Someone recently brought up the subject of trackbacks and why we don’t routinely send them when authoring posts which link to ex-gay or anti-gay websites. We don’t bother because such sites routinely refuse them. If they didn’t, readers of say the Exodus blog would be able to see and *gasp* follow links to XGW to read an article based at least in part on the original Exodus post they had just been viewing. This is one of the ways that blogs work, facilitating the exchange of information and ideas. Just to see if things had changed, yesterday I tried to request a trackback for this article, but it was immediately rejected.
This reminded me of one of the few times I posted a comment on Randy Thomas’ blog, the older one that did not require membership in the “Vox Community” to post. My comment was quite benign and certainly civil, and to my surprise Randy did post it. However he replaced the XGW hotlink in my name with “BlogThatIDontWantToPromoteHere.com.” This was nothing more than the hotlink behind my name, which I had filled out as instructed. This seemed rather petty to me.
Was he worried that someone might possibly see opposing information? Did he perhaps not want to be responsible for sending a poor soul into sinful error? Who knows, but you do not find that practice here. We routinely place links to the other sites, including Exodus, in our articles just so people can compare and view the source for themselves. We even require that commenters do the same. And we accept trackbacks from basically anyone but spammers.
We have also reported on the censorship habits of the Exodus and NARTH blogs. In the thread about NARTH, I had my own posts held, manipulated and censored in a way that would have made CBS Sixty Minutes proud. Again, these were exceptionally low-key posts and germane to the topic. The only reason for withholding them would be the content – the facts or point of view they contained. How can organizations which claim to be built on professional ethics and Christian principles, stoop to giving their readers virtual blinders against opposing points of view? And what does it say for XGW that we do not?
More importantly, if they are speaking the truth then why this paranoia over contrasting views? Exodus, NARTH, Randy Thomas, what exactly are you afraid of?
I for one am happy to take trackbacks. I normally also let people’s comments stay regardless of what they say, but occasionally (like this morning) I have to remove them if they make insulting remarks. My attitude to crudeness or insults is “It’s not big and it’s not clever”.
You don’t need trackbacks to see who’s linking to you — a simple Technorati search provides that. You can even craft an RSS feed so that you are alerted to new hits.
What trackbacks offer, however, is a chance for others to see who’s linking to you. And I’m not surprised that they are not keen on that idea.
When your whole premise (i.e., changing sexual orientation) is based on lies, distortion and deception, of course you don’t want to expose your readers to other viewpoints. They can’t compete in a “fair and balanced” debate.
David, David, David… oh, sigh 🙂
In the true tradition of American capitalism…
Would you expect to see adverts for Pepsi on a Coke bottle???
(Problem is, of course, that Exodus ain’t even lukewarm water… let alone an expert source on sexuality. A collection of professional fakes, more like it.)