Postby Tom Reynolds » Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:40 pm
This article and the replies are worth reading. The article strongly suggests that the disturbed people out there who commit violent crimes with swords are somehow representative of the entire community of students of the sword, or at least that anyone who is interested in swords is at real risk of potentially being one of those disturbed people.
The author, Daniel Engber, seems to have been surprised by all the negative reactions to his article. He claims it was not meant to be taken that way. But it certainly reads like it, and if he did not intend it to be a criticism of the sword community, then he needs to have better control over his rhetoric.
By way of an example, here is an exchange I had with Mr. Engber together with one more comment. I encourage everyone to read the article and the comment train, to see for themselves how badly it misrepresents our community.
1. Here is my first post:
"If I understand this correctly, the basic argument here seems to be
that there is something wrong with people who like to collect things,
such as possibly some sort of obsessive-compulsive disorder. And
further, that there is something dangerously wrong with people who
like swords. The proof for that latter claim is that swords are
sometimes used to commit violent crimes.
But to begin with, it is not at all clear what the author means by
"collect." Technically, I only need to own two shirts and two pairs of
pants; one to wear while the other is in the laundry. Does the fact
that I own more shirts and pants than that mean that I am some sort of
crazed, obsessed collector? Or does it depend on what you collect? By
not clearly defining "collector," the author is loudly implying that
EVERYONE is a deviant in some way.
I also question whether the act of focusing on something like the
study of swords necessarily implies a mental disorder. Rather than a
mental disorder, it could imply a strong, disciplined personality that
is capable of putting in the work necessary to get really skillful at
something. In that sense, it is just as plausible to suggest that
people who sneer at students of the sword are just jealous because
they don't have the self discipline and will power to submit to that
kind of training. Sort of like the people who flunk out of college and
then justify it by saying, "well, college is all just government
brainwashing anyway."
Finally, for now, I question the author's loudly implied claim that
being interested in swords is what CAUSED his examples to commit their
crimes. I could just as well suggest, for example, that the Masonic
connection is what caused the Ugly Betty-related crime, or that the
guy in Florida killed his girlfriend's stepfather because he (the
killer) had shoulder length hair. In other words, the author provides
absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever for his implicit causal
connection. There is no reason to believe it before any other wild
claim.
I am always willing to be open minded, and be convinced otherwise, but
based on what I read here I find it very difficult to take this
seriously. It sounds to me like just another internet troll, clumsily
trying to start a flame war."
2. Here is Daniel Engber's reply to my post:
"I don't imply -- loudly or otherwise -- that an interest in swords caused anyone to do anything. Merely that if you're going to kill someone, and if you decide to do it with a sword (as opposed to a gun or a knife, like a regular American), then it's very likely that you're insane and/or nerdy. It doesn't follow that insane people or nerds are more likely than anyone else to commit crimes."
3. Here is another reply, from a different reader. I love this one, particularly the part about rapist stamp collectors! VERY well spoken!
"Mr. Engber seems confused by people reacting negatively to this article. The point some of the readers are making is that the article implies that people who commit crimes with swords are "weird" in a way that he extends to everyone that collects or owns swords. In fact, now they are neither "regular" nor "American".
I fully expect a follow up article on how stamp collecters sometimes rape people. Not that I mean to imply that all stamp collectors are rapists mind you, though some certainly are...
I mean all I'm saying is some rapists are stamp collectors and some stamp collecters are rapists, not that there is any causal connection between stamp collecting and raping people.
Stampcollecterapiststampcollecterapiststampcollecterapist!
Maybe crazy people who want to kill someone find the closest weapon to hand. If that's a gun, fine. If that's a toaster, fine. If that's a frying pan, piece of rebar, rock, bowling pin, candlestick or fire poker, fine. And yes, if it's a sword, fine. That doesn't make anyone who collects something a lost basement dwelling freak who wants to bone his mom."
4. And here is my response to Daniel Engber:
"Mr. Engber: Consider the following quote from your editorial,
"Men who collect swords are the same ones who become obsessed with kendo and historical re-enactments - if they're not too busy playing D&D or SoulCalibur. Which is to say: it MAY (my emphasis) not make you a lunatic to have an ornamental blade hanging on your living room wall. But it's a pretty good sign that you're a dork."
I will grant you that this passage explicitly says that not everyone who collects swords is a paranoid schizophrenic killer. But it clearly says that everyone who collects swords, or studies kendo, or participates in historical re-enactments, or plays D&D or SoulCaliber, is an obsessive nerd. And it equally clearly suggests that nerds are at very high risk of being paranoid schizophrenic killers. If that is not what you intended to say, I suggest you clarify your meaning. And you might consider toning down your rhetoric while you are at it. Personally, the only thing that surprises me is that you are surprised by the negative reaction to your rhetoric."
Thanks,
Tom Reynolds
