They're having a food fight over at the adults' table.
One of the New York Times columnists wrote a post-Charlie thing; other pencils, Salon, Glenn Greenwald wrote their own, and a polite, finger-food, brain-food fight broke out. Ross Douthat was impressed enough by some of the other arguments that he changed his mind. This is what Douthat originally wrote:
"...the kind of blasphemy that Charlie Hebdo engaged in had deadly consequences, as everyone knew it could … and that kind of blasphemy is precisely the kind that needs to be defended, because it’s the kind that clearly serves a free society’s greater good. If a large enough group of someones is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization, and when that scenario obtains it isn’t really a liberal civilization any more.
One of the New York Times columnists wrote a post-Charlie thing; other pencils, Salon, Glenn Greenwald wrote their own, and a polite, finger-food, brain-food fight broke out. Ross Douthat was impressed enough by some of the other arguments that he changed his mind. This is what Douthat originally wrote:
"...the kind of blasphemy that Charlie Hebdo engaged in had deadly consequences, as everyone knew it could … and that kind of blasphemy is precisely the kind that needs to be defended, because it’s the kind that clearly serves a free society’s greater good. If a large enough group of someones is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization, and when that scenario obtains it isn’t really a liberal civilization any more.
...But when offenses are policed by murder, that’s when we need more of them, not less, because the murderers cannot be allowed for a single moment to think that their strategy can succeed."
Now, The Restatement of Douthat:
"I think my original language might reasonably be amended to something like this: “When offenses are policed with murder, we need more speech that challenges/offends the murderers,” leaving more room for prudential and moral judgment about exactly what form the new challenge/offense should take."
Now, The Restatement of Douthat:
"I think my original language might reasonably be amended to something like this: “When offenses are policed with murder, we need more speech that challenges/offends the murderers,” leaving more room for prudential and moral judgment about exactly what form the new challenge/offense should take."
I, Benjamin Harris, do solemnly swear that I read those two sections an exasperating number of times before I saw any difference whatsoever and when I did the first change I noticed was that Douthat had changed "by murder" to "with murder" which if there is a distinction with a difference there I don't know what it is. And I got so exasperated I didn't want to know! Then I noticed "speech." Douthat had changed "we need more of them" to "we need more speech." That is a difference! But not in context. Grrrr. Dearie me, this whole food fight and both Douthat posts were on blasphemous speech, on Charlie Hebdo speech, on whether other media should reprint the offensive cartoons. If Douthat intended to draw a distinction between speech and act with his "amendment" neither he nor any of the other adults ever discussed blowing up mosques or other acts.
So, I don't know what The Restatement of Douthat is about and it exasperates me.
