Sune tweeted this yesterday. It leaves a bad taste. I’ve said it like a thousand times (e g, yesterday): criticism is not hate. Disagreeing with you, Sune, or with anthroposophy or with what anthroposophists do, it is not hate. I firmly believe that anthroposophists, and in particular you, Sune, must cease expressing themselves like this about dissenters or people who you perceive as opponents of your cause. Arguing against state funding of Steiner schools — or arguing against anything else you happen to be a proponent of — does not equal a ‘hate crusade’. In light of the horrific events in Norway on Friday afternoon, I can’t help but think that tweeting about critics’ ‘hate crusades’ seems, if possible, even more inappropriate than before; perhaps it’s time to think twice about what hate is, what a hate group is, what a crusade is — before you assign these labels to civilized critics whose only crime is expressing a viewpoint you don’t like (and to which you’re free to object, preferably with arguments rather than insidious epithets). What about it, Sune? I somehow can’t believe that you don’t know better — that you don’t know how inappropriate it is to be talking about ‘hate’, ‘hate-group’ (that group you liken us to, well, it is properly labeled a hate-group, and you can’t be so ignorant you don’t see a difference), ‘crusades’ and, even more so, ‘hate crusades’. Can’t you just, please, shut up with this hate rhetoric? It’s very unlikeable. But more importantly, it’s unfair and untrue.
In that link you also mention that critics are, supposedly, ‘fundamentalists’. Have you any idea what fundamentalism is? It certainly isn’t the same as disagreeing with Sune or with anthroposophy; it certainly isn’t the same as criticizing or questioning either. (It is far more fundamentalist to use the methods you use, Sune, to stop people from expressing themselves critically or negatively about Steiner, anthroposophy or waldorf education.) In this text (ie, the link in the tweet) — which is fraught with a number of silly (not to say, in your own words, ‘little founded’) statements and I’m picking the most blatant idiocy as an example here — you try to pin this belief on a small number of critics (myself and three UK critics):
“Free Steiner Waldorf schools in the UK would turn the pupils into racists and anti-Semites”
This is absolutely disgusting, it’s revolting beyond belief. I guess you put this in quotation marks to convey an impression that this is an actual quote rather than some shit you most likely invented yourself. I suspect that you’re falsely and dishonestly attributing this position to critics. As far as I can remember, I’ve never seen anyone of us claim this. I know I haven’t; and if someone else has, I reject that position and don’t wish to be associated with it. Can’t you, at least, have the decency to stop pretending this is a quote — and if, indeed, it is a quote, provide the source. Immediately, thanks. Then ensues the usual junk; if you’re so worried about defamation, why don’t you stop defaming Peter S? And it would suit you better to believe me when I tell you that @ThetisMercurio is not a certain Jaqueline Davis. I have no idea who Jaqueline Davis is — and I can’t say I care much –, but your error is plain silly, and you were made aware of it months ago.
Now I have a suggestion for you, Sune. You say that Thetis’s claims are ‘little founded’. Whether you refer to her articles (written in co-operation with @lovelyhorse_) or to comments made on this blog or to her tweets or comments on other blogs, I welcome you to present concrete evidence of these ‘little founded’ or even unfounded claims. What are they, and why are they little or unfounded? You see, I find it entirely plausible that critics (much like anthroposophists) occasionally make claims that aren’t fully supported or that are in error. I rarely, if ever, see you point to these statements, explain why they’re unfounded, or offer any real counter-arguments. Instead, you fire off general accusations at others for making ‘little founded’ claims and then resume your usual twaddle about hate-groups and so forth. Why is Thetis wrong? — I, for one, would like to know. Because it seems to me her posts are more well-referenced than yours, her claims are properly supported more often than yours, her arguments have substance when your arguments do not. You seem to think it suffices, as a refutation, to call her a ‘hate crusader’. It does not. Come to think of it, you never offer any concrete examples of the alleged ‘hate crusade’ either — this is your opportunity. Point me to instances when Thetis or I are crusading in a hateful manner. Tell me exactly where I’m wrong and why, tell me when I’ve done something wrong, and I’ll try to explain what I meant (or change my words — or even my mind). Holding an opinion that contradicts your beliefs — or even anything that you perceive as truth — does not count as ‘hate’, though. I think you know that. But don’t be a coward about this. If you say I’m on a ‘hate crusade’ — or that Thetis or anybody else is — then it’s only fair to ask that you substantiate this claim; if there’s nothing to it, it’s a despicable accusation against a person. If you prefer, do it in Swedish. But don’t write things like that and hide yourself in anthroposophical obscurity until you assume the coast is clear again and you can resume tweeting your hate-group junk.