I think that RSM could have been more forthright and less Clintonesque in simply denying the "revulsion" charge. Eventually I see, or at least believe that I see, that he did.
CJ is an excellent site designer and coder and a professional musician. That does not make him an astute political theorist. His opinions on most matters of public debate are worth no more and no less than are mine or those of thousands of others who blog. The condemnation of people who mean well in a process of guilt by association is wrong because it is ultimately self destructive. It is wrong because it is obviously ineffective. While trolls and mobys are real threats, to extreme a control policy destroys the value of the intellectual market. Managing debate, on a blog or in a classroom or at the dinner table, is an art as much as a science. The evidence is that CJ got it wrong and a few people who bring little intellectual value to the conversation have been empowered and more thoughtful voices have departed.
That does not mean that I feel that CJ is wrong about each case or issue. Some I disagree with him on and some I do not feel as important as he does but he can choose the topics in his own house. He also is entitled to set the rules and ban people if he wishes. LGF is thank God not a government site and the 1st Amendment does not apply.
Having expressed these opinions on the related Powerline Blog thread my LGF account was blocked.
Victor Davis Hanson has spoken up in defense of Charles Johnson. He defends the current topic focus as being the host's prerogative. On that I agree, although the standards of proof relied upon in LGF to assign to persons labels such as racist or fascist sympathizer are not addressed by Mr Hanson. He also does not address the issues of blog management and commentator blocking or nonscatalogical comment deletion.
I agree with Prof. Hanson about the following opinion about the birth certificate issue,
why he won’t release his college transcripts is a far more interesting and valid inquiry.