Another bad experience

[fpb]

Why in God's name did I ever place my essay on JKR's religion on FA? Most of the responses I received have been appalling: those who did not insist that Christianity meant anything they wanted it to mean simply imagined that I was criticizing JKR for not holding it, on the supposition - which I explicitly denied dozens of times - that you cannot be a decent person without being Christian. God Almighty, the whole damned essay begins with me denying that Christian is a term of moral approval! Do these idiots even know how to read, or do they just play with letters like babies or monkeys?

Comments

Re: Here we go again Part I

[fpb.livejournal.com]

You keep repeating the same version of history, which I answered to again and again, and frankly I am sick of it. The enormity that Fascism did not know it was right-wing until some Communist propagandists decided it was simply ignores the political action of German and Italian Fascists, its protectors, its backers, and its goals. I am not willing to repeat once more the evidence, since you do not listen. And it is this, not that you disagree, that embitters me. I hope that we agree at least on the point that there is such a thing as objective fact and objective truth, and that it does not depend merely on the party-based "narratives" of different groups; at least, I am an enemy of relativism always and everywhere, having learned to hate it devotedly sixteen years ago. And that being the case, I insist that your narrative simply ignores obvious matter of fact, and ignores it because you cannot uproot from your skull your ridiculous equation between the left and unfreedom. You are wrong on things that I know as well as I know my own name and face, on which there is as little chance of confusion as on my nationality and past. And you are wrong because you insist on misinterpreting your data from the viewpoint of universal left-wing corruption and on ignoring those that do not agree with you. I told you again and again and again and again, but what can one do when faced with invincible error? I also warned you that this kind of politically motivated narrative is insulting to me in that it deals with things that are the stuff of my own life experience and past - I grew up in a country where both Fascist and Communist subversion were real, daily occurrences, where political violence was daily and terrorism alive, where any thinking adolescent and adult had to face such things as the Fascist past of our own fathers and grandfathers in person; and I take it very ill that Mr.Goldberg, who has as much to do with Italy and continental Europe as I with China, should presume to tell us that all of us, all sixty million Italians, eighty million Germans and five hundred million Europeans, are so feeble-minded as to be duped about our own politics, our lives, our past, our nations, our relationships with each other, the very friendships we formed and the way we lived our individual lives - and that we needed the reinterpretation of the lives we lived, the evil we did and suffered, the blood we shed and lost, by an American columnist, to be informed about who we are and why we did what we did!! YOU, SIR, ARE PRESUMING TO REDEFINE OUR PAST AND OUR SOULS FOR US. Does this not mean something to you? When I gave an account of American politics as I perceived it, you reacted positively, because it fitted what you knew of your own country. When you insist on supporting this absurd account of my own country against my own protests and the protests of anyone who knows anything about it, you should consider that there are people who know a thing or two more about Italy and Europe than you do.

The Price of Bitterness

[johncwright.livejournal.com]

"I am not willing to repeat once more the evidence, since you do not listen. And it is this, not that you disagree, that embitters me."

Then you should be happy to be released from your bitterness, because it is based on a misunderstanding. No doubt the fault is mine for not expressing myself clearly.

I did not say, and I do not believe, that the Fascists did not know they were right-wing until communist propaganda decided it. Nor is this something necessarily implied by what I said, albeit I see why you might read (or misread) it that way. The Fascists certainly thought of themselves and called themselves "right-wing" from the very beginning. The national socialists fully and entirely bought into the myth of the Son of Darkness and the Sons of Light. As far as I know, the fascists were entirely sincere in thinking they were protecting their nations and their churches and homes from the threat of International Communism. They did not realize they were destroying their nations, homes, and souls.

I have listened carefully to your comments. I see how and why they make sense, given your understanding of history. I do not agree with the definitions and axioms, and so I come to a different conclusion.

The point of disagreement, if you noticed, was the point where Enlightenment liberalism transformed into Progressivism. I do not think the free market is a threat to human freedom. I think that a logical system of nomenclature would reflect this, and that the word "Liberal", if consistently used, would refer to those who support limited government based on separation of powers, individual rights, free trade, and so on.

Instead of addressing this point, you complain about how tired you are, and complain that I am not listening to you.

Come now, sir. I have listened. I have asked you three times now to do me the courtesy of assuming that I have reasons that seem good to me for supporting my opinion. It is not because I am ignorant. It is not because I am not listening. It is not because I am being mean.

I am sorry that your patience is exhausted. Anger is an exhausting emotion. We can revisit this issue at some future point when you have regained control of yourself. Or we can agree to disagree, and let the matter rest.

My only request is that, before you discuss this or any topic with me, you re-examine this self-destructive idea of yours that no one disagrees with you except for knaves and fools.

I do not believe such a condescending thing of you. I do not think you are a knave or a fool. I think you are a careful thinker and a learned man. I am impressed with your skill with a pen. You express yourself clearly and beautifully.

I am saddened, and, yes, perhaps mildly insulted, that you do not return that courtesy to me. If I have not earned your respect,all I can do is hope that I might win your good opinion at some point.

But I do not understand why my request for basic courtesy and basic logic is rejected. Have you never actually met anyone with whom you had a respectful disagreement? Have you never understood, yet politely disagreed with, an opposing viewpoint in a discussion? Have you never learned to disagree without anger, impatience, petulance? Without personal attack? Can you not express yourself without unfriendliness toward me?

I would to think of myself as your friend. You have put yourself in a position where you no longer can receive a compliment gracefully from me. You are making it hard to be your friend. I am not a masochist. I do not enjoy turning the other cheek each time you lash out at me.

You are content to sneer that I do not believe in Right-Wing Tyrannies, but when I explain what I actually believe, then you are too sick of me to give me the benefit of a discussion on the point.

You raised the topic this time, friend, not I. Honor, if nothing else, would urge us not raise the topic that we don't want to discuss.

If it is any comfort, I am confident most political thinkers would be in full agreement with you, both on the history and on the meaning of the "Left-Right" nomenclature. I recognize that you are voicing the majority position, which is worthy of respect, if only because so many wise writers side with it.

Re: The Price of Bitterness

[fpb.livejournal.com]

"You raised the topic this time"? I made a sarcastic remark that ended in "ah, well, never mind". Even if anyone wanted to answer it, it could easily have been answered in the exact same number of words, or less. (In fact, it could have been answered most effectively with just one word, such as "Yes" or "Exactly".) It is certainly not I who decided to answer a brief bit of sarcasm with a several-thousand-word defensio.

Re: The Price of Bitterness

[johncwright.livejournal.com]

I do not follow your logic here. Yes, making a sarcastic remark raises the topic again, and my answer, even if long, is an answer, and not the initiation of a topic.

Why are you unable and unwilling to answer me politely, even over a small point like this?

Re: The Price of Bitterness

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Why are you so irritable? Where have I been rude "over a small point like this"? And why was it necessary to answer a small remark with a rehashing of the whole polemic which you knew was not going anywhere?

Re: The Price of Bitterness

[johncwright.livejournal.com]

I am not sure what I said to make you believe I was irritated. This comment so astonishes me, that now I must draw back from pursuing this conversation further. Misunderstanding deceive wiser heads than mine. I now see that what I thought were cowardly sneers and insults coming from you, had some other meaning, or no meaning at all.

Rather than upset you further, I will happily admit the entire fault is mine, and ask your apology. Let us not let a small thing come between us.