Brendan O’Neill thinks I pick on him* unfairly in this post, where I react to his mini-disquisition on postmodern morality with a (very) few choice words. Writes O’Neill:
Have you ever noticed how some webloggers revert to childish insults and slang talk when taking up people they disagree with? Protein Wisdom, a weblog that looks like it is run by some form of ex-hippy, disagreed with my piece on the Pakistani gang rape by writing: ‘Ugh. Just ugh.’ No explanation, no argument, just ugh.
Even less insightful was a follow-up comment from Andrea Harris. ‘What-ev-er, Mr O’Neill’, wrote Harris, sounding like some clueless extra from Clueless. I thought the weblogging ‘community’ was interested in having debates?
Tellingly, O’Neill leaves out the gist of Andrea’s comments (in which she asks rhetorically,”We shouldn’t talk about it because the only reason we do so is to figuratively ‘look down our noses’ at a different culture and assert our ‘Western moral superiority’???”) and forgets to click the link to my related discussion of Stanley Fish and the failings of postmodernism (such as they are) — but then again he must ignore these things, otherwise his assertion that no explanations or arguments are presented is nonsensical. (On the plus side, he does link back to this site, so presumably his more industrious readers can find the elisions for themselves.)
Mr. O’Neill then finishes his wounded act with a wordy, whingy, and pedantic complaint best summarized this way: “I thought the blogosphere was supposed to be the place for serious debate — and that every post I come across is supposed to be a fully-wrought and polished piece of argumentative prose, drawn out in such a way that I can be proud to have it displayed on my very serious monitor — but I guess I was wrong. Because I found a post that said ‘Ugh.’ And, y’know, what’s that all about?”
Quick answer: You thought wrong, Brendan. The blogosphere can be a place for serious discussion, certainly (and in fact serious discussions break out all the time), but there’re no hard and fast rules here in the ether. It’s a friggin’ free-for-all, in fact. Writers are pushing the envelope, breaking with convention, developing their own styles, expressing themselves in ways you won’t often find in traditional media…
Me, I write to my own standards. Don’t like what you see? Go elsewhere. There’s plenty of content out there delivered just as you like it — of that I’m sure.
Anyway, here’s the email I sent him:
Re: Ugh, Just ugh.
Well, Mr. O’Neill, the post of mine you reference contained another link — in which I discussed postmodernism and the Stanley Fish piece in Harpers (and it’s counter, Peter Berkowitz’s New Republic piece). Obviously you’re free to characterize my post any way you wish (‘s your blog, after all), but I send you this note just in case you missed the intertextual reference and would like to reconsider your characterization. I consider posts on my site part of some running commentary for regular readers; as such, not every individual post can be understood outside of a larger shared context. Along these lines, my reference to your post recalled an ongoing discussion I’ve been hosting on my site over the last several months.
I do find it interesting, though, that you write that my weblog ‘looks like it is run by some form of ex-hippy’ — even while complaining that ‘some webloggers revert to childish insults and slang talk when taking up people they disagree with.’ Three words, Mr. O’Neill: Pot. Kettle. Black.
Best regards,
Jeff G.
One last thought: It takes an artificially engorged ego like ol’ Brendan’s to worry quite so much that a few writers — particularly the kind who dash off “inane idiocies in between washing the dishes and watching TV” — might find his sad and half-considered nod toward academic moral snobbery unworthy of more than just a few dismissive words.
But it happens all the time — “serious journalists” who aren’t used to seeing themselves dismissed so out of hand bruising like tender, overripe fruits… Still, I hope for the sake of “mainstream journalism” Mr. O’Neill will manage to pull himself together and get on with his life.
*You’ll need to scroll down a bit. O’Neill is one of those pro journalists who bravely and brazenly separates himself from the blogpack by employing anchor links sparingly and without a discernable pattern.
[update: Ben Sheriff offers his thoughts.]
Yeah, O’Neill’s reaction to a short and less-than-perfectly worded post was, to say, just a little tendentious. His idea of what the “blogosphere ought to be” is, to be “less-than-insightful” myself, was fackin’ silly.
However: O’Neill seems to hold himself to a high intellectual standard for his posts (a stance I do not share—my blog is self-referential insult-laced crap). Even though it was enormously haughty to project this standard on everyone else and every syllable that they type…I do wish I had the patience and wit to write well, consistently. And, I feel he redeems himself to some degree with the post which immediately follows the snarky attack on PW. Very good.
I should point out, that in this way, blogging <i>is</i> a serious challenge to mainstream journalism…the internecine fighting and instant correction/debate is, used well (and nearly always is..), certainly a improvement in a way that mainstrem journalism is ill-equipped to integrate.
Agreed, Dylan. I generally find his stuff useful—even when I don’t agree. But you know, my blog, my reaction, right? And all I had to say about that moral flop sweat he tossed out was “Ugh. Just ugh.”
Even now I haven’t much more to offer—not because I couldn’t offer a reasoned counter argument—but because it simply isn’t worth the effort (to my way of thinking, at least).
Another thing, though—had Mr. O’Neill <i>truly</i> been interested in a “discussion,” he could have left a comment right here in this forum. I would’ve gladly responded, and a discussion would’ve ensued.
But of course, Brendan wasn’t <i>at all</i> interested in such a thing. He was pissed that somebody dismissed him so flippantly—high-minded protestations notwithstanding.
(By the way, I’ve quite enjoyed your site on the occasions I’ve visited. I like your colloquial style. Reminds me of somebody, though I can’t think of who it is offhand…)
<i>”The truth is, this story has no ‘meaning’ and has nothing to tell us, which is precisely why so little can be said about it. It looks like being a strange, one-off occurrence, so shocking precisely because it is so rare.” </i>
Kee-rhist.
Silly, thoughtless post –> flippant response. Seems right to me.
“Clueless extra in <i>Clueless</i>”! Like, that is so <i>totally</i> bogus! I mean, gag me with a spoon! (Eye roll) Like, whatever, <i>Mister</i> Important Journalist Person! <i>Tch</i>!
Yet another mind-numbingly pedantic Bloglord wannabe gets his shorts in a twist because someone dared to dismiss his more-erudite-than-thou pedantry. Boo hoo! It’s been my experience that when someone says of other people that the only reason they are voicing an objection to some event is to show off their own moral superiority does not want debate, he wants chagrined silence. Mr. O’Neill merely rephrased the question “So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?” in different terms. Quite frankly, I saw his “there’s nothing new here” to be the epitome of despair with more than a little of the same cultural snobbery that he decries in the people who have commented on what was done to that girl. I mean, who <i>cares</i> what this “story” has to “tell us”? Is that supposed to mean that all that matters, ultimately, is what effect some drastic event in a community of “primitives” far, far away has on <i>our</i> society? Excuse me if I don’t buy that notion. But perhaps I misunderstand Mr. O’Neill. It is possible that I’m too <i>stupid</i> and <i>clueless</i> to appreciate the postmodern anomie implicit in that statement.
There. Is that <i>better</i>???
You know, I got pretty worked up and almost dashed off a 500-word comment, and then decided that anyone who can’t see a story or a lesson in the City Council ordaining the rape of my sister because I chatted up the wrong bird – that person would have no use for anything I would have to say. Further, anyone who is more concerned with the way the story is covered in Blogistan and the pithiness of that coverage is an egghead of the nth degree, and should probably de-plane from the ivory tower for a few hours a day.
And now I’m still worked up and still working on a long comment. Sorry…that idiot should heed his own tagline.
I wonder what Mr. O’Neill would have said had some blogger written, “This is too disgusting for words. But not for bullets and bombs.”
I’d have to say that Andrea Harris has got Brendan O’Neill’s <i>idee fixe</i> nailed; he should consider changing the name of his blog to “We Shouldn’t Talk About It”. (He first came to my attention when he suggested that there’s something unseemly about debunking inflated estimates of Afghan civilian casualties.) I guess if I for some reason decided to set up in business as an apologist for radical Islamists, I too would favor changing the subject whenever possible.
From O’Neil’s post:
“The truth is, this story has no ‘meaning’ and has nothing to tell us, which is precisely why so little can be said about it. It looks like being a strange, one-off occurrence, so shocking precisely because it is so rare.”
He said something similar about 9/11, that the terrorists didn’t really have an ideology, and that it was a nihilistic act. That’s just crazy talk. “Ugh” is right.
I will say that this incident is NOT an indictment of Islam, and I wouldn’t use it to bash Islam. But it IS an indictment of tribal governments and primitive customs, and NOT ALL CULTURES ARE EQUAL.
If all cultures and customs are equally good and bad, why should the Left keep trying to CHANGE American culture?