I have not used this blog for a long time but none of my other webspaces are appropriate to post something of this personal a nature, so here we are.

As a preface, let me note that I have a lot of online friends, almost none of whom agree with me on politics. Anarchists, socialists, conservatives, liberals, even some weirder belief systems; I know a Red Tory from Seattle, for example. That’s a conservative, ultra-small government belief system based on redistributing work rather than wealth; he and I don’t agree on much of anything. But we get along just the same, and that’s true of the overwhelming majority of people I interact with online.

Yet, of all of them, of all time, I have only had one online acquaintance who ever told me that I was unwelcome unless I agreed with everything they said. This is actually not the first time they’ve blown up at me, in public or private, for disagreeing, but it seems like it will be the last. As we have a lot of personal friends, and as I’m now blocked from seeing any of their Facebook comments, I feel the need to protect my reputation from any further, secretive reprisals, so I’m posting the entire disagreement here as a public record.

It started when they supported a petition castigating a judge in a controversial legal case…

I actually read the petition, and some of the highly biased, inflammatory article; as one might expect, I was primarily interested in the legal arguments, not the grisly details of the crime in question. In a nutshell, some wackos liked to make videos about stomping on animals; instead of the local DA pursuing an open-and-shut animal cruelty case, they dropped charges and handed it off to the US Attorney, who wanted to pursue a highly political defense of a law banning so-called ‘Crush’ videos, which involve, well, crushing animals, mostly. This was a highly dodgy legal move because the Supreme Court struck down a very similar law 3 years ago.

The petition goes after the judge in the case, who basically followed Supreme Court precedent (whatever you think of that precedent), and refused to make new law (as trial judges aren’t supposed to do anyway). It seemed very unfair to me to go after the guy, and I said as much in a couple of comments. I actually revised them at least three times to make them sound less confrontational and more polite, and to scrupulously avoid any potential name-calling or other immaturity:

I was actually trying to be conciliatory here, because I don’t disagree that this is a terrible outcome for the public at large. I just don’t agree that blame should fall on the judge following the law for the awful tactical decisions of a prosecutor seeking glory on the legal battlefield.

This didn’t go over well at all, and I was told, once and for all it seems, that if I can’t agree with Nathan, I should remain forever silent to spare him having to hear or acknowledge that differing opinions exist.

I meant what I said too; I really don’t have time for people who only want to hear me sucking up to them, who want praise without criticism, fawning instead of actual discussion.

But fortunately, Nathan saved me a click on the Unfriend option with a message shortly thereafter:

One might take this message a bit more seriously if Nathan hadn’t ragequit the conversation by unfriending me immediately after sending it, so that I can’t even send a response. I guess seeing that would also offend Nathan’s fragile sensibilities.

To the fullest extent possible, I mean no ill-will here. If I can’t comment on someone’s posts I don’t need them cluttering up my Facebook feed. But at the same time, given this childish, highly emotional, namecalling response, I also don’t trust Nathan to represent this final disagreement between us fairly, so I’m posting it up, unedited, so that everyone can see the truth. If, after all the cursing, petulance, and personal insults, anyone feels I’m in the wrong, they’re welcome to say so. I won’t ban anyone simply for disagreeing with me.