OK, So We're Not A Blogosphere Full of 5-Year-Olds
Apparently we're a blogosphere full of high-school students. There's a whole new dust-up about outing pseudonymous bloggers. (Which is wrong, wrong, wrong!) The whole thing started when HTML Mencken (fka Retardo Montalban) posted a photoshopped picture of Josh Trevino playing with a light saber. Josh claims this photo was taken at his wedding, and he's the only person in a position to know.* He requested that the photo be taken down, as it was intended to be private (it is for this reason I am not linking to the post with the photoshopped picture).
So first. Photoshopping pictures of other bloggers to mock them. Let me be perfectly honest. Yes, I'm as immature as anyone. Sure, it's funny. But it's basically the blogospheric equivalent of photo-copying someone's high school yearbook picture, drawing horns and glasses on it, and pasting it up all over the school. Yes, yes, it is. No one outside the blogosphere knows or cares who that person is. This is not protest speech the way that photoshopping a picture of the President is. It's clique behavior, and cliques are for kids. So when the object of your humiliation requests you take it down, you should take it down. Ostensibly, the political blogosphere is peopled with adults. There is no principal to suspend us from blogging for a week. Our parents aren't going to ground us for being jerks. Because we're adults.
Second, mocking other bloggers for taking anti-anxiety meds and/or being stay-at-home parents. I may never forgive you people for making me defend Jeff Goldstein, but I must. Stop. Now. It's amazingly offensive. Not as offensive as making fun of cancer patients, but is that how we want to be known? "Hey, we're less offensive than people who make fun of cancer patients!" No cookies for that. The fact that being a stay-at-home parent is considered mock-worthy under any circumstance says a hell of a lot about the value put on being a stay-at-home parent. Would Jeff's stance on the war be less mockable if he were an executive at a major corporation or a tenured professor? I'd think not, but apparently lots of people disagree. Which places the value of being a stay-at-home parent (i.e., women's work) below the value of executive or professor (i.e., men's work). Sorry if you don't like it. Own your prejudice. As for his taking anti-anxiety medication, would you mock him if he told you he had to take allergy medication? Of course not. Stigmatizing mental illness, as if there were no biological component to it. You suck.
However, outing people in response? No, no, no. No. Really. No. You can talk about "natural consequences" all you want. The natural consequence of acting like sexist jerks in your private life is not to have external actions visited on you. Anyone who thinks it is has a fucked up morality. If a person blogs using a pseudonym, that person hasn't agreed to accept certain risks. I don't care what your thoughts are about that lack of agreement; it's not your decision to make. Feel free to mock them for using a pseudonym, but those risks exist. Some people have been stalked online. Some people have had their families terrorized. The right to accept those risks lies only with the person who faces them. If someone does something online for which there should be external consequences, by which I only mean something that can be actioned through the justice system, then there are ways to visit those consequences upon them that don't include making their identity publicly known. Their identity can be revealed to the proper authorities so that legal cases can go forth. Hosting services and ISPs have that data and will release it if requested by warrant. That's your protection, and it's all the protection you need. Anything above and beyond that is just vindictive, extra-judicial, and wrong. Does this mean that sometimes you're going to have to deal with someone humiliating you without your having satisfactory recourse? Yes. Too bad. Humiliation isn't illegal. If that's the worst thing that ever happens to you, your life's pretty damn good.
Feh.
*BTW, why are people questioning in the comments why Josh had a wedding in which he wore khakis? What are you? The wedding police? Not every wedding is a massively formal affair. What's it to you? The man says it's his wedding. Even if you suspect it's not, see my first point.
Comments
"It's amazingly offensive. ... is that how we want to be known?"
You bet. That "we" ought to be making you feel a tad "icky", I'd think.
Spend a week reading Daily Kos. All the diaries. All the comments. That is absolutely how those people want to be known. But like Amanda Marcotte, they don't see it as being offensive, or as something they might later be held accountable for. THAT is the crux of the problem. And when that fear does creep in - there's alway sock puppets.
And by the way this stuff happens almost everywhere the internetz provides an anonymous (or at least physically, personally removed) avenue for "expression". One just sees it more frequently in the narcissistic echo chambers of the left-fringe.
Posted by: goy
|
February 24, 2007 04:49 PM
No. stop right there. Just stop. I have had it up to here with right-wingers who don't actually read lefty blogs telling people who do to go read Daily Kos. What you mean is, "Go cherry-pick all the lefties who offend me so you can come back and admit that I'm right."
Newsflash: You AREN'T right. Amanda isn't off making fun of the mentally ill. Amanda isn't off making fun of stay-at-home parents. Drum this through your thick skull: Amanda and Kos are not the same. I know it suits you to think they're the same, so you can drone on and on about the hateful left while utterly failing to do anything about policing your own side. It would suit me to have a million dollars, too.
This post got written. Tomorrow I can guarantee it at least one link from a lefty site. Posts about how maybe you shouldn't smear the citizens of New Orleans by equating them with the actions of a few looters don't get written on the right. Posts about how maybe you should be able to criticize Amanda Marcotte without using sexist innuendo don't get written on the right. Posts about how maybe you should strive to criticize people for what they say and do instead of for who they happen to be and what groups they identify with don't get written on the right.
You have cleanup on aisles 1-300 to do on your side, and you're gonna come over here and tsk-tsk? Fuck you. Go. Git 'er done, assface.
Posted by: Ilyka
|
February 24, 2007 06:13 PM
No. Stop right there. Just stop. Aside from the fact that I support global liberal democracy, with all of its warts and all the effort required, I am about as far from a "right-winger" as you will find. So your little tantrum has completely missed its mark.
I have a news flash for you, sylvia: I meant precisely what I wrote, not the strawman you have fantasized (read: projected).
As for Marcotte, dKos and the rest, their stream of sophomoric vomitus speaks for itself. They fervently believe that statements like "Fuck you ... assface" should be taken seriously by the adults. And inasmuch as they (and you, obviously) believe they can spew such sewage and never be held accountable for it, they (and you, obviously) are exactly the same.
Meanwhile, your fantasies (read: projection) about the things that "don't get written [sic] on the right," (which you've either carefully or subconsciously couched in terms of the unprovable negative) indicates that you apparently don't actually read any of it. And if you do, you certainly don't comprehend it outside the context of the prosaic sludge surrounding the links that take you there. Perhaps if you weren't so busy fantasizing (read: projecting) "sexist innuendo" where it doesn't exist...
Posted by: goy
|
February 24, 2007 09:03 PM
goy, let me see if I have this straight.
I write a post speaking out against a certain type of behavior.
You come, read that post, and respond only by attempting to shame me because some other people, on a blog I don't even read regularly (Daily Kos), have engaged in the behavior I spoke out against. Not only that, but you attempt to shame me for that on the very post in which I spoke out against that behavior.
I don't think so. I have never engaged in that behavior myself. I have spoken out against it. I am not responsible for what anyone who isn't me has done, and I reject totally your attempt to shame me by association.
As for your referring to Ilyka's comment as a "tantrum," consider your own behavior here before you go implying someone else has behaved in a juvenile fashion (children throw tantrums). Further, unless you know something I don't, Ilyka's name isn't Sylvia. If you don't wish to refer to someone by their chosen moniker, I'd ask you to not respond to them on my blog at all. You have your own blog on which you're absolutely free to say anything you please.
Lastly, re: your comment about Ilyka not reading right-wing blogs (which, btw, she absolutely does), I suggest you don't read a lot of progressive blogs either. Certainly not the majority of the ones Ilyka and I read, on which you'll find a lot of people speaking out against the type of behavior I spoke out against here. Mote. Beam. Eye.
Posted by: Lesley
|
February 25, 2007 01:36 AM
No Lesley, you don't have it quite straight yet.
Did you simply skip over the words "those people" and "they"?
You're not responsible for what anyone who isn't you has done, yet you chose to associate yourself with that behavior by using the term "we" in your post.
Your choice.
I, however, rejected that association in my comment by using the terms "those people" and "they." As such, my intent couldn't possibly have been any clearer. So your choice to read my comment as shaming you, when I clearly was not, is something only you can explain.
As for your cohort, yes, "Fuck you ... assface", dripping sarcasm, hysterical, erroneous assumptions and finger-pointing in the opposite direction from where this particular problem is rooted qualifies as a tantrum. The question is - is she part of your "we" or part of "those people"?
Your choice.
Posted by: goy
|
February 25, 2007 08:53 PM
Goy, perhaps you fail to understand reality. Words like "Fuck you ... assface" are not harmful. Just ignore them if you don't like it.
Posted by: whig
|
February 26, 2007 06:23 PM
whig, perhaps you fail to understand courtesy, civility and maturity. Phrases like "Fuck you ... assface" represent vulgarity, profanity and hostility. Just keep using them if you never want to be taken seriously.
Oh wait... maybe you meant "reality" as defined by the so-called "reality-based".
Posted by: goy
|
February 27, 2007 08:39 PM
More on this phenomenon here.
But really, who's counting? ;-)
Posted by: goy
|
March 1, 2007 12:38 PM
I'm going to point out here that my blog should make it fairly obvious that I'm a New Yorker. My views on cursing are so colored.
In other words, I don't think it's a fucking big deal. I think that outing pseudonymous bloggers or making fun of people who take psychiatric meds is way, way, way worse.
Posted by: Lesley
|
March 1, 2007 07:14 PM