As a participant in the communal exchange of ideas, I have an obligation to be open to criticism--and to facilitate critics' access to my audience; I do not censor.
Bloggers should avoid fallacious arguments, welcome--and reply to--critics, foreswear attacks on intentions and treat all questioners as legitimate critics.
A buffoon mindlessly attacked me recently, and with detectable displeasure I noticed your comment--in which you mock my self-description as legitimate critic.
You're now aware that I apply 'legitimate critic' to all honorable public actors, including myself--with the exception only of those against whom I am prepared to martial reason and evidence to the contrary.
Best practice--for bloggers and politicos--should be to treat critics, by default, as legitimate critics.
If you disagree, can you explain why? (If you include me among 'illegitimate critics', please explain your basis--and provide an example or two, for clarification.)
Were I to encounter a blogger asserting 'I won't respond to JR's question because he isn't a legitimate critic,' I'd attack such pomposity savagely. I defend our public square's legitimacy--and to that end must energetically defend the legitimacy of your full participation therein. (Anyone cavalierly seeking to marginalize JR--based on hearsay--will find me a pest, I promise.)
Were I to encounter a blogpost brushing you aside, goading the stupid to attack your integrity without evidence, a pressing ethical obligation would bear down on my shoulders, JR. You share my intuition, don't you?
Entering the public square, we should attempt to look kindly upon the neighbor--and show considerable resistance to attacking any fellow citizen's standing.
In your comment, you appear to differ with my appraisal--and therefore I welcome your responsive perspective.
Gavin
