Behind the Scenes
Mailbag! – Feedback on the Feedback Edition
One of our regular commenters-in-good-standing, mimi, posed this question in a comment on this post of mine from a couple days ago.
>>I sometimes wonder how contributors feel about posts that don’t get any (or any serious) comments, because they _have_ gone to some effort. I for one am paying attention, even though most of my comments are kind of goofy.<<
I started to answer her in the thread, but then thought that maybe this was something more people would like to know about, so I’m posting it here. My longer-than-she-probably-wanted answer after the break.
the answer, mimi, is that it is disappointing when you work hard on something and don’t get any comments back about it– or you do get some, but they’re all from people doing the rough blog-equivalent of chucking dogshit at the ceiling fan. You write, “I’ve read (elsewhere on the blogosphere) that some chicks won’t come here any more because of the ‘misogyny’.” That’s true. I’ve read it, as well as had people tell it to me directly. I’d say three things to that- first, I think we’ve gotten worlds better about that, on the whole; second, nobody here wants to get into the game of catering to the most PC elements in a scene–if people feel that strongly about what they encounter here, then maybe the problem isn’t with us, it’s with them, and they should find a site better suited to their taste; third, American culture (the arts no less than elsewhere) has strong misogynist currents in it, which are usually unaddressed and untreated, but which occasionally rear up and make things very ugly and unpleasant for anyone in attendance. We are by no means outside of the culture, and even as we attempt to produce culture, we are always also products of culture. That’s not an excuse, btw; it’s a diagnosis. But it does disappoint me to think that someone who might be an avid reader or contributor-to-the-larger-conversation-we’re-having is turned off or won’t come by because of a concern about what they’ll encounter or how they’ll be treated.
But here is the thing–there’s an entire school of thought–and a whole major segment of our readership–that simply doesn’t see the value in going on-record in a comments thread, period. Those people tend to either respond to individual authors directly via email if they have something to say to us, or else to simply pass the link around without feeling the need to be in touch with us at all. For them, it’s not a question of offense or not, or anything having to do with merit or ethics at all–they are people who simply prefer not to leave a large (or any) kind of body of casual, short-form shoot-first-ask-questions-never writing out there on the web for people to find. They have a high suspicion concerning what comes of leaving the web riddled with these kinds of personal droppings, and though I (obviously) have not made the same choice as they have as a result of this concern, I do think that the suspicion itself is very healthy.
That, or they just don’t want to spend the time. Which also makes sense, especially as I approach the sixty-minute mark of attention-devoted-to-this-thing-I’m-typing. But hey, in for a penny in for a pound. Onward!
I’m fine with any/all of these approaches people have. We have some really amazing commenters here–people I feel like I’ve really gotten to know over the year+, whose opinions I respect immensely, and whose sustained presence on the site’s threads contributes to its vitality in a very real way. If David Rylance or Tim Jones-Yelvington or Lincoln Michel or Amber Noelle Sparks wants to leave a five-paragraph comment on a post of mine, there is a 100% chance of my reading it, and if they’ve raised issues that warrant a response, they’re going to get one. Not that it’s just those 4, but those are some of the best examples off the top of my head. you yourself obviously belong on this list- as evidenced by this note i’m writing you right now. Not to suggest it’s a contest, or that there’s any kind of meritocracy in place (obvs there’s not) but this is a basic outline of where I am coming from. And I can’t speak for any other contributor here, but that’s me.
And I don’t have a problem with goofy comments. I’ve made plenty, and I like reading them. I don’t mind a ‘goofy’ comment on a ‘serious’ post–mine or anyone else’s. But goofy is a relative standard, and I think what happens a lot of times on here is that people don’t see eye to eye on what’s ‘goofy’ vs what’s mean/offensive/stupid/etc.
People are free to react however they want to to whatever they find here. That’s the risk we take when we post stuff. But I also reserve the right to react however I want to to whatever gets said to, or about me, or even has nothing to do with me but exists in a forum attached to something I wrote. Because at the end of the day, those comments are attached to something with my name on it–nobody forced that commenter (especially if they’re posting anonymously) into an association with me, but I have now effectively been forced into one with them, because their words are attached to my words, and it would be easy for a future reader to assume that anything I don’t denounce outright I must therefore condone. That’s not fair to me, and I have a responsibility to myself to (1) make sure that the occasionally disgusting or offensive things posted by commenters do not represent my own personal position(s); but simultaneously (2) that I don’t spend ten hours a day policing the very worst and saddest troll-people who occasionally pop in here to spread their brand of Xmas cheer. Usually, this isn’t an issue at all, but when it’s something like the absolute and inexcusable shit-show that the comment-thread on my Molly Young post became, it becomes a huge problem–not just ethical, but practical, because trying to keep up with PHM’s misogyny-engine is like trying to bail out a sinking ship with a grapefruit spoon. So I made my point as early on as I could–which was that I thought the emergent nature of the discussion was debased, disgusting, offensive, and beneath my dignity to engage with–then I tried to stand by my own words by not contributing a single new comment to the roughly 200 which followed mine. The hardest part, honestly, was not letting myself just delete the whole sad thread. Because as long as all that poison is sitting there, like an albatross around the neck of the post, I’m not free to pass my own link around without having to also include an advance explanation/apology to the person I’m sending it to about what they’re going to find when they get there.
But stuff like that only happens very rarely. What happens more often, and is more interesting, is that sometimes a piece that garners either no comments (or no good ones) will still get widely read and passed around. The site-meter is a better gauge of a piece’s reach than the number of posted comments, and I think that a better gauge yet is to see the incoming links–though the last two are intimately related. The best example of this is Jimmy Chen’s Tom Wolfe post a while back. It got no or almost no comments, but it is among the most-read pieces in our site’s history. Why? As I wrote at the time (in a post that itself got ZERO comments, much to my surprise–I was expecting an influx of kudos and cheers to JC), it was because Andrew Sullivan picked it up, and that sent about 15k people our way. Not one of them, apparently, felt inclined to type “lol” in the comment box, though it seems fair to assume that at least some of them–not least of all Sullivan himself–must have done just that.
It would be really funny if this post got zero comments.
That said, I love these metaposts, and this one is excellent, JT.
It would be really funny if this post got zero comments.
That said, I love these metaposts, and this one is excellent, JT.
Plus, I really don’t think this place is any more of a misogyny-hive (or any less white-privileged in general) than any other arts/culture mag. It’s an essential, deeply embedded problem that the arts as a whole–whatever the hell that means–should work together to expunge. I don’t think turning away is any kind of an answer. Or it’s an answer that avoids the question.
Plus, I really don’t think this place is any more of a misogyny-hive (or any less white-privileged in general) than any other arts/culture mag. It’s an essential, deeply embedded problem that the arts as a whole–whatever the hell that means–should work together to expunge. I don’t think turning away is any kind of an answer. Or it’s an answer that avoids the question.
but is it really about being PC? (re: claims of misogyny). Your apologia, if that, is totally weak and doesn’t really acknowledge the treatment women commenters/subjects can receive on this site, RECENTLY (wasn’t the Molly Young debacle like two weeks ago? I understand not wanting to get involved with that bloodbath, and that your post didn’t cause it, but how can you say that things have gotten a lot better?) PC is bad, is sterile, isn’t interesting, I agree. And I understand and appreciate that HTML wants to be irreverent, to be transgressive. But to say that just because someone was offended or turned off by the sort of body-snarking that can go on on this site that they’re just too politically correct is really troubling. It’s like the whole, hey feminist, get a fucking sense of humor argument (I mean, some feminists really need to get a sense of humor, if they’re completely strict ideologues, sure, definitely).
when i commented on jimmy chen’s zelda post (which in my mind was not the case of me not having a sense of humor, but me not finding the post funny) a regular commenter wrote that me and another female commenter should just get into a threesome with a black dude – I think that was almost verbatim the comment. So if I am not cool with that sort of racist and sexist comment, it just means I’m too PC? That I don’t have a sense of humor? Doesn’t that just invite silence? Like if you say anything you just don’t have a fucking humor or you’re too PC?
I do cringe at the idea of commenting on this site. Who wants to risk being called ugly or say that you just need to be hate-fucked? I mean, that’s really traumatic. And personal. Some of the comments on this site about women seem really visceral. And I understand what you’re saying – that trolls show up everywhere, but it does seem that a lot of the hate-stream happens when dealing with gender or women in some way. Why not own up to that, acknowledge the problem, invite a dialogue, as opposed to further dismissing the offended, and telling them to go elsewhere?
Seems like a good idea to clear these issues up. Regards, Justin. I’d say there was a missed opportunity for dialogue on the reasons for/implications of the nasty, misogynistic comments on the Molly Young post.
but is it really about being PC? (re: claims of misogyny). Your apologia, if that, is totally weak and doesn’t really acknowledge the treatment women commenters/subjects can receive on this site, RECENTLY (wasn’t the Molly Young debacle like two weeks ago? I understand not wanting to get involved with that bloodbath, and that your post didn’t cause it, but how can you say that things have gotten a lot better?) PC is bad, is sterile, isn’t interesting, I agree. And I understand and appreciate that HTML wants to be irreverent, to be transgressive. But to say that just because someone was offended or turned off by the sort of body-snarking that can go on on this site that they’re just too politically correct is really troubling. It’s like the whole, hey feminist, get a fucking sense of humor argument (I mean, some feminists really need to get a sense of humor, if they’re completely strict ideologues, sure, definitely).
when i commented on jimmy chen’s zelda post (which in my mind was not the case of me not having a sense of humor, but me not finding the post funny) a regular commenter wrote that me and another female commenter should just get into a threesome with a black dude – I think that was almost verbatim the comment. So if I am not cool with that sort of racist and sexist comment, it just means I’m too PC? That I don’t have a sense of humor? Doesn’t that just invite silence? Like if you say anything you just don’t have a fucking humor or you’re too PC?
I do cringe at the idea of commenting on this site. Who wants to risk being called ugly or say that you just need to be hate-fucked? I mean, that’s really traumatic. And personal. Some of the comments on this site about women seem really visceral. And I understand what you’re saying – that trolls show up everywhere, but it does seem that a lot of the hate-stream happens when dealing with gender or women in some way. Why not own up to that, acknowledge the problem, invite a dialogue, as opposed to further dismissing the offended, and telling them to go elsewhere?
Seems like a good idea to clear these issues up. Regards, Justin. I’d say there was a missed opportunity for dialogue on the reasons for/implications of the nasty, misogynistic comments on the Molly Young post.
This all makes me wish I lived in New York.
This all makes me wish I lived in New York.
Kate- I’m with you 100% on this. I’m not sure how involved you are in the threads and some of the ongoing conversations here, but if you are, then you know that there is a strong and vocal faction (which includes not just regular commenters but a good bit of the staff as well) who contend that the value of “free speech” supersedes all other values all of the time. My acknowledgment of the existence of a hypothetical hyper-sensitive and censoriousness PC-person or persons is my attempt to acknowledge one of their plank-in-the-platform issues. And those people DO indeed exist, though I personally am more likely to be accused of being one than to accuse anyone else of being one. I was attempting to designate both polar limits of my own sensibility–recognizing on the one hand that there is a real problem that needs dealing with, even if some people say there isn’t; but also recognizing that some problems people have are not real (to me) or are not resolvable. Can we work on eradicating misogyny? Yes. Can we work on eradicating what mimi called ‘goofiness’ in general–probably not, and we wouldn’t want to. The trick is figuring out where the line is.
In any case, my remarks were not an attempt to dis-empower or undermine critiques of misogyny as they have or may appear in this space, and they’re certainly not an apologia. Things *have* gotten better overall. My post on M.Y. was a stunning exception, and that’s why I pinpointed it to discuss–as a highly negative example. How have things gotten better? I said from the very beginning that this site didn’t have enough female contributors. When we launched, we had one–Kendra Grant Malone, who is a smart and talented young woman who for some reason never posted anything except pictures of her own breasts, which was her own idea, self-conceived and executed, but who the hell knows why? Then she left. We also had pr, recruited directly out of our own comments threads, who did some pretty fantastic stuff before resigning over some internal disagreements, chief among them that she thought we were over-regulating speech, or moving in that direction. These days, the numbers of female contributors are higher, and I think that diversity is generally up across the board. The site is a better place for the presence of Catherine Lacey, Amy McDaniel, Roxane Gay, Alexis Orgera, and Chelsea Martin–not “just because” they are women, and certainly not because they work together in any kind of bloc or fem-council, but because diversity of views and backgrounds is healthy for any kind of group project like this one, and better gender-representation is as or more important than any other personal-data-point (race, age, region, sexual orientation, etc) that you might think of as covered by the word “diversity.” And again, I don’t want to create the impression that we’re sitting around with a pocket calculator and a checklist of diversity-points and target goals. We’re not–or if Blake and Gene are, I don’t know about it. But just because we’re letting things develop more or less organically, doesn’t mean we can’t take stock of the situation as it stands right now and say “gee, this seems better than that was.”
To elaborate a little bit on my remarks in the 2nd-to-last graf, which relate directly to the misogyny stuff at the top- for me, this is emphatically not a free speech issue. To me it’s a question of what we as a community stand for, and especially of what we’ll stand against– there have been things on this site that, to me, were simply intolerable, and if I were the running it they would have been taken down immediately–in fact, they’d never have been posted in the first place. But I don’t run this site, and I’m not looking to stage a coup. The people who do run it do a bang-up job, our occasional differences of opinion or politics notwithstanding, and I recognize that even as they occasionally allow megaphone-access to someone or something I wish didn’t have any, they’re also allowing megaphone-access to me–as much of it as I want, whenever I want it, which affords me the freedom to put up posts like this one, where in taking the collective “us” to task, I’m asking a bunch of people who are doing me a perpetual favor to sit tight while I kick them around a little. It’s weird. But they’re really good guys, which is why it works.
As for the dialogue- it’s ongoing, and the invitation to join it is a standing one. We’re having it right now, in fact. Thanks for writing. Hope to see/hear from you some more. Cheers.
Kate- I’m with you 100% on this. I’m not sure how involved you are in the threads and some of the ongoing conversations here, but if you are, then you know that there is a strong and vocal faction (which includes not just regular commenters but a good bit of the staff as well) who contend that the value of “free speech” supersedes all other values all of the time. My acknowledgment of the existence of a hypothetical hyper-sensitive and censoriousness PC-person or persons is my attempt to acknowledge one of their plank-in-the-platform issues. And those people DO indeed exist, though I personally am more likely to be accused of being one than to accuse anyone else of being one. I was attempting to designate both polar limits of my own sensibility–recognizing on the one hand that there is a real problem that needs dealing with, even if some people say there isn’t; but also recognizing that some problems people have are not real (to me) or are not resolvable. Can we work on eradicating misogyny? Yes. Can we work on eradicating what mimi called ‘goofiness’ in general–probably not, and we wouldn’t want to. The trick is figuring out where the line is.
In any case, my remarks were not an attempt to dis-empower or undermine critiques of misogyny as they have or may appear in this space, and they’re certainly not an apologia. Things *have* gotten better overall. My post on M.Y. was a stunning exception, and that’s why I pinpointed it to discuss–as a highly negative example. How have things gotten better? I said from the very beginning that this site didn’t have enough female contributors. When we launched, we had one–Kendra Grant Malone, who is a smart and talented young woman who for some reason never posted anything except pictures of her own breasts, which was her own idea, self-conceived and executed, but who the hell knows why? Then she left. We also had pr, recruited directly out of our own comments threads, who did some pretty fantastic stuff before resigning over some internal disagreements, chief among them that she thought we were over-regulating speech, or moving in that direction. These days, the numbers of female contributors are higher, and I think that diversity is generally up across the board. The site is a better place for the presence of Catherine Lacey, Amy McDaniel, Roxane Gay, Alexis Orgera, and Chelsea Martin–not “just because” they are women, and certainly not because they work together in any kind of bloc or fem-council, but because diversity of views and backgrounds is healthy for any kind of group project like this one, and better gender-representation is as or more important than any other personal-data-point (race, age, region, sexual orientation, etc) that you might think of as covered by the word “diversity.” And again, I don’t want to create the impression that we’re sitting around with a pocket calculator and a checklist of diversity-points and target goals. We’re not–or if Blake and Gene are, I don’t know about it. But just because we’re letting things develop more or less organically, doesn’t mean we can’t take stock of the situation as it stands right now and say “gee, this seems better than that was.”
To elaborate a little bit on my remarks in the 2nd-to-last graf, which relate directly to the misogyny stuff at the top- for me, this is emphatically not a free speech issue. To me it’s a question of what we as a community stand for, and especially of what we’ll stand against– there have been things on this site that, to me, were simply intolerable, and if I were the running it they would have been taken down immediately–in fact, they’d never have been posted in the first place. But I don’t run this site, and I’m not looking to stage a coup. The people who do run it do a bang-up job, our occasional differences of opinion or politics notwithstanding, and I recognize that even as they occasionally allow megaphone-access to someone or something I wish didn’t have any, they’re also allowing megaphone-access to me–as much of it as I want, whenever I want it, which affords me the freedom to put up posts like this one, where in taking the collective “us” to task, I’m asking a bunch of people who are doing me a perpetual favor to sit tight while I kick them around a little. It’s weird. But they’re really good guys, which is why it works.
As for the dialogue- it’s ongoing, and the invitation to join it is a standing one. We’re having it right now, in fact. Thanks for writing. Hope to see/hear from you some more. Cheers.
Yes, why do you allow the nasty, misogynistic comments? Can you explain? You do have some editorial power, and I can’t see what value these serve. Would you allow a string of racial slurs to stand on a post? (Maybe you have, I don’t know.) But I disagree w/ Alec–this is more of a “misogyny-hive” precisely because of this editorial choice. This doesn’t happen on other arts/lit mags that I read. And I agree with Kate–it is offensive to be dismissed as PC after raising this concern. The reson I return to your site has to do with the occasional smart, thoughtful essay (Lily Hoang’s Woolf/Cambodia post last week, for example); how do you reconcile an aesthetic editorial vision that allows a post like that, with one that allows for the misogyny (not to mention anti-intellectual, unseriousness) of the comment section?
Yes, why do you allow the nasty, misogynistic comments? Can you explain? You do have some editorial power, and I can’t see what value these serve. Would you allow a string of racial slurs to stand on a post? (Maybe you have, I don’t know.) But I disagree w/ Alec–this is more of a “misogyny-hive” precisely because of this editorial choice. This doesn’t happen on other arts/lit mags that I read. And I agree with Kate–it is offensive to be dismissed as PC after raising this concern. The reson I return to your site has to do with the occasional smart, thoughtful essay (Lily Hoang’s Woolf/Cambodia post last week, for example); how do you reconcile an aesthetic editorial vision that allows a post like that, with one that allows for the misogyny (not to mention anti-intellectual, unseriousness) of the comment section?
I disagree with myself, and agree with Kate. I tried to give an easy answer, but, of course, there is no easy answer here.
I disagree with myself, and agree with Kate. I tried to give an easy answer, but, of course, there is no easy answer here.
After reading Kate’s comment, I think I’ll take this at least partially back–I’ll take especially back the unfortunate term “misogyny-hive.”
After reading Kate’s comment, I think I’ll take this at least partially back–I’ll take especially back the unfortunate term “misogyny-hive.”
Leaving the misogynistic/racist/bigoted comments up does serve a purpose: it makes public the thought of the commenter.
Communal shame is a better deterrent than censorship.
Leaving the misogynistic/racist/bigoted comments up does serve a purpose: it makes public the thought of the commenter.
Communal shame is a better deterrent than censorship.
I don’t believe HTML Giant is the misogynistic capital of cyberspace, but there have been recent issues like the Molly Young post and even issues of the past–a comic strip was posted some time ago–Crack Mama?–or Wanksta Baby Mama?–or something in the comic-form relating to an ill-dressed welfare momma . . . Anyway, both posts stirred up conversation that was pretty controversial (i.e. what is too racist and what is blatantly sexist). Seeing as how the whole purpose of HTML Giant seems to be to propel writers into some level of discourse (whether premature or thoroughly intellectual), one can understand the possibility of controversial opinions/subject matter. Above, Kate has illustrated some of her own fears regarding the option of commenting of HTML Giant. That type of reluctance is the same obvious reluctance one might face even when deciding whether to comment on a lousy YouTube video. People must understand (and this is unfortunate) that when they share their opinions in a public forum online, they’re immediately opening themselves up for at least some form of criticism–whether tasteful or distasteful. Incidentally, those criticisms–the presentation and context of those criticisms, are a direct reflection of the critics’ opinions/values and nothing else.
And to thread off of Justin’s “goofy comments,” I also feel the so-called “goofy comments” are typically misread. Some people understand irony a lot better than others. For example, if there was a post on HTML Giant that read: “Combating Sexism: When Is Too Far, TOO FAR?” and I decided to leave a comment that read, “Women shouldn’t have the right to vote,” one might perceive that as intentional and comedic irony while another might consider it absolutely sexist and not at all ironically humorous. One might not even TRY to find that humor in such an obviously incorrect statement. It all depends on the reaction of readers.
After writing this, I think I have a better understanding of the types of people who misread Todd Solandz films.
Yes, I agree.
I don’t believe HTML Giant is the misogynistic capital of cyberspace, but there have been recent issues like the Molly Young post and even issues of the past–a comic strip was posted some time ago–Crack Mama?–or Wanksta Baby Mama?–or something in the comic-form relating to an ill-dressed welfare momma . . . Anyway, both posts stirred up conversation that was pretty controversial (i.e. what is too racist and what is blatantly sexist). Seeing as how the whole purpose of HTML Giant seems to be to propel writers into some level of discourse (whether premature or thoroughly intellectual), one can understand the possibility of controversial opinions/subject matter. Above, Kate has illustrated some of her own fears regarding the option of commenting of HTML Giant. That type of reluctance is the same obvious reluctance one might face even when deciding whether to comment on a lousy YouTube video. People must understand (and this is unfortunate) that when they share their opinions in a public forum online, they’re immediately opening themselves up for at least some form of criticism–whether tasteful or distasteful. Incidentally, those criticisms–the presentation and context of those criticisms, are a direct reflection of the critics’ opinions/values and nothing else.
And to thread off of Justin’s “goofy comments,” I also feel the so-called “goofy comments” are typically misread. Some people understand irony a lot better than others. For example, if there was a post on HTML Giant that read: “Combating Sexism: When Is Too Far, TOO FAR?” and I decided to leave a comment that read, “Women shouldn’t have the right to vote,” one might perceive that as intentional and comedic irony while another might consider it absolutely sexist and not at all ironically humorous. One might not even TRY to find that humor in such an obviously incorrect statement. It all depends on the reaction of readers.
After writing this, I think I have a better understanding of the types of people who misread Todd Solandz films.
Yes, I agree.
Stephen, maybe so and maybe not. I’ll just say a few things about that. One, I’m only human. I was overwhelmed and angered by the reaction to that post, and in my dispirited state didn’t want to deal with it, this site, or those people at all for awhile. So I didn’t. Second, those people did not want a dialogue anymore than a group of fifth graders playing “smear the queer” wants a dialogue. Granted, if I were there teacher, I might hold them after class and sit them down and go through all the reasons why that’s a bad game to play, but those people are not my students. I’m all for dialogue, discourse, and developing this community’s sense of itself as a community, but at the end of the day I’m not a den mother, and I’m not a guidance counselor. I’m a writer, and to some extent perhaps at this point a culture-commentator; this website is not an after-school special. I don’t owe every misogynist, racist, or otherwise bent-backwards asshat that waltzes in here my full time or attention until he redeems himself in his own eyes and we all learn a valuable lesson. In my opinion, the onus is on them, not on me, to adjust. If he wants to know what makes him a misogynist piece of shit, let him go ask his mother. After she walks him through it, he’s more than welcome here.
Stephen, maybe so and maybe not. I’ll just say a few things about that. One, I’m only human. I was overwhelmed and angered by the reaction to that post, and in my dispirited state didn’t want to deal with it, this site, or those people at all for awhile. So I didn’t. Second, those people did not want a dialogue anymore than a group of fifth graders playing “smear the queer” wants a dialogue. Granted, if I were there teacher, I might hold them after class and sit them down and go through all the reasons why that’s a bad game to play, but those people are not my students. I’m all for dialogue, discourse, and developing this community’s sense of itself as a community, but at the end of the day I’m not a den mother, and I’m not a guidance counselor. I’m a writer, and to some extent perhaps at this point a culture-commentator; this website is not an after-school special. I don’t owe every misogynist, racist, or otherwise bent-backwards asshat that waltzes in here my full time or attention until he redeems himself in his own eyes and we all learn a valuable lesson. In my opinion, the onus is on them, not on me, to adjust. If he wants to know what makes him a misogynist piece of shit, let him go ask his mother. After she walks him through it, he’s more than welcome here.
A LITTLE BIT OF MODERATION DOES GO A LONG WAY SOMETIMES
BUT PLEASE DON’T DISSIPATE ZZZZIPP
A LITTLE BIT OF MODERATION DOES GO A LONG WAY SOMETIMES
BUT PLEASE DON’T DISSIPATE ZZZZIPP
Justin – Thanks for this. I am fairly new to HTML Giant, fairly new to blogging, and have been both attracted and repelled from the site. It does seem *despite* having many women bloggers that when the question gets to gender, or centers around a woman’s attractiveness, that’s when things get crazy. That’s to me what contributes to the boy’s club atmosphere. And I think a communal lit blog is a great thing, and so would want to feel included in it, and to me that feeling of inclusiveness is not to worry about the rhetorical equivalent of a hate fuck. Or feel that I am recovering from PTSD after commenting, or after reading a stream of comments about a woman writer (I’m being overdramatic, but anyway). There is a thin line in terms of what’s censorship, and I don’t think actually the majority of the writing that has been on the site that I’ve found offensive should be censored, but there’s been some clear examples to me of blatant misogyny and racism and ugliness in the comments that I don’t know why aren’t blocked, or why repeated offenders aren’t eventually banned, as Gawker does.
Justin – Thanks for this. I am fairly new to HTML Giant, fairly new to blogging, and have been both attracted and repelled from the site. It does seem *despite* having many women bloggers that when the question gets to gender, or centers around a woman’s attractiveness, that’s when things get crazy. That’s to me what contributes to the boy’s club atmosphere. And I think a communal lit blog is a great thing, and so would want to feel included in it, and to me that feeling of inclusiveness is not to worry about the rhetorical equivalent of a hate fuck. Or feel that I am recovering from PTSD after commenting, or after reading a stream of comments about a woman writer (I’m being overdramatic, but anyway). There is a thin line in terms of what’s censorship, and I don’t think actually the majority of the writing that has been on the site that I’ve found offensive should be censored, but there’s been some clear examples to me of blatant misogyny and racism and ugliness in the comments that I don’t know why aren’t blocked, or why repeated offenders aren’t eventually banned, as Gawker does.
i’m not going to get bogged into this conversation too much, because ultimately for me it is a byproduct of the thing and not the thing itself. however:
i’ve said and said again that if rowdy comments on 1 out of 30 or 40 posts make you that uncomfortable, i don’t really know what can be done. sure, i could sit here approving comments and removing ones that seem ridiculous (which i have done a smidge of in the past, and can’t stand), but do we really need to be defended of that? does some troll making obviously ridiculous and smarmy b/s comments really overpower everything else that the site puts forth? sorry, i can’t imagine that it does, and if it does, that’s sad. that kind of flap is everywhere, and i think does serve a purpose even in its occasional ignorance: why are these posts often the most talked about and “traffic heavy” posts? that is less htmlgiant’s doing and more of the doing of a whole other entity that i’m not going to even try to specify or name. covering it up is not only difficult, it seems beside the point to the point of being boring. i’ve been called enough names in my life to be able to turn my eye when the name callers crop up (particularly in the context of something meant to promote something good), and i guess i assume that others are capable of the same.
one post mentioning someone’s looks makes the whole site shit?
one commenter saying something idiotic reflects on every other word?
we live in america, freedom and ignorance daily side by side. it’s not a question of ‘learning to deal’ but expecting the worse, and aiming the good
i believe the tone here, on the part we control, is respectful, openminded (perhaps to the point that it seems closedminded from an angle), and ultimately working for the good. haters gonna hate, haters gonna run they mouths, ignorance shows up everywhere, etc. i’d rather have a forum where anything goes and the dumbasses come with context than a place where each entity has to be questioned and ultimately named for what it stands for, what it means, what it wants.
i also like to have fun.
Ken Baumann—
Leaving the misogynistic/racist/bigoted comments up does serve a purpose: it makes public the thought of the commenter.
Communal shame is a better deterrent than censorship.
i’m not going to get bogged into this conversation too much, because ultimately for me it is a byproduct of the thing and not the thing itself. however:
i’ve said and said again that if rowdy comments on 1 out of 30 or 40 posts make you that uncomfortable, i don’t really know what can be done. sure, i could sit here approving comments and removing ones that seem ridiculous (which i have done a smidge of in the past, and can’t stand), but do we really need to be defended of that? does some troll making obviously ridiculous and smarmy b/s comments really overpower everything else that the site puts forth? sorry, i can’t imagine that it does, and if it does, that’s sad. that kind of flap is everywhere, and i think does serve a purpose even in its occasional ignorance: why are these posts often the most talked about and “traffic heavy” posts? that is less htmlgiant’s doing and more of the doing of a whole other entity that i’m not going to even try to specify or name. covering it up is not only difficult, it seems beside the point to the point of being boring. i’ve been called enough names in my life to be able to turn my eye when the name callers crop up (particularly in the context of something meant to promote something good), and i guess i assume that others are capable of the same.
one post mentioning someone’s looks makes the whole site shit?
one commenter saying something idiotic reflects on every other word?
we live in america, freedom and ignorance daily side by side. it’s not a question of ‘learning to deal’ but expecting the worse, and aiming the good
i believe the tone here, on the part we control, is respectful, openminded (perhaps to the point that it seems closedminded from an angle), and ultimately working for the good. haters gonna hate, haters gonna run they mouths, ignorance shows up everywhere, etc. i’d rather have a forum where anything goes and the dumbasses come with context than a place where each entity has to be questioned and ultimately named for what it stands for, what it means, what it wants.
i also like to have fun.
Ken Baumann—
Leaving the misogynistic/racist/bigoted comments up does serve a purpose: it makes public the thought of the commenter.
Communal shame is a better deterrent than censorship.
Hey Justin, just for the record, I wasn’t saying you Justin specifically missed an opportunity for a dialogue. I was expressing a wish that the HTMLGIANT “community” might have had a spontaneous dialogue about it in the comments or wherever, but I realize it’s hard to have meaningful dialogues in a shitstorm, and you’re right that some kind of dialogue is happening or will happen.
We’ve talked about blocking/banning/moderating before, but there are a few reasons it’s never gotten off the ground. The first is that it runs counter to the core convictions of the site’s founders and a large faction of the contributors, and second because we don’t have the institutional infrastructure. We don’t have a budget, an office, or an anything beyond the collective good will and effort of the people who write and hang out here. In order to ban/block, we would have to devise a registration system, and then keep it updated. Gawker is a fascinating case study because they do more than just ban people who piss them off–you have to *earn* your right to be there in the first place. Even if we had the budget/time to hire someone to regulate all that, we still wouldn’t. What we *could* do is set all threads (or some threads) to “moderated” status and then individual comments would require approval before going up. I’m pretty sure there’s a way I could do that unilaterally just on my own posts, but that puts me in the position of having to sit here all day reading comments and deciding what to do with them–which I can’t do. Or, the other option is all the comments accrue all day and I read them at the end of the day, approve all the good ones–but then you lose the real-time element of conversation, and people being able to respond to each other (ie what we’re doing right now) so there’s a downside to that too. Anyway, none of this is said by way of excuse-making, just an honest peek at how our sausage gets made.
Hey Justin, just for the record, I wasn’t saying you Justin specifically missed an opportunity for a dialogue. I was expressing a wish that the HTMLGIANT “community” might have had a spontaneous dialogue about it in the comments or wherever, but I realize it’s hard to have meaningful dialogues in a shitstorm, and you’re right that some kind of dialogue is happening or will happen.
We’ve talked about blocking/banning/moderating before, but there are a few reasons it’s never gotten off the ground. The first is that it runs counter to the core convictions of the site’s founders and a large faction of the contributors, and second because we don’t have the institutional infrastructure. We don’t have a budget, an office, or an anything beyond the collective good will and effort of the people who write and hang out here. In order to ban/block, we would have to devise a registration system, and then keep it updated. Gawker is a fascinating case study because they do more than just ban people who piss them off–you have to *earn* your right to be there in the first place. Even if we had the budget/time to hire someone to regulate all that, we still wouldn’t. What we *could* do is set all threads (or some threads) to “moderated” status and then individual comments would require approval before going up. I’m pretty sure there’s a way I could do that unilaterally just on my own posts, but that puts me in the position of having to sit here all day reading comments and deciding what to do with them–which I can’t do. Or, the other option is all the comments accrue all day and I read them at the end of the day, approve all the good ones–but then you lose the real-time element of conversation, and people being able to respond to each other (ie what we’re doing right now) so there’s a downside to that too. Anyway, none of this is said by way of excuse-making, just an honest peek at how our sausage gets made.
Here’s a problem I have: is blatant misogyny recognized as such here on a large scale, so that it can be shamed (as Ken suggested it should be) or, in the worst case, censored? What went on in the comment thread of Jimmy’s Zelda post should have been a far more provocative, busier site for contention–for shaming–right?
Here’s a problem I have: is blatant misogyny recognized as such here on a large scale, so that it can be shamed (as Ken suggested it should be) or, in the worst case, censored? What went on in the comment thread of Jimmy’s Zelda post should have been a far more provocative, busier site for contention–for shaming–right?
haha
haha
henry manicini wrote letterman’s mail theme? weird.
henry manicini wrote letterman’s mail theme? weird.
I often wish I had the time to craft some of the responses like the people you mentioned here, Justin. On occasion, I manage to make a comment that is a bit more developed and thought-out. Other occasions, I just have time to make a few quick replies.
A lot of it has to deal with the time I have to pull thoughts together enough on the topic to make a comment I feel is worthwhile; often times, by the time I check my Reader, the post has already garnered a dozen or 2 responses, with one or more of them being in the same vein of thought/opinion was my own.
Sometimes, I think the quality of thought put forth by some of the commentors intimidates people. Even with my schooling, I feel intimidated often enough. This isn’t to say people should dumb down their arguments. Quite the contrary, I’ve stuck around Giant because of that challenge. It’s one of the best places I’ve found to stimulate thought since I graduated from Ball State.
As for the mysogyny/racism/irreverance, I’ve been around since last September and witnessed Jimmy’s Zelda post, and Justin’s M.Y. post, &c. and have felt the same mixed feelings as it seems other’s have. But, as has been said, it’s something of a microcosm of the greater art scene, and as a whole, I think it is getting better, both in the greater art scene, and here at Giant. In the 6’ish months I’ve been keeping up here, a good handful of female contributors have been added to the mix and their thoughts. Steps are being made, and reflections like this only serve to push it forward.
I for one value the free-speech allowed here, and couldn’t imagine the timesuck it would be on Blake to monitor comments, let alone the drain that would be on the dynamics of this blog in general. And besides, to agree with Ken, how will these commentors ever change if they aren’t made aware that their comments are distasteful and reductive? And how can anyone challenge them on their opinions if they aren’t allowed to voice them?
I often wish I had the time to craft some of the responses like the people you mentioned here, Justin. On occasion, I manage to make a comment that is a bit more developed and thought-out. Other occasions, I just have time to make a few quick replies.
A lot of it has to deal with the time I have to pull thoughts together enough on the topic to make a comment I feel is worthwhile; often times, by the time I check my Reader, the post has already garnered a dozen or 2 responses, with one or more of them being in the same vein of thought/opinion was my own.
Sometimes, I think the quality of thought put forth by some of the commentors intimidates people. Even with my schooling, I feel intimidated often enough. This isn’t to say people should dumb down their arguments. Quite the contrary, I’ve stuck around Giant because of that challenge. It’s one of the best places I’ve found to stimulate thought since I graduated from Ball State.
As for the mysogyny/racism/irreverance, I’ve been around since last September and witnessed Jimmy’s Zelda post, and Justin’s M.Y. post, &c. and have felt the same mixed feelings as it seems other’s have. But, as has been said, it’s something of a microcosm of the greater art scene, and as a whole, I think it is getting better, both in the greater art scene, and here at Giant. In the 6’ish months I’ve been keeping up here, a good handful of female contributors have been added to the mix and their thoughts. Steps are being made, and reflections like this only serve to push it forward.
I for one value the free-speech allowed here, and couldn’t imagine the timesuck it would be on Blake to monitor comments, let alone the drain that would be on the dynamics of this blog in general. And besides, to agree with Ken, how will these commentors ever change if they aren’t made aware that their comments are distasteful and reductive? And how can anyone challenge them on their opinions if they aren’t allowed to voice them?
Since Mather felt the need to post on my blog about his being banned, I suppose I should update to say, “I for one value the [mostly] free speech allowed here,” for veritability’s sake, if not for Mather’s…
Since Mather felt the need to post on my blog about his being banned, I suppose I should update to say, “I for one value the [mostly] free speech allowed here,” for veritability’s sake, if not for Mather’s…
Also, Justin, finally got around to reading Molly Young’s Frederick Seidel article, and I admire it. So, however belatedly, your post is fulfilling its purpose, to get one more person to read her very thoughtful writing.
Also, Justin, finally got around to reading Molly Young’s Frederick Seidel article, and I admire it. So, however belatedly, your post is fulfilling its purpose, to get one more person to read her very thoughtful writing.
kate, why is your only issue “misogyny”? a lot of other acts of prejudice are brought up on the site (especially by anons), but you don’t seem to acknowledge them. i guess it’s because they weren’t “traumatic” for you, right?
i also think your use of the word “traumatic” is funny. if a comment made by a stranger can be traumatic for you, i’d hate to see you have to deal with actual hardships in life.
kate, why is your only issue “misogyny”? a lot of other acts of prejudice are brought up on the site (especially by anons), but you don’t seem to acknowledge them. i guess it’s because they weren’t “traumatic” for you, right?
i also think your use of the word “traumatic” is funny. if a comment made by a stranger can be traumatic for you, i’d hate to see you have to deal with actual hardships in life.
Wow. I just came home for a quick lunch between today’s teaching gigs (something I almost never do!) and found this.
Thanks, Justin, for another thoughtful post, and likewise, fellow commenters. I think all discussion like this is cool.
Wish I had more time right now to think/write; I must rush off.
*But I’ll be back!*
Wow. I just came home for a quick lunch between today’s teaching gigs (something I almost never do!) and found this.
Thanks, Justin, for another thoughtful post, and likewise, fellow commenters. I think all discussion like this is cool.
Wish I had more time right now to think/write; I must rush off.
*But I’ll be back!*
ah, yes, Mather. that’s a whole other story.
ah, yes, Mather. that’s a whole other story.
unnecessarily harsh and disdainful, in my opinion
unnecessarily harsh and disdainful, in my opinion
unnecessarily harsh and disdainful, in my opinion
Yeah, I figured as much and I don’t really care to be made privvy to it (remembering his various comments, I’m sure I can infer), but he’s shown up on my blog a couple times in the past few months commenting about something or other Giant related, so I thought I’d make a mention of his recent comment for the sake of full-disclosure (i.e. that evidently, there are ban-worthy limits to the Giant and infrastructure to enforce them).
Yeah, I figured as much and I don’t really care to be made privvy to it (remembering his various comments, I’m sure I can infer), but he’s shown up on my blog a couple times in the past few months commenting about something or other Giant related, so I thought I’d make a mention of his recent comment for the sake of full-disclosure (i.e. that evidently, there are ban-worthy limits to the Giant and infrastructure to enforce them).
words are just that—words.
don’t give them power, then you won’t get “ptsd” from them.
words are just that—words.
don’t give them power, then you won’t get “ptsd” from them.
words are just that—words.
don’t give them power, then you won’t get “ptsd” from them.
people are always attracted to, or feel more a need to engage in, negative spectacle than positive. you dont run to your window if you suddenly realize the sun is out and its a wonderful day. you run to the window when you hear a car crash outside and want to see the devastation. its a fear reflex. this is why the argument for ignoring bothers me. ‘if this site bothers you, dont read it.’ its because it bothers us that it is even more important to read it. its because the news on the front page is frightening that we grab for it. justin alludes also to this, that # of comments in a thread is bunk. if anything it only says there is some kind of controversy or negative spectacle surrounding it. i wouldn’t say # of hits says anything either. the warm and sunny posts, thanks for writing, they make us feel good and sleep peacefully, no comment necessary.
people are always attracted to, or feel more a need to engage in, negative spectacle than positive. you dont run to your window if you suddenly realize the sun is out and its a wonderful day. you run to the window when you hear a car crash outside and want to see the devastation. its a fear reflex. this is why the argument for ignoring bothers me. ‘if this site bothers you, dont read it.’ its because it bothers us that it is even more important to read it. its because the news on the front page is frightening that we grab for it. justin alludes also to this, that # of comments in a thread is bunk. if anything it only says there is some kind of controversy or negative spectacle surrounding it. i wouldn’t say # of hits says anything either. the warm and sunny posts, thanks for writing, they make us feel good and sleep peacefully, no comment necessary.
people are always attracted to, or feel more a need to engage in, negative spectacle than positive. you dont run to your window if you suddenly realize the sun is out and its a wonderful day. you run to the window when you hear a car crash outside and want to see the devastation. its a fear reflex. this is why the argument for ignoring bothers me. ‘if this site bothers you, dont read it.’ its because it bothers us that it is even more important to read it. its because the news on the front page is frightening that we grab for it. justin alludes also to this, that # of comments in a thread is bunk. if anything it only says there is some kind of controversy or negative spectacle surrounding it. i wouldn’t say # of hits says anything either. the warm and sunny posts, thanks for writing, they make us feel good and sleep peacefully, no comment necessary.
hehe. yes, i can only imagine the comments he’s left you.
with Mather, briefly, he became a presence whose sole function was to shit on anything and everything that came up. he wasn’t just showing up on an inflammatory post and speaking his mind however vulgar in that subject. he was literally commenting immediately on every single post bitching and shitting on it. someone would post a link to a book or an article and he’d say, what a piece of shit that is. end of comment. there was no conversation in his comments, and no function in him except to run over every post with his own bitterness and whining. it was distracting, and suffocating, and without context at all times. even though there are many commenters who say flagrant shit on purpose, they at least stick within the confines of a (albeit maybe awful) conversation, and are, in their own way, going about a business.
i told mather several times that it was getting old, and etc., and he just kept shitting shit. so he’s banned. that’s that.
watching his comments continue to accrue in the spam folder is pretty damn funny though. i may make a post of them.
hehe. yes, i can only imagine the comments he’s left you.
with Mather, briefly, he became a presence whose sole function was to shit on anything and everything that came up. he wasn’t just showing up on an inflammatory post and speaking his mind however vulgar in that subject. he was literally commenting immediately on every single post bitching and shitting on it. someone would post a link to a book or an article and he’d say, what a piece of shit that is. end of comment. there was no conversation in his comments, and no function in him except to run over every post with his own bitterness and whining. it was distracting, and suffocating, and without context at all times. even though there are many commenters who say flagrant shit on purpose, they at least stick within the confines of a (albeit maybe awful) conversation, and are, in their own way, going about a business.
i told mather several times that it was getting old, and etc., and he just kept shitting shit. so he’s banned. that’s that.
watching his comments continue to accrue in the spam folder is pretty damn funny though. i may make a post of them.
hehe. yes, i can only imagine the comments he’s left you.
with Mather, briefly, he became a presence whose sole function was to shit on anything and everything that came up. he wasn’t just showing up on an inflammatory post and speaking his mind however vulgar in that subject. he was literally commenting immediately on every single post bitching and shitting on it. someone would post a link to a book or an article and he’d say, what a piece of shit that is. end of comment. there was no conversation in his comments, and no function in him except to run over every post with his own bitterness and whining. it was distracting, and suffocating, and without context at all times. even though there are many commenters who say flagrant shit on purpose, they at least stick within the confines of a (albeit maybe awful) conversation, and are, in their own way, going about a business.
i told mather several times that it was getting old, and etc., and he just kept shitting shit. so he’s banned. that’s that.
watching his comments continue to accrue in the spam folder is pretty damn funny though. i may make a post of them.
first point seems a bit reductive. obviously people with certain sensibilities are going to focus their attention more on those sensibilities. other people were able to generalize Kate’s sensibilities to other areas (e.g. bigotry, irreverance, so on) to no fault of their own.
2nd point is just calling someone on hyperbole, albeit “unnecessarily harsh and disdainful,” yeah okay.
first point seems a bit reductive. obviously people with certain sensibilities are going to focus their attention more on those sensibilities. other people were able to generalize Kate’s sensibilities to other areas (e.g. bigotry, irreverance, so on) to no fault of their own.
2nd point is just calling someone on hyperbole, albeit “unnecessarily harsh and disdainful,” yeah okay.
first point seems a bit reductive. obviously people with certain sensibilities are going to focus their attention more on those sensibilities. other people were able to generalize Kate’s sensibilities to other areas (e.g. bigotry, irreverance, so on) to no fault of their own.
2nd point is just calling someone on hyperbole, albeit “unnecessarily harsh and disdainful,” yeah okay.
if we weren’t ones to give words power, HTMLGiant wouldn’t exist.
if we weren’t ones to give words power, HTMLGiant wouldn’t exist.
if we weren’t ones to give words power, HTMLGiant wouldn’t exist.
but wouldn’t you run to your window if you heard there was a rainbow out there?
but wouldn’t you run to your window if you heard there was a rainbow out there?
but wouldn’t you run to your window if you heard there was a rainbow out there?
Yeah. I’m kissing your ass now for my last comment, just so you know, so I hope you’ve showered today.
Yeah. I’m kissing your ass now for my last comment, just so you know, so I hope you’ve showered today.
Yeah. I’m kissing your ass now for my last comment, just so you know, so I hope you’ve showered today.
yes but i would run with more fire if it was an angry rainbow destroying the town, stepping on neighbors houses
yes but i would run with more fire if it was an angry rainbow destroying the town, stepping on neighbors houses
yes but i would run with more fire if it was an angry rainbow destroying the town, stepping on neighbors houses
I personally don’t have any interest in shaming people into or out of anything. I’m interested in calling ’em like I see ’em. If someone is unclear on a position I have asserted, I am happy to clarify it. If they have been less than clear on something, I’m likewise eager to have the confusion cleared up. But more often than not we are not dealing with a lack of clarity, but the opposite problem- an overdose of clarity, also known as a lack of nuance. To me “community shaming” sounds like one more thing I’m not willing to invest my time in. It’s punitive corrections rather than rehabilitative corrections, but it still puts me/us in the position of administrator over someone else’s behavior. I am not interested in that. It’s beyond the limits of my give-a-shit.
I personally don’t have any interest in shaming people into or out of anything. I’m interested in calling ’em like I see ’em. If someone is unclear on a position I have asserted, I am happy to clarify it. If they have been less than clear on something, I’m likewise eager to have the confusion cleared up. But more often than not we are not dealing with a lack of clarity, but the opposite problem- an overdose of clarity, also known as a lack of nuance. To me “community shaming” sounds like one more thing I’m not willing to invest my time in. It’s punitive corrections rather than rehabilitative corrections, but it still puts me/us in the position of administrator over someone else’s behavior. I am not interested in that. It’s beyond the limits of my give-a-shit.
I personally don’t have any interest in shaming people into or out of anything. I’m interested in calling ’em like I see ’em. If someone is unclear on a position I have asserted, I am happy to clarify it. If they have been less than clear on something, I’m likewise eager to have the confusion cleared up. But more often than not we are not dealing with a lack of clarity, but the opposite problem- an overdose of clarity, also known as a lack of nuance. To me “community shaming” sounds like one more thing I’m not willing to invest my time in. It’s punitive corrections rather than rehabilitative corrections, but it still puts me/us in the position of administrator over someone else’s behavior. I am not interested in that. It’s beyond the limits of my give-a-shit.
words are completely powerful, language is totally political. I was joking about PTSD, by the way. And I’m not a shrinking lily. But my point is, if you’re always put on defense, reacting, that’s kind of tense/intense, isn’t it? that’s totally not fun. a lot of the reaction on this site, when it gets ugly, in the two instances I can think of, is really hateful. and hate speech is something that should be paid attention to. isn’t it? it seems better to have a dialogue about these posts, as opposed to silencing or dismissing even the conversation as stupid or to personally dismiss the person speaking. by the way, i brought up misogyny *and* racism, those seem to be the two ways the hate slog goes when in these controversial comment streams.
no, i guess i am not used to in everyday life having hate spewed at me. is this something we’re supposed to become accustomed to? this is not generalized name-calling, on these specific posts we’re all referring to. it was of a sexualized nature, directed against women.
and i think commenters are getting shamed. i think making comments about someone’s personal life or body is a way to shame them from speaking, a way to silence them. i think making sexualized or racialized cracks against someone who disagrees with you is not only going to the LCD, but a way to effectively censor them, make them feel ashamed and silence them, remind them of their place.
words are completely powerful, language is totally political. I was joking about PTSD, by the way. And I’m not a shrinking lily. But my point is, if you’re always put on defense, reacting, that’s kind of tense/intense, isn’t it? that’s totally not fun. a lot of the reaction on this site, when it gets ugly, in the two instances I can think of, is really hateful. and hate speech is something that should be paid attention to. isn’t it? it seems better to have a dialogue about these posts, as opposed to silencing or dismissing even the conversation as stupid or to personally dismiss the person speaking. by the way, i brought up misogyny *and* racism, those seem to be the two ways the hate slog goes when in these controversial comment streams.
no, i guess i am not used to in everyday life having hate spewed at me. is this something we’re supposed to become accustomed to? this is not generalized name-calling, on these specific posts we’re all referring to. it was of a sexualized nature, directed against women.
and i think commenters are getting shamed. i think making comments about someone’s personal life or body is a way to shame them from speaking, a way to silence them. i think making sexualized or racialized cracks against someone who disagrees with you is not only going to the LCD, but a way to effectively censor them, make them feel ashamed and silence them, remind them of their place.
exactly.
exactly.
words are completely powerful, language is totally political. I was joking about PTSD, by the way. And I’m not a shrinking lily. But my point is, if you’re always put on defense, reacting, that’s kind of tense/intense, isn’t it? that’s totally not fun. a lot of the reaction on this site, when it gets ugly, in the two instances I can think of, is really hateful. and hate speech is something that should be paid attention to. isn’t it? it seems better to have a dialogue about these posts, as opposed to silencing or dismissing even the conversation as stupid or to personally dismiss the person speaking. by the way, i brought up misogyny *and* racism, those seem to be the two ways the hate slog goes when in these controversial comment streams.
no, i guess i am not used to in everyday life having hate spewed at me. is this something we’re supposed to become accustomed to? this is not generalized name-calling, on these specific posts we’re all referring to. it was of a sexualized nature, directed against women.
and i think commenters are getting shamed. i think making comments about someone’s personal life or body is a way to shame them from speaking, a way to silence them. i think making sexualized or racialized cracks against someone who disagrees with you is not only going to the LCD, but a way to effectively censor them, make them feel ashamed and silence them, remind them of their place.
exactly.
i guess you’re right. maybe i am just being sensitive to the word “traumatic”. i’m not sure if she meant it to be a hyperbole or if she actually felt it to be a traumatic incident, but regardless, i believe she misued the word. i guess that’s something that just bothers me, much like how “misogyny” (even if it isn’t true misogyny, but a comment to intentionally make people angry) bothers kate.
i guess you’re right. maybe i am just being sensitive to the word “traumatic”. i’m not sure if she meant it to be a hyperbole or if she actually felt it to be a traumatic incident, but regardless, i believe she misued the word. i guess that’s something that just bothers me, much like how “misogyny” (even if it isn’t true misogyny, but a comment to intentionally make people angry) bothers kate.
*misused
*misused
i guess you’re right. maybe i am just being sensitive to the word “traumatic”. i’m not sure if she meant it to be a hyperbole or if she actually felt it to be a traumatic incident, but regardless, i believe she misued the word. i guess that’s something that just bothers me, much like how “misogyny” (even if it isn’t true misogyny, but a comment to intentionally make people angry) bothers kate.
*misused
You’re beginning to sound overly repetitive . . .
You’re beginning to sound overly repetitive . . .
You’re beginning to sound overly repetitive . . .
well i didn’t know you were joking about the whole ptsd thing. but see, i have actually had ptsd, and was somewhat offended by your comment. it is a very personal matter for me.
do you see that you are similar to the person who offended you? you are just not cognizant that you are being insensitive. the person you are referring to was.
well i didn’t know you were joking about the whole ptsd thing. but see, i have actually had ptsd, and was somewhat offended by your comment. it is a very personal matter for me.
do you see that you are similar to the person who offended you? you are just not cognizant that you are being insensitive. the person you are referring to was.
well i didn’t know you were joking about the whole ptsd thing. but see, i have actually had ptsd, and was somewhat offended by your comment. it is a very personal matter for me.
do you see that you are similar to the person who offended you? you are just not cognizant that you are being insensitive. the person you are referring to was.
I second this. Also, if somebody makes an offensive comment, it’s nice to know whether it’s just an isolated thing, or if they’re clearly a person who delights in being offensive. It helps you know whether or not to engage or just let the trolling go.
I second this. Also, if somebody makes an offensive comment, it’s nice to know whether it’s just an isolated thing, or if they’re clearly a person who delights in being offensive. It helps you know whether or not to engage or just let the trolling go.
I second this. Also, if somebody makes an offensive comment, it’s nice to know whether it’s just an isolated thing, or if they’re clearly a person who delights in being offensive. It helps you know whether or not to engage or just let the trolling go.
Top thumbs-down responses I’ve heard from women (writers, readers, artists) I’ve tried to turn on to HTMLGiant: 1) mean boys club; 2) circle jerk of self-promotion; 3) elitist b.s.
I dunno. I can see this stuff sometimes but don’t see it mostly. I guess it all depends on the contributor, the content of the post, the commenter(s) and the mood of the reader at the time of the reading. I’ve heard the site has changed its tone some (I’ve only been around since October) and I’m happy to shit-talk w/ the best of ’em — and never get “offended” or scared of stoopidity — so… I dunno.
What I like here is the DIY old-school Maximum Rock ‘n’ Roll attitude, the community engagement, the dialogue, the information, the range of art works represented (from poems to movies) and the Lit chat. The vibe reminds me of the alt weeklies I’ve written for for years. Editors want “controversy” or critical confrontation b/c it makes readers react. Underscoring Darby’s point above, I *never* get feedback on my more artist-friendly features or reviews, no matter how thoughtful or accurately rendered. But when I diss some “rockstar” with scores of fans, I get threatened — literally — and editors love that shit. I wonder if there’s a happy medium, or if this is just, as Darby implies, the result of human nature.
Top thumbs-down responses I’ve heard from women (writers, readers, artists) I’ve tried to turn on to HTMLGiant: 1) mean boys club; 2) circle jerk of self-promotion; 3) elitist b.s.
I dunno. I can see this stuff sometimes but don’t see it mostly. I guess it all depends on the contributor, the content of the post, the commenter(s) and the mood of the reader at the time of the reading. I’ve heard the site has changed its tone some (I’ve only been around since October) and I’m happy to shit-talk w/ the best of ’em — and never get “offended” or scared of stoopidity — so… I dunno.
What I like here is the DIY old-school Maximum Rock ‘n’ Roll attitude, the community engagement, the dialogue, the information, the range of art works represented (from poems to movies) and the Lit chat. The vibe reminds me of the alt weeklies I’ve written for for years. Editors want “controversy” or critical confrontation b/c it makes readers react. Underscoring Darby’s point above, I *never* get feedback on my more artist-friendly features or reviews, no matter how thoughtful or accurately rendered. But when I diss some “rockstar” with scores of fans, I get threatened — literally — and editors love that shit. I wonder if there’s a happy medium, or if this is just, as Darby implies, the result of human nature.
Top thumbs-down responses I’ve heard from women (writers, readers, artists) I’ve tried to turn on to HTMLGiant: 1) mean boys club; 2) circle jerk of self-promotion; 3) elitist b.s.
I dunno. I can see this stuff sometimes but don’t see it mostly. I guess it all depends on the contributor, the content of the post, the commenter(s) and the mood of the reader at the time of the reading. I’ve heard the site has changed its tone some (I’ve only been around since October) and I’m happy to shit-talk w/ the best of ’em — and never get “offended” or scared of stoopidity — so… I dunno.
What I like here is the DIY old-school Maximum Rock ‘n’ Roll attitude, the community engagement, the dialogue, the information, the range of art works represented (from poems to movies) and the Lit chat. The vibe reminds me of the alt weeklies I’ve written for for years. Editors want “controversy” or critical confrontation b/c it makes readers react. Underscoring Darby’s point above, I *never* get feedback on my more artist-friendly features or reviews, no matter how thoughtful or accurately rendered. But when I diss some “rockstar” with scores of fans, I get threatened — literally — and editors love that shit. I wonder if there’s a happy medium, or if this is just, as Darby implies, the result of human nature.
I was reading the comments on cnn.com during the oscars and man–you wanna talk about misogynist AND racist comments. That place was infested with them.
I was reading the comments on cnn.com during the oscars and man–you wanna talk about misogynist AND racist comments. That place was infested with them.
I was reading the comments on cnn.com during the oscars and man–you wanna talk about misogynist AND racist comments. That place was infested with them.
Thanks for the post, Justin. I will say that I’ve never, ever felt uncomfortable on here. I’m really surprised that some people do, I guess. Not to speak for others, but I don’t really get that somebody wouldn’t come here for all the good stuff and engage–just because of a few comments. Maybe it’s because I come from the political world, or maybe I’ve got thick skin, or both, but if somebody’s being a fuckwad on purpose it’s never offensive to me personally and I never feel like it’s the poster’s fault if the discussion gets out of hand. (I mean, unless the poster started the discussion in the first place, which is pretty rare here.) I would hate if comments were moderated or banned here, because the free and open discussion is one of the things I like about HTML so much. It’s a long way from 4Chan here. I don’t really think there’s much misogyny here, to be honest–just some dumb comments made by people who need to grow up.
Thanks for the post, Justin. I will say that I’ve never, ever felt uncomfortable on here. I’m really surprised that some people do, I guess. Not to speak for others, but I don’t really get that somebody wouldn’t come here for all the good stuff and engage–just because of a few comments. Maybe it’s because I come from the political world, or maybe I’ve got thick skin, or both, but if somebody’s being a fuckwad on purpose it’s never offensive to me personally and I never feel like it’s the poster’s fault if the discussion gets out of hand. (I mean, unless the poster started the discussion in the first place, which is pretty rare here.) I would hate if comments were moderated or banned here, because the free and open discussion is one of the things I like about HTML so much. It’s a long way from 4Chan here. I don’t really think there’s much misogyny here, to be honest–just some dumb comments made by people who need to grow up.
Thanks for the post, Justin. I will say that I’ve never, ever felt uncomfortable on here. I’m really surprised that some people do, I guess. Not to speak for others, but I don’t really get that somebody wouldn’t come here for all the good stuff and engage–just because of a few comments. Maybe it’s because I come from the political world, or maybe I’ve got thick skin, or both, but if somebody’s being a fuckwad on purpose it’s never offensive to me personally and I never feel like it’s the poster’s fault if the discussion gets out of hand. (I mean, unless the poster started the discussion in the first place, which is pretty rare here.) I would hate if comments were moderated or banned here, because the free and open discussion is one of the things I like about HTML so much. It’s a long way from 4Chan here. I don’t really think there’s much misogyny here, to be honest–just some dumb comments made by people who need to grow up.
Seriously. Not just during the Oscars–go hang out on the CNN comments–or crap, even Politico’s comments–anytime if you want to be really, really depressed about humanity. Not to mention read all the different creative ways people can express their pissy-ness at having a black president. Yuck.
Seriously. Not just during the Oscars–go hang out on the CNN comments–or crap, even Politico’s comments–anytime if you want to be really, really depressed about humanity. Not to mention read all the different creative ways people can express their pissy-ness at having a black president. Yuck.
Seriously. Not just during the Oscars–go hang out on the CNN comments–or crap, even Politico’s comments–anytime if you want to be really, really depressed about humanity. Not to mention read all the different creative ways people can express their pissy-ness at having a black president. Yuck.
I’d say you can generalize this to any major media source. Even our local newspaper’s comment sections are overrun with it.
I’d say you can generalize this to any major media source. Even our local newspaper’s comment sections are overrun with it.
CNN is such a fratboy party.
CNN is such a fratboy party.
CNN is such a fratboy party.
This is an interesting post. I think the world is a misogynistic and racist place so any of that filtering into HTMLGIANT is a pretty accurate reflection of the world at large. It is short sighted to think that HTMLGIANT is the nexus of the problem. People often misjudge this place. I know I used to before I started actively commenting (and eventually contributing. Many of my friends won’t even come here because they have preconceived notions about the community. That stance bums me out because judging this place as misogynistic and/or racist and/or whatever without really taking the time to see what’s going on is just as bad as the anarchic nature of certain comment threads.
The only thing that made me think hard about contributing was the comments because I’m a big baby. This place does help you develop a thicker skin, that’s for sure. While sometimes frustrating, HTMLGIANT commenters have also challenged me to rethink some of my ideas and positions and I’ve learned a hell of a lot. There are some really smart, funny people participating in this site and there’s also a really nice level of crazy which I appreciate. The open exchange of ideas, whether or not you support those ideas, is pretty important.
The comments on the Molly Young piece, for example, really surprised me because the thread was so random. I was just so shocked by the ugly thing that post became. It was like you’re walking outside on a really nice day and someone throws a brick at your head. Totally out of left field. I rarely see that happen here and when it does, I must say there’s some method to the comment madness–the crazy is generally addressed by other members of the community and dismissed quite quickly. As Blake points out earlier in the thread, moderating the community would not be pleasant or even feasible and this is the Internet. You can walk away.
This is an interesting post. I think the world is a misogynistic and racist place so any of that filtering into HTMLGIANT is a pretty accurate reflection of the world at large. It is short sighted to think that HTMLGIANT is the nexus of the problem. People often misjudge this place. I know I used to before I started actively commenting (and eventually contributing. Many of my friends won’t even come here because they have preconceived notions about the community. That stance bums me out because judging this place as misogynistic and/or racist and/or whatever without really taking the time to see what’s going on is just as bad as the anarchic nature of certain comment threads.
The only thing that made me think hard about contributing was the comments because I’m a big baby. This place does help you develop a thicker skin, that’s for sure. While sometimes frustrating, HTMLGIANT commenters have also challenged me to rethink some of my ideas and positions and I’ve learned a hell of a lot. There are some really smart, funny people participating in this site and there’s also a really nice level of crazy which I appreciate. The open exchange of ideas, whether or not you support those ideas, is pretty important.
The comments on the Molly Young piece, for example, really surprised me because the thread was so random. I was just so shocked by the ugly thing that post became. It was like you’re walking outside on a really nice day and someone throws a brick at your head. Totally out of left field. I rarely see that happen here and when it does, I must say there’s some method to the comment madness–the crazy is generally addressed by other members of the community and dismissed quite quickly. As Blake points out earlier in the thread, moderating the community would not be pleasant or even feasible and this is the Internet. You can walk away.
Yeah, I can’t read comments on Yahoo! News or CNN or USA Today without losing it. There was an article on my dad in USA Today a couple weeks ago and the ignorance in the comments was so… infuriating. I try to ignore the community aspects of major news sites. Nothing good can come of it.
Yeah, I can’t read comments on Yahoo! News or CNN or USA Today without losing it. There was an article on my dad in USA Today a couple weeks ago and the ignorance in the comments was so… infuriating. I try to ignore the community aspects of major news sites. Nothing good can come of it.
Yeah, I can’t read comments on Yahoo! News or CNN or USA Today without losing it. There was an article on my dad in USA Today a couple weeks ago and the ignorance in the comments was so… infuriating. I try to ignore the community aspects of major news sites. Nothing good can come of it.
ZZZZIPPP THOUGHT MAYBE IT WAS HIM WHO CHANGED
BUT MAYBE THE SITE CHANGED AS WELL
INTERESTING
I ENJOY THIS WEBSITE
ZZZZIPPP THOUGHT MAYBE IT WAS HIM WHO CHANGED
BUT MAYBE THE SITE CHANGED AS WELL
INTERESTING
I ENJOY THIS WEBSITE
ZZZZIPPP THOUGHT MAYBE IT WAS HIM WHO CHANGED
BUT MAYBE THE SITE CHANGED AS WELL
INTERESTING
I ENJOY THIS WEBSITE
I’m with you Roxane. But to clarify- just because we aren’t the nexus of the problem (and God knows we’re not) that doesn’t excuse us from confronting whatever our issues are as they arise. We owe it to ourselves to be our best selves, and since that’s impossible, we have to do the next best thing, which is try and keep getting better all the time. I suspect we are in agreement on this point.
I’m with you Roxane. But to clarify- just because we aren’t the nexus of the problem (and God knows we’re not) that doesn’t excuse us from confronting whatever our issues are as they arise. We owe it to ourselves to be our best selves, and since that’s impossible, we have to do the next best thing, which is try and keep getting better all the time. I suspect we are in agreement on this point.
I’m with you Roxane. But to clarify- just because we aren’t the nexus of the problem (and God knows we’re not) that doesn’t excuse us from confronting whatever our issues are as they arise. We owe it to ourselves to be our best selves, and since that’s impossible, we have to do the next best thing, which is try and keep getting better all the time. I suspect we are in agreement on this point.
Are comments reflective of a site?
My running joke/insight (if that) is that internet comments on ANY site seem to bring out some weird Id/sub thing, usually racist, sexist, or just some aggressive attack. You can go to Youtube or CNN or whatever site and read/watch ANY thing and a few comments down here comes the hate speech and the comments on women or something crude about homosexuals.
Does that make Youtube a hate site? Should youtube be reflected/immersed/judged in comments? I just wonder if some comments aren’t like people calling into radio shows. A distorted mirror?
I’m asking.
Are comments reflective of a site?
My running joke/insight (if that) is that internet comments on ANY site seem to bring out some weird Id/sub thing, usually racist, sexist, or just some aggressive attack. You can go to Youtube or CNN or whatever site and read/watch ANY thing and a few comments down here comes the hate speech and the comments on women or something crude about homosexuals.
Does that make Youtube a hate site? Should youtube be reflected/immersed/judged in comments? I just wonder if some comments aren’t like people calling into radio shows. A distorted mirror?
I’m asking.
Are comments reflective of a site?
My running joke/insight (if that) is that internet comments on ANY site seem to bring out some weird Id/sub thing, usually racist, sexist, or just some aggressive attack. You can go to Youtube or CNN or whatever site and read/watch ANY thing and a few comments down here comes the hate speech and the comments on women or something crude about homosexuals.
Does that make Youtube a hate site? Should youtube be reflected/immersed/judged in comments? I just wonder if some comments aren’t like people calling into radio shows. A distorted mirror?
I’m asking.
I just scrolled up and others made a similar point. Still.
I just scrolled up and others made a similar point. Still.
I just scrolled up and others made a similar point. Still.
Oh Justin, I totally agree. We shouldn’t ignore the problems at all, and I would actually like to see us address these kinds of issues more directly, more often.
Oh Justin, I totally agree. We shouldn’t ignore the problems at all, and I would actually like to see us address these kinds of issues more directly, more often.
Oh Justin, I totally agree. We shouldn’t ignore the problems at all, and I would actually like to see us address these kinds of issues more directly, more often.
how
how
I like that: a distorted mirror. And yet more like Justin says: reflective of our culture b/c we cannot escape it even while we may at times confront it.
I like that: a distorted mirror. And yet more like Justin says: reflective of our culture b/c we cannot escape it even while we may at times confront it.
how
I like that: a distorted mirror. And yet more like Justin says: reflective of our culture b/c we cannot escape it even while we may at times confront it.
I’m with Gena on this one.
I’m with a lot of people on this one, apparently.
When has censorship ever been the answer?
I mean, unless of course you’re a Facist . . .
I’m with Gena on this one.
I’m with a lot of people on this one, apparently.
When has censorship ever been the answer?
I mean, unless of course you’re a Facist . . .
I’m not sure who said it–Lacan, maybe?–but doesn’t the internet give us privileged access to something essential about identity, namely multiplicity? I can be whoever the fuck I want on the internet, take up whichever voice I want. My identity is completely fluid.
I dunno. I’m watching this right now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izGw9QGMVuY
I’m not sure who said it–Lacan, maybe?–but doesn’t the internet give us privileged access to something essential about identity, namely multiplicity? I can be whoever the fuck I want on the internet, take up whichever voice I want. My identity is completely fluid.
I dunno. I’m watching this right now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izGw9QGMVuY
I’m with Gena on this one.
I’m with a lot of people on this one, apparently.
When has censorship ever been the answer?
I mean, unless of course you’re a Facist . . .
I’m not sure who said it–Lacan, maybe?–but doesn’t the internet give us privileged access to something essential about identity, namely multiplicity? I can be whoever the fuck I want on the internet, take up whichever voice I want. My identity is completely fluid.
I dunno. I’m watching this right now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izGw9QGMVuY
e.g. this very thread. I often feel old and flat-footed when I visit the Giant, but conversations like this one make me believe its regular contributors’ wills are essentially good, that your intentions are more toward construction than destruction (some thoughtful periodic destruction is vital and valuable, of course), and that it’s worth the risk of a little daily pollution from vitriol and occasional small-hearted (small-minded) contempt in order to expose my all-too-jaded self to the earnest efforts at paying attention that are often taking place here.
e.g. this very thread. I often feel old and flat-footed when I visit the Giant, but conversations like this one make me believe its regular contributors’ wills are essentially good, that your intentions are more toward construction than destruction (some thoughtful periodic destruction is vital and valuable, of course), and that it’s worth the risk of a little daily pollution from vitriol and occasional small-hearted (small-minded) contempt in order to expose my all-too-jaded self to the earnest efforts at paying attention that are often taking place here.
e.g. this very thread. I often feel old and flat-footed when I visit the Giant, but conversations like this one make me believe its regular contributors’ wills are essentially good, that your intentions are more toward construction than destruction (some thoughtful periodic destruction is vital and valuable, of course), and that it’s worth the risk of a little daily pollution from vitriol and occasional small-hearted (small-minded) contempt in order to expose my all-too-jaded self to the earnest efforts at paying attention that are often taking place here.
That’s a good question Blake for which I don’t have a good answer but I do think posts like this one are a step in the right direction. I think people have a lot of questions or thoughts or concerns about HTMLGIANT, and to address them this openly feels like a good thing, sort of like periodic town hall meetings to talk about shit that’s gone down.
That’s a good question Blake for which I don’t have a good answer but I do think posts like this one are a step in the right direction. I think people have a lot of questions or thoughts or concerns about HTMLGIANT, and to address them this openly feels like a good thing, sort of like periodic town hall meetings to talk about shit that’s gone down.
That’s a good question Blake for which I don’t have a good answer but I do think posts like this one are a step in the right direction. I think people have a lot of questions or thoughts or concerns about HTMLGIANT, and to address them this openly feels like a good thing, sort of like periodic town hall meetings to talk about shit that’s gone down.
You ask ‘how’ Blake and I dunno, is it perhaps a quantity thing? If one dude left a comment about Molly Young’s looks and then the rest were making specific comments abour her work and Justin’s post, then the magnitude of those comments would have diminished. I think, especially for you posters, when it’s clear a comments section is misrepresenting you and your subject matter you most certainly should criticise those who would prefer to demean your work and subject matter. I think stepping aside, saying that dialoging with these people is below you is putting ideals before sense. Part of the problem, it seems to me, was that the inane comments came out in numbers, so if HTMLGiant wants to maintain its open-forum policy the proponents of this site, its thinkers, its critics, but especially its pool of readers, must engage and criticise. To me, the difficult balance is in finding a way not to put these morons on the defensive, since it’s these times that they’re the most offensive with their comments as they try to make a point. I think new commenters and those who feel vulnerable faced with notions of racism and misogyny and consequently don’t comment need the unintimidated to comment more, so that the notion that there are those out there who will support their comments are in equal or greater number to those who get a kick out of ridiculing people and making stupid comments. But it is such a shame Giant seems to have a reputation for this. I’m quite new to this site and I’m familiar with the idiocy at times, but not the downright offensive.
You ask ‘how’ Blake and I dunno, is it perhaps a quantity thing? If one dude left a comment about Molly Young’s looks and then the rest were making specific comments abour her work and Justin’s post, then the magnitude of those comments would have diminished. I think, especially for you posters, when it’s clear a comments section is misrepresenting you and your subject matter you most certainly should criticise those who would prefer to demean your work and subject matter. I think stepping aside, saying that dialoging with these people is below you is putting ideals before sense. Part of the problem, it seems to me, was that the inane comments came out in numbers, so if HTMLGiant wants to maintain its open-forum policy the proponents of this site, its thinkers, its critics, but especially its pool of readers, must engage and criticise. To me, the difficult balance is in finding a way not to put these morons on the defensive, since it’s these times that they’re the most offensive with their comments as they try to make a point. I think new commenters and those who feel vulnerable faced with notions of racism and misogyny and consequently don’t comment need the unintimidated to comment more, so that the notion that there are those out there who will support their comments are in equal or greater number to those who get a kick out of ridiculing people and making stupid comments. But it is such a shame Giant seems to have a reputation for this. I’m quite new to this site and I’m familiar with the idiocy at times, but not the downright offensive.
You ask ‘how’ Blake and I dunno, is it perhaps a quantity thing? If one dude left a comment about Molly Young’s looks and then the rest were making specific comments abour her work and Justin’s post, then the magnitude of those comments would have diminished. I think, especially for you posters, when it’s clear a comments section is misrepresenting you and your subject matter you most certainly should criticise those who would prefer to demean your work and subject matter. I think stepping aside, saying that dialoging with these people is below you is putting ideals before sense. Part of the problem, it seems to me, was that the inane comments came out in numbers, so if HTMLGiant wants to maintain its open-forum policy the proponents of this site, its thinkers, its critics, but especially its pool of readers, must engage and criticise. To me, the difficult balance is in finding a way not to put these morons on the defensive, since it’s these times that they’re the most offensive with their comments as they try to make a point. I think new commenters and those who feel vulnerable faced with notions of racism and misogyny and consequently don’t comment need the unintimidated to comment more, so that the notion that there are those out there who will support their comments are in equal or greater number to those who get a kick out of ridiculing people and making stupid comments. But it is such a shame Giant seems to have a reputation for this. I’m quite new to this site and I’m familiar with the idiocy at times, but not the downright offensive.
I would argue that we’re all naturally fluid, Alec. There is no solid “self.”
I would argue that we’re all naturally fluid, Alec. There is no solid “self.”
I would argue that we’re all naturally fluid, Alec. There is no solid “self.”
so, posting about the problem helps the problem?
i guess so. i’d rather do the real thing: that is, talking about the work at hand. this is sidebar, i feel. but i’m just me. but fair enough.
so, posting about the problem helps the problem?
i guess so. i’d rather do the real thing: that is, talking about the work at hand. this is sidebar, i feel. but i’m just me. but fair enough.
so, posting about the problem helps the problem?
i guess so. i’d rather do the real thing: that is, talking about the work at hand. this is sidebar, i feel. but i’m just me. but fair enough.
I missed this infamous Molly Young post, and I’m bummed, Corey. I count myself among the unintimidated. If I had been around and in the right frame of mind and time, I would have happily vanquished the haters. Ignorance brings out the fangs. Another time…
I missed this infamous Molly Young post, and I’m bummed, Corey. I count myself among the unintimidated. If I had been around and in the right frame of mind and time, I would have happily vanquished the haters. Ignorance brings out the fangs. Another time…
I missed this infamous Molly Young post, and I’m bummed, Corey. I count myself among the unintimidated. If I had been around and in the right frame of mind and time, I would have happily vanquished the haters. Ignorance brings out the fangs. Another time…
Yuh, but, to put it simply, I usually misrecognize a solidity in myself.
Yuh, but, to put it simply, I usually misrecognize a solidity in myself.
Yuh, but, to put it simply, I usually misrecognize a solidity in myself.
ZZZZIPP– please don’t ever change!
ZZZZIPP– please don’t ever change!
but wait. one answer to the question says that addressing these things is how you fix it. then here you mention that the quantity in addressing is the problem.
the answer is that there is no win. because everyone has an opinion. and conflict comes out of gathering, esp. anytime anybody mentions anything about any ‘tagged’ notion
and so, in moving forward, it seems obvious to me that this will happen, and the only way to proceed is to proceed. it’s just too ridiculous otherwise.
/end my thinking on this at all/
but wait. one answer to the question says that addressing these things is how you fix it. then here you mention that the quantity in addressing is the problem.
the answer is that there is no win. because everyone has an opinion. and conflict comes out of gathering, esp. anytime anybody mentions anything about any ‘tagged’ notion
and so, in moving forward, it seems obvious to me that this will happen, and the only way to proceed is to proceed. it’s just too ridiculous otherwise.
/end my thinking on this at all/
ZZZZIPP– please don’t ever change!
but wait. one answer to the question says that addressing these things is how you fix it. then here you mention that the quantity in addressing is the problem.
the answer is that there is no win. because everyone has an opinion. and conflict comes out of gathering, esp. anytime anybody mentions anything about any ‘tagged’ notion
and so, in moving forward, it seems obvious to me that this will happen, and the only way to proceed is to proceed. it’s just too ridiculous otherwise.
/end my thinking on this at all/
I do think talking about the problem helps the problem. So often it feels like we pretend fucked up shit didn’t just happen and for some, the perception is silence = consent or agreement with the fucked uppedness. Now, perception isn’t reality and you certainly don’t have to do anything but you want to do but I don’t think its a bad idea to, once in a while, address issues more directly.
I do think talking about the problem helps the problem. So often it feels like we pretend fucked up shit didn’t just happen and for some, the perception is silence = consent or agreement with the fucked uppedness. Now, perception isn’t reality and you certainly don’t have to do anything but you want to do but I don’t think its a bad idea to, once in a while, address issues more directly.
I do think talking about the problem helps the problem. So often it feels like we pretend fucked up shit didn’t just happen and for some, the perception is silence = consent or agreement with the fucked uppedness. Now, perception isn’t reality and you certainly don’t have to do anything but you want to do but I don’t think its a bad idea to, once in a while, address issues more directly.
JUSTIN TAYLOR THAT MAY BE HARD FOR ME TO DO
I AM CURRENTLY A PHOTON
AND I WOULD LIKE TO GO TO THE BATHROOM
JUSTIN TAYLOR THAT MAY BE HARD FOR ME TO DO
I AM CURRENTLY A PHOTON
AND I WOULD LIKE TO GO TO THE BATHROOM
JUSTIN TAYLOR THAT MAY BE HARD FOR ME TO DO
I AM CURRENTLY A PHOTON
AND I WOULD LIKE TO GO TO THE BATHROOM
hey learn how to spell it if you want to use it in a sentence, Paul. beyond that- I refer you to my comments above re how I don’t conceive of this as a censorship issue. We strive to be a vital public resource but at the end of the day we are not a community swimming pool and we are not a town hall meeting. Unlike a government, we make no claims on your individual sovereignty, your compliance with our standards is non-compulsory, just as is our tolerance of your presence. This is what I mean when I call our various associations here voluntary. We do not offer you inalienable rights or citizenship of any kind, such as the Constitutional right to freedom of speech, a right of which I am 100% in support–a vociferous advocate and defender, to be sure.
But we are not a government. We are not funded by taxpayer dollars and though we try to be responsive to our public, we are not ultimately answerable to them. We are a private outfit (an LLC to be specific) and are entitled to regulate the content we produce, promote, and host (in the form of leaving it up in our threads) the same as any other publication–for moral, aesthetic, or any other subjective reason we choose. For the most part, our choice is zero-regulation, and there is obviously an active moral injunction that exists here to keep reg at zero as much as possible, but having a strong preference is not the same as having an ironclad rule. You want to protest on public land, that’s your right as an American. You want to smear shit on my living room walls–that’s not. A private outfit with a public face and forum is kind of like a guy throwing a houseparty. Everybody is welcome until they prove that they aren’t.
hey learn how to spell it if you want to use it in a sentence, Paul. beyond that- I refer you to my comments above re how I don’t conceive of this as a censorship issue. We strive to be a vital public resource but at the end of the day we are not a community swimming pool and we are not a town hall meeting. Unlike a government, we make no claims on your individual sovereignty, your compliance with our standards is non-compulsory, just as is our tolerance of your presence. This is what I mean when I call our various associations here voluntary. We do not offer you inalienable rights or citizenship of any kind, such as the Constitutional right to freedom of speech, a right of which I am 100% in support–a vociferous advocate and defender, to be sure.
But we are not a government. We are not funded by taxpayer dollars and though we try to be responsive to our public, we are not ultimately answerable to them. We are a private outfit (an LLC to be specific) and are entitled to regulate the content we produce, promote, and host (in the form of leaving it up in our threads) the same as any other publication–for moral, aesthetic, or any other subjective reason we choose. For the most part, our choice is zero-regulation, and there is obviously an active moral injunction that exists here to keep reg at zero as much as possible, but having a strong preference is not the same as having an ironclad rule. You want to protest on public land, that’s your right as an American. You want to smear shit on my living room walls–that’s not. A private outfit with a public face and forum is kind of like a guy throwing a houseparty. Everybody is welcome until they prove that they aren’t.
hey learn how to spell it if you want to use it in a sentence, Paul. beyond that- I refer you to my comments above re how I don’t conceive of this as a censorship issue. We strive to be a vital public resource but at the end of the day we are not a community swimming pool and we are not a town hall meeting. Unlike a government, we make no claims on your individual sovereignty, your compliance with our standards is non-compulsory, just as is our tolerance of your presence. This is what I mean when I call our various associations here voluntary. We do not offer you inalienable rights or citizenship of any kind, such as the Constitutional right to freedom of speech, a right of which I am 100% in support–a vociferous advocate and defender, to be sure.
But we are not a government. We are not funded by taxpayer dollars and though we try to be responsive to our public, we are not ultimately answerable to them. We are a private outfit (an LLC to be specific) and are entitled to regulate the content we produce, promote, and host (in the form of leaving it up in our threads) the same as any other publication–for moral, aesthetic, or any other subjective reason we choose. For the most part, our choice is zero-regulation, and there is obviously an active moral injunction that exists here to keep reg at zero as much as possible, but having a strong preference is not the same as having an ironclad rule. You want to protest on public land, that’s your right as an American. You want to smear shit on my living room walls–that’s not. A private outfit with a public face and forum is kind of like a guy throwing a houseparty. Everybody is welcome until they prove that they aren’t.
just let it goooooo… man. “you” don’t exist. this is not a problem.
just let it goooooo… man. “you” don’t exist. this is not a problem.
just let it goooooo… man. “you” don’t exist. this is not a problem.
Hold on, I’m taking ZZZZIPP to the bathroom.
Hold on, I’m taking ZZZZIPP to the bathroom.
Hold on, I’m taking ZZZZIPP to the bathroom.
I think addressing it like here is something. Taking it seriously. Dialoging about it. Now I feel like I’m sort of fucking human relations person, and I’m bored with myself. But I think, yeah, not ignoring it.
I think addressing it like here is something. Taking it seriously. Dialoging about it. Now I feel like I’m sort of fucking human relations person, and I’m bored with myself. But I think, yeah, not ignoring it.
I think addressing it like here is something. Taking it seriously. Dialoging about it. Now I feel like I’m sort of fucking human relations person, and I’m bored with myself. But I think, yeah, not ignoring it.
please dont have periodic town hall meetings.
i dont know why everyones trying to fix a problem anyway. what problem? i didnt understand why people got so bothered by those mollyyoung comments. so big deal, the chick is cute, maybe justins infatuated? haha. probably not though, who cares. (who cares!) oh my god my poor misogyny. (am i misogynist to think a woman is pretty? im so confused!) dont call me misogyny! obviously literature trumps every thing every 1 says in comments. comments in the internet? go bead a rook for sod gakes! so to even be bothered by it seems more pathetic to me. dont people know people are people that like to push our fun buttons? the more this place attempts to move toward a moral or political center, like lets *fix* our attitude, lets be more *diverse,* how bout lets just learn me bout sum literapoison and quit not laughing. stop fixing the air and breathe it.
please dont have periodic town hall meetings.
i dont know why everyones trying to fix a problem anyway. what problem? i didnt understand why people got so bothered by those mollyyoung comments. so big deal, the chick is cute, maybe justins infatuated? haha. probably not though, who cares. (who cares!) oh my god my poor misogyny. (am i misogynist to think a woman is pretty? im so confused!) dont call me misogyny! obviously literature trumps every thing every 1 says in comments. comments in the internet? go bead a rook for sod gakes! so to even be bothered by it seems more pathetic to me. dont people know people are people that like to push our fun buttons? the more this place attempts to move toward a moral or political center, like lets *fix* our attitude, lets be more *diverse,* how bout lets just learn me bout sum literapoison and quit not laughing. stop fixing the air and breathe it.
please dont have periodic town hall meetings.
i dont know why everyones trying to fix a problem anyway. what problem? i didnt understand why people got so bothered by those mollyyoung comments. so big deal, the chick is cute, maybe justins infatuated? haha. probably not though, who cares. (who cares!) oh my god my poor misogyny. (am i misogynist to think a woman is pretty? im so confused!) dont call me misogyny! obviously literature trumps every thing every 1 says in comments. comments in the internet? go bead a rook for sod gakes! so to even be bothered by it seems more pathetic to me. dont people know people are people that like to push our fun buttons? the more this place attempts to move toward a moral or political center, like lets *fix* our attitude, lets be more *diverse,* how bout lets just learn me bout sum literapoison and quit not laughing. stop fixing the air and breathe it.
Пожалуйста! I MEAN, THANKS MAN
Пожалуйста! I MEAN, THANKS MAN
Пожалуйста! I MEAN, THANKS MAN
I was not being literal with the term town hall meeting. For Pete’s sake.
I was not being literal with the term town hall meeting. For Pete’s sake.
I was not being literal with the term town hall meeting. For Pete’s sake.
i wasnt either. don’t do something periodic that may vaguely resemble a town hall meeting, then. that’s my revised suggestion.
i wasnt either. don’t do something periodic that may vaguely resemble a town hall meeting, then. that’s my revised suggestion.
i wasnt either. don’t do something periodic that may vaguely resemble a town hall meeting, then. that’s my revised suggestion.
I don’t have anything really constructive to add, other than I appreciate all the effort that the editors and contributors put into this site, how HTMLG has introduced me to some amazing works, etc, etc.
Keep up the good work, people. Obviously I don’t think the site condones any comments I perceive as stupid or offensive, and I don’t care that those comments exist, as long as there are other good comments (and there always are) and that the posts continue to be as interesting and fun as they have been for the past 18 mos. (or so?). Anyway, thanks for existing, Blake et al.
I don’t have anything really constructive to add, other than I appreciate all the effort that the editors and contributors put into this site, how HTMLG has introduced me to some amazing works, etc, etc.
Keep up the good work, people. Obviously I don’t think the site condones any comments I perceive as stupid or offensive, and I don’t care that those comments exist, as long as there are other good comments (and there always are) and that the posts continue to be as interesting and fun as they have been for the past 18 mos. (or so?). Anyway, thanks for existing, Blake et al.
I don’t have anything really constructive to add, other than I appreciate all the effort that the editors and contributors put into this site, how HTMLG has introduced me to some amazing works, etc, etc.
Keep up the good work, people. Obviously I don’t think the site condones any comments I perceive as stupid or offensive, and I don’t care that those comments exist, as long as there are other good comments (and there always are) and that the posts continue to be as interesting and fun as they have been for the past 18 mos. (or so?). Anyway, thanks for existing, Blake et al.
We’ll have to respectfully disagree. I think ignoring problems and complex issues is ridiculous.
We’ll have to respectfully disagree. I think ignoring problems and complex issues is ridiculous.
We’ll have to respectfully disagree. I think ignoring problems and complex issues is ridiculous.
i second this. im a shitbag here sometimes but honestly, i wouldnt’ve found poets like heather christle etc and learned like an mfa’s worth of stuff if not for this place. keep doing it. thanks.
i second this. im a shitbag here sometimes but honestly, i wouldnt’ve found poets like heather christle etc and learned like an mfa’s worth of stuff if not for this place. keep doing it. thanks.
i second this. im a shitbag here sometimes but honestly, i wouldnt’ve found poets like heather christle etc and learned like an mfa’s worth of stuff if not for this place. keep doing it. thanks.
how does CNN respond to their trolls?
how does CNN respond to their trolls?
how does CNN respond to their trolls?
thanks molly
thanks molly
thanks molly
move here! everyone else has/will/might…
move here! everyone else has/will/might…
move here! everyone else has/will/might…
totally agree
totally agree
ZZZZIPP, you’re my favorite troll, in that you’re not a troll at all, but a character, and you actually contribute worthwhile awesome on regular occasion.
ZZZZIPP, you’re my favorite troll, in that you’re not a troll at all, but a character, and you actually contribute worthwhile awesome on regular occasion.
totally agree
ZZZZIPP, you’re my favorite troll, in that you’re not a troll at all, but a character, and you actually contribute worthwhile awesome on regular occasion.
This post was really interesting and the comments, almost all of them, have been really cool. (By the way, thanks for the nod, Justin; I hope you know I have nothing but the greatest respect for your thought too, even when I’m disagreeing). On the misogyny thing. The weird snowballing dick-measuring show that Molly Young post totally inexplicably inspired was a disgrace but I didn’t bother to say anything in it or to it precisely because it’s disgracefulness seemed patent – I felt that anyone who did not think that thread was misoygnistic, just by seeing it, would hardly be convinced by anything I had to add or subtract – and Justin’s own early intervention had more than doubled for my own complete distaste at it. I also agree with what Ken says above too that actually letting these shit remarks be seen has its (inadvertent) importance, too. But the shaming aspect has its limits because mostly – almost invariably actually – these comments are made as anonymous and faux-anonymous posts, so that they may be shameless, really only going to show that there’s an essential chickenshit gutlessness they already cop to but which is justified, I suppose, to them and gussied up by them as the same old, tired, thinks its iconoclastic but isnt, anti-PC cynicism that no matter how many times you attack as a bullshit enemy returns and returns in this place (and in the culture more broadly) and thrives on attacking the straw (wo)man of humourlesness through its cynically provocative (but sincere precisely because it feels ‘free’ enough of misoygyny to be provocative) ‘goofing’ at the expense of just basic civility and the more interesting kind of joke that’s both irreverent and multivalent, which allows more than just you and your jibbering cronies to laugh at it.
I wouldn’t say this place is some central node for misogynistic or racist or heterosexist statements and I certainly don’t think it promotes those ideas in any way. I have said before and will say again that it is too enamored with the idea that idea that the lines between ignorance and intelligence. The moments I tend to weigh in, personally, are on issues I feel are more related to this and are to engage with the people I know, like, read and respect here. Like, to take an example, the orthodoxy this place puts out that words are words when words are not just words. It’s much more complicated than that. Words are realities. What kinds of realities words are in any given moment is the vexed question. And not all realities are the same. Why would we even be interested in literature if people were people. People are not people. People are persons. Though that is not the same as saying they are individuals. Or the general participation of this place in using rights oriented efforts to bring representational inequalities into the foreground as something it dismisses in very simplistic and often snarky and reproachful ways. Or the (principled) decision of this place to invite provocativeness but then be somewhat anti-rigorous toward what actually is provocative in a culture that thrives on faux-provocation and what is just more of the lame old same.
The PC person is so much a subject supposed to believe, someone we need to believe in more than anyone that actually exists, that the question of whether or not they exist is entirely loaded by the stakes in looking for them. When someone lodges a complaint about what they see as prejudice and so on, you may legitimately feel they’re mistaken – we saw this cynicism played recently by the right in Sarah Palin’s totally manipulative offense about Rahm Emanuel’s use of the word ‘retarded’ (and Emanuel’s totally cynical – and what I would argue is actually PC – response of getting in contact with a representative of the disabled to ‘apologise’, rather than, if he really did experience bad conscience, committing to doing something serious for disability rights, which, in his position of power, could actually matter). The problem, however, is how everyone is already so conscientiousness that no one really needs to experience bad conscience anymore. It irks me that anyone who says ‘I think this is misogynistic, or racist, or heterosexist, or classist’ and so on finds themselves faced not by cogent counter-response but almost immediately met with psychologising dismissals – hyper-sensitivity – or intimations of authoritarianism – censoriousness – designed to isolate the objector and mute their objection.
On censorship, what I find curious is how useful a concept it is for the status quo, how much it’s referred to when very few ever suggest it or, for that matter, have the power to enforce it. In the wider culture, when a rights group draws attention down on a representation that imports prejudice under the patina of ‘goofiness’, the response is immediately that the ‘PC’ crowd that brought this up is censorious and just obsessed with finding their persecution in any place that they can (another psychologising dismissal). But what is the bringing to attention of the problem censorious of except the shitty cultural jouissance that thrives on special reserves of incivility for certain categories of person who are humourless wreckers if they aren’t taking the joke as a joke? For instance, while the designation of something as ‘gay’ to deem it botched or shit is hardly neutral toward me as a gay guy, were I to express discontent at the way that phrase generalizes phobia into a regime of aesthetics, I’d probably be told I’m overreacting and to ‘chillax’. In actual fact, someone calling something ‘gay’ in that way doesn’t necessarily bother me – or if it did, I’d be fucked basically, it’s so systemic, which is kind of my contextual point – but one of the assumptions within the ‘hyper-sensitivity’ slander is that minorities aren’t already exercising quite sophisticated judgments about what is or is not offensive to them in a culture that pathologises them in a thousand implicit ways then exempts itself from responsibility under the free speech clause it claims only for itself at any moment. What is not thinkable is that someone against shit talk could also be for free speech, that to call out the mind-numbing bigotries of our culture is not the same as being censorious but is actually something we need to do to have some new free speech, not the same old shit freely repeated.
I personally defend what’s branded PC – and, despite the orthodoxy that it rules the world, few actually do defend it – precisely because it’s so hated as a starting position by cultural consensus and because it’s so manipulated by its enemies. To me, PC is simply a process of broadening and dispersing. If I’m an editor about to make a list of best authors for the year, to not have a woman on that list, for example, is a sign that I don’t know enough about the field I think I’m qualified to draw up a list of best authors in. PC doesn’t argue you have to include a person because they are a minority; it argues that no truly comprehensive survey of talent could leave minorities out. I’m not talking here about our personal interests: most of my own inspirations tend to be French males. But, in any position of cultural arbitration, you’re surveying a field. It is not a sign of the fucking thought police to expect that you should have to think beyond the boys. For instance, in philosophy, an obscenely male dominated field, without deliberately conscious efforts to seek out female philosophers, I’d never have come across some of the best thinkers I’ve encountered: Dunayevskaya, de Pizan, Goldman, Luxemburg, Cixous, Murdoch, Edith Stein. In a culture where misogyny, racism, heterosexism, able-bodiedness and so on are the norm, of course looking toward minorities will feel ‘artificial’, non-natural. That artificiality is the very sign of the ethical. And ethics are integral to artifice, to experimentalism. They are not a limit on or a boundary to imaginativeness or transgression. In fact, in this culture, it’s exactly the opposite.
This post was really interesting and the comments, almost all of them, have been really cool. (By the way, thanks for the nod, Justin; I hope you know I have nothing but the greatest respect for your thought too, even when I’m disagreeing). On the misogyny thing. The weird snowballing dick-measuring show that Molly Young post totally inexplicably inspired was a disgrace but I didn’t bother to say anything in it or to it precisely because it’s disgracefulness seemed patent – I felt that anyone who did not think that thread was misoygnistic, just by seeing it, would hardly be convinced by anything I had to add or subtract – and Justin’s own early intervention had more than doubled for my own complete distaste at it. I also agree with what Ken says above too that actually letting these shit remarks be seen has its (inadvertent) importance, too. But the shaming aspect has its limits because mostly – almost invariably actually – these comments are made as anonymous and faux-anonymous posts, so that they may be shameless, really only going to show that there’s an essential chickenshit gutlessness they already cop to but which is justified, I suppose, to them and gussied up by them as the same old, tired, thinks its iconoclastic but isnt, anti-PC cynicism that no matter how many times you attack as a bullshit enemy returns and returns in this place (and in the culture more broadly) and thrives on attacking the straw (wo)man of humourlesness through its cynically provocative (but sincere precisely because it feels ‘free’ enough of misoygyny to be provocative) ‘goofing’ at the expense of just basic civility and the more interesting kind of joke that’s both irreverent and multivalent, which allows more than just you and your jibbering cronies to laugh at it.
I wouldn’t say this place is some central node for misogynistic or racist or heterosexist statements and I certainly don’t think it promotes those ideas in any way. I have said before and will say again that it is too enamored with the idea that idea that the lines between ignorance and intelligence. The moments I tend to weigh in, personally, are on issues I feel are more related to this and are to engage with the people I know, like, read and respect here. Like, to take an example, the orthodoxy this place puts out that words are words when words are not just words. It’s much more complicated than that. Words are realities. What kinds of realities words are in any given moment is the vexed question. And not all realities are the same. Why would we even be interested in literature if people were people. People are not people. People are persons. Though that is not the same as saying they are individuals. Or the general participation of this place in using rights oriented efforts to bring representational inequalities into the foreground as something it dismisses in very simplistic and often snarky and reproachful ways. Or the (principled) decision of this place to invite provocativeness but then be somewhat anti-rigorous toward what actually is provocative in a culture that thrives on faux-provocation and what is just more of the lame old same.
The PC person is so much a subject supposed to believe, someone we need to believe in more than anyone that actually exists, that the question of whether or not they exist is entirely loaded by the stakes in looking for them. When someone lodges a complaint about what they see as prejudice and so on, you may legitimately feel they’re mistaken – we saw this cynicism played recently by the right in Sarah Palin’s totally manipulative offense about Rahm Emanuel’s use of the word ‘retarded’ (and Emanuel’s totally cynical – and what I would argue is actually PC – response of getting in contact with a representative of the disabled to ‘apologise’, rather than, if he really did experience bad conscience, committing to doing something serious for disability rights, which, in his position of power, could actually matter). The problem, however, is how everyone is already so conscientiousness that no one really needs to experience bad conscience anymore. It irks me that anyone who says ‘I think this is misogynistic, or racist, or heterosexist, or classist’ and so on finds themselves faced not by cogent counter-response but almost immediately met with psychologising dismissals – hyper-sensitivity – or intimations of authoritarianism – censoriousness – designed to isolate the objector and mute their objection.
On censorship, what I find curious is how useful a concept it is for the status quo, how much it’s referred to when very few ever suggest it or, for that matter, have the power to enforce it. In the wider culture, when a rights group draws attention down on a representation that imports prejudice under the patina of ‘goofiness’, the response is immediately that the ‘PC’ crowd that brought this up is censorious and just obsessed with finding their persecution in any place that they can (another psychologising dismissal). But what is the bringing to attention of the problem censorious of except the shitty cultural jouissance that thrives on special reserves of incivility for certain categories of person who are humourless wreckers if they aren’t taking the joke as a joke? For instance, while the designation of something as ‘gay’ to deem it botched or shit is hardly neutral toward me as a gay guy, were I to express discontent at the way that phrase generalizes phobia into a regime of aesthetics, I’d probably be told I’m overreacting and to ‘chillax’. In actual fact, someone calling something ‘gay’ in that way doesn’t necessarily bother me – or if it did, I’d be fucked basically, it’s so systemic, which is kind of my contextual point – but one of the assumptions within the ‘hyper-sensitivity’ slander is that minorities aren’t already exercising quite sophisticated judgments about what is or is not offensive to them in a culture that pathologises them in a thousand implicit ways then exempts itself from responsibility under the free speech clause it claims only for itself at any moment. What is not thinkable is that someone against shit talk could also be for free speech, that to call out the mind-numbing bigotries of our culture is not the same as being censorious but is actually something we need to do to have some new free speech, not the same old shit freely repeated.
I personally defend what’s branded PC – and, despite the orthodoxy that it rules the world, few actually do defend it – precisely because it’s so hated as a starting position by cultural consensus and because it’s so manipulated by its enemies. To me, PC is simply a process of broadening and dispersing. If I’m an editor about to make a list of best authors for the year, to not have a woman on that list, for example, is a sign that I don’t know enough about the field I think I’m qualified to draw up a list of best authors in. PC doesn’t argue you have to include a person because they are a minority; it argues that no truly comprehensive survey of talent could leave minorities out. I’m not talking here about our personal interests: most of my own inspirations tend to be French males. But, in any position of cultural arbitration, you’re surveying a field. It is not a sign of the fucking thought police to expect that you should have to think beyond the boys. For instance, in philosophy, an obscenely male dominated field, without deliberately conscious efforts to seek out female philosophers, I’d never have come across some of the best thinkers I’ve encountered: Dunayevskaya, de Pizan, Goldman, Luxemburg, Cixous, Murdoch, Edith Stein. In a culture where misogyny, racism, heterosexism, able-bodiedness and so on are the norm, of course looking toward minorities will feel ‘artificial’, non-natural. That artificiality is the very sign of the ethical. And ethics are integral to artifice, to experimentalism. They are not a limit on or a boundary to imaginativeness or transgression. In fact, in this culture, it’s exactly the opposite.
This post was really interesting and the comments, almost all of them, have been really cool. (By the way, thanks for the nod, Justin; I hope you know I have nothing but the greatest respect for your thought too, even when I’m disagreeing). On the misogyny thing. The weird snowballing dick-measuring show that Molly Young post totally inexplicably inspired was a disgrace but I didn’t bother to say anything in it or to it precisely because it’s disgracefulness seemed patent – I felt that anyone who did not think that thread was misoygnistic, just by seeing it, would hardly be convinced by anything I had to add or subtract – and Justin’s own early intervention had more than doubled for my own complete distaste at it. I also agree with what Ken says above too that actually letting these shit remarks be seen has its (inadvertent) importance, too. But the shaming aspect has its limits because mostly – almost invariably actually – these comments are made as anonymous and faux-anonymous posts, so that they may be shameless, really only going to show that there’s an essential chickenshit gutlessness they already cop to but which is justified, I suppose, to them and gussied up by them as the same old, tired, thinks its iconoclastic but isnt, anti-PC cynicism that no matter how many times you attack as a bullshit enemy returns and returns in this place (and in the culture more broadly) and thrives on attacking the straw (wo)man of humourlesness through its cynically provocative (but sincere precisely because it feels ‘free’ enough of misoygyny to be provocative) ‘goofing’ at the expense of just basic civility and the more interesting kind of joke that’s both irreverent and multivalent, which allows more than just you and your jibbering cronies to laugh at it.
I wouldn’t say this place is some central node for misogynistic or racist or heterosexist statements and I certainly don’t think it promotes those ideas in any way. I have said before and will say again that it is too enamored with the idea that idea that the lines between ignorance and intelligence. The moments I tend to weigh in, personally, are on issues I feel are more related to this and are to engage with the people I know, like, read and respect here. Like, to take an example, the orthodoxy this place puts out that words are words when words are not just words. It’s much more complicated than that. Words are realities. What kinds of realities words are in any given moment is the vexed question. And not all realities are the same. Why would we even be interested in literature if people were people. People are not people. People are persons. Though that is not the same as saying they are individuals. Or the general participation of this place in using rights oriented efforts to bring representational inequalities into the foreground as something it dismisses in very simplistic and often snarky and reproachful ways. Or the (principled) decision of this place to invite provocativeness but then be somewhat anti-rigorous toward what actually is provocative in a culture that thrives on faux-provocation and what is just more of the lame old same.
The PC person is so much a subject supposed to believe, someone we need to believe in more than anyone that actually exists, that the question of whether or not they exist is entirely loaded by the stakes in looking for them. When someone lodges a complaint about what they see as prejudice and so on, you may legitimately feel they’re mistaken – we saw this cynicism played recently by the right in Sarah Palin’s totally manipulative offense about Rahm Emanuel’s use of the word ‘retarded’ (and Emanuel’s totally cynical – and what I would argue is actually PC – response of getting in contact with a representative of the disabled to ‘apologise’, rather than, if he really did experience bad conscience, committing to doing something serious for disability rights, which, in his position of power, could actually matter). The problem, however, is how everyone is already so conscientiousness that no one really needs to experience bad conscience anymore. It irks me that anyone who says ‘I think this is misogynistic, or racist, or heterosexist, or classist’ and so on finds themselves faced not by cogent counter-response but almost immediately met with psychologising dismissals – hyper-sensitivity – or intimations of authoritarianism – censoriousness – designed to isolate the objector and mute their objection.
On censorship, what I find curious is how useful a concept it is for the status quo, how much it’s referred to when very few ever suggest it or, for that matter, have the power to enforce it. In the wider culture, when a rights group draws attention down on a representation that imports prejudice under the patina of ‘goofiness’, the response is immediately that the ‘PC’ crowd that brought this up is censorious and just obsessed with finding their persecution in any place that they can (another psychologising dismissal). But what is the bringing to attention of the problem censorious of except the shitty cultural jouissance that thrives on special reserves of incivility for certain categories of person who are humourless wreckers if they aren’t taking the joke as a joke? For instance, while the designation of something as ‘gay’ to deem it botched or shit is hardly neutral toward me as a gay guy, were I to express discontent at the way that phrase generalizes phobia into a regime of aesthetics, I’d probably be told I’m overreacting and to ‘chillax’. In actual fact, someone calling something ‘gay’ in that way doesn’t necessarily bother me – or if it did, I’d be fucked basically, it’s so systemic, which is kind of my contextual point – but one of the assumptions within the ‘hyper-sensitivity’ slander is that minorities aren’t already exercising quite sophisticated judgments about what is or is not offensive to them in a culture that pathologises them in a thousand implicit ways then exempts itself from responsibility under the free speech clause it claims only for itself at any moment. What is not thinkable is that someone against shit talk could also be for free speech, that to call out the mind-numbing bigotries of our culture is not the same as being censorious but is actually something we need to do to have some new free speech, not the same old shit freely repeated.
I personally defend what’s branded PC – and, despite the orthodoxy that it rules the world, few actually do defend it – precisely because it’s so hated as a starting position by cultural consensus and because it’s so manipulated by its enemies. To me, PC is simply a process of broadening and dispersing. If I’m an editor about to make a list of best authors for the year, to not have a woman on that list, for example, is a sign that I don’t know enough about the field I think I’m qualified to draw up a list of best authors in. PC doesn’t argue you have to include a person because they are a minority; it argues that no truly comprehensive survey of talent could leave minorities out. I’m not talking here about our personal interests: most of my own inspirations tend to be French males. But, in any position of cultural arbitration, you’re surveying a field. It is not a sign of the fucking thought police to expect that you should have to think beyond the boys. For instance, in philosophy, an obscenely male dominated field, without deliberately conscious efforts to seek out female philosophers, I’d never have come across some of the best thinkers I’ve encountered: Dunayevskaya, de Pizan, Goldman, Luxemburg, Cixous, Murdoch, Edith Stein. In a culture where misogyny, racism, heterosexism, able-bodiedness and so on are the norm, of course looking toward minorities will feel ‘artificial’, non-natural. That artificiality is the very sign of the ethical. And ethics are integral to artifice, to experimentalism. They are not a limit on or a boundary to imaginativeness or transgression. In fact, in this culture, it’s exactly the opposite.
Ditto.
The other day when I was driving to work I actually found myself thinking for a split second or two (true story) “What if ZZZZIPP really were a photon?” and all the myriad pursuant implications thereof.
Also, I tried to comment “lol” after Alec Niedenthal commented “Hold on, I’m taking ZZZZIPP to the bathroom.”, below, but my comment didn’t post.
Ditto.
The other day when I was driving to work I actually found myself thinking for a split second or two (true story) “What if ZZZZIPP really were a photon?” and all the myriad pursuant implications thereof.
Also, I tried to comment “lol” after Alec Niedenthal commented “Hold on, I’m taking ZZZZIPP to the bathroom.”, below, but my comment didn’t post.
Ditto.
The other day when I was driving to work I actually found myself thinking for a split second or two (true story) “What if ZZZZIPP really were a photon?” and all the myriad pursuant implications thereof.
Also, I tried to comment “lol” after Alec Niedenthal commented “Hold on, I’m taking ZZZZIPP to the bathroom.”, below, but my comment didn’t post.
Not Molly. Molly is MoGa, I believe. My name’s Michael. Sometimes I wish I were Molly, though. She seems pretty awesome.
Not Molly. Molly is MoGa, I believe. My name’s Michael. Sometimes I wish I were Molly, though. She seems pretty awesome.
Not Molly. Molly is MoGa, I believe. My name’s Michael. Sometimes I wish I were Molly, though. She seems pretty awesome.
Justin, I think you’ve misunderstood me somehow (other than the fact that I stupidly misspelled Fascism). I support your choice of zero-regulation. My intent was only to point out the difference of perceptions between someone like Kate and someone like Gena. The only reason I introduced the subject of censorship was due to Ken’s earlier inclusion of “Communal shame is a better deterrent than censorship”–I agree with that. I think a forum like HTMLGiant gives writers/readers a chance to show their true colors (which are positive and/or negative). Given your lengthy response to my four-line response, you came across as heated (maybe aggressive?), which confused me. If you interpreted my comment (Fascist) as a personal accusation directed at you or any of the other HTML Giant contributors/moderators, it was not. I get the “houseparty” metaphor and I understand/respect that. I just believe, as I indicated earlier, that censorship is not always the answer–wasn’t really addressing what you wrote–just addressing the many sudden claims of HTML Giant being a sexist/racist mud puddle of mysogyny–was trying to defend the website–feel like I pissed you off instead. Have I?
Justin, I think you’ve misunderstood me somehow (other than the fact that I stupidly misspelled Fascism). I support your choice of zero-regulation. My intent was only to point out the difference of perceptions between someone like Kate and someone like Gena. The only reason I introduced the subject of censorship was due to Ken’s earlier inclusion of “Communal shame is a better deterrent than censorship”–I agree with that. I think a forum like HTMLGiant gives writers/readers a chance to show their true colors (which are positive and/or negative). Given your lengthy response to my four-line response, you came across as heated (maybe aggressive?), which confused me. If you interpreted my comment (Fascist) as a personal accusation directed at you or any of the other HTML Giant contributors/moderators, it was not. I get the “houseparty” metaphor and I understand/respect that. I just believe, as I indicated earlier, that censorship is not always the answer–wasn’t really addressing what you wrote–just addressing the many sudden claims of HTML Giant being a sexist/racist mud puddle of mysogyny–was trying to defend the website–feel like I pissed you off instead. Have I?
Justin, I think you’ve misunderstood me somehow (other than the fact that I stupidly misspelled Fascism). I support your choice of zero-regulation. My intent was only to point out the difference of perceptions between someone like Kate and someone like Gena. The only reason I introduced the subject of censorship was due to Ken’s earlier inclusion of “Communal shame is a better deterrent than censorship”–I agree with that. I think a forum like HTMLGiant gives writers/readers a chance to show their true colors (which are positive and/or negative). Given your lengthy response to my four-line response, you came across as heated (maybe aggressive?), which confused me. If you interpreted my comment (Fascist) as a personal accusation directed at you or any of the other HTML Giant contributors/moderators, it was not. I get the “houseparty” metaphor and I understand/respect that. I just believe, as I indicated earlier, that censorship is not always the answer–wasn’t really addressing what you wrote–just addressing the many sudden claims of HTML Giant being a sexist/racist mud puddle of mysogyny–was trying to defend the website–feel like I pissed you off instead. Have I?
cheers. I totally agree with everything you said here.
I have to say that I feel that the trolls here are a tiny, tiny percentage
of the quality conversation that I observe. And that good conversation
further drowns out that small percentage.
cheers. I totally agree with everything you said here.
I have to say that I feel that the trolls here are a tiny, tiny percentage
of the quality conversation that I observe. And that good conversation
further drowns out that small percentage.
cheers. I totally agree with everything you said here.
I have to say that I feel that the trolls here are a tiny, tiny percentage
of the quality conversation that I observe. And that good conversation
further drowns out that small percentage.
my apologies. thanks Michael. :)
my apologies. thanks Michael. :)
my apologies. thanks Michael. :)
This is probably the best comment I’ve ever seen on HTMLG. Thanks, David.
This is probably the best comment I’ve ever seen on HTMLG. Thanks, David.
This is probably the best comment I’ve ever seen on HTMLG. Thanks, David.
it gives them a jacket and tie and throws to them as special experts
it gives them a jacket and tie and throws to them as special experts
it gives them a jacket and tie and throws to them as special experts
I liked it so much I quoted it and made that quote my Facebook status.
I liked it so much I quoted it and made that quote my Facebook status.
THANK YOU CE. THANK YOU MIMI.
THANK YOU CE. THANK YOU MIMI.
THANK YOU CE. THANK YOU MIMI.
Well, I think my question got answered. And then some!
But seriously, folks, this was a great, lively, smart and engaging discussion. Some great tangents (Todd Solandz films! trolls on CNN!) I learned some things (Henry Mancini wrote the…!) I saw some things (Roseanne sparks a doobie!) I giggled (Alec took ZZZZIPP to the bathroom!) I don’t think there’s anything I could add at this point, except maybe a goofy “Group hug!”
Well, I think my question got answered. And then some!
But seriously, folks, this was a great, lively, smart and engaging discussion. Some great tangents (Todd Solandz films! trolls on CNN!) I learned some things (Henry Mancini wrote the…!) I saw some things (Roseanne sparks a doobie!) I giggled (Alec took ZZZZIPP to the bathroom!) I don’t think there’s anything I could add at this point, except maybe a goofy “Group hug!”
hey justin,
what the fuck is a “commentor-in-good-standing”? do you have a side-by-side list identifying the commentors that are good and valid human beings & pariah/troll/leper/inferior piece of shit human beings? just curious.
this is where you fail.
this is the chink in your armor.
this is where we all lose respect for you, well the few that do respect you.
what exactly does this have to do with literature? please mister i-will-not-discuss-anything-but-literature-because-the-other-shit-lessens-my-self-worth tell me what the fuck happened to you.’
?
i can’t believe you posted this. i am really disappointed right now. i’ll get over it. i know you aren’t a bad human being and i should let go of my expectations.
kate,
what is it like being a victim all the time? i bet it is scary. i bet it makes you feel paranoid, like the world is out to get you. if i were a constant victim i would see menacing faces in the petals of flowers too.
i’m curious how the fuck you thought a recommendation to engage in multiple-partner inter-racial sexual intercourse was rascist? i said you were uptight. you are. i bet you have a looooooooooooooot of kitty cats.
i have two. they have special names.
but back to the rascism, uhm, huh? i suggested an exciting sexual experience the large majority of people have not experienced. if you were to say “jereme you are fucking uptight. go have sex with a black chick and a man”, i would stop and make a confused facial expression then crack a douchey corner smile and say “i’ve never had sex with a black chick before. man that sounds interesting. hmmm. but the dude i’m not really in to.”
me thnks you might be a little scared of people with different skin pigment than your own.
you also fail to mention in your victim’s lament that you ATTACKED jimmy chen, repeatedly, despite jimmy apologizing and clearly displaying his reluctance to acknowledge (and tacitly accept by acknowledging) in your hateful and demeaning accusations.
fuck yes i was offensive towards you, you dummy. jimmy is one of the nicest, genuine guys around and his god damn intentions were not to shit on women (which was obvious to everyone but the feminists). but you wouldn’t let it go.
so yes i stepped in and shut your hateful mouth closed. and i would do it again and again. the entire act is actually fairly ironic. jimmy and I didn’t get along initially because i said something against the group in defense of another individual. here we are again but this time i was defending jimmy.
people are speaking about “community”. most everyone here wouldn’t know what a community is even if it licked your assholes clean.
i have no qualm with using negativity to protect an individual. you can hate me. giving words power to lord over your psyche is weak minded and sad, to be honest.
i could say “zebra-flap” and you wouldn’t take offense. you would probably sit there and wonder what the fuck a zebra-flap is.
but if the word was “cunt” you would probably take immediate offense because you internalize the word. it hurts your identity. you are scared of your place in the universe. you fear yourself.
i think a lot of people
hey justin,
what the fuck is a “commentor-in-good-standing”? do you have a side-by-side list identifying the commentors that are good and valid human beings & pariah/troll/leper/inferior piece of shit human beings? just curious.
this is where you fail.
this is the chink in your armor.
this is where we all lose respect for you, well the few that do respect you.
what exactly does this have to do with literature? please mister i-will-not-discuss-anything-but-literature-because-the-other-shit-lessens-my-self-worth tell me what the fuck happened to you.’
?
i can’t believe you posted this. i am really disappointed right now. i’ll get over it. i know you aren’t a bad human being and i should let go of my expectations.
kate,
what is it like being a victim all the time? i bet it is scary. i bet it makes you feel paranoid, like the world is out to get you. if i were a constant victim i would see menacing faces in the petals of flowers too.
i’m curious how the fuck you thought a recommendation to engage in multiple-partner inter-racial sexual intercourse was rascist? i said you were uptight. you are. i bet you have a looooooooooooooot of kitty cats.
i have two. they have special names.
but back to the rascism, uhm, huh? i suggested an exciting sexual experience the large majority of people have not experienced. if you were to say “jereme you are fucking uptight. go have sex with a black chick and a man”, i would stop and make a confused facial expression then crack a douchey corner smile and say “i’ve never had sex with a black chick before. man that sounds interesting. hmmm. but the dude i’m not really in to.”
me thnks you might be a little scared of people with different skin pigment than your own.
you also fail to mention in your victim’s lament that you ATTACKED jimmy chen, repeatedly, despite jimmy apologizing and clearly displaying his reluctance to acknowledge (and tacitly accept by acknowledging) in your hateful and demeaning accusations.
fuck yes i was offensive towards you, you dummy. jimmy is one of the nicest, genuine guys around and his god damn intentions were not to shit on women (which was obvious to everyone but the feminists). but you wouldn’t let it go.
so yes i stepped in and shut your hateful mouth closed. and i would do it again and again. the entire act is actually fairly ironic. jimmy and I didn’t get along initially because i said something against the group in defense of another individual. here we are again but this time i was defending jimmy.
people are speaking about “community”. most everyone here wouldn’t know what a community is even if it licked your assholes clean.
i have no qualm with using negativity to protect an individual. you can hate me. giving words power to lord over your psyche is weak minded and sad, to be honest.
i could say “zebra-flap” and you wouldn’t take offense. you would probably sit there and wonder what the fuck a zebra-flap is.
but if the word was “cunt” you would probably take immediate offense because you internalize the word. it hurts your identity. you are scared of your place in the universe. you fear yourself.
i think a lot of people
hey justin,
what the fuck is a “commentor-in-good-standing”? do you have a side-by-side list identifying the commentors that are good and valid human beings & pariah/troll/leper/inferior piece of shit human beings? just curious.
this is where you fail.
this is the chink in your armor.
this is where we all lose respect for you, well the few that do respect you.
what exactly does this have to do with literature? please mister i-will-not-discuss-anything-but-literature-because-the-other-shit-lessens-my-self-worth tell me what the fuck happened to you.’
?
i can’t believe you posted this. i am really disappointed right now. i’ll get over it. i know you aren’t a bad human being and i should let go of my expectations.
kate,
what is it like being a victim all the time? i bet it is scary. i bet it makes you feel paranoid, like the world is out to get you. if i were a constant victim i would see menacing faces in the petals of flowers too.
i’m curious how the fuck you thought a recommendation to engage in multiple-partner inter-racial sexual intercourse was rascist? i said you were uptight. you are. i bet you have a looooooooooooooot of kitty cats.
i have two. they have special names.
but back to the rascism, uhm, huh? i suggested an exciting sexual experience the large majority of people have not experienced. if you were to say “jereme you are fucking uptight. go have sex with a black chick and a man”, i would stop and make a confused facial expression then crack a douchey corner smile and say “i’ve never had sex with a black chick before. man that sounds interesting. hmmm. but the dude i’m not really in to.”
me thnks you might be a little scared of people with different skin pigment than your own.
you also fail to mention in your victim’s lament that you ATTACKED jimmy chen, repeatedly, despite jimmy apologizing and clearly displaying his reluctance to acknowledge (and tacitly accept by acknowledging) in your hateful and demeaning accusations.
fuck yes i was offensive towards you, you dummy. jimmy is one of the nicest, genuine guys around and his god damn intentions were not to shit on women (which was obvious to everyone but the feminists). but you wouldn’t let it go.
so yes i stepped in and shut your hateful mouth closed. and i would do it again and again. the entire act is actually fairly ironic. jimmy and I didn’t get along initially because i said something against the group in defense of another individual. here we are again but this time i was defending jimmy.
people are speaking about “community”. most everyone here wouldn’t know what a community is even if it licked your assholes clean.
i have no qualm with using negativity to protect an individual. you can hate me. giving words power to lord over your psyche is weak minded and sad, to be honest.
i could say “zebra-flap” and you wouldn’t take offense. you would probably sit there and wonder what the fuck a zebra-flap is.
but if the word was “cunt” you would probably take immediate offense because you internalize the word. it hurts your identity. you are scared of your place in the universe. you fear yourself.
i think a lot of people
i think a lot of people misundertand the misogyny. i would say a woman who hates herself is also a misogynist.
what you people mean by “community”, i think, is a group of similar minded individuals.
good for you. stalin is proud.
you do realize “trolls” are individuals and would also be part of the community?
exclusion is a funny word.
does anyone realize sam pink is no longer writing here? why the fuck isn’t there a post about that? i should see a sam pink “holocaust” book post, not this fucking shit.
my girlfriend keeps telling me to stop coming to htmlg because there is nothing of value here. i always defended htmlg, chiefly, because jimmy chen is still here and posting. his shit is original, funny, poetic and entertaining.
but he goes against the grain and gets attacked.. i can see that you have effectively censored him. i can see it in his posts. he his holding back out of fear.
ironic i think. not dumbass hipster irony, which isn’t irony because it is contrived, but, true-blue-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with -the-world-irony.
so i think my girlfriend is right. i think fonzi is revving his motorcycle and there is shark waiting to be jumped.
sigh.
so here i’ll make all the uptight people happy. this is my goodbye. i know one day blake is going to completely give in to your demands for simiilar thought. there is no way anyone can weather this sort of onslaught over a protracted amount of time.
i would rather htmlgiant be what i remember it as. not this.
what the fuck is a community, indeed.
i think a lot of people misundertand the misogyny. i would say a woman who hates herself is also a misogynist.
what you people mean by “community”, i think, is a group of similar minded individuals.
good for you. stalin is proud.
you do realize “trolls” are individuals and would also be part of the community?
exclusion is a funny word.
does anyone realize sam pink is no longer writing here? why the fuck isn’t there a post about that? i should see a sam pink “holocaust” book post, not this fucking shit.
my girlfriend keeps telling me to stop coming to htmlg because there is nothing of value here. i always defended htmlg, chiefly, because jimmy chen is still here and posting. his shit is original, funny, poetic and entertaining.
but he goes against the grain and gets attacked.. i can see that you have effectively censored him. i can see it in his posts. he his holding back out of fear.
ironic i think. not dumbass hipster irony, which isn’t irony because it is contrived, but, true-blue-what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with -the-world-irony.
so i think my girlfriend is right. i think fonzi is revving his motorcycle and there is shark waiting to be jumped.
sigh.
so here i’ll make all the uptight people happy. this is my goodbye. i know one day blake is going to completely give in to your demands for simiilar thought. there is no way anyone can weather this sort of onslaught over a protracted amount of time.
i would rather htmlgiant be what i remember it as. not this.
what the fuck is a community, indeed.
jereme, of all the hateful posts you’ve made on here, i think this one just about sticks its dick in the cake. the paranoia is not kate’s, or any other person’s, it’s yours and yours alone. i personally find it incredible that you even are so sure jimmy would be in line with almost any of the things you say. i have points of clear disagreement with jimmy but you’re certainly right that he is a person that has respect. you, on the other hand, do not. this idea of “the grain” is all your own projection. the fearsome feminists who can’t understand what is apparently “obvious” to anyone is actually you losing your grip on what you like to think is good old common sense. you stand over people constantly with your bullshit claims to superior knowledge and when people try not to actually talk to you like a complex person, you try to play socrates (badly) to anyone’s efforts to have a serious discussion with you (mainly, I think, because you just aren’t all that bright) and end up eventually sharing such gems of implicit wisdom like today’s little doozy, which basically tells women who see misogyny about to basically get in touch with their pussies. oh, and then, to top it all off, you play this modesty card like you’re just a really swell, average guy who has speaks for the common man. dude, i know just as many ordinary people as you and they would find your whole act nothing short of rank and offensive. i mean, how dare you say to anybody “you are scared of your place in the universe, you fear yourself” like you possess the knowledge to make that assessment. in all truthfulness, i’m really pleased that this seems an “onslaught” to the likes of you, it shows how frail an eggshell your passive-aggressive ego-mongering really is. you continually pass off the most offensive and outrightly vicious remarks as some form of self-help, remarks utterly devoid of any generosity or insight, packed solid with the worst new-agey cliches, peppered with rotten chauvinisms of all types turned into zen nothings, and funny only in a snickering douchebag sense, the only humour you apparently understand so everyone thereby has to laugh at and get. not to put too fine a point on it but if you’re going, good fucking riddance. i hope you find some other place where you can tell the girls in your threesome all about their true place in the universe and they nod back at your every word with shit-eating grins and say ‘i ain’t no victim’ and the sun shines brightly and all is well. peace out.
jereme, of all the hateful posts you’ve made on here, i think this one just about sticks its dick in the cake. the paranoia is not kate’s, or any other person’s, it’s yours and yours alone. i personally find it incredible that you even are so sure jimmy would be in line with almost any of the things you say. i have points of clear disagreement with jimmy but you’re certainly right that he is a person that has respect. you, on the other hand, do not. this idea of “the grain” is all your own projection. the fearsome feminists who can’t understand what is apparently “obvious” to anyone is actually you losing your grip on what you like to think is good old common sense. you stand over people constantly with your bullshit claims to superior knowledge and when people try not to actually talk to you like a complex person, you try to play socrates (badly) to anyone’s efforts to have a serious discussion with you (mainly, I think, because you just aren’t all that bright) and end up eventually sharing such gems of implicit wisdom like today’s little doozy, which basically tells women who see misogyny about to basically get in touch with their pussies. oh, and then, to top it all off, you play this modesty card like you’re just a really swell, average guy who has speaks for the common man. dude, i know just as many ordinary people as you and they would find your whole act nothing short of rank and offensive. i mean, how dare you say to anybody “you are scared of your place in the universe, you fear yourself” like you possess the knowledge to make that assessment. in all truthfulness, i’m really pleased that this seems an “onslaught” to the likes of you, it shows how frail an eggshell your passive-aggressive ego-mongering really is. you continually pass off the most offensive and outrightly vicious remarks as some form of self-help, remarks utterly devoid of any generosity or insight, packed solid with the worst new-agey cliches, peppered with rotten chauvinisms of all types turned into zen nothings, and funny only in a snickering douchebag sense, the only humour you apparently understand so everyone thereby has to laugh at and get. not to put too fine a point on it but if you’re going, good fucking riddance. i hope you find some other place where you can tell the girls in your threesome all about their true place in the universe and they nod back at your every word with shit-eating grins and say ‘i ain’t no victim’ and the sun shines brightly and all is well. peace out.
jereme, of all the hateful posts you’ve made on here, i think this one just about sticks its dick in the cake. the paranoia is not kate’s, or any other person’s, it’s yours and yours alone. i personally find it incredible that you even are so sure jimmy would be in line with almost any of the things you say. i have points of clear disagreement with jimmy but you’re certainly right that he is a person that has respect. you, on the other hand, do not. this idea of “the grain” is all your own projection. the fearsome feminists who can’t understand what is apparently “obvious” to anyone is actually you losing your grip on what you like to think is good old common sense. you stand over people constantly with your bullshit claims to superior knowledge and when people try not to actually talk to you like a complex person, you try to play socrates (badly) to anyone’s efforts to have a serious discussion with you (mainly, I think, because you just aren’t all that bright) and end up eventually sharing such gems of implicit wisdom like today’s little doozy, which basically tells women who see misogyny about to basically get in touch with their pussies. oh, and then, to top it all off, you play this modesty card like you’re just a really swell, average guy who has speaks for the common man. dude, i know just as many ordinary people as you and they would find your whole act nothing short of rank and offensive. i mean, how dare you say to anybody “you are scared of your place in the universe, you fear yourself” like you possess the knowledge to make that assessment. in all truthfulness, i’m really pleased that this seems an “onslaught” to the likes of you, it shows how frail an eggshell your passive-aggressive ego-mongering really is. you continually pass off the most offensive and outrightly vicious remarks as some form of self-help, remarks utterly devoid of any generosity or insight, packed solid with the worst new-agey cliches, peppered with rotten chauvinisms of all types turned into zen nothings, and funny only in a snickering douchebag sense, the only humour you apparently understand so everyone thereby has to laugh at and get. not to put too fine a point on it but if you’re going, good fucking riddance. i hope you find some other place where you can tell the girls in your threesome all about their true place in the universe and they nod back at your every word with shit-eating grins and say ‘i ain’t no victim’ and the sun shines brightly and all is well. peace out.
PLEASE DON’T LEAVE JEREME
WHY IS EVERYONE YELLING AT EACH OTHER
PLEASE DON’T LEAVE JEREME
WHY IS EVERYONE YELLING AT EACH OTHER
PLEASE DON’T LEAVE JEREME
WHY IS EVERYONE YELLING AT EACH OTHER
i’m not sorry for a word i said above but having settled down a bit, i do want to make absolutely clear that i don’t think – and nor did i think when i was writing the above – that it’s my place to tell jereme, or anybody else, to stay or go. i was careful not to do that in my comment above, i said good riddance in response to his own announcement he was leaving not as a demand of my own, but i just want to be doubly clear that i acknowledge when i speak, i do not speak for anybody but myself. if people wish for jereme to say, if jereme changes his mind and decides to stay, that’s fine, of course, this space is no more mine than his. but his shit fit above uses its histrionic exit as a type of moral blackmail against a number of people he says he likes, and though the above is hardly a comment i’d want to be drop dead tomorrow and be remembered by, and was written in anger with no pleasure, frankly, i’ve had just about a gutful of him and i do not regret it. but that’s the last thing i have to say on this topic now, having already said way more than enough.
i’m not sorry for a word i said above but having settled down a bit, i do want to make absolutely clear that i don’t think – and nor did i think when i was writing the above – that it’s my place to tell jereme, or anybody else, to stay or go. i was careful not to do that in my comment above, i said good riddance in response to his own announcement he was leaving not as a demand of my own, but i just want to be doubly clear that i acknowledge when i speak, i do not speak for anybody but myself. if people wish for jereme to say, if jereme changes his mind and decides to stay, that’s fine, of course, this space is no more mine than his. but his shit fit above uses its histrionic exit as a type of moral blackmail against a number of people he says he likes, and though the above is hardly a comment i’d want to be drop dead tomorrow and be remembered by, and was written in anger with no pleasure, frankly, i’ve had just about a gutful of him and i do not regret it. but that’s the last thing i have to say on this topic now, having already said way more than enough.
i’m not sorry for a word i said above but having settled down a bit, i do want to make absolutely clear that i don’t think – and nor did i think when i was writing the above – that it’s my place to tell jereme, or anybody else, to stay or go. i was careful not to do that in my comment above, i said good riddance in response to his own announcement he was leaving not as a demand of my own, but i just want to be doubly clear that i acknowledge when i speak, i do not speak for anybody but myself. if people wish for jereme to say, if jereme changes his mind and decides to stay, that’s fine, of course, this space is no more mine than his. but his shit fit above uses its histrionic exit as a type of moral blackmail against a number of people he says he likes, and though the above is hardly a comment i’d want to be drop dead tomorrow and be remembered by, and was written in anger with no pleasure, frankly, i’ve had just about a gutful of him and i do not regret it. but that’s the last thing i have to say on this topic now, having already said way more than enough.
Jereme –
When I “attacked” Jimmy, I was critiquing his post, not attacking him personally, I believe. I said it was a dumb post and I called him on it. I wasn’t saying that Jimmy is unintelligent, I actually think many of his posts are quite clever. But I thought this one on Zelda was way uninformed and offbase, and I felt compelled to defend a writer I very much admire. I was not one of the posters saying they felt sorry for his girlfriend. Do you know how to engage in an argument? I don’t think you do, at all. And I don’t see myself as a permanent victim. And I’m allergic to cats. But thanks for the totally infantile carciature of a feminist which you are obviously so frightened of. It’s like you learned about feminism from the Rush Limbaugh Community College, complete with a minor in bloviating hate speech. If you knew one iota about my writing, or my blog, you would know that my writing deals frequently with violence and pornography, and not in an easy way, and doesn’t follow a completely ideological line in terms of feminism. But it’s easy for you to completely dismiss me as opposed to considering anything. If you don’t know *why* proposing that someone have a three way with a black dude is racist, then you’re completely lost. And then when I call that racist, you instead call me racist. It’s like your rhetorical style has languished into namecalling on a playground. You are honestly more lost and closeminded than any student I have ever taught (I teach gender and sexuality and race studies, btw). If you don’t know why it’s really troubling to suggest that a woman just needs to go get fucked because they have legitimate issues or concerns or ideas, if you don’t realize that’s a way to totally invalidate them, then there’s no way to have any sort of dialogue with you whatsoever, because you don’t want it.
Jereme –
When I “attacked” Jimmy, I was critiquing his post, not attacking him personally, I believe. I said it was a dumb post and I called him on it. I wasn’t saying that Jimmy is unintelligent, I actually think many of his posts are quite clever. But I thought this one on Zelda was way uninformed and offbase, and I felt compelled to defend a writer I very much admire. I was not one of the posters saying they felt sorry for his girlfriend. Do you know how to engage in an argument? I don’t think you do, at all. And I don’t see myself as a permanent victim. And I’m allergic to cats. But thanks for the totally infantile carciature of a feminist which you are obviously so frightened of. It’s like you learned about feminism from the Rush Limbaugh Community College, complete with a minor in bloviating hate speech. If you knew one iota about my writing, or my blog, you would know that my writing deals frequently with violence and pornography, and not in an easy way, and doesn’t follow a completely ideological line in terms of feminism. But it’s easy for you to completely dismiss me as opposed to considering anything. If you don’t know *why* proposing that someone have a three way with a black dude is racist, then you’re completely lost. And then when I call that racist, you instead call me racist. It’s like your rhetorical style has languished into namecalling on a playground. You are honestly more lost and closeminded than any student I have ever taught (I teach gender and sexuality and race studies, btw). If you don’t know why it’s really troubling to suggest that a woman just needs to go get fucked because they have legitimate issues or concerns or ideas, if you don’t realize that’s a way to totally invalidate them, then there’s no way to have any sort of dialogue with you whatsoever, because you don’t want it.
Jereme –
When I “attacked” Jimmy, I was critiquing his post, not attacking him personally, I believe. I said it was a dumb post and I called him on it. I wasn’t saying that Jimmy is unintelligent, I actually think many of his posts are quite clever. But I thought this one on Zelda was way uninformed and offbase, and I felt compelled to defend a writer I very much admire. I was not one of the posters saying they felt sorry for his girlfriend. Do you know how to engage in an argument? I don’t think you do, at all. And I don’t see myself as a permanent victim. And I’m allergic to cats. But thanks for the totally infantile carciature of a feminist which you are obviously so frightened of. It’s like you learned about feminism from the Rush Limbaugh Community College, complete with a minor in bloviating hate speech. If you knew one iota about my writing, or my blog, you would know that my writing deals frequently with violence and pornography, and not in an easy way, and doesn’t follow a completely ideological line in terms of feminism. But it’s easy for you to completely dismiss me as opposed to considering anything. If you don’t know *why* proposing that someone have a three way with a black dude is racist, then you’re completely lost. And then when I call that racist, you instead call me racist. It’s like your rhetorical style has languished into namecalling on a playground. You are honestly more lost and closeminded than any student I have ever taught (I teach gender and sexuality and race studies, btw). If you don’t know why it’s really troubling to suggest that a woman just needs to go get fucked because they have legitimate issues or concerns or ideas, if you don’t realize that’s a way to totally invalidate them, then there’s no way to have any sort of dialogue with you whatsoever, because you don’t want it.
“Circle jerking posts of promotion” seems like the real problem here (see everything posted yesterday), not silly hating comments that are easily ignored. Good posts like the one today about the DFW archive are useful. Other posts are comic. Dull posts are dull posts.
“Circle jerking posts of promotion” seems like the real problem here (see everything posted yesterday), not silly hating comments that are easily ignored. Good posts like the one today about the DFW archive are useful. Other posts are comic. Dull posts are dull posts.
“Circle jerking posts of promotion” seems like the real problem here (see everything posted yesterday), not silly hating comments that are easily ignored. Good posts like the one today about the DFW archive are useful. Other posts are comic. Dull posts are dull posts.
It is good to see this discussion happening. Thanks to Justin for going here.
But I also find it interesting that the Zelda post has now disappeared, without explanation. Was it the offending “you need to have sex with a black man” suggestion by an idiot commenter? Was it the ignorance of the original post (which illustrated little knowledge about Zelda, e.g. her contributions to F. Scott’s writing and her own literary work.)
It’s now missing: http://htmlgiant.com/author-spotlight/the-legend-of-zelda/
Perhaps not censorship, but gone without notice (that I have seen). Not saying this was a bad decision. It was a stupid post. This in and of itself might not be sexist, but his “I hope your sheets are clean” in the mental hospital bit just added a level of (perhaps mocking) cruelty. But cruelty (if mocking) coupled with ignorance and stupidity doesn’t help anyone. Mocking something is really undercut when you don’t know what your talking about. We all can write something stupid at some point. We shouldn’t have to be “sensitive” or PC always (these terms just seem like sidestepping substance for an easy cliche, that let’s someone off the hook without engaging with the central issues). Perhaps this post was pulled because the commenters made the author aware of the shortcomings of his post? But then you have the other strain of commenter that suggests basically that those with knowledge of Zelda need to have sex with a black man because they raised valid points that needed to be raised. And then the idiocy reaches new lows.
There was also that post (I think again by Jimmy Chen?) about the Harvard or Yale professor. It was basically a picture of some accomplished person and the post was essentially, “look you can see her nipples through her shirt.” This one seems to be gone from the website as well. Censorship? Covering your tracks? The problem with HTMLGIANT is NOT just the comments. It is sometimes with the inane posts themselves. Again, perhaps this two posts should have been removed because they contributed nothing to the conversation.
Perhaps this is all kicking a dead horse at this point. But my main point is this: The problem isn’t just the comments. It is sometimes the post themselves. I too have heard many off of the interwebs comment that HTML GIANT seems like a boys club, a place for lad humor, or Vice Magazine literature lite.
I for one would like to hear why these posts have gone missing. There was an editorial intervention of some kind either by the poster (did Jimmy Chen write all of these and then delete them?) or by some other editor. Or is there a policy that removes posts after a given period of time? (Doesn’t seem to be the case.)
It is a cop out to not address this. (And the ‘we don’t want to get political’ is the lamest of excuses. You cannot claim to write about literature and not either address the political or acknowledge a political aspect to literature.) I’m glad to see a start here but I think this doesn’t go far enough. Not wanting to censor is admirable, but I think HTML GIANT could be a bit more transparent and self-critical about some of these other posts, which have now gone missing. I admire Justin for taking this seriously and being very thoughtful in his response. But I’d like to hear Jimmy Chen or the main eds. (whomever that is) address these other posts. The problem isn’t just the trolls.
It is good to see this discussion happening. Thanks to Justin for going here.
But I also find it interesting that the Zelda post has now disappeared, without explanation. Was it the offending “you need to have sex with a black man” suggestion by an idiot commenter? Was it the ignorance of the original post (which illustrated little knowledge about Zelda, e.g. her contributions to F. Scott’s writing and her own literary work.)
It’s now missing: http://htmlgiant.com/author-spotlight/the-legend-of-zelda/
Perhaps not censorship, but gone without notice (that I have seen). Not saying this was a bad decision. It was a stupid post. This in and of itself might not be sexist, but his “I hope your sheets are clean” in the mental hospital bit just added a level of (perhaps mocking) cruelty. But cruelty (if mocking) coupled with ignorance and stupidity doesn’t help anyone. Mocking something is really undercut when you don’t know what your talking about. We all can write something stupid at some point. We shouldn’t have to be “sensitive” or PC always (these terms just seem like sidestepping substance for an easy cliche, that let’s someone off the hook without engaging with the central issues). Perhaps this post was pulled because the commenters made the author aware of the shortcomings of his post? But then you have the other strain of commenter that suggests basically that those with knowledge of Zelda need to have sex with a black man because they raised valid points that needed to be raised. And then the idiocy reaches new lows.
There was also that post (I think again by Jimmy Chen?) about the Harvard or Yale professor. It was basically a picture of some accomplished person and the post was essentially, “look you can see her nipples through her shirt.” This one seems to be gone from the website as well. Censorship? Covering your tracks? The problem with HTMLGIANT is NOT just the comments. It is sometimes with the inane posts themselves. Again, perhaps this two posts should have been removed because they contributed nothing to the conversation.
Perhaps this is all kicking a dead horse at this point. But my main point is this: The problem isn’t just the comments. It is sometimes the post themselves. I too have heard many off of the interwebs comment that HTML GIANT seems like a boys club, a place for lad humor, or Vice Magazine literature lite.
I for one would like to hear why these posts have gone missing. There was an editorial intervention of some kind either by the poster (did Jimmy Chen write all of these and then delete them?) or by some other editor. Or is there a policy that removes posts after a given period of time? (Doesn’t seem to be the case.)
It is a cop out to not address this. (And the ‘we don’t want to get political’ is the lamest of excuses. You cannot claim to write about literature and not either address the political or acknowledge a political aspect to literature.) I’m glad to see a start here but I think this doesn’t go far enough. Not wanting to censor is admirable, but I think HTML GIANT could be a bit more transparent and self-critical about some of these other posts, which have now gone missing. I admire Justin for taking this seriously and being very thoughtful in his response. But I’d like to hear Jimmy Chen or the main eds. (whomever that is) address these other posts. The problem isn’t just the trolls.
It is good to see this discussion happening. Thanks to Justin for going here.
But I also find it interesting that the Zelda post has now disappeared, without explanation. Was it the offending “you need to have sex with a black man” suggestion by an idiot commenter? Was it the ignorance of the original post (which illustrated little knowledge about Zelda, e.g. her contributions to F. Scott’s writing and her own literary work.)
It’s now missing: http://htmlgiant.com/author-spotlight/the-legend-of-zelda/
Perhaps not censorship, but gone without notice (that I have seen). Not saying this was a bad decision. It was a stupid post. This in and of itself might not be sexist, but his “I hope your sheets are clean” in the mental hospital bit just added a level of (perhaps mocking) cruelty. But cruelty (if mocking) coupled with ignorance and stupidity doesn’t help anyone. Mocking something is really undercut when you don’t know what your talking about. We all can write something stupid at some point. We shouldn’t have to be “sensitive” or PC always (these terms just seem like sidestepping substance for an easy cliche, that let’s someone off the hook without engaging with the central issues). Perhaps this post was pulled because the commenters made the author aware of the shortcomings of his post? But then you have the other strain of commenter that suggests basically that those with knowledge of Zelda need to have sex with a black man because they raised valid points that needed to be raised. And then the idiocy reaches new lows.
There was also that post (I think again by Jimmy Chen?) about the Harvard or Yale professor. It was basically a picture of some accomplished person and the post was essentially, “look you can see her nipples through her shirt.” This one seems to be gone from the website as well. Censorship? Covering your tracks? The problem with HTMLGIANT is NOT just the comments. It is sometimes with the inane posts themselves. Again, perhaps this two posts should have been removed because they contributed nothing to the conversation.
Perhaps this is all kicking a dead horse at this point. But my main point is this: The problem isn’t just the comments. It is sometimes the post themselves. I too have heard many off of the interwebs comment that HTML GIANT seems like a boys club, a place for lad humor, or Vice Magazine literature lite.
I for one would like to hear why these posts have gone missing. There was an editorial intervention of some kind either by the poster (did Jimmy Chen write all of these and then delete them?) or by some other editor. Or is there a policy that removes posts after a given period of time? (Doesn’t seem to be the case.)
It is a cop out to not address this. (And the ‘we don’t want to get political’ is the lamest of excuses. You cannot claim to write about literature and not either address the political or acknowledge a political aspect to literature.) I’m glad to see a start here but I think this doesn’t go far enough. Not wanting to censor is admirable, but I think HTML GIANT could be a bit more transparent and self-critical about some of these other posts, which have now gone missing. I admire Justin for taking this seriously and being very thoughtful in his response. But I’d like to hear Jimmy Chen or the main eds. (whomever that is) address these other posts. The problem isn’t just the trolls.
Just out of interest, who is it that makes these criticisms of HTMLGIANT? What are the alternatives to it, blog/website wise? I only came across it fairly recently.
Just out of interest, who is it that makes these criticisms of HTMLGIANT? What are the alternatives to it, blog/website wise? I only came across it fairly recently.
well said, kate. very well said.
well said, kate. very well said.
Just out of interest, who is it that makes these criticisms of HTMLGIANT? What are the alternatives to it, blog/website wise? I only came across it fairly recently.
well said, kate. very well said.
I like you, mimi. thanks for being here.
I like you, mimi. thanks for being here.
I like you, mimi. thanks for being here.
A gold star for excellence in being a complete moron. Morons everywhere wonder and gape at your idiocy.
A gold star for excellence in being a complete moron. Morons everywhere wonder and gape at your idiocy.
A gold star for excellence in being a complete moron. Morons everywhere wonder and gape at your idiocy.
agreed. “stalin would be proud” kate!
agreed. “stalin would be proud” kate!
agreed. “stalin would be proud” kate!
I was also been interested in how/why those two posts (Zelda and Hungerford) were removed. I had a comment “ready in my head” for the Hungerford post (because, quite coincidentally, I was listening to her series of lectures on academicearth.org at that time) and when I went to write it, the post had disappeared.
I was also been interested in how/why those two posts (Zelda and Hungerford) were removed. I had a comment “ready in my head” for the Hungerford post (because, quite coincidentally, I was listening to her series of lectures on academicearth.org at that time) and when I went to write it, the post had disappeared.
I was also been interested in how/why those two posts (Zelda and Hungerford) were removed. I had a comment “ready in my head” for the Hungerford post (because, quite coincidentally, I was listening to her series of lectures on academicearth.org at that time) and when I went to write it, the post had disappeared.
damn, kate, well done. props on “bloviating hate speech”
damn, kate, well done. props on “bloviating hate speech”
damn, kate, well done. props on “bloviating hate speech”
there’s nothing wrong with praise, even if it’s somebody’s friend. it counterbalances all the venom
there’s nothing wrong with praise, even if it’s somebody’s friend. it counterbalances all the venom
there’s nothing wrong with praise, even if it’s somebody’s friend. it counterbalances all the venom
Thank you, Jesus!*
I realize I could have added to my list about this comments thread (in my previous comment, just above):
– I paused to contemplate (Jesus reminded me that we’re all naturally fluid… There is no solid “self.”) –
because I really did, I paused to contemplate when I read that. A nice reminder.
*the first time I’ve ever wed those words non-ironically, I think
Thank you, Jesus!*
I realize I could have added to my list about this comments thread (in my previous comment, just above):
– I paused to contemplate (Jesus reminded me that we’re all naturally fluid… There is no solid “self.”) –
because I really did, I paused to contemplate when I read that. A nice reminder.
*the first time I’ve ever wed those words non-ironically, I think
Thank you, Jesus!*
I realize I could have added to my list about this comments thread (in my previous comment, just above):
– I paused to contemplate (Jesus reminded me that we’re all naturally fluid… There is no solid “self.”) –
because I really did, I paused to contemplate when I read that. A nice reminder.
*the first time I’ve ever wed those words non-ironically, I think
*have* also been
sheesh
*have* also been
sheesh
*have* also been
sheesh
Wait. Shit. You’re not Molly? I’ve always thought you were Molly.
I mean, I knew about MoGa. I just thought she had a handful of monikers to throw off the FBI or something.
Wait. Shit. You’re not Molly? I’ve always thought you were Molly.
I mean, I knew about MoGa. I just thought she had a handful of monikers to throw off the FBI or something.
Wait. Shit. You’re not Molly? I’ve always thought you were Molly.
I mean, I knew about MoGa. I just thought she had a handful of monikers to throw off the FBI or something.
No, don’t worry, she’s lying. Definitely Molly.
No, don’t worry, she’s lying. Definitely Molly.
No, don’t worry, she’s lying. Definitely Molly.
now who’s being intentionally dramatic, jereme?
now who’s being intentionally dramatic, jereme?
now who’s being intentionally dramatic, jereme?
I’ve followed this thread since the beginning and remained reticent because I find these comment threads overwhelming. But since my name has been invoked so many times, I feel a response is somewhat expected.
I’m stunned at how controversial the Zelda post was. Misogyny is about power and violence, and my post was simply obtuse and naive. The post was something ‘only a man could’ve written,’ and I pulled it down because a) I come off like a moron, and b) the comments were really hurtful. (For those who haven’t read it, I essentially reduce Zelda to her looks—but in my defense, I do that to many male authors too. If anything, my tone towards Zelda was much more nicer than towards Gore Vidal or Philip Roth, or other subjects of my satire.)
Kate, in your 2/4/10 blog post I read “oh blogger at html giant, i would hope they would be secret weapons pointed to decimate icky boys like you,” key word being “decimate,” which is a violent and aggressively political term. I don’t see how that wasn’t personal. I feel you see me as a ‘man’ for more than I see you as a ‘woman,’ just sayin’.
Jereme, thank you for defending me, and for being honest with your unpopular views. I feel you ‘got my back,’ and that makes me feel good. Though I appreciate David (as one will see below), I disagree with him and others that you are a dick or a moron. I think you’re really smart and at times profound.
David, I really enjoyed your long comment and especially these lines: “[…] one of the assumptions within the ‘hyper-sensitivity’ slander is that minorities aren’t already exercising quite sophisticated judgments about what is or is not offensive to them in a culture that pathologizes them in a thousand implicit ways then exempts itself from responsibility under the free speech clause it claims only for itself at any moment.” White people tend to want to decide what is or isn’t offensive to minorities – like to “help” them out — which, for me, seems racist.
Justin, thanks for pointing towards my Tom Wolfe post twice. I appreciate your enthusiasm.
Ok folks, show’s over. Thank you everyone for playing.
I’ve followed this thread since the beginning and remained reticent because I find these comment threads overwhelming. But since my name has been invoked so many times, I feel a response is somewhat expected.
I’m stunned at how controversial the Zelda post was. Misogyny is about power and violence, and my post was simply obtuse and naive. The post was something ‘only a man could’ve written,’ and I pulled it down because a) I come off like a moron, and b) the comments were really hurtful. (For those who haven’t read it, I essentially reduce Zelda to her looks—but in my defense, I do that to many male authors too. If anything, my tone towards Zelda was much more nicer than towards Gore Vidal or Philip Roth, or other subjects of my satire.)
Kate, in your 2/4/10 blog post I read “oh blogger at html giant, i would hope they would be secret weapons pointed to decimate icky boys like you,” key word being “decimate,” which is a violent and aggressively political term. I don’t see how that wasn’t personal. I feel you see me as a ‘man’ for more than I see you as a ‘woman,’ just sayin’.
Jereme, thank you for defending me, and for being honest with your unpopular views. I feel you ‘got my back,’ and that makes me feel good. Though I appreciate David (as one will see below), I disagree with him and others that you are a dick or a moron. I think you’re really smart and at times profound.
David, I really enjoyed your long comment and especially these lines: “[…] one of the assumptions within the ‘hyper-sensitivity’ slander is that minorities aren’t already exercising quite sophisticated judgments about what is or is not offensive to them in a culture that pathologizes them in a thousand implicit ways then exempts itself from responsibility under the free speech clause it claims only for itself at any moment.” White people tend to want to decide what is or isn’t offensive to minorities – like to “help” them out — which, for me, seems racist.
Justin, thanks for pointing towards my Tom Wolfe post twice. I appreciate your enthusiasm.
Ok folks, show’s over. Thank you everyone for playing.
I’ve followed this thread since the beginning and remained reticent because I find these comment threads overwhelming. But since my name has been invoked so many times, I feel a response is somewhat expected.
I’m stunned at how controversial the Zelda post was. Misogyny is about power and violence, and my post was simply obtuse and naive. The post was something ‘only a man could’ve written,’ and I pulled it down because a) I come off like a moron, and b) the comments were really hurtful. (For those who haven’t read it, I essentially reduce Zelda to her looks—but in my defense, I do that to many male authors too. If anything, my tone towards Zelda was much more nicer than towards Gore Vidal or Philip Roth, or other subjects of my satire.)
Kate, in your 2/4/10 blog post I read “oh blogger at html giant, i would hope they would be secret weapons pointed to decimate icky boys like you,” key word being “decimate,” which is a violent and aggressively political term. I don’t see how that wasn’t personal. I feel you see me as a ‘man’ for more than I see you as a ‘woman,’ just sayin’.
Jereme, thank you for defending me, and for being honest with your unpopular views. I feel you ‘got my back,’ and that makes me feel good. Though I appreciate David (as one will see below), I disagree with him and others that you are a dick or a moron. I think you’re really smart and at times profound.
David, I really enjoyed your long comment and especially these lines: “[…] one of the assumptions within the ‘hyper-sensitivity’ slander is that minorities aren’t already exercising quite sophisticated judgments about what is or is not offensive to them in a culture that pathologizes them in a thousand implicit ways then exempts itself from responsibility under the free speech clause it claims only for itself at any moment.” White people tend to want to decide what is or isn’t offensive to minorities – like to “help” them out — which, for me, seems racist.
Justin, thanks for pointing towards my Tom Wolfe post twice. I appreciate your enthusiasm.
Ok folks, show’s over. Thank you everyone for playing.
Nah, Paul, I’m not pissed off. I was just a little rushed out the door and hence maybe too brusque. I hear what you’re saying, totally. All good.
Nah, Paul, I’m not pissed off. I was just a little rushed out the door and hence maybe too brusque. I hear what you’re saying, totally. All good.
Nah, Paul, I’m not pissed off. I was just a little rushed out the door and hence maybe too brusque. I hear what you’re saying, totally. All good.
Jimmy – didn’t say I don’t bring up these things on my own blog (and hey, thanks for reading!) but that i didn’t comment on your completely inane nipple post on html giant. and i wasn’t being personal or attacking youl on the zelda post. “icky boy” though was referring to a lot of the sexist comments on html giant, and how to write about a woman intellectual and yeah even bring up her appearance and sure, of course, your posts, that nipple post in particular I was also referring to.
Jimmy – didn’t say I don’t bring up these things on my own blog (and hey, thanks for reading!) but that i didn’t comment on your completely inane nipple post on html giant. and i wasn’t being personal or attacking youl on the zelda post. “icky boy” though was referring to a lot of the sexist comments on html giant, and how to write about a woman intellectual and yeah even bring up her appearance and sure, of course, your posts, that nipple post in particular I was also referring to.
Jimmy – didn’t say I don’t bring up these things on my own blog (and hey, thanks for reading!) but that i didn’t comment on your completely inane nipple post on html giant. and i wasn’t being personal or attacking youl on the zelda post. “icky boy” though was referring to a lot of the sexist comments on html giant, and how to write about a woman intellectual and yeah even bring up her appearance and sure, of course, your posts, that nipple post in particular I was also referring to.
JT
Just as an FYI on the technical aspect of this comment, Justin, I believe that you can (if you choose to — the censorship issue notwithstanding) find a simple blog plugin that allows 2 things — 1) comments to be posted only when the commenter includes their email address, and 2) a place where you can “block” comments made by commenters by listing “banned” email addresses.
As to the more intellectual aspect of the misogyny / censorship / community debates going on, I’m still trying to corner my opinion into something whole and thought out. But what I can say immediately is that in terms of entertainment, the idea of sorting through so many comments has a value for this reader. And in terms of something interesting or provocative to unpack on the web, many interesting comments or viewpoints were opened up. Having run websites before, first thing’s first — getting ANYONE to leave ANYTHING in the form of a comment is wonderful. That’s what makes for community here — voices getting into the mix.
When the commenting lapses into the kind of Vice do’s n don’ts vitriol, it gets to a point of seeming like sophomoric, intellectual hating and I just don’t have the time for it. I’ll find myself starting to engage and then thinking — this is just foolish and not worth my time. Which I think any of us readers have the option to exercise at any time. There’s nothing more uninspiring than angry, intelligent people misfiring in public. And I feel that way about all viewpoints across the political spectrum.
As far as the beauty – plus – brains conundrum — that’s a really complex idea and may be worth its own directed, considerate post. Maybe even a point-counterpoint style male and female argument. Hell, if I were teaching advanced composition still, I’d ask a female student and a male student to swap each other’s viewpoints and argue on behalf of the other side.
Something else to consider is how in this very image-saturated and highly accessible Internet age, we as writers, perhaps formerly less known by our visual appearance, can now construct an identity for our work/words based on how we allow our image and photographs to play out in public. In a nutshell — we don’t / won’t always have control over the images of ourselves that get posted around the Internet, but the ones we do? Well — some people feel inclined to use their physical attractiveness or sexiness or whatever — to get others’ attention, and then maybe try to convert that attention from themselves to their work. As a devil’s advocate on this argument, I think it wise to put some of the responsibility on the part of the people being argued about / over, in how they allow themselves to be portrayed in the public arena.
Thanks as always for inviting what hopefully will be read as thoughtful, engaged and willing-to-listen comment(er)s.
MB
JT
Just as an FYI on the technical aspect of this comment, Justin, I believe that you can (if you choose to — the censorship issue notwithstanding) find a simple blog plugin that allows 2 things — 1) comments to be posted only when the commenter includes their email address, and 2) a place where you can “block” comments made by commenters by listing “banned” email addresses.
As to the more intellectual aspect of the misogyny / censorship / community debates going on, I’m still trying to corner my opinion into something whole and thought out. But what I can say immediately is that in terms of entertainment, the idea of sorting through so many comments has a value for this reader. And in terms of something interesting or provocative to unpack on the web, many interesting comments or viewpoints were opened up. Having run websites before, first thing’s first — getting ANYONE to leave ANYTHING in the form of a comment is wonderful. That’s what makes for community here — voices getting into the mix.
When the commenting lapses into the kind of Vice do’s n don’ts vitriol, it gets to a point of seeming like sophomoric, intellectual hating and I just don’t have the time for it. I’ll find myself starting to engage and then thinking — this is just foolish and not worth my time. Which I think any of us readers have the option to exercise at any time. There’s nothing more uninspiring than angry, intelligent people misfiring in public. And I feel that way about all viewpoints across the political spectrum.
As far as the beauty – plus – brains conundrum — that’s a really complex idea and may be worth its own directed, considerate post. Maybe even a point-counterpoint style male and female argument. Hell, if I were teaching advanced composition still, I’d ask a female student and a male student to swap each other’s viewpoints and argue on behalf of the other side.
Something else to consider is how in this very image-saturated and highly accessible Internet age, we as writers, perhaps formerly less known by our visual appearance, can now construct an identity for our work/words based on how we allow our image and photographs to play out in public. In a nutshell — we don’t / won’t always have control over the images of ourselves that get posted around the Internet, but the ones we do? Well — some people feel inclined to use their physical attractiveness or sexiness or whatever — to get others’ attention, and then maybe try to convert that attention from themselves to their work. As a devil’s advocate on this argument, I think it wise to put some of the responsibility on the part of the people being argued about / over, in how they allow themselves to be portrayed in the public arena.
Thanks as always for inviting what hopefully will be read as thoughtful, engaged and willing-to-listen comment(er)s.
MB
JT
Just as an FYI on the technical aspect of this comment, Justin, I believe that you can (if you choose to — the censorship issue notwithstanding) find a simple blog plugin that allows 2 things — 1) comments to be posted only when the commenter includes their email address, and 2) a place where you can “block” comments made by commenters by listing “banned” email addresses.
As to the more intellectual aspect of the misogyny / censorship / community debates going on, I’m still trying to corner my opinion into something whole and thought out. But what I can say immediately is that in terms of entertainment, the idea of sorting through so many comments has a value for this reader. And in terms of something interesting or provocative to unpack on the web, many interesting comments or viewpoints were opened up. Having run websites before, first thing’s first — getting ANYONE to leave ANYTHING in the form of a comment is wonderful. That’s what makes for community here — voices getting into the mix.
When the commenting lapses into the kind of Vice do’s n don’ts vitriol, it gets to a point of seeming like sophomoric, intellectual hating and I just don’t have the time for it. I’ll find myself starting to engage and then thinking — this is just foolish and not worth my time. Which I think any of us readers have the option to exercise at any time. There’s nothing more uninspiring than angry, intelligent people misfiring in public. And I feel that way about all viewpoints across the political spectrum.
As far as the beauty – plus – brains conundrum — that’s a really complex idea and may be worth its own directed, considerate post. Maybe even a point-counterpoint style male and female argument. Hell, if I were teaching advanced composition still, I’d ask a female student and a male student to swap each other’s viewpoints and argue on behalf of the other side.
Something else to consider is how in this very image-saturated and highly accessible Internet age, we as writers, perhaps formerly less known by our visual appearance, can now construct an identity for our work/words based on how we allow our image and photographs to play out in public. In a nutshell — we don’t / won’t always have control over the images of ourselves that get posted around the Internet, but the ones we do? Well — some people feel inclined to use their physical attractiveness or sexiness or whatever — to get others’ attention, and then maybe try to convert that attention from themselves to their work. As a devil’s advocate on this argument, I think it wise to put some of the responsibility on the part of the people being argued about / over, in how they allow themselves to be portrayed in the public arena.
Thanks as always for inviting what hopefully will be read as thoughtful, engaged and willing-to-listen comment(er)s.
MB
MY PERSPECTIVE
I do love htmlgiant, though I tend to avoid the comments streams ever since the Molly Young and Tits Professor and Zelda Backfat debacles. The !offensive! posts themselves are usually Jimmy’s, but I don’t mind so much because I think he is performing classical Troll Maneuvers. Is this assumption incorrect? In his comment above, he pulls the classic troll move of “I was extremely hurt by these responses to my innocent statements. How could anyone be offended by a post drawing gentle attention to a pair of erect professorial nipples, or the luscious salt-pork torso of Zelda Fitzgerald? Yet I must admit I cried when they called me Icky Boy.” This is what professional trolls do: spout all kinds of offensiveness under the umbrella of Words Can’t Hurt and then pretend to be deeply wounded when someone calls them a bigot for it. Hilarious, but maybe not so good in a conversation that attempts to address sexism on HTML Giant in a serious way.
I was happy to read Justin Taylor’s honest and searching post on this situation, but I was a little surprised by Blake’s response, which seems to express more frustration with people who get offended than with the people who create offensive content. That seems backwards.
MY PERSPECTIVE
I do love htmlgiant, though I tend to avoid the comments streams ever since the Molly Young and Tits Professor and Zelda Backfat debacles. The !offensive! posts themselves are usually Jimmy’s, but I don’t mind so much because I think he is performing classical Troll Maneuvers. Is this assumption incorrect? In his comment above, he pulls the classic troll move of “I was extremely hurt by these responses to my innocent statements. How could anyone be offended by a post drawing gentle attention to a pair of erect professorial nipples, or the luscious salt-pork torso of Zelda Fitzgerald? Yet I must admit I cried when they called me Icky Boy.” This is what professional trolls do: spout all kinds of offensiveness under the umbrella of Words Can’t Hurt and then pretend to be deeply wounded when someone calls them a bigot for it. Hilarious, but maybe not so good in a conversation that attempts to address sexism on HTML Giant in a serious way.
I was happy to read Justin Taylor’s honest and searching post on this situation, but I was a little surprised by Blake’s response, which seems to express more frustration with people who get offended than with the people who create offensive content. That seems backwards.
MY PERSPECTIVE
I do love htmlgiant, though I tend to avoid the comments streams ever since the Molly Young and Tits Professor and Zelda Backfat debacles. The !offensive! posts themselves are usually Jimmy’s, but I don’t mind so much because I think he is performing classical Troll Maneuvers. Is this assumption incorrect? In his comment above, he pulls the classic troll move of “I was extremely hurt by these responses to my innocent statements. How could anyone be offended by a post drawing gentle attention to a pair of erect professorial nipples, or the luscious salt-pork torso of Zelda Fitzgerald? Yet I must admit I cried when they called me Icky Boy.” This is what professional trolls do: spout all kinds of offensiveness under the umbrella of Words Can’t Hurt and then pretend to be deeply wounded when someone calls them a bigot for it. Hilarious, but maybe not so good in a conversation that attempts to address sexism on HTML Giant in a serious way.
I was happy to read Justin Taylor’s honest and searching post on this situation, but I was a little surprised by Blake’s response, which seems to express more frustration with people who get offended than with the people who create offensive content. That seems backwards.
KS
I have to wonder if this level of negative whatever-isms in the form of comments online is directly and maybe exclusively related to the fact that one can be anonymous here, and still feel the full rush of expressing (the at-times ugliness of) their opinion. Occasionally, yes, someone’s comments are made and their name and or blog is attached. But more often than not, we have no idea who said what and thusly — no one can be held accountable in the end. Seems cowardly.
Not like I like to get all tough guy or anything, but I read these comments sometimes thinking, would a guy walk up to a person at a party or in a restaurant and say that to their face? I’ve not heard a lot of blatant, public (racist or otherwise) name-calling before (once on my only trip to Boston, actually, and I was mortified). I think it’s a bit duplicitous to take shelter in the anonymity here and elsewhere. Regardless of whether one is being true to their opinions.
And none of this obviously is directed at you, Kevin — or anyone specifically on this little mini-thread. Just sparked my brain…
Matty
KS
I have to wonder if this level of negative whatever-isms in the form of comments online is directly and maybe exclusively related to the fact that one can be anonymous here, and still feel the full rush of expressing (the at-times ugliness of) their opinion. Occasionally, yes, someone’s comments are made and their name and or blog is attached. But more often than not, we have no idea who said what and thusly — no one can be held accountable in the end. Seems cowardly.
Not like I like to get all tough guy or anything, but I read these comments sometimes thinking, would a guy walk up to a person at a party or in a restaurant and say that to their face? I’ve not heard a lot of blatant, public (racist or otherwise) name-calling before (once on my only trip to Boston, actually, and I was mortified). I think it’s a bit duplicitous to take shelter in the anonymity here and elsewhere. Regardless of whether one is being true to their opinions.
And none of this obviously is directed at you, Kevin — or anyone specifically on this little mini-thread. Just sparked my brain…
Matty
Praise of shitty writing does not counterbalance anything.
Praise of shitty writing does not counterbalance anything.
Jimmy’s posts definitely invites the trash commentators. The tone of the blog itself -does- play a part in the recent stream of shit.
Jimmy’s posts definitely invites the trash commentators. The tone of the blog itself -does- play a part in the recent stream of shit.
htmlg is morphing from within. the original impulse toward ultimate, almost devastating liberation via anarchy and transgression is caving under the pressures of conscience and common sense. it’s been a fascinating process to watch. the move from cannibalism to agriculture. certainly the latter is more sustainable and compassionate, so to speak, while the latter is more possessed and ecstatic.
i love it when htmlg gets all introspective. i feel you, htmlg, i hear you. we hear you breathing.
htmlg is morphing from within. the original impulse toward ultimate, almost devastating liberation via anarchy and transgression is caving under the pressures of conscience and common sense. it’s been a fascinating process to watch. the move from cannibalism to agriculture. certainly the latter is more sustainable and compassionate, so to speak, while the latter is more possessed and ecstatic.
i love it when htmlg gets all introspective. i feel you, htmlg, i hear you. we hear you breathing.
kate,
“(I teach gender and sexuality and race studies, btw).”
no wonder your personality is flat and you repeat the same things over and over. you’re regurgitating to us what you’ve read from textbooks. what’s “right” and what’s “wrong”. don’t you see that there is no absolute right or wrong answer to anything?
oh and i appreciate how you just ignored my comment about you offending me. thanks for being so insensitive. i found it ironic.
kate,
“(I teach gender and sexuality and race studies, btw).”
no wonder your personality is flat and you repeat the same things over and over. you’re regurgitating to us what you’ve read from textbooks. what’s “right” and what’s “wrong”. don’t you see that there is no absolute right or wrong answer to anything?
oh and i appreciate how you just ignored my comment about you offending me. thanks for being so insensitive. i found it ironic.
Blake—you say above: “i’d rather do the real thing: that is, talking about the work at hand. this is sidebar…”
The real thing is DOING the work, of course, not talking about it. Talking about it is already sidebar. HTMLGIANT is sidebar (though it’s informative and often vibrant sidebar). Critical discussion is important—and is a way to cut through some of the loneliness of a day or night spent in solitary confinement with one’s own work. But it fast devolves into drivel when invective overwhelms respectful disagreement.
I, like Tricia, told myself to steer clear of Giant’s comment streams after sampling only a small portion of the recent juvenile shitstorms (there is nothing liberating—or transgressive in any interesting way—about boys being boys). I take in enough mental toxins and puerile banality through incidental living—I don’t want to suck down more of the foul stuff via my own volition (especially if the comments are blatant sexism or racism or just plain old meanness hiding behind cowardly anonymity or in-the-club exemption). I don’t consider myself thin-skinned, but I think the brutality of assaultive language is as comparatively repulsive in this realm as physical brutality is in the world at large.
This conversation has merit (and is already 130+ comments strong and only a few of them are unnecessarily inflammatory or stupid side-of-mouth jokey spew). This site can stand to become a tiny bit more mature (through occasional introspective discussions like this one, as well as its normal informative fare) without caving into anything resembling PC homogenization and without having to give up any of its legitimate edge or anarchic vitality.
You and Justin (and all of your regular contributors) lead by example, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, whether you want the responsibility or not.
And I hope ZZZZIPP continues to keep me grinning by playing Giant’s Shakespearean fool.
Blake—you say above: “i’d rather do the real thing: that is, talking about the work at hand. this is sidebar…”
The real thing is DOING the work, of course, not talking about it. Talking about it is already sidebar. HTMLGIANT is sidebar (though it’s informative and often vibrant sidebar). Critical discussion is important—and is a way to cut through some of the loneliness of a day or night spent in solitary confinement with one’s own work. But it fast devolves into drivel when invective overwhelms respectful disagreement.
I, like Tricia, told myself to steer clear of Giant’s comment streams after sampling only a small portion of the recent juvenile shitstorms (there is nothing liberating—or transgressive in any interesting way—about boys being boys). I take in enough mental toxins and puerile banality through incidental living—I don’t want to suck down more of the foul stuff via my own volition (especially if the comments are blatant sexism or racism or just plain old meanness hiding behind cowardly anonymity or in-the-club exemption). I don’t consider myself thin-skinned, but I think the brutality of assaultive language is as comparatively repulsive in this realm as physical brutality is in the world at large.
This conversation has merit (and is already 130+ comments strong and only a few of them are unnecessarily inflammatory or stupid side-of-mouth jokey spew). This site can stand to become a tiny bit more mature (through occasional introspective discussions like this one, as well as its normal informative fare) without caving into anything resembling PC homogenization and without having to give up any of its legitimate edge or anarchic vitality.
You and Justin (and all of your regular contributors) lead by example, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, whether you want the responsibility or not.
And I hope ZZZZIPP continues to keep me grinning by playing Giant’s Shakespearean fool.
wow, you must be really angry at him. i don’t understand how someone could harbor so much hatred towards someone they’ve never met? i think it’s really irrational. maybe you should get psychological help so we don’t find you at our doorstep?
wow, you must be really angry at him. i don’t understand how someone could harbor so much hatred towards someone they’ve never met? i think it’s really irrational. maybe you should get psychological help so we don’t find you at our doorstep?
p.s. just saw your post about what happened here. so passive-aggressive of you. it’s like i’m reading your private diary…but i’m not. i’m reading you complain on your blog. you really are a weak person. i feel bad for you, because it really DOES seem like people’s comments affect your mental state much more than they should. it’s sad, kate. really sad.
p.s. just saw your post about what happened here. so passive-aggressive of you. it’s like i’m reading your private diary…but i’m not. i’m reading you complain on your blog. you really are a weak person. i feel bad for you, because it really DOES seem like people’s comments affect your mental state much more than they should. it’s sad, kate. really sad.
gena, i wasn’t going to comment any further, so i’ll keep this short. my irritation above hardly qualifies as hatred, about the only thing that i wish i hadn’t said after even more reflection was that jereme was not all that bright, that being a slur on a level and kind approaching something someone like you would say, and in fact have said in this very thread, but since you, like jereme, seem to have some special “life studies” doctorate that gives you such piercing clarity into people’s psychological states, who am i to argue? guess i’m just a hater. in which case, i will say that your snarkiness and troll-like baiting of people is really sad, very much a case of you playing whatever cards you can grab to try and raise stakes, rather than speak to any takeable point at all. still, what’s more tedious is your attack on people like kate for supposedly being mind-droned by “textbooks” (or, hm, are they just books? sorta changes the connotation if they are, don’t it?) you clearly haven’t read, or understood, yourself only to counter all that pesky book knowledge with the tired mouthing of the most inane ideas of our culture, like: “don’t you see that there is no absolute right or wrong answer to anything?” oh, the humanity! thank god, we can all go to bed then, nothing else to talk about. nighty night.
gena, i wasn’t going to comment any further, so i’ll keep this short. my irritation above hardly qualifies as hatred, about the only thing that i wish i hadn’t said after even more reflection was that jereme was not all that bright, that being a slur on a level and kind approaching something someone like you would say, and in fact have said in this very thread, but since you, like jereme, seem to have some special “life studies” doctorate that gives you such piercing clarity into people’s psychological states, who am i to argue? guess i’m just a hater. in which case, i will say that your snarkiness and troll-like baiting of people is really sad, very much a case of you playing whatever cards you can grab to try and raise stakes, rather than speak to any takeable point at all. still, what’s more tedious is your attack on people like kate for supposedly being mind-droned by “textbooks” (or, hm, are they just books? sorta changes the connotation if they are, don’t it?) you clearly haven’t read, or understood, yourself only to counter all that pesky book knowledge with the tired mouthing of the most inane ideas of our culture, like: “don’t you see that there is no absolute right or wrong answer to anything?” oh, the humanity! thank god, we can all go to bed then, nothing else to talk about. nighty night.
oooh, you seem to hate me too.
like i said before: please don’t show up on our doorstep.
oooh, you seem to hate me too.
like i said before: please don’t show up on our doorstep.
this has been, well, something. thanks to everyone for chiming in.
i’m going to close comments on this thread now. time to move on.
this has been, well, something. thanks to everyone for chiming in.
i’m going to close comments on this thread now. time to move on.