Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (44219)	9/16/2002 5:10:01 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Some writers, and Mark Steyn is clearly one of them, can't write without labeling their argumentative opponents as immoral, not simply carrying an argument they disagree with. Steyn writes of people "numbed by multiculturist bromides" and "Saudi-radicalised death-cult Islamists" and, no question, he doesn't think highly of these people. And he writes about believers "in liberal democracy" and "moderate Muslim temperament" and he does think highly of them. Steyn belives the multiculturists and islamist death cultists are dangerous to our society and in the case of the latter, not just foolish, but malevolent towards us. He believes they should not have credibilty and thus he wants to destroy their credibility. He is political. He is not academic. His comments are par for the course in political writing and his arguments far more rigorous, (I find this charming), than those of most political writers on the right or the left. You quote him: This isn't a "clash of civilisations" so much as a clash within civilisations - in the West, between those who believe in the values of liberal democracy and those too numbed by multiculturalist bromides to recognise even the most direct assault on them; and in the Islamic world, between what's left of the moderate Muslim temperament and the Saudi-radicalised death-cult Islamists. This is a serious proposition and is worth vigorous discussion - a lot of lives are on the line and, he believes, even civilization. In this respect, Steyn is an old fashioned moralist: he thinks serious error leads to cardinal sin and he's far more concerned with the error than ethically labelling the victims of his vivisection. In this connection, I'm very sorry I can't find the rest of the column because it looked to be interesting: I've heard it a thousand times since and I still don't get it. By "distancing yourself" from the victims of September 11 you move yourself closer to the perpetrators, closer to barbarism. It may be "reasonable and moderate", but it's also profoundly self-corroding. You misjudge Steyn. He eviscerates foolish righties and leftys. My all time favourite Steyn column was one written during the last US election campaign and in about two paragraphs savaged Clinton, Bush, Gore, Biden, Cheney, and their wives, cats and dogs. But, right now, (ahem!) the left is giving Steyn more targets of opportunity. Objectionable writing. Just because Steyn doesn't have nice manners and metaphorically speaking eats the meat course with the fish fork is a bad reason for not looking at the arguments. J'accuse is "objectionable writing." Incidently, the leftish columnists lately target those they don't agree with as mentally diseased - their most common noun these days is 'obsession'.