Yep, we admit it. We were wrong. For a long time, we were convinced that “Brothawolf” was a good guy, just a bit wrong-headed is all. We were wrong, Brothawolf is a bad guy. He’s a deeply bigoted, immature man with a chip on his shoulder, who lacks the intellect to recognize that he’s really just a sheep in wolf’s clothing(1). In other words: he’s a classic leftist.
Brothawolf (our shorthand: “BW”) is a blogger who writes mostly on race issues here. He claims to be anti-racism, but is a self-confessed racist himself. A card-carrying member of the Race Grievance Industry himself, Brothawolf’s real character was pretty easy to smoke out as it pertains to the topic of race.
We coined a phrase here at our small, but increasingly influential think tank: “The new racists will come waving the banner of anti-racism.”(2)
This is Brothwolf. He’s part of the crop of fashionable racists whose hostility toward the overwhelmingly majority of America is classic South African apartheid-style racism.
These racists’ most outstanding characteristic is a near complete lack of self-awareness: Overt racists, they’re the ones who wax most indignant about racism, while justifying their own bigotry with a blizzard of inane abstractions, rationalizations and excuses.
Well, as those of you who follow this particular blog know, we’ve been participating in a lengthy, intermittent back-and-forth with BW stretching back five or six years. Each time we’d get one of those exchanges going, it invariably followed this trajectory:
- We’d each exchange positions: We’d point out an area of disagreement with BW, and he’d retort that we were wrong.
- We’d present the reasons for which we believed we were correct, and BW would present his.
- Then, nearly immediately, BW would launch into an impassioned, anguished, but perfectly irrelevant, condemnation of the way we expressed our opinions.
- We’d point out that the means of expression has nothing to do with the validity — or not — of our arguments themselves, and that would be pretty much the end of the substantive portion of the interaction. From that point on, BW would filibuster.
- Oh, we had some responses to the filibustering, which can be distilled down to our pointing out to BW that if he had a strong argument, then surely he’d use it, instead of whining about this or that.
- We had another tool against the filibustering too. BW was constantly calling us names: racist, psychopath, sociopath, crazy and many more; each intended to shame us either into silence or acquiescence. Each time he did this, it was, as he admitted later, to derail the topic. By way of reaction, we pointed out another obvious thing: the one who has to resort to name-calling first has conceded that he’s lost the argument. Furthermore, we said: “Even if we were all those terrible things he was calling us, that didn’t change the validity — or not — of what we were saying.” Catching a theme here? Yep. BW lost the argument early, then didn’t have the maturity to admit it, and instead tried to change the subject.
- This kind of fruitless interaction could go on and on and on and on…
Here’s the rub: we have an ironclad “No Censorship” policy at this blog. We’re ardent, passionate, full-throated proponents of free speech here, and we don’t just pay it lip service.
Free speech — real free speech — is nothing less than one of the most astounding, jaw-dropping, magnificent gifts — of many such gifts — that Western Civilization has given to the world. You’d be hard-pressed to name another, more important, more glorious thing than free speech. Go ahead, name another society — before America, before Western Civilization — that allowed its citizens to speak their minds freely, without fear of repercussion from the governing authorities.
How, then, to maintain a functional blog when someone comes to your place, and openly admits that he’s abusing his free speech rights — that we cherish so much — to clog up your bandwidth with substanceless sludge, and empty filibustering?
We’ve figured it out. It’s simple really: Don’t censor, but there’s no reason to leave irrelevant content on the blog. Content that forces others to sift through it to find the nuggets of real substance.
Our blog is heavily audited, and the content downloaded and re-printed, by university programs around the world. There’s no reason to force these institutions to sift through piles of rubbish to get to the substance.
All BW’s filibustering takes only several forms:
- Calling us names, and questioning our personal characteristics and character.
- Whining about our tone.
- Whining about our policies here (Eg.: we don’t play what we call variously, “dueling sources,” “dueling links,” “dueling videos,” or “dueling experts.”(3))
- “I know you are, but what am I“-style retorts.
- All of which can be summed up in a simple word: irrelevant. Oh, there are other words too: “filibustering,” “off-topic,” “derailing,” etc. But irrelevant will do for now.
So, when we encounter this kind of silly slop, we’re going to do the following:
- We’ll identify the irrelevant content, allow it to sit for a time, then delete it. The time we allow the content to remain will depend on the circumstances at the time, and our feelings of indulgence.
- If a posted comment contains a mixture of the irrelevant with the relevant, then we’ll simply delete the irrelevant, leaving the relevant. We’ll leave a note of some kind indicating that we’ve done this. Something or other like: “[Editor’s Note: Passage deleted — no relevant content.]“
- The first bullet is very important. We’ll allow the irrelevant content to remain for a time. It allows the various internet “way back machines” out there to capture the irrelevant content and record it as they wish.
We’re absolutely, positively not going to engage in the following:
If your post is on-topic, not overly hostile(4), not filibustering or derailing, then you have nothing to fear whatsoever.
Oh, commenters can feel absolutely free to denigrate, as viciously as they like, our content, our thoughts, our ideas and conclusions, even our families, our race, looks, character, intelligence, education or ourselves. We welcome it all. Furthermore, we’ll allow all relevant denigration of our content, no matter what is said. But, repeatedly saying the same thing over and over and over again will result in the deletion of the repeated parts. We’ll leave in the first one. The relevant parts, that is.
Also, if you merely say something is stupid, without backing it up, we seen no reason to leave that in. Please feel free to insult what we say to your heart’s content… then back it up. Merely saying something is something is both meaningless and unproductive. It’ll go away.
Furthermore, we reserve the right to keep some irrelevant content as an object example of how people might indicate that they’re out of intellectual gas.
There are several simple reasons for all this:
- Bandwidth is finite.
- Data storage is finite.
- Our time is finite.
The more time we spend responding to the irrelevant, the more time we take from doing the good work of this blog. The longer a post is, due to being clogged up with irrelevant comments, the longer it takes to load. And the more space is taken up on hard drives and other storage media by irrelevant content, the less space is available for the good stuff.
There’s an irony in allowing irrelevant slop to pollute space where there could be intelligent, insightful content: it’s the same thing that we experience in viewing leftist university shoutdowns, and realizing that we could be hearing an intelligent speaker, but instead are watching ignorant, brainless, neanderthal, leftist goons. You don’t get that wasted time back.
We didn’t want it to come to this, but Brothawolf, and many, many others, proved to us that the Left is (1) short of substantive arguments and critical thinking, (2) lacking in the maturity to act as adults, not spoiled crybabies.
We believe that our solution is a reasonable response — that continues to adhere to our much-revered No Censorship policy — to Brothawolf’s exposure of the Left’s willingness to engage in censorship of ideas by drowning them in a tsunami of substanceless slop. His tactics are, of course, the very same as what the Left does on college campuses when they censor Conservative speakers by shouting them down during their speeches.
To continue the analogy a bit: Our policy is the blogging equivalent of allowing the campus shouters to shout for a bit, then removing them from the auditorium.
Finally, we recognize that this change of policy will result in the voluntary self-deportation of Brothawolf from this blog(5). He won’t put up with being forced to submit substantive replies to our posts, and will decline to respond. After all, he’s a leftist… he doesn’t have substance to contribute, so he can’t respond to our posts.
Don’t get me wrong here! We’re singling out Brothawolf only because he’s the guy with whom we’ve interacted the most. If he were a lone wolf, so to speak, it would be fine. The problem is that his behavior has been the same as all other leftists and RGI members with whom we’ve interacted here and elsewhere.
Please don’t get me wrong: BW, and all racist leftists, are more than welcome to come here and post as much as they wish. We’re simply not going to keep irrelevant content around in the comments sections.
It’s too bad, because for a while we held out hope for BW, if not for others on the Left, that with patience he could be shown enough evidence that he might allow himself to learn, to grow and to be bettered by it.(6)
We were wrong. and under the new policy — which we’re already started, with some retroactive content removal — Brothawolf won’t be back. We understand that with this post, we’re “ditchin’ the wolf” as the headline reads. No regrets. Won’t miss him. Goodbye, BW.
(1) By this, we don’t intend: a meek person who blusters a lot, but rather a blind follower of others. This is a play on the old saying: “a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” and on “Brothawolf’s” online persona.
(2) This paraphrases another phrase that we adapted from someone else’s pithy observation: “The new fascists will come waving the banner of anti-fascism.”
I wish I could find the author of that outstandingly prescient remark, both so that I could attribute it when I use it, and so I wouldn’t have to footnote it all the time ’til then!
(3) We accept as obvious the following: for every source, link, expert or video someone can point to, I can find at least one to make the exact opposite point from the one he’s trying to make. What good does such an exchange do? My answer: none.
Furthermore, a debate opponent will find some way to tell you that he doesn’t believe your source to be legitimate. And vice versa for you. There’s nothing wrong with this, by the way: since you believe yourself to be right then, obviously, you believe the other’s sources to be wrong.
Refusing to play dueling sources does two very beneficial things: (1) it avoids meaningless, fruitless exchanges that do nothing more than repeat what other people say, and (2) it forces the other person to examine his own thinking to see what’s merely mindless regurgitation of someone else’s thoughts, and what’s actually independent, critical analysis on his own part. When we disagree with someone online, it’s that independent, critical analysis that we’re seeking. We can quite easily, through the miracle of the internet, find out what other people — experts, bloggers, pundits of all stripes — are thinking.
(4) We don’t mind at all a good, well-placed, well-thought out jab from time to time, and we very much appreciate good snark, even at our own expense. We always single out such snark for praise when we encounter it.
(5) This is, to some extent, our “Immigration Policy.” We’ve long been in favor of allowing illegal aliens into the country; simply deny them any freebies. Such freebies represent nothing more nor less than theft from others who are willing to work and produce. It was, I believe, Mitt Romney who proposed this very sensible policy idea, and he said, also quite sensibly, if the freebies dried up, then the illegal aliens would simply deport themselves, or “self-deport.” Yep. They would.
(6) The point at which we realized this was when we informed Brothawolf of an interesting (and tragic) historical fact: During the period of American slavery, there were more white, European slaves in captivity in Africa, than black African slaves in America.
This rocked BW back on his heels. We know this, because initially he denied it as absolutely and obviously ridiculous. Then, when I showed him the unimpeachable source of it… he admitted it, but said that didn’t change anything. That by itself, was a big red flag! Then, when that slavery tidbit became extremely inconvenient for a core argument of his, he simply denied it again!
It was at this point that we realized that BW is either (1) a fraud who’s willing to just say things to get them out there, or (2) intellectually out of his league, but unwilling to face up to it, or (3) just flailing. It’s impossible to rule out: (4) all of the above.