Monday, August 03, 2009

A statement of principle

Probably a restatement of principle, in fact. I'm sure I must have said this somewhere before, but not recently, and perhaps only in the 'comments'.

I have recently found myself being hounded (particularly pointlessly, since the post in question is two months old, and never had much of a discussion thread going on it anyway) by an obnoxious 'fenqing' type, and I have - regretfully - started to "harmonise" him (i.e. to delete his comments). I have very, very seldom resorted to such censorship before (I can't remember the last time...), and I really don't like to do it; but sometimes I feel it is inescapable.

For the benefit of this particular flan-thrower - and any other fenqing out there; and, indeed, any potential commenters at all (I would like to encourage more rather than less commenting on here!), let me make it perfectly clear why I have done this.

I am quite open to - indeed, I welcome - criticism and disagreement. I am pretty tolerant about the use of profanity (although I am wary about offending - and thereby discouraging the comment-thread participation of - others who are more sensitive than me on such matters). I am even prepared to tolerate a certain amount of personal abuse (not much, but some; the main problem with personal abuse in blog comments, it seems to me, is that it tends to displace everything else).

The thing I do insist on, however, is relevance. If you're not making a point that has a bearing on the topic of the post, then I am likely to delete it.

My only other requirement is coherence. If you're just writing unintelligible gibberish, then I will delete those comments.

If you have something worthwhile to say, and can say it clearly, and it has some bearing on the topic in hand - then you are always most welcome to say it here, and will not be censored by me (no matter how much I may disagree with it, or how hostile your attitude toward me is).

[It may also be worth reminding folks of the little Manifesto I penned 4 or 5 months ago, when I first started getting 'famous' - or infamous.]


in-ur-face fenqing said...


What are the "relevance" and "coherence" in your replies to "aj21"'s comments,


where you first labeled him/her comments as "fenqing twaddle", then insisted that he/she is a Chinese?

Follow you own rules first, or you will be "hounded", "abused", "personally attacked", etc!

I guess the purpose of your current post is to justify your harmonizing me a few weeks ago. I want to calm you down by saying that you don't need to feel particularly bad about it, for everybody else does it: CCP, BBC, NYT, ...; and that you are only doing it on a much smaller, micro, scale.

You see, I am not even angry, and I even want to congratulate you on finally joining them.

Froog said...

Ah, you're back.

If it really is you. Previous incarnations of 'in-ur-face' have been capable of little more than incoherent invective, whereas you are here stringing together complete sentences, and even managing some tenuous linking logic. Most refreshing. But also suspicious. Makes it look as if there's a tag-team using this screen name!

However, despite the improvement in your written English, you're still apparently having some difficulties in comprehension. Your friend 'aj21' never actually denied being Chinese (nor told us what other nationality he might be, nor sought to explain his reasons for commenting as he did).

My point was that his first comment was a classic fenqing-style response (and it undeniably was). Yes, other types of people might make similar points in other circumstances - but when you're reading a China-based blogger and commenting on a post about a Chinese topic, it's difficult to understand why you'd respond in such a way unless you were a fenqing (and hence, almost inevitably, Chinese).

These rules are for commenters, not me. I am GOD on my own blog. However, I am not a wrathful GOD, and I don't abuse people unless they really deserve it. Usually, I just mercilessly take the piss out of people.

If your comments are getting blocked by every site you try to use, well.... maybe there's a good reason for that.

in-ur-face said...

Here you go again, the same old reasoning like

"He is extreme China-nationalist. Kind of unusual for someone like that not to be Chinese."

that you wrote before! I thought I had told you to re-take your middle school "Logic 101".

OK, I certainly agree that you are some kind of god here in your "ville"; but that will not stop me from smashing the "neon god" whenever I see fit.

Froog said...

Little tip for you here, 'in-ur-face' - if you're going to taunt someone, don't use one that so obviously applies far more appositely to yourself. You have yet to show any understanding of the concept of LOGIC. Whereas logic (and rhetoric and ethics and so on) were the meat & drink of my academic life as a young man.

The thinking on that earlier post - now long dead to anyone but a crazy obsessive like you - and my response to that annoying drive-by irrelevancer 'aj21' was that his comment - in the context of a 'China blog' - was typical of a fenqing. In fact, in the context of a 'China blog', it's difficult to conceive of who but a fenqing would choose to write something like that. His follow-up comment displayed restricted English (and logical) skills, and a tendency to abuse and self-righteousness - which, again, are classic (though admittedly, not exclusive) fenqing traits. And fenqing are, essentially by definition, Chinese. It was therefore a reasonable assumption that he was a fenqing, and thus, logically, Chinese.

I was dissing him for being - apparently - a fenqing, not for being Chinese. Most Chinese people I like.

Not all Chinese are bad. But (almost) all fenqing are Chinese. And (almost) all fenqing are bad, in my view.

Are you following this now? Did you get this far in your logic classes?

in-ur-face fenqing said...

How come "logic...were the meat & drink of my academic life as a young man", yet you could write something like "He is extreme China-nationalist. Kind of unusual for someone like that not to be Chinese"?

Don't you think you are damaging, among other things, the reputation of the institutes where you got educated? (If you still don't see anything wrong with that second sentence of yours, it is, well, TRAGIC!)

Most importantly, you have been "proving", tirelessly, that "aj21" is a Chinese. Even that is true, using "aj21"'s racial identy to boost your arguments is, as I pointed out at the very beginning, RACISM!

Of course you are going to deny that you are a racist; on the other hand, few racists declare outright they are such. Your behavior says who you really are!

Froog said...

It was fun for a while, but now I'm bored of you again, 'in-ur-face'.

Not only do you have no grasp of logic, you are blind to nuances of humour.... and, indeed, self-deprecation and acknowledgement of possible fallibility in my writing here.

I merely observed of the wretched 'aj' that he wrote like a fenqing (but conceded he might not be), and that fenqing are essentially Chinese (although it is just conceivable that some deluded non-Chinese might adopt the same mindset), and that 'aj' was therefore probably Chinese (though might not be). He never denied it, and my bet would still be that he is indeed a Chinese fenqing.

There is nothing either illogical or racist in that sequence of deduction.

I have never used "aj's racial identity to boost my arguments". Show me where you think that happened precisely. Another huge lapse of logic on your part, I think.

If you're going to accuse me of being a racist, you need to define your concept of racism, and explain more clearly how I fall into that.

Deducing - from clear and persuasive evidence - that "aj21" was probably Chinese is not racist - because I do not draw any further inference about him (negative or otherwise) from the fact of his being Chinese. (Logic, again. I know you're not good on this stuff.)

I give you one last chance to try and say something worthwhile - rather than just inexplicably calling me a racist (something that would get you into deep shit if you had a talk show in the States). After that, you're going to get 'harmonised' from this thread as well. Fair warning. And you've had more chances than you deserve already.

in-ur-face fenqing said...

“nuance”, “humor”, “self-deprecation“, and even some logic chains. How “cultured”and “sophisticated” you are!

Unfortunately, and tragically, your ability to recognize the core of a simple issue is at the level of a juvenile, and you are still stuck in the deep morass /shit pit created by yourself:

“Deducing…that `aj21’ was probably Chinese is not racist, because I do not draw any further inference about him (negative or otherwise) from the fact of his being Chinese.”


This was my original question on DAY ONE (July 24) which you kept wiggling away. ANSWER THE QUESTION NOW!!!

Racism includes raced-based/related stereotyping, labeling, prejudice, bigotry, bias, discrimination, and of course other more offensive , hard core components. In your first reply to aj21 (June 7) , by accusing him /her using “inane Chinese tactic”, effectively you told the readers that (i) he /she is (most likely) a Chinese (an assertion that you explicitly made starting in your second reply to him/her); (ii) hence what he/she said was “inane”. This is not only a cheap shot , but also racial stereotyping, labeling, prejudice, bigotry and bias, you racist!!

You kept mentioning American courtrooms; then don’t you know there in the courtroom a lawyer is not going to be tolerated if something racial about the accused is embedded in the lawyer’s argument? Why this is not allowed? Because it is racist behavior and using race factor to influence other people’s opinion is downright evil!

Now about the logic in your “He’s an …extreme China nationalist. Kind of unusual for someone like that not to be Chinese” : note that you ITALICIZED the last 4 words yourself, signaling that you wanted to emphasize these words( to make the point “he is Chinese”). Obviously it was your original intention to make a logic chain(“A implies B”) out of these two sentences! Saying now that this was meant for “humor” is merely your cover-up effort.

It’s been a while since last time because I have real work to do. But sometimes the racism, arrogance, self-righteousness and stupidity exhibited in your posts just make my blood boil, I will come back from time to time to smash the “neon god”.

Froog said...

inane+Chinese is not the same as saying inane=Chinese

I should perhaps have said 'fenqing' there, rather than Chinese, because it is unfair to suggest that all Chinese are tainted by the failings of the fenqing (although, alas, a very high proportion of Chinese online commenters are thus tainted).

aj's response was inane. It was also a characteristically fenqing kind of thing to say.

You're quite right - in one respect, and one respect only - in-ur-face. I am violently prejudiced against tedious, self-righteous, ranting pricks like you. Unfortunately, such pricks are often Chinese; when they are, I guess I am also prejudiced against the Chinese - but only insofar as particular Chinese individuals are behaving like pricks.

I think you'd find it very hard to convince anyone that that was 'racist'.

But please, don't even try.

You are BANNED. If you show up on here again, you will be harmonised at once. So - don't waste your time, or mine.