Despite the fact that some of his commenters were hell-bent on turning this into some kind of personal feud, I’ll give Dov credit for recognizing that I was attacking his position on an issue, and not him personally.
Having said that, I will respond when time permits.
Update: This is what Dov Bear had to say:
LGF’s comment section has become a forum for nasty, fascist rascist people who use their comments to vent anger and insuit at Muslims and Arabs and anyone else they don’t like.When well-meaning people visit LGF, it’s true they do see the blog’s latest report on the latest terrorist atrocity, but they also see horrible and hateful comments directed at the whole of the Muslim world. As a result, many make the mistake of presuming that anyone who supports Israel is also horrible and hateful. I’ve seen it happen. Are Israel’s interests really served by a blog that makes Israel’s supporters look like monsters? They aren’t monsters (obviously) but you wouldn’t know it from reading LGF.Moreover, LGF’s comment section has given it a terrible reputation among the centrist and left-leaning blogs. Does that help Israel? The people who need to be convinced of the rightness of Israel’s position are not LGF readers. LGF’s regualr readers are the chior. They already support Israel. The people who need to be convinced that Israel’s position is legitimate are reading the centrist and left leaning blogs and among those blogs the name LGF – and by association any cause it champions – is mud.
I just don’t see it this way. LGF highlights and discusses articles dealing with the truth about Israel. It reports on all the terrorist attacks occurring here. It expresses understanding for Israel’s fight against terror and desire for peace. It exposes the lies, propaganda, and hate emanating from the enemies of peace. And all of this is coming from one Charles Johnson, a non-Jew who’s support from Israel (as far as I am aware) stems from his intellectual honesty, and not from any fundamentalist religious belief – a fact I believe makes people less cynical of the site’s motives, and more willing to explore the issues.
While some of the commenters may go overboard, I don’t think that this necessarily negates the great work achieved by the blog itself.
For a start, thinking people can recognize that the views of a blog’s commenters don’t necessarily reflect the views of the blog owner him or herself. This is especially true in Charle’s case. He does not paint all Muslims with the same brush, although he does raise some questions about Islam. While one could argue that he should exercise more control over the comments, have you seen how many comments he gets? I doubt he would have the time.
Secondly, anyone approaching the issues earnestly will look at the facts, and not be unduly influenced by the rhetoric of supporters of either side. For instance, when LGF reports on a terrorist deliberately pumping bullets into a pregnant Jewish woman, I don’t think the fact that some understandably angry commenters shout out “Death to the Arabs” (something I don’t condone) will cause a new reader to be less revulsed by the terrorist’s actions, nor less sympathetic for the woman. And we all know there are thousands of such terrorists, and thousands of innocent Israeli victims. The reader might think that some commenters are taking things too far (the reader might also understand the commenters’ anger in light of the situation), but it won’t change the facts of the news story. And LGF is doing a great job bringing such stories to the forefront, while the mainstream media seeks to hide them, or report them in the context of tit-for-tat, morally equivalent violence.
Thirdly, not everyone looks at the comments anyway. For instance, I myself hardly delve into the comments, but do read all of the posts. I suspect there are many others like me.
I’m sorry. I just can’t see how a minority of commenters (yes, the commenters DB speaks of are in the minority) will cancel out the good work of the blog itself. This is especially true given that Charles is a supporter of Israel, and he does not come across as “horrible and hateful.” And at the end of the day, each visitor of LGF certainly reads Charles, and not necessarily every comment.
I also disagree with the contention that “The people who need to be convinced that Israel’s position is legitimate are reading the centrist and left leaning blogs and among those blogs the name LGF – and by association any cause it champions – is mud.” For a start, people who need to be convinced may not even be reading any blogs. They might find LGF through a google search, or by word of mouth. And while I think that it is true – especially for some left-leaning blogs – that LGF has a bad reputation, I believe that anyone willing to approach the issues openly and honestly will visit LGF anyway. If someone has already made up their mind on LGF – based on heresay – then chances are they have also made up their mind on Israel – based on heresay.
