Big Sticks and Small Carrots

So, what conclusions can be reached about attempts to have an honest debate with Donal Blaney?

My own efforts have been hampered by the fact that the two comments I’ve submitted have not been published. Would I be paranoid to believe that Blaney is aware of this but has no intention of doing anything about it? Well, about an hour after I submitted the second comment, Blaney wrote:

I’m trying to get a venue for quarterly debates between leftists and rightists. The debates would be held according to traditional British debating rules. I’d really welcome the chance for Unity, Garry et al to come and take part. I’m sure a true forum for debate - which we could maybe film too - would do more for advancing ideas on all sides of the argument than anonymous blogging.

There is no other Garry in the thread. As such, there seem to be two realistic explanations. The first is that Blaney has read my comments but not allowed them through moderation. The second is that he has read my post linked above. Either way, the evidence strongly suggests that Blaney has consciously decided not to engage with me on t’interwebs.

It could be argued that Blaney’s decision is due to his distaste for “anonymous blogging”. Well, it could be if I blogged anonymously. But I don’t.

It could be that he thinks I “cower behind the written word”. My first comment started with an attempt to question the thinking behind this baffling concept and we know that that wasn’t hugely productive. Personally, I believe the written word can be a very pure form of debate and countless philosophers and scientists throughout history seem to have held similar views. Blaney, however, appears to have an aversion to debating in written words. Strange considering that Iain Dale dropped by to assure me that Blaney is a much better writer than I am. Willy waving isn’t really my thing so I can’t say that bothers me one way or the other.

I do feel confident that I have a basic level of ability to explain and debate in written words. In the absence of any sort of explanation from Donal, I can only presume that he is not confident in his own ability to do the same.

And that brings us on to the kind of debate he does want to have. I have no qualms about admitting that I’d be hopeless in a filmed public debate. I’ve not had the training for it and am not naturally good at it either. It’s part of the reason why I blog.

As chief executive the Young Britons’ Foundation, an organisation which “provides unique one-day training workshops around Britain that focus on developing activists’ public speaking, debating…”, Blaney is undoubtedly aware of the importance of training in these skills. The sort of debate he wants would put me at a huge disadvantage against someone with his background and experience. Maybe its my paranoia but I have a feeling he understands this all to well.

Interestingly, the YBF also do training in “internet activism”. At first glance, this makes Blaney’s reluctance to participate in honest debate in written words even more puzzling. On reflection however, “internet activism” doesn’t necessarily involve engaging with those who want to challenge your views in an honest and transparent manner. For some, indeed, training in “internet activism” might well include the teaching of methods to avoid this sometimes awkward predicament. It would, however, be speculative to suggest that such techniques are taught by the YBF.

In any event, it’s fair to say that my attempt to conduct an honest debate with Donal Blaney has been spectacularly unsuccessful. While acknowledging that an attempt was made, he has refused to participate and has provided no explanation for this refusal.

Quinn, of The Obscurer (who, for the benefit of conspiracy theorists I have never met or communicated with in any way), did have a tiny bit more success. His first comment was not published but his second attempt was. He said of his first effort that “I left a comment on this post yesterday that appears to have got lost, so I will try again”. That is the sum total of Quinn’s expressed opinion as to the missing comment

Blaney’s reply:

Quinn: your paranoia as to the fact that your supposed original comment wasn’t posted is rather disturbing. As are the threats that I have received from some people in the past 48 hours (which I have been left with no alternative but to report to the police). I’m happy to debate people on here in a civil manner but when it comes to threatening me and my family, that sums up quite how unpleasant blogging can get.

Regular readers here or of Bloggerheads will recognise this type of response immediately.

Undeterred and calm in the face of this provocative reply, Quinn responded:

No paranoia required; my previous comments didn’t appear, that is a statement of fact. I’m truly sorry that you have received threats, that is disgraceful, but from the off I have conducted myself in a polite manner and asked reasonable, straightforward questions directly pertaining to things you have personally said; in response you said that I “clearly fall into the group of people who wish to attribute different motives to me”, a group you previously wondered about as being onanists, intellectually weak, deeply unhappy, insecure, lonely, bitter and “better off ending it all”. I didn’t much appreciate being lumped in with such a bunch, and now you accuse me personally of paranoia; and this from someone who charges others with using terms that close down debate?

So, I am glad you are happy to debate with people in a civil manner, as that is all I have done. Now, is there any chance of you responding to my previous questions?

That was posted the evening before last but Blaney has not responded. The answer to Quinn’s question would appear to be “no”.

Conclusions? Given that the post that both Quinn and I attempted to engage with was an attack on those who Blaney said refused to participate in honest debate, it’s not looking good for him.

If he’s not confident of his ability to defend his views in written words he may want to consider publicly admitting to the fact. As is, it appears that Blaney is the one who refuses to participate in honest debate on a level playing field. Unless it involves a method of debate which is likely to give him a substantial advantage over his opponents, he doesn’t want to play.

What this says about the “robust” nature of his views, I leave to the reader to decide.

PS. Having switched off comments for a couple of days, comments are back on in his most recent posts. I wouldn’t be “paranoid” enough to suggest that he was playing silly buggers in the hope of provoking a certain type of response. Instead, given the absence of an explanation, all we can do is guess as to the reason.