With all due appreciation for the power of snark, the  freedom of blogging, the importance of firing up your base, the potential of BlueNC to change state politics, and the wrongness of an anti-gay-marriage amendment, slapping a rude and dismissive nickname on a large group of your neighbors just seems nasty and counterproductive to me.

I'm not a big preacher of civil discourse on the internets, but I think this limits the site's effectiveness and linkability. Argue ideas, don't attack people, or at least undifferentiated crowds of people.

Comments

[Anglico]

The word kind of caught me off guard too.

When I finally got to Greg's explanation of his word choice (marriage + bigots), it seemed like a pretty good fit.

[PotatoStew]

Angilico - I think your first instinct was the correct one. Clever linguistic excuses don't suddenly make it ok.

[Anglico]

Maybe in this instance. But these days my "first instincts" are more and more reminiscent of the training I did with the Marines and 82nd back in the 70s. I think that could be summed up as "take no prisoners."

[Ed Cone]

This isn't war. These people aren't your enemies. This is politics. These people are your neighbors. You may disagree with them strongly on this issue -- I do -- and you may point to words and deeds and individuals worth calling out. But dehumanizing a large group is wrong on the facts, wrong morally, and also bad politics: you might need to work with some of these folks tomorrow. Maybe the leader of a church that's just plain wrong about gay marriage is also against the OLF, or for something you support, or open to compromise on some issue. Perpetuating the us v them mentality of Limbaugh and cable news may create a big rich powerful site, but you can be just as passionate and in the long run more effective without stooping to that level.

[Jeffrey Sykes]

Nothing helps the Democrats like firing up the Moral Majority. Great work Anglico!

Almost as effective as Joe Hackney saying he knows best what legislation is important to the citizens of this state.

If its no quarter you want, its no quarter you will get.

[Jeffrey Sykes]

I forgot to give props to Ed for showing leadership in framing the debate.

Why can't I be that good with words?

[The CA]

Because tomorrow he'll change his mind.

[Lance]

Ed, I think you're right. A key role of political blogs is to farm and test labels and messages that may be effective in the discourse war. It is inevitable that some of these will fall foul, and it's important to say so when they do. The farming and testing, though, are good things, and I don't think Greg's post presents a particularly awful example.

One quibble, though -- the crowd that Greg is labeling is hardly undifferentiated. In fact, the crowd of culture warriors came together for a unified political purpose, and I'd bet lunch that its members are no strangers to name calling.

[Ed Cone]

Lance, there are better and more effective ways of responding to name-calling than just playing the same game.

The group assembled in Raleigh may have been wholly united in purpose and tone, but I doubt it. In any case, the point and value of calling them "maggots" is...what?

Bloggers vent and express themselves as they see fit, that's fine and good. The folks at BlueNC can tell me to go piss up a rope. I don't control them. I would have liked to link without apology to that fine photograph, but I was dismayed by the name-calling and found the site less valuable for it.

[sean coon]

ed, i have a question for you, and don't take it as terse as it might sound.

being that these folk came together to speak to a common cause, at what point do you find it appropriate to call a spade a spade?

[Ed Cone]

The inference I take from your usage "calling a spade a spade" is that it is in fact correct to identify these people as "maggots," because that's what they really are.

I disagree. I don't think it's appropriate to refer to a large group of peacefully assembled North Carolinians with whom I strongly disagree on politics and social issues as "maggots." It's just name-calling. It's dehumanizing.

[sean coon]

actually, "marriage bigots" is what i'm referring to... you're right, they're not worms.

[DrFrankLives]

"This isn't war. These people aren't your enemies. This is politics. These people are your neighbors."

Ed, I would be willing to bet they disagree with you on this.

[Ed Cone]

Perhaps they would, or some of them would. That doesn't make it right, or obligate me to use the same tactics and language.

And as I said in the comment you excerpt, I think it's not just bad manners but bad politics.

[Lance]

Ed, I didn't mean to suggest that name-calling requires more of the same. I was just saying that the people in the photographs are hardly innocent bystanders.

Here's why I think that matters: the name-calling at BlueNC today is a noxious by-product of political blogs' role as a farm or filter for powerful rhetorical tools. (I don't see how you can get experimental without sometimes putting forward a stinker.) It's sort of like a basketball player's rough elbow that crosses the line between standard play and a callable foul. That doesn't make the name-calling OK (any more than undue violence on the bball court is OK), and I think that your original post is a great example of the broader community self-policing.

But the people in the photos are not innocent by-standers, cruelly cold cocked by Greg, but more like players on an opposing team. The blow is still a wrong, but our sympathy for the victim and disapproval of the perpetrator are tempered by our understanding of the nature of the activity in which they're engaged.

To directly address your question ("the point and value of calling them 'maggots' is...what?"), I would say none. But I do think that there is value in the bigger enterprise of political bloggers developing new ways to frame political discourse. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this, as I am less than 100% convinced that the value in that enterprise outweighs the harm caused by some of the byproduct discussed above.

As to whether the crowd is "wholly united in purpose", I don't think it matters. How united in purpose does a group have to be before you can address it as representative of an ideological position? Surely not wholly.

[The CA]

Ann Coulter: John Edwards is a faggot. Outrage! Outrage! Bigotry!
BlueNC: People opposed to gay marriage are maggots. Exactly right! Right on! You tell those bigots!

Faggots and maggots. I don't suppose anyone would be offended if a group of people supporting gay marriage are called faggots, would they?

[sean coon]

if these folks were rallying and organizing people to back laws pertaining to full-benefit civil unions, i'd cut them some slack.

but they're not.

what they're doing in tapping into the back-channel personal faith and fears of good christians, in order to advance an anti-civil rights position. and they're advancing such rhetoric in the public forum.

i have no problem calling a spade a spade; greg simply coined a term for it.

[sean coon]

sam, you should quit your practice and become a grocer. you have, by far, the best grasp on apples and oranges in town.

[PotatoStew]

Hey - I agree with Sam! The parallel isn't exact, but close enough. If some conservative came up with some "clever" wordplay ("family + bigots = faggots"?) and used that word to describe gay marriage supporters, I'm sure BlueNC would be up in arms about it.

[PotatoStew]

He's closer on this one than you give him credit for Sean. Not exact, but close.

[sean coon]

right, stew, cause there is such thing as a "family bigot"... because gay marriage is bad for families, right?

[The CA]

Sean, you are now being intolerant of the fact that others might disagree with you. Is that your standard, if I disagree with you, I can call you any name I want? It certainly sounds like that is what you are saying.

[Lance]

BlueNC members are hardly alone in being more sensitive to slurs coming than those going. You'll never get punched in the face for telling a stranger that your own mother is ugly and smells bad.

[PotatoStew]

Yes sean, in the sense that that could be the logic in using that insult. I don't agree that gay marriage is bad for families, but then *they* probably don't agree that being against gay marriage makes them bigots.

[Roch101]

Sam:

"Ann Coulter: John Edwards is a faggot. Outrage! Outrage! Bigotry!
BlueNC [sic: gregflynn]: People opposed to gay marriage are maggots. Exactly right! Right on! You tell those bigots!"

But Sam, no props for your archenemy?

Ed on Coulter: "Coulter's schtick is well past tired..."
Ed on gregflynn: "[S]lapping a rude and dismissive nickname on a large group of your neighbors just seems nasty and counterproductive to me."

What I'm seeing, Sam, is some consistency from Ed. If you are to be consistent, Sam, you will defend gregflynn as just "whacky" and making a joke.

[JohnC]

Ed doesn't like it. I don't mind it.

There's no universal truth here, just opinions. Why debate it?

[sean coon]

you already do, sam.

[The CA]

Roch, flaw in your thesis is that I have also labeled Coulter with a litany of names such as "selfish, spoiled, hypocritical".

I note that Ed is being consistent on this incident. I question whether it will last.

Gregflynn is just being wacky and making a joke. I'm sure he won't take it so bad when other people get wacky and make jokes about the causes he believes in. Maggots, faggots, it's all wackiness! Or is it....relative?

[The CA]

Sean, I called Ed an asshole once, but not because of his beliefs, rather because that's how he was acting. I've also called him arrogant for the same reason.

Other than that, the only labels I've given anyone are "hippies" and "liberals". I understand how those terms might be offensive to someone like me, but I don't see why they would upset you.

[sean coon]

stew, as you well know, other people had to fight for their civil rights in this country as well (women not being allowed to vote or teach once married, african-americans, well, for everything).

apologists nowadays might call the folks who denied those civil rights "products of their times." some might even have called those people neighbors. other folk simply classify those discriminators as bigots.

i firmly believe that gay marriage won't destroy our families nor our society, so i'm willing to go a little out there and run with the "marriage bigot" classification -- not quite as hard for people who are internally debating whether or not gay marriage might change our society in ways we do not understand, but towards those who attempt to tap into the fears of the public to support legislative discriminatory practices.

[sean coon]

sam, i didn't say that you've ever upset me, i simply implied that you toss around names for those who believe otherwise than you. you know, what you charged me with, oh agile warrior.

[The CA]

Well, I believe "liberal" and "hippy" are more descriptive rather than perjorative. Of course, I wouldn't like it if someone called me either one.

[Anglico]

After much thought . . .

I agree that it's ultimately unproductive to label the Throng of A Thousand Theocrats in Raleigh as "maggots." They are not maggots, and the cleverness of the word combination doesn't diminish the inaccuracy.

They may be hateful. They may be anti-democratic. They may be self-righteous. They may be paternalistic. They may be homophobic. But they are not maggots.

But I don't concede the point about this not being war - or at least a bare-knuckled fist fight. Progressives too often have come to the party thinking it was going to be a dance, only to find themselves sucker-punched and ripped off. We've stood by and watched an unprecedented erosion of personal freedoms without fighting back. We've allowed the Karl Roves and the Jim Blacks of the world to lie and cheat and enrich themselves at the expense of integrity and decency.

It's long past time to fight back. And since the monied interests can always outspend us, we have to redefine the battlefield. Art Pope spends more than $300,000 a month to push his free-market agenda. Competing with that kind of dough requires a host of guerilla tactics, one of which is ridicule. The only question in my mind is where to draw the line.

In my own writing, I've gone over the line plenty, But lately I've been steadily drawing back in the interest of all the stuff Ed talked about above. I don't want name-calling to get in the way of impact. Oddly, it was Coulter's insane rant that finally flipped the switch for me. The thought that some people might equate what I write with what she has to say . . . well that's pretty embarrassing.

[Ed Cone]

Sam, I'm consistent on this issue in a way that you seem to find incomprehensible.

It goes beyond the obvious problems with dehumanizing language like "maggots."

It has to do with gross generalizations about people with whom you might disagree on some or many issues. I don't make a lot of blanket statements about liberals or conservatives, or even Republicans or Democrats, because I don't think it's often a productive or accurate way of looking at the world. Criticizing people and words and ideas is not the same thing as bashing a faceless other or group of others that can be neatly packaged for abuse.

Let me give you an example. A while ago I decided to give your blog a second look after you had ratcheted down some of the personal nastiness with which it launched. I went looking for a post I could link here, and I found this one. But then I read past the laudable sentiments to this: "One thing I am quite certain of however, is that if Johnson was a Republican and the governor was a Democrat, there is no way in hell the Democrat governor would appoint another Republican to fill the seat. Power is everything to Democrats, right or wrong. I hope the current Republican governor of South Dakota will demonstrate why Republican’s (sic) are different from Democrats in this regard if it becomes necessary by doing the right thing."

It's that kind of thing that makes you -- not conservatives, not Republicans, but you -- so easy to ignore. Maybe it's the way you see the world, maybe it's red meat for some people, but it just doesn't have much to do with the world I live in.

That's part of the message I was trying to get across to the folks at BlueNC.

[sean coon]

right... descriptive like "liberals know how to spell pejorative." am i close?

[Cara Michele]

I'm reading this thread today and thinking about how when conservatives do something political and public about gay marriage or abortion or whatever, then liberals get upset and call them names and accuse them of hate. And then when liberals go and do something political and public on the same issues, then conservatives do their own name-calling and say the liberals are haters. Does anybody else get tired of this? Does anybody else have family and friends on both sides of the great political and ideological divide? So, like me, you actually realize that people on both sides are caring, loving, compassionate people who are motivated to act by the convictions they hold and not because they're haters? Can we not just agree to disagree? That's why we have a democracy. We all get to think what we think and feel what we feel and express our opinion. And then we vote, and the majority wins. (Or something like that -- I know, I know...) But why can't we respect each other's differences? People are not maggots. Or that "f"-word that rhymes with it.

[sean coon]

"people on both sides are caring, loving, compassionate people who are motivated to act by the convictions they hold and not because they're haters"

CM, i hear you and agree with you to a very certain degree, but when it comes to squashing the civil rights of people, motive is a tough debate to swallow for me.

[The CA]

Anglico, people who don't support gay marriage are "hateful"? Explain that.

Ed, I only speak from experience. Funny how you found my analysis of Democrats and their thirst for power as divisive, while everyday here you don't write anything positive about Republican's at all unless it involves a Republican agreeing with a Democrat. You do the same thing Ed, you just aren't as blunt about it. I mean really, the amount of trash you dump on Republicans in a week while ignoring Democrat garbage for the most part is astounding. I can't beleive you have the balls to get on my case for having said something negative about Democrats or ever speaking of Democrat hypocrisy when your blog is primarily a vehicle for cheerleading Democrats while bashing Bush and Republicans.

You attack Republican's relentlessly with your topic selection, and yet you feel the jabs I make about Democrats on my blog somehow ruin the conversation. The world you speak of must not have any mirrors.

[Ed Cone]

So this is getting to the point.

What if Michele, who is socially conservative but also as many of us know a thoughtful and decent person, attended a rally against gay marriage?

She's not a maggot. And it's worth considering that many other people advocating that cause with which I strongly disagree are not maggots, either, or even bad people.

They're just on the other side of an issue, or, if you feel strongly about it, wrong about an issue.

Doesn't it make political sense to appeal to their decency, and to look for solutions? To isolate any actual hardcores or haters, rather than driving the thoughtful folks into their arms?

I'm not suggesting that I could convince Michele to change her mind on a political issue, much less a moral conviction, just that hurling invective at her seems like a lousy way to go about much of anything.

And by the same token, doesn't it follow that Sean may be a reasonable guy and open to conversation when he's not being backed into a corner and told his librul worldview means he Hates America etc?

[Ed Cone]

Sam, there is a difference between "Bush screwed the pooch in Iraq and our country is paying for it and I'm pissed off about it" and "Power is everything to Democrats, right or wrong."

Having and expressing a consistent view on social and political issues is not the same thing as making blanket negative statements about groups that hold or sometimes hold different views.

Not everyone sees the world through your narrow lens or its polar opposite. Not everything is not reducable to a binary equation. I understand that you do not believe this to be true. But it is.

[The CA]

How about "power is everything to Democrats and I'm pissed off about it because they are screwing over the country in the name of self interest?" Is that fair?

You want to be able to complain about the things Republicans do (not just Bush, either) and somehow have that be exempt from the standard you apply to me and others when it comes to your beloved Democrats.

There is no substantative difference between your two statements at the beginning of your post. The only difference is you believe in one but not the other.

[Kirk D.]

Sam, what exactly are Democrats doing now to screw over the country? Please elaborate.

[Ed Cone]

Sam, you do understand that George Bush is a person, and his Iraq policy is a reality upon which people can render informed or uninformed opinions, don't you?

And that Democrats are a group of tens of millions of people, and that their alleged love of power above all things in a way that differentiates them from members of other political parties is an unsupported assertion?

Stop, please. You don't know it, but you are embarassing yourself. Again.

[Bubba]

"Stop, please. You don't know it, but you are embarassing yourself. Again."

More of the Master's hubris.

You just don't know when to stop, do you?

[The CA]

Ed, by deliberately ignoring your anti-Republican tendencies and frequent rants, and instead acting as if you only rail against Bush himself, you are the one embarrasing yourself.

Forgive me for not singling out every Democrat that pisses me off, or not limiting my remarks to say, the Democrats in Congress.

What is even more embarrassing is how you preach to me about "Democrats" consisting of "tens of millions" of people and therefore not worthy of lumping together for criticism, while you lump the "religious right" together as one mindset.

How this is not utter hypocrisy on your part, is beyond me.

[JohnC]

Meet the Maggots.

[Jeffrey Sykes]

PEACE

[Cara Michele]

Cool. Thanks, Jeffrey.

[Ed Cone]

Sam, the common usage "Religious Right" has a somewhat flexible but widely understood meaning. It includes a core group of people and organizations, and a less well-defined group of supporters and allies. Thus it is generally safe to ascribe political views to the "Religious Right", such as opposition to abortion and gay marriage. The name Religious Right is not unproblematic, and some prefer to use "religious conservatives" or other terms.

It would not be OK in my view to say something like, members of the religious right are all power hungry jerks, or, the people who attended a rally pitched to religious conservatives are, to coin a phrase, "maggots." I might even write a blog post to that effect, although I would be nervous about the ensuing comment thread getting hijacked by some needy broken-record of a reader.

There are actual groups called Democrats, and Republicans, and Rotarians, and so on. If you want to say there is a position, or a platform of positions that are generally endorsed by the groups as groups, fine, that's part of what makes them groups.

But if you want to ascribe some vague and unprovable traits ("Power is everything to Democrats, right or wrong", or, "Republicans are all cryptoracists") to a group, then you have gone off the rails.

[Roch101]

"Forgive me for not singling out every Democrat that pisses me off, or not limiting my remarks to say, the Democrats in Congress." -- Sam

Well, if your deficient rhetoric is merely a matter of semantics and not a reflection of your world view, then it would be to your benefit, and rather simple, to be more precise and say what you mean rather than continuing to denigrate vast swaths of the population who clearly on not guilty of the sins you assign to them -- that just comes across as ridiculous and immature.