I Have My Critics

Well, duh.

Yes, it’s no surprise that there are people critical of me: I’m obviously asking for it. But there is one notable attack, from years ago, and I was never quite sure what to do with it. I have decided I’m gonna post on it, and then I won’t have to wonder any longer what to do with it.

I very seldom hear from critics. There’s plenty of amicable disagreement on this blog but not much in the way of full-frontal attacks. Occasionally a rando stops by and takes a solid swing but such people are not serious and cannot be taken seriously; they are looking for a fight rather than an argument, and when they are called upon to make an argument they disappear. Of course one does not expect a strong Marty-critic to come to this blog to make his case, even if I am as inviting as I can be for anyone to do so. But the critics don’t make their case anywhere, at least not in any public manner.

There is an obvious reason why the critics don’t respond publicly and it is not because they lack good counterarguments (although they do). Critics regard my attacks, and this blog in general, as beneath them. If they mud wrestled with me then their nice suits would get mussed. This contempt then morphs into a tactical move: by not engaging they avoid legitimising me and then my attacks can be ignored. As it happens I don’t care but in any case, more and more, the tactic is failing. I began this blog simply to howl at the moon but, to my astonishment, the blog is now read by a decent number of people, including my targets and including people with clout trying to make sense of those same targets. At this stage, a critic’s silence is typically self-damaging.

If there is no public criticism, one can surmise that there is plenty of private criticism. I also don’t need to surmise: people tell me things. Beyond the telling, some of the prominent combatants have taken clear pleasure in being rude to me, and did so before I ever thought to mention them on this blog or anywhere else.

I don’t seek such criticism and I don’t like it, but I certainly do not object to it (other than for its no-balls manner of execution). Again, given that I attack so widely and so strongly, I am obviously asking for it. For all that, I work very hard to attack institutions rather than people. Big shots are fair game but I have gone to significant lengths to avoid attacking or even naming medium shots, even when those medium shots were a significant part of the story and thus still fair game.¹ I delete comments that break this policy. My primary concern has always been with institutional and cultural corruption, rather than individual idiocy.

In 2016, I gave my Everyone is to Blame keynote swan song for the MAV. I began by displaying many targets and the audience then chose, one after the other, who to talk about. Even then, when I was ready to launch into everyone short of Mother Teresa,² the “who”s were “what”s. With two semi-parodical exceptions,³ all the targets were institutions and/or their products. The keynote was well-received, which was not surprising: by that stage, my shtick was well-known and my talks were attended by people who knew what they were getting and enjoyed the act. With one absurd exception,⁴ there was no objection at the time to any of my targeting. There was a delayed objection, however.

The evening after the keynote I was emailed by an attendee. I had attacked, strongly, both MAV and VCAA, but I had not mentioned this person nor any person from MAV or VCAA. Nonetheless, this person, a member of the VCAA-MAV axis of idiocy, felt themselves to have been attacked, enough to email me. The email was short and absurd. It was forgettable, except for the opening salvo:

I feel sorry for your daughters if they have you as their father …

I was shocked, of course, although not much bothered: I do not take the person seriously enough for them to be able to bother me. But then I was puzzled. How does one respond?

In the end, I didn’t respond, in any manner. I just continued puzzling over what to do. Now I can stop puzzling.

1. I made an exception for the Deloitte story, which I think was fair enough, although even for that there is an argument that I should have been more oblique.

2. So, eight years later, I come up with a excellent joke addition to the intro slide. Damn.

3. The two exceptions were Burkard Polster and Anthony Harradine. Both were genuinely attacked: Burkard for contributing to the death of reading, and Anthony (who was in the audience) for whoring for Casio. But, as most readers will know, both are great friends of mine and for whom I have a megaton of respect.  

4.The President of the MAV commandeered the question time in order to defend the MAV against my accusations of censorship. He was howled down (and I intervened to stop the howling): of course the audience was strongly on my side and the guy was an idiot for not realising that this would be the case.