We are halfway there.
Within eight hours of the debate challenge I issued to feuding bloggers John Scalzi and Vox Day, Vox
responded positively in the comment threads of the original post.
“I would certainly accept any such challenge, regardless of whether the debate was sexism, racism, or any other -ism. I'd even accept you as a potential debate moderator despite our own differences of opinion on such issues.” – Vox Day, February 3, 2013, 12:27 a.m.
Half of the debating lineup
is on board. But what about the other
man?
Within an hour of my debate challenge post, John Scalzi mysteriously posted an ad hominem attack against
his opposition. Scalzi now states that he will make a charitable contribution
at the end of 2013 in lieu of further acknowledgements of Vox Day, who has
agreed to debate him in a neutral venue.
There are problems,
however—and not only the obvious issue of the transparent distraction-and-evasion
tactic. As I examine John’s four “charities,” I see an ideological slant here
as well: One is an organization that seeks political favors for the abortion
industry via the Democratic Party. Two others are blatantly partisan advocacy
organizations for identity group political causes. If the objective here was to
end world hunger by avoiding Vox Day, I submit that John has fallen short of
the mark.
Nevertheless, I think John’s
idea of charitable involvement is a good one—however flawed its execution may
be. Therefore, I hereby announce that the Vox
Day/John Scalzi Internet Debate, should it ever occur, will benefit Children International.
Children International is a
reputable, politically neutral
organization that should be acceptable to all, regardless of their views on
abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. I will open the donations by pledging to
donate at least $200 myself; and we can solicit further donation pledges on Vox
Populi, the Whatever, and my blog.
But what about John Scalzi?
John seems to have adopted
the rather elitist position that he is too big a player to debate Vox Day. One
of his readers bolstered this stance with the following comment:
“You are a famous writer and he is… a nobody, really… whose only current claim to fame is that he has the attention of a famous writer.”
Time for a reality check. Stephen
King is a famous writer. Ken Follett is a famous writer. John Scalzi is a successful genre writer who is reasonably well known within the science fiction
community and in some sectors the blogosphere. But the fact remains that most
people outside these narrow confines don’t know who he is.
Nor is Vox Day exactly a
household name. However, he has participated in interviews with Ron Paul,
Dinesh D’Souza, and other figures who are legitimately household names. His
blog has a wide following. Vox is a published author, and one of John’s fellow
members of the SFWA. I don’t know which man made more money as a writer/blogger
in 2012; but I don’t think we need to carry our comparison that far. John
Scalzi and Vox Day are equally matched.
Should John Scalzi agree to
this debate for the benefit of Children International, I will volunteer to
function as moderator. My ground rules will be as follows:
- This will be a civil, professional, and dignified debate. I will not allow ad hominem attacks, profanity, or excessive sarcasm from either man.
- This debate will be fair and ideologically balanced. The questions will be equally weighted so as to favor neither Vox Day nor John Scalzi.
- Specifically, I will challenge Vox regarding his views of women in the political process (which I am on record as opposing). I will challenge John regarding the premises behind his now-infamous “straight white male” essay—which generated a lot of controversy on the Internet last summer.
John, since you seem to have
an aversion to direct contact with Theodore Beale, I will also act as an
intermediary between the two of you as we work out the details. Consider this
an open invitation: You may contact me at your leisure. If you peruse my site,
I think you will find that I am by no means hostile to you, and at the
ideological midpoint between you and Vox Day.
The choice is yours, Mr.
Scalzi: Will you stubbornly remain behind
your walled compound, basking in the fawning praise of your cultivated and
like-minded following? Or will you agree to participate in a collegial and
gentlemanly exchange of viewpoints for the benefit of charity, and the cause of
intellectual diversity on the Internet?
Smart money says The Rabbit King stays in his walled garden, nibbling on his carrots of conformity and groupthink with his fellow rodents.
ReplyDeleteMy father always told us that rodents were agents of the devil. Rodents and cats.
My guess is a wall of silence, accompanied by a brief hiatus of culture war-related posts at the Whatever. John wants this controversy to go away--and sooner rather than later.
Deleteindeed he does... which indicates he has a rather good understanding of how things will go should this progress much further.
DeleteThere is nothing neutral about this challenge or this post.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you say that?
DeleteNeutrality has never sullied a political debate. Why start now? Come on, Anonymous, is your daddy scared to defend his high moral ideals?
DeleteAnonymous:
DeleteWhen I write a Scalzi rebuttal, my objective isn't to be neutral. That doesn't mean I couldn't set my differences with him aside in order to moderate the proposed debate. I disagree with Scalzi; I don't personally dislike him. Also, I am at the ideological midpoint between him and Vox. I debate with Vox all the time, as Vox does with me.
The difference is that Vox is willing to answer his critics, whereas Scalzi prefers the company of sycophants. Or at least that is the impression he conveys.
Scalzi makes a lot of very partisan political statements. He has called a lot of people out over the years whom he doesn't agree with. When you do that on the Internet, you are going to attract criticism. It comes with the territory.
We know that you, the other Whatever-ites, and his little circle of likeminded bloggers agree with him. You are an easy audience for him, which is what he likes. As a very opinionated blogger, Scalzi should be willing to step out of the Whatever once in a while to debate those who have more diverse viewpoints.
"...[I am] the ideological midpoint between you and Vox Day"
ReplyDeleteSo you are only halfway stupid? Why should Scalzi agree to such a "debate"?
First of all, Anonymous, don't be a coward: If you are going to call people stupid, have the courage to identify yourself. As I state in my comments policy, you can say anything you want here--provided you identify yourself with your real name and your real picture. Be a man. (Or woman-- as applicable. Since you go to such lengths to hide your identity, I honestly don't know which you are.)
DeleteSecondly, the quick resort to the ad hominem attack when flustered is the intellectually weak tactic that prevails in the Whatever. Here the standards are a bit higher.
But to answer the question I think you are fumbling toward (in your own hysterical way) is this: Vox Day made some very specific criticisms of John Scalzi's "cross-dress to end male sexism" stunt.
http://onewordtrimnell.blogspot.com/2013/01/vox-day-vs-john-scalzi-echo-chamber.html
The points Vox raised are quite legitimate, and "Vox is a big stupid meanie" does not constitute a rebuttal. You don't have to agree with him on all things. I certainly don't. But his specific objections here are reasonable.
Now, if you call anyone "stupid" etc. again, I expect you to man up and identify yourself. Otherwise, maintain your civility.
Scalzi won't do it. He is too much of a coward.
ReplyDelete