- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Some of the rhetoric on Pandagon (example your comments on the Duke case) is, like its counterpart on the right, appealing to baseness in those who read it. It is bigoted and inflammatory and being so obscures otherwise good points you may have to make. In quality, your approach is not so different from Bush's appeals to "the gut." And we all see the problem in that, don't we? True you are a "little" person, true you rant against the ruling class. But there is a difference between a legitimate rant and a bald expression of prejudice. And there is a difference between being a member of the faith(prejudice)-based reality and the evidence-based.
Unfortunately the expressive style of which you are sometimes a proponent has become a feature of the wider media. If we did not have people in the MSM like O'Reilly and Limbaugh and Coulter expressing themselves much as you do, we could more easily separate the personal blog (which is public too) from the political blog. But we can't and it is odd that you think we can.
It is grotesque and frankly scary how viciousness on all levels is tolerated and encouraged. No one (not even Ann Coulter) should be enduring death threats for their thought-free commentaries. But as a contributor to the demeaning of public discourse and the stoking of public anger, you need to recognize the consequences of that.
The problem with calling out the gods of hatred is that you join those "other" voyagers on an ugly river of bile.
