As an ex-evangelical and blogger, I am sometimes accused of\u00a0having exchanged one form of fundamentalism for another. There are other arguments I run into that are similarly problematic. There have been some\u00a0incidents in the past week where commenters have accused myself or other commenters of retaining fundamentalist thinking or\u00a0of silencing disagreement, and these accusations are always frustrating.<\/p>\n
So let\u2019s clear some things up, shall we?<\/p>\n
Being told you are wrong is not the same thing as being \u201csilenced.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0Sometimes an individual\u00a0will come on my blog and take a position against something I have written or said only to have my regular commenters tell them they are wrong, offering explanations from personal experience or statistical evidence. This individual then argues that they are being \u201csilenced.\u201d<\/p>\n Look, you\u00a0have a right to speak your\u00a0opinions (though not necessarily on my blog). But\u00a0guess what? So do other people. While\u00a0you have a right to speak your opinion, you do not have the right to speak your opinion without pushback from people who disagree with you<\/em>. This brings us to point number two.<\/p>\n My blog is not a public forum.<\/strong>\u00a0My blog is my<\/em> blog. The constitution guarantees our freedom to assemble, but not our freedom to assemble in a random person\u2019s house. The same is true of freedom of speech and my blog. I have a commenting policy for my blog. This commenting policy does not violate your freedom of speech.<\/p>\n When I have to ban someone from my blog, it is usually\u00a0for making personal attacks or for arguing in bad faith. I rarely ban someone for simple disagreement, though I do reserve the right to do so\u2014namely,\u00a0sexism, racism, ageism, childism, homophobia, and so forth, are not permitted on\u00a0my blog. And that brings us to point three!<\/p>\n Holding a position\u00a0very strongly does not make one a fundamentalist<\/strong>. I believe very strongly in racial and gender equality\u2014and that hitting children is unethical.\u00a0Having strong convictions\u2014and being passionate in the defense of those who are vulnerable\u2014does not make a person a fundamentalist.<\/p>\n I\u2019m uncomfortable with how often\u00a0I see the word \u201cfundamentalist\u201d thrown around given its actually narrow meaning. A fundamentalist is a member of a religious sect that rejects modernity, among other things. When someone accuses a person of being a \u201cfundamentalist\u201d they usually mean that they are being dogmatic or narrow minded. I think a lot of confusion could be avoided by simply stating this.<\/p>\n And this brings us to point four.<\/p>\n Not being willing to counter\u00a0every commenter on the internet does not make one a dogmatist.<\/strong>\u00a0Have you ever been in a situation where you tell someone they\u2019re wrong on an issue, but don\u2019t have the time or energy to refute them point by point, and then they accuse you\u00a0of dogmatism? I know I<\/em> have, and it sucks.<\/p>\n Look, dogmatism is holding a position that has not been arrived at via evidence and consideration\u00a0and being unwilling to consider contrary\u00a0evidence or arguments. If you have formed your opinion based on evidence and would reconsider it if presented with sound evidence to the contrary, you are not a dogmatist<\/em>. But being\u00a0unwilling to argue with every person on the internet? That is not dogmatism. In many cases, it\u2019s time management. Which brings us to point five!<\/p>\n