An interesting issue arose recently when Sarah A. Hoyt linked to my “Unintended Consequences” essay on Instapundit. A commenter with the moniker “Billy Boy” decided to petulantly request that my blog no longer be linked on Insty. Why? Because I’m apparently “crass,” and he’s upset about my language. Apparently, when he ambled over here (not sure when) to complain about what I write on my site, I failed to kiss his lily-white ass and acknowledge his superiority on matters of what should be posted on my site and how.
Please stop referencing this woman. (emphasis mine)
Even if she is correct (sometimes), her rantings are filled with rhetorical fallacies, taking ad hominem to the stratospheric heights. If you can’t make your point without profanity laced screed, then just shut up. (emphasis mine)
I posted a small side objection on her website and was met with derision and vitriol. She is a crass boor and most certainly is not interested in free and open discussion. (emphasis mine) Definitely not worthy of instapundit readers’ time.
Let’s take this apart a bit.
“Please stop referencing this woman” — Instapundit is a site that provides free content to its readers, as well as an ability to comment. Billy Boy feels himself entitled to demand that a site for which he does not pay and that does not belong to him tailor content to his likes and dislikes.
“If you can’t make your point without profanity laced screed, then just shut up.” — Never mind I make points without using profanity all the time. But aside from that little matter… just shut up? So, if Billy Boy doesn’t like your language you should just not speak out? My, my… how interesting and SJWish!
“I posted a small side objection on her website and was met with derision and vitriol. She is a crass boor and most certainly is not interested in free and open discussion. Definitely not worthy of instapundit readers’ time.” — So Billy Boy came over here to admonish me about my language (note, I have no idea who this pedantic fucknugget is or to which comment he’s referring). On a site for which I pay. On a site that is mine. And apparently, he’s butthurt, because he was ridiculed for his entitled attitude in telling another person how they should communicate on their own site. This, of course, in his puny little mind translates to not being “interested in free and open discussion.” Let’s remember, he was not in any way moderated or prevented from making his arrogant comments. His comment was not edited (I don’t do that, and I only screen for spam and overt threats). But apparently ridiculing him for attempting to arrogantly demand that I alter my site and my language, when it is pretty clearly stated that I have no interest in making converts or conforming to anyone else’s standards but my own, to fit his ideal of a website is somehow equivalent to suppressing his ability to hold a free and open discussion. How SJWish of him!
Additionally, this presumptuous bag of hubris has apparently also made himself the arbiter of what is appropriate and what is not on Insty.
To link this screed generator from the instapundit site is far below the dignity of Professor Reynolds.
Go read some of Professor Reynolds many essays which are carried by USA Today and get back with us if you can spot the difference.
Dear Billy Boy – would you like a little Vagisil for that itch?
A related issue was addressed by my friend Amanda on her blog yesterday.
Let me make this perfectly clear. I have had enough. If you want to talk about how you believe in freedom of speech, then you’d better put your money where your mouth is. Freedom of speech isn’t trying to shut down speech you don’t like or agree with. Freedom of speech isn’t trying to cost people their jobs when you don’t like what they say. Yes, they can be the biggest fucking douche-wad there is but as long as their speech doesn’t violate the First Amendment, shut the fuck up about silencing them.
Amanda made a great point earlier. Social Justice Warrior Howler Monkeys love freedom only on their terms. These same people claimed they were expanding science fiction when, in fact, they worked to silence voices that did not agree with their views. These are the same people who tried to force Baen Publishing to pressure Brad Torgersen and others supporting Sad Puppies 3 to shut up or they would be cut loose from the house. How is silencing one group of fans, because they do not agree with your point of view, “expanding” anything?
Here’s a clue. It isn’t.
Silencing your opposition is not the same as promoting your point of view.
It’s the sign of a miserable mediocrity trying to get ahead – not by producing superior writing or advancing a superior argument, but by trying to cripple its opponent a la Tanya Harding.
Demanding that others conform to your standards, and if not, that they should be silenced makes you a petty little despot wannabe, but certainly not anyone who actually loves and respects freedom, no matter how much you screech to the contrary! (And yes, I fully realize the First Amendment protects you from government prosecution if you dare speak out. However, demanding that someone whose speech you don’t like be silenced by anyone, be it an employer or a news aggregator, still makes you a petty little tyrannical fuck.)
And finally, there’s this little thing called a “mouse,” which you can use to navigate away from sites you don’t like. There are also things called “power buttons,” which you can use to turn off television and radio programs that don’t appeal to you. And, believe it or not, there are other things called “books,” which you can either close or not purchase altogether if you don’t like their content.
Those Special Snowflakes who are too lazy or too pompous to do any of the above, but who insist that others conform to their worldview to save themselves the effort of making a logical argument or opening their minds to new challenges, while demanding a safe space to hide from naughty language as an excuse for said negligence, can go fuck themselves.