November 28, 2006

Why does Andrew Sullivan keep talking about me without linking to me?

See the update on this post. It's getting ridiculous. I consider it a gross breach of blogging ethics.

UPDATE: And he doesn't tip.

46 comments:

Nasty, Brutish & Short said...

Indeed. He also doesn't have a comments section, which is is another breach of blogging ethics, in my opinion. It really isn't that hard to moderate the profane comments, though I am sure he would get a lot of them. A blog has to have a comments section.

Slac said...

Yes, your posts should be linked when they are referenced, much less quoted.

I suppose Sullivan doesn't see the need because the other blogs already link you, and figures that any interested individual would click through and read the other bloggers as well.

But why should they read the other blogs? Yours is the more sensible position. Glenn's association with "Islamist" is strange.

In any case, I prefer the terms Islamo-fascist and Christo-fascist, but then I'm a libertarian. :)

The Exalted said...

you really think he's "vilifying" you?

give me a break

reader_iam said...

Toldja he'd be mad that you pointed he didn't coin the word "Christianist"!

; )

Dave said...

OK...so we have in Sullivan an angry, narcissistic blogger who revels in the attention others pay him...

...and you pay attention to him by complaining about him not linking to you...

So, you're one of those enablers?

Revenant said...

Sullivan's never really done in for the linking thing, as I recall. I remember left-wingers complaining about it, back before Sullivan decided it was time to be on their team again.

It isn't a breach of ethics so much as a sign of self-involvement. Andrew just doesn't really view other blogs as important, or at least not nearly as important as his opinions about those blogs.

Clarey watcher said...

And his use of the phrase "begs for me" is, ummm, yeah.

Chris said...

Honey, take a read through your comments section, and think about how the company you keep defines you. Would YOU consider yourself worth linking to?

Knemon said...

Sullivan doesn't need your stinking rules, man.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
chickenlittle said...

Why?

I heard the guy doesn't like women

Tim said...

I suppose, playing by Sullivan's rules, fair is fair - Andrew Sullivan, Sodomist.

Since, after all, "sodomist" is in the eye of the beholder.

Bissage said...

Ann Althouse asked: "Why does Andrew Sullivan keep talking about me without linking to me?"

May I presume to guess?

He's still English.

Over there, a snub counts as a feat of derring-do.

Especially a snub directed to one's betters.

Old habits die hard.

Bob's your uncle.

JR said...

I actually found you through Andrew's post (although admittedly it was circuitous). The controversy seems to be more about how you say it than what you say. The debate about "Christianist" vs "Islamist" and the implications of the terms is an interesting one. The debate about whether Sullivan has links or comment sections is boring.

I think you would admit that there ought to be a to be a term that captures the idea that all Christians are not political nor to the right of Ghengis Khan (who actually was probably not all that right wing, but we'll let that pass). "Christianist" did not, until somebody mentioned it have a connotation similar to Islamist, although I must admit that "Islamist" did not have any particular connotation, it being new and also having been surpassed in the vernacular by Islamo-Fascist pretty quickly. Semantics may be interesting but I like substance and whatever you call them, there is a group of people who call themselves Christians and who insist on a political agenda being guided by a fundamentalist view of Christianity, they are not particularly violent although some versions' behavior at abortion clinics and elsewhere has been compared to terrorism. We could act like Lewis Carrol and make up names to refer to what everyone seems to agree is a segment of the Christian population dedicated to infusing politics with a particular fundamentalist Christian philosophy.

Cedarford said...

Why does he criticize your Blog without linking it?

The same reason why Sully had a major fundraising drive to get his readers to give generously so he wouldn't have to make some of his "best stuff" proprietary, then, right after the loot was caughed up, announced he was leaving active Blogging for several months to write another book.

Basically, because he is a middle-aged Queen - given to hissy fits of hysteria, vain, vindictive, and caring deeply about #1.

johnstodderinexile said...

"Christianist" did not, until somebody mentioned it have a connotation similar to Islamist, although I must admit that "Islamist" did not have any particular connotation, it being new and also having been surpassed in the vernacular by Islamo-Fascist pretty quickly.

Oh, please. It's fine to criticize Ann for her opinions, but don't be deliberately dense.

Do you think for one second Andrew Sullivan would have latched onto (and think he invented) the term "Christianist" if "Islamist" wasn't already in circulation? If the term used for the jihad fighters was "Islamitoid," you can count on it, Andrew Sullivan would have suddenly thought up the brilliant new word, "Christianitoid."

His point is to equate opposition to gay marriage to the Islamist demand that the world submit to Islamic law. Period. Two "radical" views. Two "uncompromising" groups. Two foes to be defeated. One not worse than the other.

I say this, by the way, as a supporter of gay marriage. Sullivan's is the worst approach I've yet heard to bringing the gay marriage idea into wide acceptance.

But, Andrew Sullivan has clearly lost it. Either he's not as smart as he used to be -- burnout perhaps -- or he had a lot of people fooled initially. Ann, I do agree with those who say stop bothering with him. He was important once as a sort of pioneer, but not so much anymore. What you call his "breach of ethics" is more a case of his being a very 2002 blogger -- an op-ed writer who claimed some internet territory when it was still kinda new, but afraid of user-participation.

Brendan said...

There's only one way to settle this: Bloggingheads showdown.

Donald Douglas said...

Well, you set a high standard for blogging ethics. Comments here are great -- very interactive, unlike other top bloggers. John Stodder's remarks seem to hit the nail on the head.

Burkean Reflections

James Wigderson said...

So Chris, are you saying that you would not like to associate with any blog that would allow you to comment?

Alpha Liberal said...

The horror. The horror.

My disregard for Mr Sullivan's opinions continues unaffected by Ann's umbrage.

Revenant said...

We could act like Lewis Carrol and make up names to refer to what everyone seems to agree is a segment of the Christian population dedicated to infusing politics with a particular fundamentalist Christian philosophy.

The problem isn't making up words to refer to people.

The problem using is words with obvious connotations. "Christianist" is technically defensible ("Christian" plus "ist", "adherent of a doctrine") as a description for politically active Christians. But, as discussed in an earlier thread, "sexual deviant" is a technically accurate term for a homosexual (deviant: "deviating or departing from the norm"). Indeed, pre-Lawrence "sexually deviant criminal" would have been a technically accurate description for many gay men in America.

Nevertheless, an honest person has to concede that both "Christianist" and "sexual deviant" have colloquial connotations that are (a) extremely negative and (b) grossly unfair to Christians and gays respectively. The former clearly brings to mind Islamists, who murder innocents by the thousands, and the latter clearly brings up rapists, child molesters, and people who achieve sexual gratification from animals. Therefore an honest speaker of the English language should not use those terms while pretending no slur is intended. Sullivan would take offensive if a Christian described him as an advocate of sexual deviance. He should stop trying to pretend he's not using the same kind of slur on *his* enemies.

You want a good term for a Christian who thinks homosexuality is sinful, gay marriage is illegitimate, and neither should be sanctioned by the government? One already exists -- it's "Christian". It is rather absurd to argue that anti-gay Christians, who are backed by approximately SIX THOUSAND YEARS of official Judeo-Christian homophobia, hostility to gay marriage, and support for laws against sodomy, represent some special form of Christianity that needs its own special name.

Garage Mahal said...

Yea I liked Sullivan back in days, especially around 2003 or so. But then he started saying weird shit like gulags and torture were bad. But I knew he lost it sometime last year when he was claiming the war was getting worse, instead of better, and criticizing Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. I don't know who this asshole thinks he is.

tjl said...

"Andrew Sullivan has clearly lost it. Either he's not as smart as he used to be -- burnout perhaps -- or he had a lot of people fooled initially."

I have to disagree with the "had people fooled" hypothesis. There was a time when Sullivan could be counted on for original thinking supported by clear logic. In particular, his early writing showed a way to reconcile gayness with a rejection of the conventional liberal orthodoxy foisted on members of the gay community. Sullivan was an inspiration to me as a gay person who wanted the freedom to think for myself outside the identity- politics lockstep.

Sullivan's incoherence and peevishness now make him painful to read. But he wasn't always like this.

Wade_Garrett said...

Reverent,

You're right about everything except for the fact that its not 6,000 years old, most laws against sodomy are only a couple of decades old, Jesus never used the word "gay" or "homosexual" or their Aramaic equivalent, the founders wanted to erect a wall between church and state. Also, even if you don't think the government should condone gay marriage, there's no reason why so many of the state constitutional amendments should go out of there way to take other rights away from gay couples.

chickenlittle said...

Wade said:
Also, even if you don't think the government should condone gay marriage, there's no reason why so many of the state constitutional amendments should go out of there way to take other rights away from gay couples.

Which states besides Wisconsin to be specific? I think it's important in terms of law to distinguish between rights that don't exist and therefore can't be taken away, vs. rights that will be come into existence.

Knemon said...

"Which states besides Wisconsin to be specific?"

Virginia, for one.

I voted against it, but enough of Webb's (razor-thin) majority voted for it that it passed.

*

"Jesus never used the word "gay" or "homosexual" or their Aramaic equivalent"

We wouldn't know what Jesus did or didn't say in Aramaic (apart from his dying words, "eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani") because the Gospels are written in Greek.

Also, because there weren't really Aramaic/Greek equivalents for these words. The closest I know of is "malakos," Aristophanic slang meaning "soft."

"Homosexuality" is a very recent concept. The ancients were aware that some people are drawn to their own kind, but the word and the strict reification are of late-19th-century vintage.

Anonymous said...

I used to be a Sullivan subscriber and admirer until he held that infamous 2003 fire sale on all his previously cherished convictions.

Ann, he won't engage you in a real debate because of your intellectual honesty and clarity. But he will use you to batter his enemy du jour, such as Instapundit, and quote you selectively to advance his agenda.

Andrew has become a literary sniper who aims to provoke his targets into writing something that makes him feel superior or self-important. If you don't find his tactics pointless and tiresome yet, keep trying to engage him on the merits of his argument or absence thereof and you will soon enough.

chickenlittle said...

knemon said:

"Virginia for one"

And was that right or recognition there before the amendment and thus swept away?

Mack said...

Maybe Sullivan didn't get dumber, but y'all did. How would you know?

I like Sullivan and Althouse, though their styles are very different.

I think it's funny that people make fun of a prominent blogger for being too caught up in himself. Whatever he is, it clearly makes for good blogging.

I agree with the person who said Sullivan just doesn't link much. I also wonder if Althouse's earnestness here vs. Sullivan's aloofness isn't a nice illustration of the American/British divide. I don't think it's an insult; he's just staying in character. With the amount of crap Sullivan has taken over the years, he's also probably just not as sensitive to slights.

downtownlad said...

I do find it hysterical that those who object most vehemently to the word "Christianist" are the same ones who regularly use the term "Islamo-Fascist".

And I can't help but notice the gay-bashing on this thread. You know - if you disagree with someone about an issue and they happen to be gay - might as well start using anti-gay slurs.

And they call me hateful . . .

downtownlad said...

And Sullivan has a habit of not linking, so don't take it personally Ann.

I like Sully - but that is one of his major flaws.

JorgXMcKie said...

wade_Garrett, where in the world did you get the idea that "most laws against sodomy are only a couple of decades old?" Do you have any cites?

For instance, what about the case of Bowers v Hardwick in Georgia?

For a history of sodomy laws in Georgia, see http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/
georgia/georgia.htm

The first sodomy law in Georgia was passed in 1817, which would be a bit more than two decades, I think. More like two centuries.

Also, as wikipedia points out, Leviticus makes sodomy a capital crime several millenia ago, the Romans had Rex Scantia at least a couple of millenia ago, and England had the "Buggery Act of 1533 with death by hanging.

Anonymous said...

To be honest, Professor Althouse, I thought it would have been wiser to treat Mr. Sullivan's sour petulence the way you deal with a sulking toddler: Don't reward them with the validation of attention.

Sorry, I don't mind a debate, but the bitching about you being part of an 'axis' 'prodding' him I don't want to know where... is just strange. 'Poor, poor pitiful me' has never been one of my favourite songs, and isn't it ironic that it's always the most vitriolic who turn out to be skinless in the face of criticism. Another point of similarity with the 'Christiant far-right' he claims to find so contemptible.

Having said that, nasty brutish & short, it's nonsense that A blog has to have a comments section. When I was blogging, I didn't have any such thing simply because I didn't have the time to promptly delete offensive and/or legally actionable comments by a very small number of persistent trolls. Perhaps Mr. Sullivan - and Time - would include a comments section if you agreed to accept personal liability for the contents.

Wade_Garrett said...

Jorgx-

As long as we're talking about the old testament, why don't we start selling daughters into slavery? Exodus condones that. Let's start killing people for working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly condones it! Good times. While we're at it, I'm going to start killing Wisconsin farmers for planting different crops side-by-side. And if I still have time (I might not, I'm a law student and exams are approaching) I'm going to kill all of you people who wear clothes made from two different fabrics.

And for the record, are you a football fan? Leviticus 11:7 states that touching the skin of a dead pig makes you unclean. Can the Packers still play football? Can my cousin's high school football team? Can Liberty University or Notre Dame? Can West Point? Oh man, I love the Old Testament!

Birkel said...

15 yard penalty on wade garrett for moving the goal posts.

Replay second down.

Knemon said...

"With the amount of crap Sullivan has taken over the years, he's also probably just not as sensitive to slights."

He's got a funny way of showing it.

As for homosexuality in the Bible - I'm not a Christian (or at least, not a Christian*ist*), but even I know that, while the harsh death-by-stoning punishments of the OT are transcended by the message of the Gospel, the not-okay-ness of same-sex freaky-deaky is reinforced several times in the NT.

Bob said...

Ann, do what Ace at Ace Of Spades HQ has already done, and boycott Sullivan:

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/202205.php

Daryl Herbert said...

This is standard for Sullivan. He is infamous for not linking to people (friends, foes, etc.)

Revenant said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ann Althouse said...

On the necessity of a comments section: It is hard to keep the comments from going bad. Sullivan would attack all sorts of taunts and he'd have to hire an assistant just to keep them from being a mess. Note that Glenn Reynolds doesn't have comments. I have them, but I have lower traffic, and in fact, I do put too much time in to monitoring them.

AllenS said...

Wade: a football is made of cow hide. I'm not sure where the term pig-skin came from.

Paul Zrimsek said...

If Sullivan's behavior is explainable in terms of English stereotypes, when's he going to start showing a bit of that stiff upper lip?

Anthony said...

I don't think comments are essential to a blog. They're nice, but can get out of hand easily, especially in high-profile non-liberal ones that attract the crazed leftist spewers from Kos et al. Insty doesn't have them because he is concerned -- demonstrably deservedly so -- that the MSM (I actually hate that acronym, but it's so appropriate) will latch onto anything said in there and implicate him by association. They have, in fact, done this with other conservative blogs.

I'm rather surprised this place has such a reasonable comments section, since it's fairly high-profile and political much of the time. Probably the Disney Theory in action; that is, if the host behaves in a certain way, guests will, too. And really, Ann is a largely genteel blogger, both objectively and compared with many other political blogs.

kettle said...

It's nice that bloggers have such a positive ethical take on this. Mainstream media, especially online newspapers, tend to be horendous at linking to their online sources.

Nasty, Brutish & Short said...

I think the way the Gawker folks handle their comments works pretty well for high-volume sites. Basically, it is invitation only. Usually their comments are pretty hysterical, as the idiots have been pre-screened.

Alpha Liberal said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.