|
June 13, 2001
"A philosopher who is not taking part in discussions is like a boxer who never goes into the ring."—Ludwig Wittgenstein
Several days ago, I wrote an article entitled "God Sees The Freepers." The article was meant to be an expose of sorts; there are many people in America who have no idea that such a group
exists, nor do they know just how politically active these denizens of FreeRepublic.com happen to be.
There is no denying that I am a political foe of the conservative viewpoint. However, I made it clear in my article that I have great respect for any conservative who can articulate their
philosophy with clarity and, more importantly, without vitriol.
My purpose for writing "God Sees The Freepers" was to expose an astonishing level of spite, rage and venom to be found on the forum boards of FreeRepublic. Having observed the Freepers for some
time now, I know the vituperation I revealed in my article is far more mainstream within that culture than even they choose to accept.
Can one find hatred and spite on a liberal forum? Absolutely. As Freeper SW6906 stated in a FreeRepublic thread responding to my article, "It is impossible to have a gathering of many thousands
of people and not have your assorted collection of kooks included." Many Freepers, in defense of their comments, pointed to remarks made by actor Alec Baldwin on the Letterman show that advocated the
death by hanging of impeachment manager Henry Hyde.
Nobody claimed that liberals are not capable of hateful speech. But then again, nobody claimed that the Baldwins are especially bright.
But there is something about the Freepers and the words they choose to describe their enemies, their beliefs and their fundamental understanding of American freedom that smacks of violence and
hatred. I challenge any Freeper to scour the boards at DemocraticUnderground.com for comments as comparably vicious to those that flow from the boards of FreeRepublic.
"Picking a couple of bad examples out of a thread of several hundred proves nothing," says Freeper Hillary's Gate Cult. This may be true, but when those bad examples go without censure from
other Freepers, this lends a distinct air of acceptance and approval. Silence, it has been said, indicates consent. The silence on the boards after a Freeper advocated the burning of another human being
says all that need be said about my picking on the "average" Freeper, because that silence was deafening.
I would like to take this opportunity to address some of the comments made on FreeRepublic regarding my article. As before, I will have to cherry-pick a few representative Freeper comments from
the voluminous discussion that occurred on the forums there—it would require a book of Melvillian proportions to deal with each individual comment. I have done my best below to choose comments that
represent the spectrum of opinions expressed about my article. No doubt, however, this approach will not satisfy.
I suppose I could simply go onto FreeRepublic and hurl myself into the conversation, but I choose not to. That choice has nothing to do with cowardice, for I have nothing to fear from faceless
screen names with sharp tongues. It would take three lifetimes to deal with every comment, old and new, generated by my presence. I simply lack the time for such an endeavor.
Besides, such an invasion on my part would certainly cause me to be labeled a "disruptor." The folks at DemocraticUnderground do not like conservative Freepers invading their discussions. I
believe the Freepers feel the same way about liberal interlopers. No, I shall reply this way, and leave it to them to respond as they wish.
I shall begin with a letter sent to Online Journal, one of the websites where "God Sees The Freepers" was published. The letter reads in part as follows:
"Liberals are always reminding us that free speech means occasionally putting up with words and actions one may find distasteful, even
repugnant. Apparently Mr Pitt and OLJ believes that should not apply to conservative free speech."
I chose this comment because it is representative of many such statements the Freepers made about my article: Pitt wants our First Amendment rights! This is utter hyperbolic balderdash of the
purest ray serene. Comb my article as you wish, and you will find no reference anywhere of my desire to see FreeRepublic shut down and silenced.
I would remind the author of this foolish screed that free speech does indeed mean I must endure the rantings of someone I vehemently disagree with. But free speech also means you must endure
my free speech directed at exposing and refuting your free speech. This we call dialogue.
How the practice of my First Amendment rights becomes transmogrified into an abrogation of this Freeper's First Amendment rights is no mystery. If you disagree with a Freeper, you are simply
wrong. There is no dissent. If you disagree, you are way out there in the blue. If you are a liberal, your disagreement is tantamount to fascism.
I would fight to the death for your right to speak and write as you wish, Freeper. But don't cry "First Amendment!" when I disagree with you in the public prints. A kid in my neighborhood used
to take his ball and go home whenever the game didn't go his way. He never amounted to much of anything in the long run, either.
The troubling fact that you are wrong if you disagree with a Freeper is the prime reason why the religious allusions I made in "God Sees The Freepers" will not be defended here. I believe the
hate and malice offered to those who are not conservative Christians by Freepers betrays every teaching about Jesus Christ my Catholic Jesuit instructors invested me with. To put it mildly, the Freepers
vehemently disagree. There will never, ever be a meeting of the minds on this, so any discussion about it is wasted space.
If you happen to think my take on Christianity is wrong, I invite you to explore the comments made on FreeRepublic on this topic. Who knows? You might make a friend. But don't invite me to your
church.
This quote below represents another defense of Freeperhood that I find less than tenable:
"The one thing libs never mention when they write hit pieces is the fact that anyone- even a lib- can sign on and be a 'freeper' and
spew whatever they want. Another thing they never point out is that sometimes the libs go on-line, sign up here, post something obnoxious on an obscure thread during a slow period, and then use their own
'quotes' as evidence to support their accusations. [sic]" –piasa
I take this opportunity now to state for the record that I have never once posted a single word on FreeRepublic. Were I to do so, I would be labeled a "disruptor" as I mentioned above and get
cast from the forum. Besides, I do in truth respect the rules of that forum, which is reserved for conversation between conservatives. As I am no conservative, I do not belong there.
This statement by piasa is an interesting reflection of a common and disturbing theme I have seen among Freepers, and among members of the GOP as a whole. Simply put, nothing is their fault,
ever. One Freeper made mention of the fact that many of the more berserk posts were added by individuals who had been members of FreeRepublic for years.
One must either believe that a liberal "disruptor" has been lying in wait, like a snake in a hay bale, for the perfect opportunity to strike and discredit Freeperdom forever . . . or one must
believe that those who posted Mia Lawrence's name, address, descriptions of her baby and driving directions to her home are in fact Freeper members in good standing. The Freeper who raised the specter
that the latter might actually be the truth was roundly ignored.
The problems of society are no fault of conservatives. The prevalence of gun violence in America is no fault of conservative gun advocates. The prurient nature of American media is not the
fault of conservative muckrakers, among whom Freepers stand tall, who screeched for two years about a consensual sexual liaison between adults until a description of the President's penis became dinner
table conversation for our children. The fact that Jenna Bush broke the law isn't the fault of conservatives, either; it was all a plot, and besides, Freepers have been saying for years that American
alcohol laws like the harsh ones passed by Governor Bush in Texas are stupid, anyway.
For the record, President Ronald Reagan was the man who raised the drinking age in America to 21. Take it up with him. He's out in California.
It stands to reason, therefore, that any and all negative, violent, obscene, threatening or repugnant statements appearing on FreeRepublic are no fault whatsoever of the Freepers. It's all a
liberal plot. So there.
Another common theme among responding Freepers was this flabbergasted shock that I might take Internet polls seriously, or believe them to be scientifically accurate. One representative comment
on this is below:
"The most pathetic aspect of William Pitt's diatribe is that he actually believes Internet polls are meaningful, and that we are
contaminating them with our Freeping. Anyone who knows even a smidgeon of statistics (a smidgeon is 1/16th of an ounce) would understand that a self-selected poll has absolutely no scientific value and
represents nothing as far as what public opinion is. However, there are lots of mainstream pundits and commentators who are just as ignorant of statistics as Mr. Pitt (after all, most are journalism or
English or poly sci majors), and they take Internet polls at face value."–dpwiener
This person is wrong on one count, but absolutely right on another. In fact, wiener helps make my point. I never stated anywhere in my article that Internet polls are meaningful by themselves,
or that they have any kind of scientific accuracy whatsoever. They don't, and anyone with a thimbleful of Internet acumen knows this. Somehow, this was lost in the translation. Internet polls are garbage
. . . except when used by a pundit to make a political point on a national media platform. This is where wiener agrees with me.
I don't know if Robert Novak was ignorant of statistics the night he used the 'Freeped' CNN.com poll. I do know that he used that 'Freeped' poll to publicly push for the end of a highly
controversial election recount whose ending was hotly sought by conservatives. Novak sure made that poll sound like it was legitimate, and the 100 million Americans who don't know the integrity of
Internet polls from a bag of silicon microprocessors were sold a bill of goods by a media representative whose lie was helped, nay, created! by the Freeper legions.
So, thanks wiener. You're a big help.
Some Freepers happened to agree with my view on this subject. Take the comments of one BibChr, who said:
"I am very troubled by the way some use FReep to mean "cheat and lie." I take 'FReep this poll' to mean, 'Let your FReepin' conservative
voice be heard.' But clearly, some mean 'Vote again and again and again and again, until it goes our way.' That's lying and cheating, and I don't think most of us stand for that sort of tactic."
Sorry, BobChr, but the majority of your Freeper brethren found it not only acceptable to do these things, but made it sound like a moral imperative. Many claimed they learned the trick from
liberals. That, I suppose, makes it just fine as paint.
There were a good number of Freepers who were made uneasy when they saw the comments of other Freepers out there in the daylight. I suppose this is understandable. A dysfunctional family puts
up with many odd statements behind the walls of their home, so much so that they fail to speak up when little brother or sister says or does something totally reprehensible. Put that same dysfunctional
family in the middle of the town square, however, and their shame and humiliation rise exponentially.
Take the comments of DoughtyOne, my favorite Freeper. DoughtyOne fits the mold for the kind of conservative I truly respect. Here is what he or she said about my article:
"Well here it is my fellow Freepers. Take a good hard look at the part that takes us to task. Some of it is dead on. If you dismiss this
just because it was written by a liberal whack job, you're doing yourself and FreeRepublic a disservice. Many of us have been trying to tell you to moderate your comments regarding specific groups, but
you knew better. About two years ago, Alec Baldwin made an absolute fool of himself on the David Letterman show. It was easy to see how he could marginalize his cause by going overboard. But for some
reason those among us who can't quite lift their knuckles off the ground, simply couldn't, and in fact still can't comprehend how their words can damage this site. Some of the comments quoted have the
potential to turn off anyone who would come to this site. Frankly, they disgust me.
"How can we expect Senators, Congressmen, Governors and a myriad of quality people to assess this sight much differently than this
person did? Read the stuff and see if you'd like your folks, other relatives, friends or pastor to read some of it. Heck, I don't even like reading it. We should try to remember that we don't hate
people, we hate the actions of some people. There is a world of difference. If you aren't grown up enough to understand the difference, you should pack your bags and look for a forum that welcomes people
who hate. [sic]"
The reason I respect DoughtyOne is because, after these words, she went on to meticulously savage my article in a line-by-line dissection that never once descended into yowling hyperbole. She
busted me up but good, and did so according to that sense of integrity I admire so greatly. It behooves you to find her comments on FreeRepublic if you are interested. They ran too long for me to
reproduce them here, but they should be easy to find. I tip my hat to DoughtyOne, who is truly a class act of the conservative realm.
Others were also sounding caution alarms, such as a Freeper going by the marvelous moniker Hillary's Lovely Legs:
"Maybe we ought to wake up and realize that we tend to look like a bunch of kooks, even amongst ourselves."
I have seen very similar comments on liberal forums. As was stated above, it is important to the existence of any forum to recognize that people of a decidedly twisted nature can come wandering
in and start spewing nonsense. Self-policing is important, and HLL seems to see this as a necessity in FreeperLand. Did HLL's fellow Freepers rise to this challenge and stop violent and disturbing posts?
This was posted alongside a picture of a man pointing a gun:
"Hey William, want to know who I am? Remeber the kid from grade school who used to kick your little smartypants @ss all over the
schoolyard at recess? You know, the one who after you told on him and nothing happened was perfectly happy to kick your panzy @ss all over again? The one who was perfectly happy to terrorize you all the
more regularly in response to all your delusional, intellectually dishonest, self righteous pretentiousness? Well, guess what? I'm still here. And I'm only anonymous when I want to be. While your
thinking about that, meditate on the truth that my seed will far outlast yours on this planet, girlyman. [sic]" - Have Gun Will Travel
And this:
"Mr. Pitt is happy his old grandpappy died before he could tell him about Freerepublic(such a wonderful old conservative you know). How
did he produce the bad seed that spawned Mr. Pitt? I hope for his demise before he is able to tell anyone else his biased story about FR [sic]."–olustee
And this:
"If one conservative is a bit more agressive, who am I to CARE? Let it be. We each have our methods. Just destroy liberalism before it
divides and destroys US! [sic]"–Libertina
And this:
"I HATE liberals and if I were Princesses of the world they would NOT be any liberals in America! Nope ! [sic]"–Snow Bunny
Not one Freeper that I saw stepped forward to shout down those who expressed a desire to commit violence against me, who wished death for me, who sought the destruction of a political view that
represents millions of Americans, who used the word 'hate' over and over again.
Not one.
What does this mean?
In short, it means that FreeRepublic is exactly the kind of forum I described it to be in my first article. There are good and decent people who call themselves Freepers, to be sure, but they
are far overmatched by those who either spew hate or else turn a blind eyes to those in their ranks who speak and act with such malice.
My telephone rang at 2:00 this morning, waking me from a strange dream where I was being attacked by Harry Truman. I answered the phone and heard only breathing on the other end. The person who
called stayed on the line, breathing, until I hung up. They did not call back. I did a *69 and got a phone number which the phone company said was disconnected. I was unnerved, because I had published an
article about the Freepers.
I will lay long green on a bet that no conservative has ever been kept awake at night in fear that the liberals were coming to get him. I cannot be sure that this call came from a Freeper, but
the very fact of my fear speaks volumes about the nature of the denizens of FreeRepublic. They are a frightening bunch, so much so that a few of their own members are made nervous by the content of the
average Freeper character.
I do not advocate here the dismantling of FreeRepublic. Like Lincoln, who put his opponents in his Cabinet, I like the idea of the Freepers being in a place where I can watch them. Your First
Amendment rights are safe with me, folks. I would not shoot a wolf that came into my back yard, either. But you can be damned sure I'd keep an eye on it.
The last comment, I am mortally sure, was posted by George Walker Bush:
"What a sick person these liberals are."
Thank you for your input, Governor. The First Amendment is indeed a beautiful thing.
|
