Dalrymple on the Dawkins Censorship

Thank You For Not Expressing Yourself by Theodore Dalrymple
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/26196

He ran a website for people of like mind, but noticed that many of the comments that appeared on it were beside the point, either mere gossip or insult. So he announced that he was going to exercise a little control over what appeared on it - as was his right since it was, after all, his site. Censorship is not failing to publish something, it is forbidding something to be published, which is not at all the same thing, though the difference is sometimes ill-appreciated.

The torrent of vile abuse that he received after his announcement took him aback. Its vehemence was shocking; someone called him ‘a suppurating rat’s rectum.’

* * *

I am always shocked when others are shocked that readers on the internet leave shocking comments on blogs and messageboards. People praise the virtue of civility a bit too much. And the surest way to rile up the abuse is to try and police it. It never works.

I take the opposite approach. On the CBlog, I leave any and all comments on here except for the occasional bits of spam that get through the filters. I delete those only to not be distracting from the comments from real readers who write some nasty shit but also some thought provoking comments as well. To be honest, such a policy should produce a raucous free-for-all. Instead, it is very tame here at the CBlog all things considered.

As a reader of Hayek, I have come to understand that freedom does not breed chaos. It produces spontaneous order. When these orders emerge, you should just run with it. Do not try to manage it or create it or whatnot. This is the strategy of Richard Dawkins who is a leftard. Leftards want to manage and control things, and it never turns out well for them. It always becomes worse. By resorting to censorship, Dawkins really turned people against him.

What we are dealing with here is the realm of personal insults. But no one can insult me. Either they will say something true that I need to hear, or they will say something false that I can easily correct with a reply. Or they will say something wickedly funny which I will laugh at. I find most people don't care about the insults directed at me but wait for the witty self-deprecating remarks I toss out in reply. The fact is that I thrive on this stuff.

If you don't want to read contrary opinions to your own, I advise people to not publish on the internet. Dawkins is a bit hypocritical on this considering how he excoritates religionists as deluded fools. I agree with Dawkins, but I'm not going to be a pussy and censor people who toss the shit back at me.

Posted in: