. . . . You can trust a muslim - even those who pose as free-thinkers - as far as you can spit against a hurricane. The choice is: us or them."

All without any rebuke from you. It is safe to say that, among the thinking members of the population, general hilarity did not then ensue.

The foregoing is not an isolated example, by the way. (You implicitly concede as much here.) Indeed, it has been pointed out to you numerous times that LGF regulars regularly post hate. Typically, your response is that they represent a few "extreme" voices. Accordingly, you argue, it is inappropriate to hold you accountable.*

Well, your current post indicates that it is in fact your policy to delete extreme, hateful comments. As you say:

I’ve been coming in for some (in my opinion) unwarranted criticism for the types of posts that get deleted at LGF

Given that your policy is to delete (or at least rebuke) hateful comments, it is not wrong to wonder why you apply it in such a decidedly one-sided fashion. Tacit approval of evil, after all, can be more dangerous than express approval of evil, for it gives no warning.**

von

*I presume, of course, that you regard the foregoing voices as extreme. If I'm wrong, please enlighten me.

**I'd also note that it took less than twenty minutes of Googling to come up with the foregoing, and other, examples.

Comments

[praktike]

statistics in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 ...

[Skip]

Well, you know you've won when Charles says he won't argue with you any more.

[JohninLondon]

Wow !

This is a busy site !!!