Mailvox: one down

Chelm Wiseman begins what apparently is the Herculean task of responding to me:

I wrote my response to Vox’s charge #1 of Jewish Hypocrisy on immigration policy, but I decided I don’t like it and will have to rewrite it before I post…. I fully concede the point that Vox did not really think that the Amelek comment was a credible and realistic threat of violence. I just found it amusing to assure Vox of my non-violent intent every time I say something that could be vaguely misinterpreted as a threat. It makes me laugh and so I will probably repeat the joke. Following this theme, the title of his post also made me smile. [Insert Top Gun Quote Here]

I will also note that Vox’s continued the strategy of overwhelming me with charges to respond to continued in his post today. He seems to recognize a pattern of that he calls the fighting withdrawal, where a commenter will simply declare him wrong and decide not to respond. Vox should take a moment to think about this. If this is a consistent pattern, then perhaps the problem is his debate style. I must admit that I had a moment of … is this really worth it? …before I posted yesterday. Basically, Vox has given me a todo list of between 4 and 7 posts to adequately respond to him. I think that it is fine (and frankly fair given the nature of what I wrote) and because the topic of each is relevant to the theme of my blog I think it appropriate to continue.

It’s a start, anyhow. And while there is certainly nothing wrong about Chelm’s repeated assurances of non-violent intent, what he skates over here is the fact that necessarily following from his concession is the implicit admission that his interpretation revealed nothing about my thinking. A minor point, but still relevant.

I fail to see any problem with my debate style at all. The general consensus appears to be that it is as successful as it is maddening to opponents. The idea that providing detailed and substantive points is somehow a problem when one is attempting to make a case is ludicrous, and anyone who has read my blog should understand by now what they are in for prior to deciding to engage. It’s not my problem if the occasional drive-by critic wants to fire a pop gun in my direction and then finds himself overwhelmed by the artillery barrage he receives in response. The fact is that I seldom express an opinion without having something to support it, and I seldom enter a substantial discussion without having a significant amount of evidence upon which to draw. That doesn’t mean I’m always right, of course, but it does mean that I’m never going to be an easy out even when I have somehow managed to reach the demonstrably wrong conclusion.

Anyhow, make your case or concede has always been the standard to which I hold both myself and others. However, I have to point out that what Chelm is describing is not a Fighting Withdrawal, as that is a tactic which involves continuing to defend a position by sacrificing the larger part of it. What he is describing is Silence That Gun, which involves falling silent and disappearing rather than defending a point when the arguments supporting it have been contested, or conceding a point when the arguments defending it have been refuted.

As for the label “Alt-Right”, I didn’t object because a) I don’t know what it means, and, b) I don’t care how others choose to categorize me. I might wonder about the sanity of someone who describes me as part of the “conservative media”, but I doubt I’d even bother to comment on that. I’ve simply run across too many people who call me a conservative, or even a Republican, to concern myself any longer with whatever label others choose to apply. Raciss, sexiss, misogyniss, anti-semiss, whatever. But to the best of my recollection, the only time I ever registered to vote, I registered Libertarian, and the only time I voted, I voted Libertarian as well. However, I don’t belong to the Libertarian party and I depart from it on a number of policies because I don’t believe they are in line with the combination of libertarian principles with valid logic.

I do agree that Americans are largely unprepared for European openness about matters of race in general and Jews in particular. I would simply assert that I am using primarily American language on the blog, though I suppose it’s entirely possible that I’m not always as conscious of the distinctions anymore given how long it has been since I left.