Let us agree that recommending this diary means simply choosing to make it more visible, not to endorse its contents. You'll understand why in a moment. I realized belatedly that some people will have used up all of their hide-ratings for the day; if that is true of you, post a comment saying that you had another one (or however many) you wanted to use and, if I'm still here, I'll post a reply (or as many as appropriate) to you for you to HR later. It's only fair.
The first title I came up with for this diary was "I come not to praise Aidos, but to bury her," but I abandoned it. As much as I like literary allusions, that one is unfair. She was no Julius Caeser and she did not fall victim to treachery. She fell victim to what is in most ways an admirable view -- as mahakali overdrive puts it in her diary: to rid the site of all bigots and homophobes. It is, however, a much harder practice than that diary and the comments to it make it appear. It's costless. Well, I'm going to make it a little less costless for anyone who wants me here.
I spoke out against the drive to ban Aidos, whom I consider to be -- unless, as some hypothesize, she is a flat out serial liar -- a sad and even tragic figure. I did not think that, when you looked at the specifics generally available at the time (which some of the contents of the aforementioned diary was not), the case against her was not made. I was told that that was not my place to have an opinion. I disagreed with that as well.
I think that ridding the site of bigotry is an easier task in theory than in practice. I think that when the subjects of bigotry have carte blanche to define bigotry, that that power corrupts them as much as it does anyone else. I think that all demographic groups, as groups, are the same, equally containing and equal capable of good and bad. So I treat all groups as equal, including being willing to disagree with them. I think that refusing to criticize a group's position when you disagree with it is patronizing. Maybe people prefer being patronized to being challenged, but I try to avoid it.
Today was not a good day for that philosophy. I could cower -- or I can own my opinions. Well, you've read the title, you know which I'm doing.
I've going to include several comments below the tip jar. Each will link to a different thread in the debates I've been having. Taken in the worst light, I have been defending not a tolerant position towards even challenging perspectives, but homophobia and bigotry itself. That's not my perception of myself, but the suggestion has been made that I'm not really entitled to make those judgments either.
So, if we are going to have a purge, and you think that I should be part of it, this is your chance to show the courage of your convictions:
If you think I should be banned for my defense of Aidos, and you think you can meet the "Are you SURE?" standard that pops up when you HR, you'll have plenty of comments here to HR over the next few days.
If think that Aidos deserved banning and that I don't, you should be prepared to explain what the difference is -- and to live with it in the future.
If you think that my comments were wrong, but don't deserve HRs, this is your chance to explain why (and to make whatever comments you think are appropriate); in fact, it would be welcome.
If you think that I was right, this is your chance to get your fair share of abuse.
If you stand on the sidelines, you let others made the decision.
If everyone stands on the sidelines, I'll be amused. (Really, people?)
I am not satisfied with how this has been resolved. "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" makes it too easy on us as a community. We need to a tougher challenge than to get rid of a bigot and congratulate ourselves on doing so without coming to grips with the consequences of our choices. So, here come consequences -- for me and thee. It's up to you now.
Updated by Seneca Doane at Sun May 15, 2011 at 04:20 PM PDT
Hi, folks, I'm back. Interesting comments. Most interesting for me is that, at the time I write this (almost 21 hours after posting), I have received not a single hide rating. Lots of insults, minimal support, lots of odd interpretations of what I have said and believe, but no hide ratings -- even accompanied by charges that I have been promoting homophobia (which, if true, should have led to hide rating. I've HR'd people for it.
I presume from this that discussions of the type that I invited people to hide rate are within community standards.
One general comment: there's discussion below about Aidos having had a history of racist posts. This is news to me, but here too I would want to look at the original comments rather than trust other people's judgment, because I'm not finding those judgments especially trustworthy. But, if it's so, I condemn it, and her for it, and if it had actually been the basis for her banning (rather than, from what I can tell, irrelevant and unknown to most people pushing for it), I would not complain. But this question is about why people hide-rated her en masse, with the apparent intention of invoking autoban, based on the information they had at the time. If it turned out that she was also running dog fights, that means that I'm glad she's gone, but it doesn't justify the decisions made at the time.
Replies to individual commenters are below.