I wouldn't call it a "new blog" yet, as it duplicates the content of his preexisting blog. We can talk about the definitions of "good" and "stuff" some other time.
Jonathan, True about the new blog--it's only new for HNN.
It is interesting that I get a comment about "good stuff" here at Big Tent when no one seemed to see fit to question what "sigh" means at Cliopatria. http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/10178.html
Last I checked, you still had posting privileges at HNN. Question it yourself. It's a mostly free country.
Nobody in the discussion seemed to have any trouble understanding it (though I did have trouble finding it: the comments have unique hyperlinks, too, which is useful) and the discussion turned out to be fairly fruitful.
You know what is also useful, being able to get through the three first comments on a post to find the offending quotation. But since some might have trouble with that, here is the link: http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?permalink=1&id=53189#53189
Of course, it is interesting that the "sigh" didn't even register in the first place. I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks for making the hypocrisy so starkly obvious.
I'm not sure that I follow you. My comment here was simply saying, in what I thought was a clever, amusing fashion, that my evaluation of Pipes was different than yours. That's really the extent of it.
I'm not sure where you get hypocrisy from that. There were a number of people who questioned Manan's (pretty clear) position, and Pipes has plenty of fans on HNN to go along with his detractors.
Manan quoted Pipes saying, "There is an unending need to look critically at Muslim institutions and individuals, so as to distinguish the extremists from the moderates, the enemies from the allies."
Then Manan wrote, "Sigh."
Unless that was a sigh of pleasure, which I very much doubt, then it was a sigh indicating frustration with Pipes' point. Pipes' point from both his blog and the quotation was that in the context of the current war we need to study Muslim society to understand who is a friend and who is a foe.
You questioned my entirely innocuous "good stuff" reference to Pipes' blog as a whole, while not asking Manan to clarify his much more troubling comment. I assumed that was hypocrisy.
But based on what has been said here, I apologize, it was not hypocrisy. Apparently you actually agree with Manan frustration with Pipes' assertion that Muslim institutions and individuals need studying to separate friend from foe. Apparently, we should not study Islam. Apparently, we should either just assume all Muslims are our enemies or all Muslims are our friends.
If that is not the case, then Manan wrote an unclear comment, which I let pass because it was not my blog and it wasn't that important. But when one of his co-bloggers comes over to my blog and questions why I wrote "good stuff" about Pipes, I do wonder why that same co-blogger is so willing to give a pass to foolishness on his own site.
It's not all "friend or foe" and that, I think, distinguishes "good stuff" from "sigh" more than anything.
I think Manan's frustration (certainly a great deal of my own. By the way, I don't speak for my cobloggers, or control them, nor do we parcel out "commenting on other people's blogs" duties, though I sometimes make what I think are reasonable presumptions about them with which they are free to disagree) with Pipes' comment is twofold: first, as my reply to Manan suggests, Pipes is trafficking in banalities, things that are obvious (terrorism is a threat, extremists are dangerous, we should make distinctions). Second, Pipes' project makes the assumption that distinguishing extreme from moderate Muslims is difficult (when it really isn't, very) and that the danger posed by radical Islam is sui generis (or perhaps duo generii, since his father already fought off the shackles of Communism) when there are (as Ralph Luker noted) equivalents in other religious traditions both now and in the past, both of which translate to an intense focus on Islam which often, ironically, fails to distinguish real differences and contributes to a crisis mentality and bad policy.
Yes, we should study Islam, instead of fulminating about it. Yes, we should oppose dangerous extremisms, wherever we find them, but that doesn't mean they are everywhere all the time, or that every action we might take is justified. Yes, we should protect our security, but not at the expense of our humanity.
I'm sorry, I do not understand what your first sentence means. Seriously, _what_ is "not all friend or foe"?
Let me point out that the fact that you had to write a rather long paragraph trying to explain what Manan's "sigh" meant pretty much proves my point that he was being unclear--far more unclear than my "good stuff" comment. Yet you asked me, not him (even in your reply) to clarify, and that was my point.
As far as debating the actual content of Pipes' work, I have some thoughts on that too. I can't speak for either you or Manan, but based on reading Manan's work, he seems much more concerned about threats to civil liberties in the U.S. than the threat presented by radical Islamic terrorists. It seems to me that Pipes is reminding people that there is a reason why we sometimes have to skirt violations of civil liberties. Some people need that reminder, just like some people need to be reminded why we are concerned with civil liberties in the first place.
I'm not sure distinguishing friend from foe is as easy as you let on, considering all the Sept 11 terrorists got into and lived in the U.S., as have hundreds of other seemingly innocuous groups that have been secretly funding terrorism. Studying Muslim institutions both here and abroad to distinguish friend from foe is more than sensible, it is essential. There is no reason whatsoever to poo poo such a sentiment.
As far as the argument that there are extremists in other religions, well, who is trafficking in banalities now? Sure there are, but radical Jews and Buddhists and Christians are not actively and in large numbers trying to kill Americans. Kind of a big distinction, I think. And also the source of the "crisis mentality" which seems to be causing you so much concern. I see nothing wrong with looking at the threat of Islamicism (yes, it is a word, and a much better word than Islamofascism, which I think means "mean Muslims") and deciding that it constitutes a crisis, since, you know, we're at war with it.
Oh, it's all a matter of perspective, I think. I take the multiplicity of meanings to be evidence of eloquence. I'm not unclear on what it means; it's just a little complicated. Gets tiring explaining it over and over. Like now.
As for the rest of your comment, that is indeed the "stuff" which I said we could talk about another time. We disagree, and could sling rhetorical darts back and forth all day and night. But you know, I don't see how it's worth it just now.
Fine. I trust that in the future I might be granted the assumption that when one of my posts or comments has a multiplicity of meanings it will be evidence of my eloquence.
12 comments:
I wouldn't call it a "new blog" yet, as it duplicates the content of his preexisting blog. We can talk about the definitions of "good" and "stuff" some other time.
Jonathan, True about the new blog--it's only new for HNN.
It is interesting that I get a comment about "good stuff" here at Big Tent when no one seemed to see fit to question what "sigh" means at Cliopatria. http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/10178.html
Tom,
Last I checked, you still had posting privileges at HNN. Question it yourself. It's a mostly free country.
Nobody in the discussion seemed to have any trouble understanding it (though I did have trouble finding it: the comments have unique hyperlinks, too, which is useful) and the discussion turned out to be fairly fruitful.
You know what is also useful, being able to get through the three first comments on a post to find the offending quotation. But since some might have trouble with that, here is the link: http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?permalink=1&id=53189#53189
Of course, it is interesting that the "sigh" didn't even register in the first place. I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks for making the hypocrisy so starkly obvious.
I'm not sure that I follow you. My comment here was simply saying, in what I thought was a clever, amusing fashion, that my evaluation of Pipes was different than yours. That's really the extent of it.
I'm not sure where you get hypocrisy from that. There were a number of people who questioned Manan's (pretty clear) position, and Pipes has plenty of fans on HNN to go along with his detractors.
Pretty clear? Let's recap:
Manan quoted Pipes saying, "There is an unending need to look critically at Muslim institutions and individuals, so as to distinguish the extremists from the moderates, the enemies from the allies."
Then Manan wrote, "Sigh."
Unless that was a sigh of pleasure, which I very much doubt, then it was a sigh indicating frustration with Pipes' point. Pipes' point from both his blog and the quotation was that in the context of the current war we need to study Muslim society to understand who is a friend and who is a foe.
You questioned my entirely innocuous "good stuff" reference to Pipes' blog as a whole, while not asking Manan to clarify his much more troubling comment. I assumed that was hypocrisy.
But based on what has been said here, I apologize, it was not hypocrisy. Apparently you actually agree with Manan frustration with Pipes' assertion that Muslim institutions and individuals need studying to separate friend from foe. Apparently, we should not study Islam. Apparently, we should either just assume all Muslims are our enemies or all Muslims are our friends.
If that is not the case, then Manan wrote an unclear comment, which I let pass because it was not my blog and it wasn't that important. But when one of his co-bloggers comes over to my blog and questions why I wrote "good stuff" about Pipes, I do wonder why that same co-blogger is so willing to give a pass to foolishness on his own site.
It's not all "friend or foe" and that, I think, distinguishes "good stuff" from "sigh" more than anything.
I think Manan's frustration (certainly a great deal of my own. By the way, I don't speak for my cobloggers, or control them, nor do we parcel out "commenting on other people's blogs" duties, though I sometimes make what I think are reasonable presumptions about them with which they are free to disagree) with Pipes' comment is twofold: first, as my reply to Manan suggests, Pipes is trafficking in banalities, things that are obvious (terrorism is a threat, extremists are dangerous, we should make distinctions). Second, Pipes' project makes the assumption that distinguishing extreme from moderate Muslims is difficult (when it really isn't, very) and that the danger posed by radical Islam is sui generis (or perhaps duo generii, since his father already fought off the shackles of Communism) when there are (as Ralph Luker noted) equivalents in other religious traditions both now and in the past, both of which translate to an intense focus on Islam which often, ironically, fails to distinguish real differences and contributes to a crisis mentality and bad policy.
Yes, we should study Islam, instead of fulminating about it. Yes, we should oppose dangerous extremisms, wherever we find them, but that doesn't mean they are everywhere all the time, or that every action we might take is justified. Yes, we should protect our security, but not at the expense of our humanity.
I'm sorry, I do not understand what your first sentence means. Seriously, _what_ is "not all friend or foe"?
Let me point out that the fact that you had to write a rather long paragraph trying to explain what Manan's "sigh" meant pretty much proves my point that he was being unclear--far more unclear than my "good stuff" comment. Yet you asked me, not him (even in your reply) to clarify, and that was my point.
As far as debating the actual content of Pipes' work, I have some thoughts on that too. I can't speak for either you or Manan, but based on reading Manan's work, he seems much more concerned about threats to civil liberties in the U.S. than the threat presented by radical Islamic terrorists. It seems to me that Pipes is reminding people that there is a reason why we sometimes have to skirt violations of civil liberties. Some people need that reminder, just like some people need to be reminded why we are concerned with civil liberties in the first place.
I'm not sure distinguishing friend from foe is as easy as you let on, considering all the Sept 11 terrorists got into and lived in the U.S., as have hundreds of other seemingly innocuous groups that have been secretly funding terrorism. Studying Muslim institutions both here and abroad to distinguish friend from foe is more than sensible, it is essential. There is no reason whatsoever to poo poo such a sentiment.
As far as the argument that there are extremists in other religions, well, who is trafficking in banalities now? Sure there are, but radical Jews and Buddhists and Christians are not actively and in large numbers trying to kill Americans. Kind of a big distinction, I think. And also the source of the "crisis mentality" which seems to be causing you so much concern. I see nothing wrong with looking at the threat of Islamicism (yes, it is a word, and a much better word than Islamofascism, which I think means "mean Muslims") and deciding that it constitutes a crisis, since, you know, we're at war with it.
Oh, it's all a matter of perspective, I think. I take the multiplicity of meanings to be evidence of eloquence. I'm not unclear on what it means; it's just a little complicated. Gets tiring explaining it over and over. Like now.
As for the rest of your comment, that is indeed the "stuff" which I said we could talk about another time. We disagree, and could sling rhetorical darts back and forth all day and night. But you know, I don't see how it's worth it just now.
Fine. I trust that in the future I might be granted the assumption that when one of my posts or comments has a multiplicity of meanings it will be evidence of my eloquence.
I never said you weren't eloquent, Tom: I understood you pretty well. I disagreed, that's all. I can still do that, here, can't I?
It is mostly a free country.
Post a Comment