Critical Mass

A reminder to all our readers that you can show your support for Critical Mass on facebook as well.  Join the group here.

The Yale Daily News announced today that Yale will take down a painting of the University's founder, Elihu Yale, that has hung in Woodbridge Hall for over a century.  It is to be removed because it shows a black servant standing next to Mr. Yale. The painting will be "replaced with a portrait of Elihu without servants." University Vice President and Secretary Linda Lorimer is worried about what the YDN called "perceived racist overtones" in the painting; she explained that the portrait is "confusing without the explanation" that Yale did not own slaves.
The Soviets used to air-brush politcally incorrect comrades out of photographs.

A repeated theme in the comments section of Critical Mass over the past few days has been the impassioned demand by several readers to know just who I (or we) think I (or we) am (or are) to judge their personal choices. My response to one of these questioners was initially, "Well, for one, I am a rational human being." However, I think the nature of their inquiry requires further elaboration.

The question about the right to judge personal choices implicitly raises two issues, in addition to the nature, origin, and legitimacy of 'rights'. This latter issue, however, we won't get into here. For the purposes of discussion, we'll (tenuously) assume that said right does exist.

Now, the first issue which comes up is what it means to judge. Based on the nature of the comments I've read and the sense of indignation which they express, I'm inclined to assume that many readers view 'judging' as containing some intrinsic ability to enforce the associated judgment. It seems absurd, though, to say that they actually think I could enforce my opinions. And were I to actually attempt to do so, they would indeed have a legitimate cause for concern. 

What it really means to judge, though, is not so much to 'tell someone what to do' as to give an argument pertaining to what they should do and why their current choice of action is incorrect. When we think of it this way, as we should, I fail to see why I am obligated to refrain from doing this. I don't want to go so far as to say I am entitled to do this, as I don't like making up rights out of thin air, but certainly there is no prohibition, moral, legal or otherwise, which keeps from judging in this sense.

And yet, maybe these accusers of mine share this definition nonetheless. Perhaps what they really want to say is that I should refrain from ever thinking one course of action (of theirs, presumably) is ever better than another. Ah, relativism, you sly guest, always showing up uninvited. Under this view, telling me I should not be 'judging you' seems rather foolish. Everyone judges others everyday. Can you honestly stand up and berate me, saying, "Don't you dare disapprove of my actions. They are my own and you have no right to say they are wrong!"

Are we afraid of being convinced? Is that the issue? This is the only other option I can imagine: that people are actually afraid that if someone tells them what they are doing is wrong, they will either have to stop because they are ashamed, and thus lose the enjoyment of the activity which they previously had, or they will be convinced too that it is wrong and suffer the same consequence. Otherwise, what danger need anyone fear at being told they are doing something wrong? If you disagree with my argument, respond or ignore. But does its mere existence really threaten you that much?

The second issue brought up involves the idea of a "personal choice." The undercurrent here is a decidely libertarian one. And I'm not favorably disposed to libertarian; they miss much of many arguments in my opinion.

The thought process behind the "personal choice" defense is that the matter at hand involves no one other than those making the choice and that it has no consequences, negative or otherwise, for anyone else. This would a very nice, tidy little idea were it not for the blatant fact that we live in a small thing called society. Even personal choices, reflected through the altered demeanor of the actor and his subsequent further actions, have the ability to affect others.

Now, hold on there. Put down the pitch fork, don't lynch me yet. Don't worry, I don't want to regulate your entire life and I don't want to let anyone else regulate it either. I may not be a libertarian, but privacy and minimal government are good things, the issue of our rights to them aside.

But one must admit that experience has already deemed it prudent for certain choices to be regulated, lest their consequences spread willy nilly. Drug use is a perfect example. As long as I don't have to pay your medicare bill, I could care less if you fry your brain on crack. Yet, I think few would disagree that minimizing the portion of our population which spends their days at home, totally baked, is in the interest of the nation as a whole. Without specifically addressing whether sex in a shower stall falls under this category, what I do want to express is that not all "personal choices" are as simply personal as we make them out to be. Debate on whether any given choice is personal or social is entirely welcome and expressly needed, but refusal to even admit that some choices may be as I have described them is sheer pigheadedness.

Who am I to judge? I am one who doesn't accept arguments or positions just because they sound good. I judge because I think, and you should too. 

Mr. Beckman reflected in his last post on the inadqueacy of the internet for political debate, as it appears to appeal to emotional over logical debate. I would say that the trouble isn't so much the internet itself -- ad hominem attacks and runaway emotions trouble political debate in general; I have noticed in the commentary on the website as well as in the emails I've received that the angry personal attacks are products of the Left. I realize that it is natural for conservatives to sympathize with my views, and for liberals to attack them. Nevertheless, in the stream of blog-comment conversation, the conservative responses (including those arguing directly against leftist comments) favor reason over the bitter ad hominem rhetoric that the Left employs so consistently. The liberals reading this may want to reflect on the now-permanent record of this fact in re the comments on my piece and on Mr. Hutchins' follow-up post.

I have been accused, as have many of my colleagues, of being a religious fanatic of some sort who refuses to part with antiquated moral conventions that cannot be reasonably justified (like the tradition of the uni-sex shower). But the utter bitterness with which I have been attacked (and seen friends in similar circumstances attacked) demonstrates what I will call the religious fanaticism of the Left. Their religion is politics; they put their absolute faith in progress, as if to say, "it doesn't matter where we're headed as long as we don't look back." 

- Dan Gelernter

I am becoming increasingly disenchanted with the Internet as a medium for discussion, particularly when it comes to touchy matters like religion and politics. This is troubling for me because I see the great potential of international communications forums allowing intelligent and diverse discussions of many-faceted issues that touch home with each of us – particularly when the statistics to back up arguments are so easily accessible. Unfortunately, it seems that whenever people enter a conversation about which they feel passionately, emotions overwhelm reason and people resort to ad hominem attacks of a type unknown to most personal debates.

Or perhaps I am wrong on this point as well. Media stories abound of political activists and speakers who are harangued and attacked by those who do not agree with them. The Columbia Minutemen debacle comes to mind, as do a number of other similar incidents from both sides of the political aisle. Civil discourse is no longer encouraged, but has been replaced with the concept of one side trying to shout down the other. Free speech has been killed in its own name, for rather than allowing a balanced and reasonable argument in which all sides are equally presented we resort instead to protests attempting to eliminate the voice of the opposition.

Though the American people often complain of the personal attacks in political advertisements, the blogosphere often seems little less than a mental wrestling match – and by this I do not mean great minds grappling with one another to try to emerge victorious, but more like something from WWE, where the insults and the flash replace any type of substance, or for that matter, real wrestling. Online discussion forums and comments sections of blogs turn into bickering messes of misunderstanding, name-calling, and abuse, in which the original intent of a post is often lost or obscured.

This is not to say that intelligent debate cannot or does not take place, because in certain limited cases it does. On the whole, however, our opinions fall into two categories: my view, or the wrong view. We develop mutual admiration societies for those with whom we agree, and mutual hate societies for those with whom we do not agree. Rather than carefully weighing arguments and considering the possibilities, we denounce and slander any dissenters, whether real or believed. (Often, it seems, the dissension is not so great as we may originally believe, for with further clarification of comments the real meaning of a poorly worded sentence or misinterpreted phrase is revealed.)

I find this shift – or perhaps only this realization of mine – towards ugly crassness so disconcerting that I find little inspiration to take part in the conversation – not because I might find my beliefs challenged, for I have no problem with that, but because I doubt the effectiveness of the conversation in the first place. Those who advocate some modicum of morality are denounced as “preaching” or “on their high horse;” those asking for restraint are considered repressed. Those holding Christian beliefs are sidelined as the ignorant “Religious Right,” while those supporting the country are deemed shortsighted “patriots” or “nationalists” – practically slurs in this “globalized” world. Meanwhile, anyone who argues against the traditional conservative ideas is designated a loony, Commie moonbat, or that worst of all invectives, a capital L Liberal.

I want civil discussion. I want well reasoned, statistic and theory backed arguments. I want logical debates, passionate debates, political and religious debates, personal debates that are not personal attacks. I want conversation rather than accusation. I think I may be left wanting for a while.

PS: Before the comments start flying, I want to note that this post is not really concerned with Mr. Gelernter 's or Mr. Hutchins' posts, but rather helps explain my own lack of posting of late. Disinclination to write and a wedding to plan tend to discourage much creative output.