Letters to the Editor
softdog
Published Letters: 186 Editor's Choice: 8
-
Long Sigh
[Read the article: Daily Kos writers' "strike" gets ugly]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm no Clinton fan, but leave it Kos to go from rational to drama queen in 24 hours.
Alegre's post was what the Encyclopedia Dramatica calls a "flounce post", a troll for attention. The part which used "don't forget your union dues" to shild for Clinton campaign donations seemed kind of cheap.
MM's initial restraint and diplomacy - with a crack on the use of "strike" was a great counter to the dramatic accusations. It implied the problem was user based, not Kos (true or not). H
He could have made the case it's up to Clinton supporters to defend her if they want - perhaps adding the "sexist attacks will be dealt with" part.
Instead, he made the case for the strike by then flying off the handle. The statement "she doesn't deserve 'fairness' on this site" seems to confirm their worst fears. Terms such as "civil war" and "shrinking band of paranoid holdouts" are melodramatic and give the impression of a resentful owner sneering at those who dare to sully his website.
This is the problem with online culture (and I include myself in this): even if you avoid your first worst impulse to start a flamewar, you can always give in to that second worst impulse.
-
The point is no longer the election but the shouting.
[Read the article: Daily Kos writers' "strike" gets ugly]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So many responses here - and on DailyKos - is proving everyone loves drama (I also have proved I can't type anything without a few obvious typos).
No matter what valid points are in these in these we are using it as a pretext us to vent pent up rage and anxiety. Having two candidates with vocal supporters gives us a place to direct it.
We've got good reason to be anxious. There's 8 years of frustration as Bush leaves major problems for the next president on nearly every area imaginable. There's shame over the war and torture, and fear of a depression. Plus there's the endless tension over sexism and racism.
So in a way, perhaps the election is providing a needed catharsis. The concern, however, is at some point the ugliness creates a cumulative bitterness which will make getting through the likely tough times harder.
This didn't start with this election or these candidates - it's the byproduct of a years of outrage mining by Rove, Gingrich and company, who capitalize on animosity. We need to remember this.
So at some point we need to get past the freakout and make an effort to be positive - not just about Clinton/Obama but this entire infuriating situation.
Slamming doors and namecalling has its uses, but by themselves they won't stop America from falling apart.
-
I'll Write You Off as an Ignorant Lazy Asshole Who Writes Like an Reactionary
[Read the article: I'm (not) in love with a stripper]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Catherine Price writes "If this is anything involving your eye, then disregard the rest of this post and write me off as an asshole."
The third sentence in article Price links to says just that: "According to the lawsuit, as the dancer swung around, the heel of her shoe hit him in the eye, causing him 'serious injuries.'"
Price couldn't read three sentences before launching into a mocking rant starting: "I have a question: Are you stupid?"
If this was a male blogger, or anti-feminist woman, called an injured stripper stupid and clearly didn't the whole article, this would be written up in Broadsheet as blaming the victim. Broadsheet might dissect the ugly, prudish assumptions and entitlement indicated by such lazy reading.
Broadsheet would be correct. This post is so interested in mocking someone's sexual choices it ignores information which contradicts their attack.
Because it's a strip club, the guy deserves it and is presumed stupid. Price admits such an accident is highly unlikely, but still mocks the victim by equating his action with high risk sports.
How is this different from berating a female victim for wearing sexy clothes or being drunk? It's not.
If the guy sued over some clearly bogus claim like a boob blow, Price would be justified, but she knows this wasn't the case and wrote the post anyway - apparently the rules about honest rhetoric only work one way.
-
Weak Tea, Cathy
[Read the article: I'm (not) in love with a stripper]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Update: According to the lawsuit, Mr. Chang did suffer an eye injury. I apologize. But as a general point, I still stand by what follows."
This is not an apology, because it doesn't deal with how you didn't bother to read the article you were writing about. It's a "mistakes were made" quasi-apology.
Prices general point rests this false superiority.
She blames the victim and call him stupid for being injured by the actions of someone else.
She justifies this by falsely equating a minimal risk event with extreme sports (high kicks near the head aren't standard).
Her general rhetoric not only echos that used by apolgists for harassment, but also right wing types who want to make businesses immune from any liability.
I'm surprised she didn't use the old "hot coffee lawsuit" canard - which falsely frames a lawsuit over severe third degree burns as frivolous.
-
Cleary it wasn't enough for Joan Walsh.
[Read the article: Was Obama's speech enough?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Considering she's a huge Clinton supporter, Joan's commentary was less grudging than I expected - which shows just how good that speech was.
That headline, though, is pathetically transparent.
Obviously the only speech which will be enough for Joan is "I concede."
Sigh.