I’m not going to blame the actions of a nut on all lefties and environmentalists. I will, however, be sure to remind them of this the next time they pull that on the right. Which they do, merrily, at every conceivable opportunity.
Weigel then says:
The “so it’s only fair” reference referred to those last two sentences, which struck me as a very strong nudge — blaming the left without blaming the left. I didn’t click on it again and didn’t read the post later, but Allah updated it a few times to make it clear that he really, really wasn’t making that nudge.
I’m not sure what “blaming the left without blaming the left” means. Perhaps a little more clarity is in order? Allahpundit did not blame the left for the gunman. He did blame the left for blaming the right every time some arguably conservative nut does something violent. These are two separate concepts, and mushing them together under one giant “blaming the left” rubric serves to confuse rather than clarify. But let’s allow Weigel to continue:
This was all Wednesday. On Thursday blogger Patterico put up a post accusing me of an “appallingly uncharitable reading” of Allahpundit and demanding “some kind of apology and clarification.” He tweeted to get my attention, and I blew him off as an attention-seeker who was distorting what I wrote by implying that I considered Allahpundit one of the blame-the-left types. I thought it was clear I considered him part of a much smaller team — the I’m-not-going-to-blame-the-left-but-they-sure-blame-us types. Even then, though, there’s a pretty big difference between those teams.
The thing of it is that since I started appearing in more places to talk about my work, I’ve attracted a large number of critics. Some of them act in good faith and make smart critiques that improve my work. Some of them are, frankly, trolls. After I started to attract a steady stream of personal attacks I decided to institute a policy of 1) reiterating what I said and then 2) ignoring the critic. I originally misidentified Patterico as a troll, because the tone of the post made it sound like an assumed-guilty indictment and his demand for clarification came very late at night. It just didn’t strike me as a good faith criticism at first.
But the truth was that Patterico was trying to prevent a misleading reference from living on the Internet forever and portraying Allahpundit as saying something he didn’t say. I totally get that. I apologize to both of them. I always prefer e-mails about this stuff to blog posts and tweets, but forget it, Jake. It’s the Internet.
A few quibbles. First, I sent out my Twitter message at around 9 p.m. last night. How does the timing of that message have any relevance to my good faith?
Second, Weigel may think that he was clear that Allahpundit was one of those “I’m-not-going-to-blame-the-left-but-they-sure-blame-us types” — but in fact, he wasn’t clear about that, at all. If he had been, there would have been no need for my post. Instead, he seemed fairly clear that he was accusing Allahpundit of subtly hinting that the gunman was indeed representative of the left.
Finally, I’m a blogger. My criticisms tend to be public. If Weigel is going to lay out Allahpundit publicly (and unfairly), he can’t really complain when someone responds publicly.
Those concerns aside, I am happy to see that Weigel now sees that his post left an unfair impression, and I appreciate his issuing an apology. I accept it.