I guess my view is that if you find a view objectionable or even abhorrent, you should always open yourself to confronting it where civil conversation is still a possibility. I don't think it's conducive to mutual understanding or affords you any hope of getting through to people if you just attack people and censor discussion completely. As society, I believe we are encouraged to understand causes and consequences of things like criminality and forms of social prejudice as a prerequisite to combatting them, we don't affect change purely through public shaming and punishment.
...so Evilore should shut down the forum, I agree.
I personally think there would have been a way to talk civilly about the social dynamics in play during that discussion. We probably would have arrived at the exact same conclusion - that this guy was letting his dumb dick run his mouth and that there should be no levy of expectation on her part to do anything to dissuade him - but at least people would have talked that out and understood it. People are too quick to shut down conversation or dominate things with their own agenda in my view. I don't wanna hold hands and sing cumbaya, but it would be nice to let people be honest in their assessments and discussions, and self moderate sometimes.
You want to know the worst part of Political Science as an academic field? In every class, every single fucking class, there's at least one moment where someone--for God only knows what reason--will try and turn the lecture into a discussion on conspiracy theories.
"What is terrorism? Can terrorism be enacted by a state institution, or does it become an act of war, or something else entirely? If you'll refer to the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior in 19...yes?"
"9/11 was an inside job, I think that makes the American government terrorists!"
Conspiracy theory guy does not deserve a seat at the table. Conspiracy theory guy does not deserve a ticket into the venue. Conspiracy theory guy does not deserve to be taken seriously at all, ever, not once. And victim blaming guy is right next to him. If you enjoy debating the pros and cons of Euro-centrism on Stormfront, that's your deal. But you are only serving to legitimize the conversation surrounding those painfully stupid elements when you take them seriously. Jaffe had his shot at being taken seriously and he blew it by repeatedly failing to...well, he failed to even make sense for the most part. That's his own fault, and the internet at large shouldn't burden itself with stooping down to coddle him when he fails to step up with meaningful input.
The best part is, if this woman had confronted the guy, and that resulted in him blowing up at her, people like Jaffe would be doing the same shit. Instead of "She should have confronted him" it would have been "She should have just ignored him, it couldn't have hurt her to just let it pass by". There is ALWAYS something the victim could have done for people like this. Because the event that took place is something they have a fucked up desire to defend.
On the other end, you can have constructive and even enlightening debate about complex issues. Even on GAF! The
Dr. V's Magical Putter thread shows that, despite the fact that it becomes the same arguments treading water for a few pages.
