Plum Crazy

So thanks to Ilyka, I am currently totally fascinated by the blog feud between TBogg and Patterico. This is what I get for taking a day off work. I was considering going to see Pirates of the Caribbean and basking in the utter over-the-topness of Johnny Depp, but this has engrossed me!

Some good things that have come out of this fascination.

1. The comments to this post over at Sadly, No! Some nutter signing his comments The OJ Simpson Case was littering the comments with ridiculous accusations against Patterico. This spawned an entire set of allusions to other legal cases, which then led to all kinds of references to fictional conflicts (e.g., Godzilla v. Mothra). I could just keep reading that comments section and get more entertainment than I have had in the past week.

2. The above-referenced comments section contains one of the silliest mistaken identity occurrences, in which Patterico is said to be a member of The Eagles. Not on purpose, but it was pretty damn funny. To me.

3. My newfound knowledge that norbizness is also The Left. Which is a total relief to me, because I've spent years wondering who The Left was and how to find him or her. I mean, I kept reading over and over how The Left does this and The Left does that, and I just didn't know whom to hold accountable. Now if I can just track down The Right...

Some bad things that have come out of this fascination.

1. I swear, if I read another comment about how someone is a "pussy" or "a fucking girl" or a reference to Michelle Malkin as a "whore" (the last one is in the URL and references Malkin's site)... Aside from the obvious implication that women are weak and/or cowards, which is really what pisses me off, I have a few other issues with it.

I would bet that 90+% of the men who refer to other men as "pussies" have expended a reasonable amount of effort in their lives trying to get some, so WTF is up with that? I mean, really. Dissonance, much? Ditto that for "a fucking girl". How many times did the guy who made that comment wish he could find one? Maybe never, as he might be gay (and with a name like Clarke, I am assuming he's a man), but odds are against it.

Plus, do not MAKE me defend Michelle Malkin. I'm begging you, people. It is possible to criticize women in non-sexual ways. Try it some time. Not liking a woman's politics does not make her a whore.

2. The whole "blogging pseudonymously" makes you a coward thing. I really hate that. I'll grant you it's not precisely what Patterico said, but what he did say isn't really any better. What he more or less said is that accusing other bloggers who don't blog pseudonymously of being cowards or mocking the appearance of bloggers who don't blog pseudonymously while blogging pseudonymously yourself is cowardly. Sorry, I don't buy it, and it does play into the overall blogging pseudonymously is cowardly thing.

If you accuse someone of being a coward for reasons totally unrelated to the name under which they blog, it doesn't matter whether or not you blog under your real name. Either the person is a coward for the reasons stated or they aren't. Under no circumstance does your willingness to blog under your full name make a difference to that argument. Obviously if someone who blogs under a pseudonym accuses someone else of being a coward for doing the same thing, then that is relevant. But that wasn't what happened in the (completely unrelated to TBogg) case that Patterico mentions. He was pissed off because somone named Retardo accused Jeff Goldstein of being a "chickenhawk coward". Obviously a reference to Goldstein's position on the war in Iraq. Either the case against Goldstein stands on the grounds of his being in favor of the war in Iraq or it doesn't. [Personally, I'm not a proponent of the chickenhawk argument.] It does not matter that Retardo chooses not to blog under his/her own name.

As for the whole mocking someone else's appearance thing, there are two problems with that. One is the, I believe, unintentional implication that somehow it would be less offensive if one mocked the appearance of someone who blogged under a pseudonym. Which is patently BS. Speaking as someone who doesn't blog under my full name and has had my appearance mocked (and only by men who didn't even know what I looked like, mind you), it is absolutely just as offensive. I defy anyone to say that the asshole who once felt the need to inform me that "fat chicks also get raped" (no, really, Sherlock) was somehow less of an asshole than he would have been if I used my full name. We all know that's BS.

The other problem is the implication that mocking someone's appearance would be less disgusting if you did it while blogging under your full name. That's BS too. Really, why would it be? Yes, you can hold someone more accountable for their actions if they blog under their own name, but that would lead to a whole host of offline consequences that really shouldn't be faced by the vast majority of bloggers. No one deserves to be harassed at home for mocking someone's appearance. Anyone who does something for which they do deserve offline consequences (as in, be arrested or legitimately sued) can almost always be forced to suffer them regardless of whether they blog under their full name or not. ISPs have records of their customers for just those reasons. Those are matters, however, which should be left in the hands of the justice system, not hordes of blog commenters.

There are very legitimate reasons* why people do choose to blog pseudonymously. Ilyka once posted a very compelling reason why she does. As for myself, look, over my years online, I have been subjected to various unpleasant sexual remarks. While I recognize that the risk is low that one of those freaks might actually decide to track me down and act upon them, it's just not a risk I'm willing to accept. If anyone really believes I'm a coward for that, well, I don't have much flattering to say about them either. Especially since I know that if it did happen, at least some of those very same people would spout victim-blaming BS about my being "stupid" enough to blog under my full name as a woman. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I choose being damned if I don't. Which is not to say that I see anything wrong with women (or men) who do. It's a personal choice and in no way excuses anything that might happen.

*To be really honest, just feeling like it is a legitimate reason, IMO. FFS, this is blogging. Most of the time, it's just not all that serious, massive blogger egos notwithstanding.

UPDATE: OK, I badly worded that whole thing about why ISPs have records of their customers. Obviously they have records so they can bill them. However, they can be required to turn those records over when someone has done something for which they can be arrested or sued.

ANOTHER UPDATE: OMG, best conflict reference at a Sadly, No! thread or possibly anywhere! "Your Ass v. A Hole In the Ground". I swear, I'm still laughing! Because, yes, I am that childish.