Tuesday, August 23, 2005

I had wondered what happened to Logic Monkey.

Now I know.


And a little sad. And, I suppose, there is a lesson in all of this.

Logic left his mark, his comments, in several places in the blog world with not all of them being quite as eloquent as some of his posts were. He apparently pissed some people off.

Finally, after him posting as a comment, "It's too bad you weren't aborted," I had enough.

The author of Logic's demise, as he appears to see himself, accused Logic and most other conservatives of moral relativism, among other things I am sure. I find it confounding that amidst the widely disparate political and social opinions voiced in the US these days, both 'sides' accuse the other of that same condition.

What is "moral relativism?"
According to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, Moral relativism is the position that moral propositions do not reflect absolute or universal truths. It not only holds that ethical judgments emerge from social customs and personal preferences, but also that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth.

Logic's killer wrote, "I found it sick that his moral relativism told him that since certain Islamic extremists had taken to cutting off heads, that anything we did short of that was perfectly acceptable." We also find this statement amidst the gloating: Terri Schiavo died 15 years ago, and I wasn't the least bit responsible.

I am trying to wrap my head around the lessons to be learned from the sleuthing I did today. All I have thus far is the thought that my Christian faith (not Catholic, as Logic is and was), teaches me that all of us are "good" and that all of us are also "sinful." We are "good", as in God's good and perfect Creation (see Genesis), but also "bad," as original sin & the ingestion of the substance that allowed sin to enter our condition.

Is it "moral relativism" that causes me to think that most of us, on either side of a political or social divide, are essentially the same? That we see the same wrongs in each other because despite our apparent differences of opinion, we are seeing each other through essentially the same lens?

Take the Schiavo case: that woman did not "die" 15 years ago. She was still breathing. On her own. Was it "immoral" to withold tube feedings and hydration from her? Or was it "immoral" to keep a feeding tube inserted in her side? I suspect that the Schiavo woman herself may have held clues to which side was more "right" in her case, by examining whether & how frequently she pulled out her feeding tube. If that tube had to be reinserted frequently because despite her brain damage and diminished mental condition she still managed to dislodge it, she may have been expressing in her own way that the tube was not desired. Not that our press would seek out and share that type of information with us.

Take the Abu Ghraib POW photos: what disgusted me, more so than the actual condition of the incarcerated that we civilians were allowed to see, were the positions and expressions of the military personnel visible in the photos that were released to and pushed into the faces of the public. It almost seemed to me that our traditional media barely knew what angle to present to us as "the" angle in this story. Should we(the press) tell them(the public) that they(the public) sympathize with the prisoners? That they detest the soldiers? That they detest the soldier's superiors? And how close do we keep this story to the few kidnap by insurgents/torture/murder stories we present?

I think that what all this rambling is leading to is the thought that some of Logic Monkey's more vehement postings and responses to his critics were, simply, mean. Though they likely always reflected Logic's own perspective, moral framework and beliefs, he could be self-righteous and vicious. I actually admired that much of the time.

Nonetheless, the shameless gloating and self-aggrandizing of Logic Monkey's "killer" is no less mean spirited. The author of Logic's demise took the moral high road for threatening to "out" someone to his boss who left comments that author didn't like.

While I do feel that we should all be able to express ourselves, even if some disagree, without threat of persecution, I do understand that we do not have that luxury, nor apparently do we have that right. Someone somewhere will take it upon himself to threaten a loss of livelihood or privacy just because he (or she, relax) doesn't like what we said.

I'm black. And a woman. Not that either condition gives me some exclusive on discrimination, mistreatment, or name-calling, but I learned a long time ago (at age 5 or 6 when I'd first heard the term "nigger" and had no idea that it was mean or that it referred to me) to just fucking let it go. If I got bent out of shape over every opinion I disagreed with or over how those opinions were presented, well, I'd hardly have time for blogging.

That, folks, is the saddest lesson of all.


Blogger The Oklahoma Hippy said...

Yeah, this post is about me.

Let me just say that my point in all of it was to ask if he would be as hateful and mean if he wasn't under the belief that he was anonymous.

So, I used the information on his own blog to figure out who he was and it wasn't difficult.

Having removed the illusion of anonymity, it became clear that he was ashamed of the things he had said. I simply posted a link to his curriculum vita that was publicly available online. He flipped out in response.

He was the one who deleted his entire blog rather than just putting up a post saying, “Too often in the past my rhetoric has been over the top, and for that I apologize.” Anything… but the prospect of having people read the things he had posted for 2 ½ years while suddenly having them attached to his name was too much for him to bear.

So, call me the Killer of Logic Monkey if you like, but that seems a little disingenuous. This was a person who took it upon himself to antagonize and provoke people whenever he could for no other reason than he seemed to get off on it.

Everyone is allowed to have an opinion, and government should be loath to infringe upon that, but your fellow man has the right to hold you to account.

Had he simply replied, “yes that's my real name and I don't care who knows it,” then it would have been a different story.

He was ashamed of many of the things he had said, and rightly so.

I do not feel the least bit bad about holding the mirror up to his face.

1:16 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home