The troll's one good question . . .
The anonymous troll who attacked me recently posed one question worthy of response, and I post it here in more courteous form than originally posed:
[Can one not] in any way be critical of the way the atrocious attacks in Paris are instrumentalized without endorsing the actions of murderers? . . . [Can one not] be critical of the #jesuischarlie campaign and condemn Islamic terrorism?Certainly, one can criticize "the #jesuischarlie campaign and condemn Islamic terrorism." One can legitimately critique Charlie Hebdo's immature political 'pornography,' for example, while rejecting Islamist terrorism. My friend Bill Vallicella does so explicitly, but in a thoughtful manner:
[P]erhaps a little thought should be given to the question whether one ought to endorse a political pornographer.I respect such scruples. I even understand them. But I think that . . .
. . . as far as the Islamists are concerned, we 'infidels' are already 'Charlie,' so I set aside my reservations in light of this horrific terrorist attack and declare - as I did before - "Je suis Charlie."If the troll had been polite in his disagreement - as my friend Bill was - I'd have replied to his query equally courteously, but I have no obligation to respond to some anonymous internet troll's dyspeptic, querulous, insulting questions.
I am, however, greatly indebted to my anonymous troll, whose discourteous misbehavior inspired this recent series of blog entries, for which I am truly grateful . . .