Looking On in Stunned Disbelief…
By I was called names that I can’t really repeat on your show. But at one point, someone called me a pedophile, not using that language, and I thought, you know, enough is enough. I called one of my editors and I complained about it and they said, well, you know, this is just the way it is. You can love it or leave it.
And I just answered out of exasperation and on principle, and, of course, out of my foolish pride, but I gave them tit for tat and the whole thing blew up, and it really wasn’t a very bad ending. I wrote a book, the policy at The New Republic changed; online anonymity is part of the debate now. Every cloud has a silver lining
Ahem.
Let’s review… On August 21, 2006, James Kincaid published an online article at Slate discussing the Jon Benet Ramsey case, and suggesting that Americans had an unhealthy obsession with child sexuality. A day or two later, Lee Siegel took exception to this argument, and in short order made the claim that James Kincaid was not only sympathetic to pedophiles, but quite possibly was a pedophile himself. We, among others, took some exception to this claim, as it was supported only by selective use of a doctored quote on the NAMBLA website. As Siegel had earlier earned the enmity of Left Blogistan by claiming that Markos Moulitsas was more or less akin to Hitler, these claims and counterclaims earned some attention. In the midst of the internet scrum that followed, Siegel famously took the name “Sprezzatura” to defend himself in the comments, eventually resulting in his suspension by TNR.
And now, Siegel seems to be claiming that he was the innocent victim of (what amounted to) pedophilia accusations, while not mentioning that his own unfounded attack on a scholar and fellow contributor to Slate is what initiated the uproar.
Clever, old man. Very clever indeed.
NPR link via Alterdestiny.