I'm not going to pretend this kept me up all night or anything, but I guess it's worth addressing if for no other reason than that one of my readers took the time to call it to my attention.
In one of his typical diatribes -- this one on what I'm sure will in the future occasionally be recalled as "the Brad Spangler affair" and referring to a statement published by the victim in said matter -- Christopher Cantwell writes that he doesn't "for a second think it below [George] Donnelly or Knapp, much less any of the other liberal propagandists Spangler allied himself with, to fake such a thing."
First off, I see no need to spill a lot of ink defending George Donnelly. He's quite capable of defending himself, and has done so. All I really have to say about the role he's played in this round of movement theater is that he pretty much limited himself to condemning Brad Spangler's actions and urging people not to publicly identify the victim at a time when she had not yet chosen to participate in the public discussion. As an ultra-thin libertarian, I don't consider that a matter of ideology, but of manners. Good ones in George's case, not so good on the part of some others, Cantwell included.
Secondly, no, I didn't fake up a public statement on behalf of the victim. You're free to believe that or not, but I know it beyond a shadow of doubt.
I personally believe the statement is genuine -- I saw it firsthand on the victim's Facebook page, because we are Facebook "friends," rather than learning of it at second hand -- but frankly can't say for certain (stranger things than Facebook accounts being hacked have happened). I haven't communicated with the victim since this shitstorm broke and don't intend to talk with her about it unless she communicates an urge to talk with me about it, which I don't expect to happen.
As to the content of the statement, I find it strange that Cantwell would even consider the possibility that it originated with me, given that I publicly denounced the same sort of identity politics rhetoric in the Center for a Stateless Society's statement on the matter and that I have a long record of opposing that kind of stuff. But really the only conclusion I can draw from his apparent lack of knowledge on the subject of little old me is that Cantwell doesn't pay little old me much attention. Which is fine.
Ultimately, in looking for anything accurate in Cantwell's post, the only thing I find credible in it is his admission that he doesn't, even for a second, think. Perhaps he should give it a try some time. But I advise his readers not to hold breath waiting for that to happen.
Post a Comment