Counterspin on Den Beste’s objections to the Rittenhouse Review’s campaign to boycott Little Green Footballs
Den Beste’s real worry is that Jim’s attempt to boycott LGF will actually work. His rationale appears contradictory. On the one hand, he supports Jim Capazzola’s right to de-link from LGF , and his right to try and convince others to do the same. But…he somehow [inexplicably] moves from the right to not associate with those with whom you disagree, and the right to try and convince others to dissasociate with those of whom you disagree, to “coercion.” I’m not sure that Jim’s attempt to boycott LGF amounts to “coercion,” simply because he refuses to link to anyone who links to LGF. Isn’t that his right as well?
Pandagon also commented:
Jim is perfectly within his rights, and the cries of censorship are nothing but cries of “Wolf!”, essentially saying that the exact same activity, frequently practiced without even the reasoning of Jim’s declaration, is okay when done by conservatives, but a worthless bit of grandstanding when done by a person with a privately operated website.
Anyway, this is the dumbest argument to come down the pike in the ‘ole blogosphere for at least a week or so. What Jim is doing is equivalent to boycotting the advertisers of a TV or radio show you don’t like. For example, I don’t buy balding products or magical vitamin cures, contact debt consolidation services, or purchase Bose speakers, which is my little way of putting pressure on the conservative media.
This is a silly argument, typical of Den Beste’s blowhardness and pompousity. does he really believe a call to boycott is tantemount to censorship? Does he really believe boycotts are wrong? If so, it’s a good thing he wasn’t in the Civil Rights movement in the sixties and fifties….