Monday, August 21, 2006
You Vill Be Givink Your Name Now
Via kc, we observe that one Brad Warthen has devised a rather original new comments policy for his blog:
I'm implementing a Double Standard:
The bad news is that one group of people will be free to post pretty much whatever they want. I will maintain the same hands-off policy with them that I've maintained with everyone up to now. With those in the other group, I will delete at will any comments that I deem harmful to good-faith dialogue.
The good news is that you get to choose which group you're in. To be in the first group, you just have to give up your anonymity. This won't require filling out special forms or supplying me with your birth certificate or blood type or anything. Just fill out the existing fields that precede comments with your real, full name; your regular, main e-mail address (the one you use for friends or family or co-workers, not something you set up on Yahoo for the specific purpose of hiding your identity); and if you have a Web site, your URL....
To be in the other group, keep hiding behind anonymity. I'll still let you through most of the time, but I'm going to start deleting comments that fit into one of two categories...
You are also enjoined to keep offa his property, ya dang smoochers.As kc points out, many of your more delightful right wing bloggers have gotten into a snit lately about online anonymity. Their reasoning seems to follow that first put forward by the well-regarded ethicist Conan the Barbarian: "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." Of course, they sound pretty damn fey when they say it, but their basic point seems to be the same. We need real names, dammit, so we can split the skulls of the discourteous, or, I dunno, send them messages from stolen foreign IPs that threaten their kids, or something. I just use that as a wacky example.
If something is genuinely offensive, it's offensive whether it comes from a named or an anonymous source. The only difference is that in one case it's easier to retaliate -- but by doing what, trying to get them fired? Finding out their spouse's name and publishing it? If you want to foster civility by inviting some sort of disproportionate if petty response, go ahead, but please don't pretend that this makes you Lord Captain Commander Civilitypants. First of all, that's Tacitus's pretention, and he guards it jealously. Second, it's just silly.
I'll again invoke Thers's Iron Law of the Internets: 95% of what happens online is not worth getting upset over. And if you find yourself in that last 5% too long, like, for more than 5 minutes, just shut off the damn computer. (Or delete the blog, as the case may be.) Who the hell gives a rat's ass if someone is anonymous or using their real name online? It's just online shit. It's not high school debate club, and thank Christ for that, really.I've long been a bitter foe of "online civility." I think it's hypocritical shit and a backdoor way of legitimizing truly reprehensible concepts, such as lunatic wars and state-sponsored torture. In support of this hypothesis, let me introduce the following as evidence, from Warthen's comments:
Well, Brad, although I never should have brought it up,I'm gay (or queer,as you prefer), and listing my real name WOULD make me feel vulnerable to attacks by thugs(it's happened before). There's enough antigay sentiment on this blog to make me feel this way. If you think I'm being paranoid,walk a mile through Lexington County in my shoes someday.
And the reply, from Mr. Civility Warthen:
As for being gay -- look at Andrew Sullivan. He's out there with his real name, and he says what he wants. But note -- he expresses himself with respect for other people. He doesn't have to tear people down to build his ideas up. I don't get time to read his site as often as I'd like, but what I've seen is good stuff.
Wow. Putting aside for the moment the differences between Lexington County and Manhattan, as well as the astonishing claim that Sully never "tears people down" (on this, see The Editors, and passim)... look, we're not talking here about anything like promoting rational discourse, we're talking about censorship. You big silly, worrying about getting bashed after you out yourself to a bunch of unhinged strangers! Why can't you be more like that nice Andy Sullivan...Oy.
Friday, August 18, 2006
You probably all know that I have... mmm issues... with Jeff Goldstein. But I was pleasantly surprised, tonite, by one of his posts. Being a real live actual blogger, I'm always willing and happy to point to a good post. And Jeff dropped one that actually made me giggle. Yeah, I know, you're shocked - but it's true.
Another question for my Levi’sI can see the humor in that and, frankly, it reads like something I'd write. Hey, credit where it's due and all that rot, right?
me: “Point of pants etiquette: is it okay to wear a boot cut jean with, say, New Balance cross trainer tennis shoes, or maybe a leather dock shoe without socks?”
Levi’s: “Well, that depends. Do you want a real answer?—or is this gonna be like the time I told you it was most definitely not okay to go free-balling in a loose-fit button-fly, but you went ahead and embarrassed yourself with the inadvertant turtlehead in front of that Safeway checkout girl just the same?
“Because if it is, I’d just as soon save my breath.”
I've worn Levi's 501 jeans before. Button-fly. Commando. No skivvies. 'I'm out there, Jerry. And I'm lovin' it!!' And I never poked my head out for a breath of fresh air, if you know what I'm saying.
So, I'm curious... how does a fella's fella make its way thru a button-fly? Negligent buttoning? How gauche!
Is this a matter of girth or defective buttonry? We may never know.
But kudos to you, Jeff, for having the
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Thees idea, first expressed by El Culo Bloggente Jeff Goldstein, that eef joo disagree weeth what someone writes, joo are absolved of any guilt when revealing their identity to the world:
Online Integrity Pledge? Fuck it. Like the Geneva Convention: You don’t sign it, no protections for you. I don’t give a shit what Ginsburg, Souter, Kennedy, Bryer, Stevens and Greenwald have to say on the matter.Thees idea, she ees crrrap.
I’m thinking I’ll maybe pull out of the Online Integrity thing. Integrity doesn’t mean we should be compelled to respect the privacy of those who rely on our restraint to launch the basest personal attacks.
For, as our own Ripley has stated:
Thirdly (and mostly lastly), I flat out disagree with your statement. Maybe your ego is too tender to suffer the slings, arrows and all that rot of base personal attacks, but mine isn't. You can call me whatever you want, say anything about my family, use the foulest of language, drag your internet-enlarged cock across my face... knock yourself (selves?) out... I won't intimidate your offline Life or threaten your privacy. That's just the kind of guy I am. I expect the same from the rest of the blogosphere, whether I'm dealing with right-wing idiots or left-wing idiots.And she ees no just any crap, but a dangerous and hateful crap.
As our own Thersites has found out, and Armando, and now, TBogg.
Ciertamente, thees thug, Patterico, left heemself an out. He employed a transparent veneer of rationalization that TBogg took thees action (to reveal hees identity) heemself, but I theenk eef joo read the thread een question, joo weel come to the same conclusion as Tbogg (and ¡ElGato Negro!).
Theese thugs, theese gamberros apestosos have made clear that eef they disagree weeth joo, they are more than justified een taking away jour pseudonymity and subjecting joo and jours to threats and intimidation.
Thees ees who they are, thees ees what they do.
The question remains:
¿What ees the proper response to thees thuggery?
¿Can someone tell me?
THERS ADDS: Well, here is TBogg's response --
'm not going to get into a blogwar with Patterico but here is his fairly transparent "Idintdoit" response. Really, it's not a big deal. My name being out there won't change my life one bit. I won't lose my job. I'm not going to have a panic attack every time some one mentions it or my family, so if you comment on Patterico's blog: be nice.I think this is the right attitude. Once these weasels begin to go there, you leave it. Oh, you could always retailiate, and escalate. I was offered all sorts of "inside" information about pasty, but who cares? Their little games are so retarded, and so exhausting. And so are their endless attempts to pretend they didn't do what they obviously wanted to do from the very beginning.
He knows it was wrong, but he's playing "you were asking for it and besides you know you wanted it" card. As a prosecutor he's probably heard it a million times in rape cases and it obviously resonated with him.
And so: I'm done with it. Kerfuffle over.
Time to move on.
What's hilarious about this is just how unable these weenies are to take getting teased. Call them names and they throw just the prissiest little tantrums.
Update by ¡El Gato Negro!
Thers has the right idea, although he deed no say eet een so many words.
Thees thug and hees eelk are enraged by a leetle ridicule.
The best response ees more ridicule,
as our compañeros bloggerros have made evident.
Brief Comment from Thers: One thing -- if you post at Patterico's fever swamp, he'll grab your IP. Be careful.
Ripley adds: I couldn't resist. And, I found this in Patt's post:
I had no plan to actually “out” the guy, but — angry over his trashing of Malkin — I wanted to rattle his chain. So I left some obscure comments on the Malkin post, needling him. It was the kind of hints he would understand....Huh... now, what possible motive could a person have for doing such a thing? The mind wobbles...
Oh, wait - I almost forgot the Troll Chow! Goldstein, Pablo, Pasty, Jeff 'Cock Slappin' Good Time!' Goldstein, Jeff Goldstein has a dick and he's not afraid to abuse it (see Pablo), Pablo McGoldstein, Goldstein Pablo wedding in the Lehi Banquet Room, Jeff Patterico McPablo Dickfor, Bigus Dickus...