Charles Johnson's Little Green Footballs (aka "LGF") has a reputation in some circles for being virulently anti-Islam, anti-Arab, incoherent, nasty, spittle-spewing... you get the drift. This has always surprised me because, while I don't read it every day, I rarely find Charles Johnson's articles anything but thoughtful and well-reasoned. Sarcastic, sometimes, outraged occasionally, fulminating and frothy once in a great while. But I'd hardly be one to throw stones at anyone for that. Besides, I see worse every time I open the average editorial page.
Some of his commenters (I think he may have the most active comments section of any blogger) come off as truly disturbed invididuals. "Palestinians are animals" and "Muslims are pigs" and more in that vein are not uncommon. Charles generally maintains silence about such things, allowing his commenters to duke it out amongst themselves. This may be what drives LGF's negative reputation with some people. I otherwise don't get it, because it's a first-rate look at what the Arab press really looks like, and how Western civilization is perceived in that part of the world.
Anyway, I find it interesting that in this supposed cesspool of hate for Muslims and Arabs, the following poll on Iraqi democracy was taken among LGF readers.
For a bunch of bigoted Arab and Muslim haters, his readers seem pretty astute to me. But then, 61% of them voted the same way I did, so I suppose I'd be prone to think that. Even most of those who said "no" still seemed to think it was at least worth giving it the old college try.
By the way, for interesting and realistic information on the subject of democracy in Iraq, start here. The analyses and proposals are far from starry-eyed idealism, and don't flinch from looking at the very real hurdles that must be overcome. But if we want a safer world, I think we still have to try.
I'd like to see the responses to questions like "Does the entire Middle East save Israel need a regime change"; "Is it legal for Syria to have chemical weapons"; or "Who was chiefly responsible for 9-11".
My objection to LGF is that CJ takes no responsibility for the comments that appear on his site. Responsible bloggers do.
Considering the volume of comments, which is directly due to the popularity of Charles himself and his subject matter, I don't see how he could do it any other way, Jane. I disagree that this is "not responsible"...on the bottom line, LGF is another, newer venue of communication. The good news is that you can read Charles without reading the comments, and that's what I typically do. And it's a valuable resource to me.
Well, Jane, as an LGF reader, and sometimes commenter, I've been thinking about your questions. I would guess that:
1. I think there are many readers who do believe that the entire middle east except Israel is non-democratic (non free press, not independent judiciary), and that democracy (with free press, independent judiciary, etc.) is the best form of government, so... they would say Yes. Would you argue with either of the two premises? On the other hand, asked if the US shoud go in there kicking foriegn butt, I honestly believe the vast majority would say no.
2. I think most readers would agree that nuclear weapons should not belong in countries that are run by dictators (i.e., Baby Assad). Ditto countries run by generals, so people feel safer with India's nukes than with Pakistan's. And, of course, countries that are currenty occupiying other countries (i.e., Lebanon). And before you start: whatever Israel is currently "occupying", it's certainly not a functional country with any distinct borders or governemnet that existed before the "occupation". You may argue about whether nuclear weapons at all should be legal or illegal. If they are legal, then "non-occupier, non-dictator, (and non-general)," should be some of the good basic criteria. Do you disagree?
3. This is where it gets interesting. I think, on this one question, you would find LGF readers voting with one voice, and against the prevalent world opinion. I believe LGF readers would vote overwhelmingly "not Mossad" and "not our own provocation". Do you disagree?
Well, Charles clearly pays attention to his comments board. He bans Indymedia people with some regularity. But he's never condemned the regular excesses that drove me away from LGF. For Charles, I'm sad to say, there are no enemies to his right.
I suppose that's a good point, and one I couldn't dispute since I don't read his comments.
So the criticism is that he'll put up with vicious hatemongering from the right, but not with vicious hatemongering from the left?
Hmm.
I think he tends to ban people who are insulting other commenters, rather than peoply saying offensive things in general. Of course, the people more likely to insult the commenters are usually coming from the left.
For example, the Yom HaShoah thread had a poster who kept saying, basically, that the Jews deserved it and that it would happen again in the States, and Charles banned him/her pretty fast. I've never seen Charles ban a "reasonable" poster with contrary views, but I am willing to stand corrected.
I have to take issue with your assertion, Angua, that "the people more likely to insult the commenters are usually coming from the left."
As someone "from the left" I try to employ reasonable language and rational argument when debating with those holding opposing views. When I do find my blood boil at the sheer imbecility of others I fall back on humour, not insults. The same can definitely not be said of the majority of LGF posters, who will happily accuse you of every imaginable crime under the sun if they disagree with your opinion. In the few weeks that I posted on LGF, I was called a Jew-hater, Anti-Semite, a camel fucker, a subhuman, a nazi and a terrorist supporter.
How these people hoped to win an argument with such pointles ad hominems I don't know, but I continued to engage them in dialogue - until Charles banned me. It seems his hard-hitting 'lizards' (their own term) just can't take sustained rational criticism.
I don't support ranters who visit LGF to take potshots at its supporters and then run away again. But I do object to the misrepresentation of LGF as a bunch of mildly spoken, reasonable people who welcome debate but, poor them, are simply inundated by vicious 'moonbats'.
If you don't believe me, just do a search on LGF for such pleasant terms as 'fucker', 'socialist scum', 'camel humping' etc etc.
TY, lgfwatch, for taking time to post these facts, re yer unpleasant experience at LGF. Just "escaping the gauntlet" myself, it's welcome reading.
(Did Google on "LGF"; this page #14 or so. I'll look around here a bit..)
I too at first ignorantly assumed honest, open debate would be their standard, but the 1st day it became clear that anyone foolish enuf to post views contrary to the "Truth" they alone own, is immediately vilified, ridiculed, and often banned after only a few posts.
And got sick of the continual rants about "St. Rachel Pancake", "Paleo-stinians", "dhimmicrats", "Nuke 'em ALL!", and the like. Seems they share a Narcotic Rush / Contact High from posting on such.
Also, noticed "coded messages" by long-term posters: of "what LGF really stands for".
I'm guessing it's not "Lgf Generates Freedom"...
In summary, maybe a "fun" site, for the "right" few, but in general insipid and a waste of silicon.