Letters to the Editor
slcgrad
Published Letters: 78
-
And
[Read the article: Mind your manners online]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...And as far as the "well, it's Salon's fault for posting inflamatory articles," thingy, I 85% disagree. I get paid to write a column on the internet (this, despite the stupid typos that I left in my last comment), and I except a certain number of angry comments. That's cool; I'm the author, I get paid, they don't, and I have a consistent online writing persona, so if you think I suck, whatever, leave an angry comment (a angry comment, not 25 of them.) I can take it.
What I noticed during my experiment in the conservaative blogosphere (and this applies to all blogs, not just conservative ones), is that people would generally leave rude comments, not based on what I said, but on who they thought I was. So I'd say something like:
Look dudes, we can disagree on politics but let's do so rationally and politely.
And I'd get a reply like:
Whatever, you f**king moonbat. You liberals started all this bulls**t with your lies about Bush and the war. You guys certainly like to say nasty s**t about Bush, huh? Don't hide behind the curtain of politeness when you're doing blah blah blah blah blah...
Um, what? That's not a response to what I wrote. That's a general ad hominem attack. And since the person replying to my comment has no idea who I am or how I feel about certain issues, so that reply could be either 0% or 100% correct, depending.
The first part of being polite is just to read the words that someone wrote and reply only to what they actually say, not with some comment like, "Yeah, well you guys in [whatever group that I don't like] are doing this, so you're the jerk, whatever." This happens over and over again in blog comments. But remember: we don't know who we're talking to, and we're probably wrong in what we think about them...
Which vaguely leads back to my first point. If you read my blog and you leave a comment saying, "You suck," that's cool. I get paid and I have a consistent written record posted on my site; you know who I am and what I stand for, so at least your comment is based on something.
Like, hey, for example, Camille Pagilla's columns do suck. They read like she's either stoned, or like she's just writing about the first four random topics that occured to her as she was leaving the School of the Arts. The fact that she still gets paid to churn out her tripe is an insult to real writers everywhere.
There. I said it. And I stand by it.
Does that make me a rude a**hole? Or does that mean that I'm responding to a column that I don't like by someone who gets paid to write it? But clicking on the column and reading it, I'm helping to pay Camille Pagilla. Which I feel gives me more leeway. I shouldn't spam and leave 50 mean comments, but otherwise, I feel like I'm in the clear.
Sorry, by the way, for the crazily long comments; I'm up all night, studying for law school, and I'm bored. My bad.
--Oliver
-
*
[Read the article: Mind your manners online]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Softdog; you're right, in that I wrote my comments at four in the morning, and I only sort of skimmed yours. I guess I was trying to make a distinction between mean comments towards other comment-leavers (bad!) and snarky comments towards column-writers (okay in moderation).
I don't "do" Table Talk, or what have you, so I can't really comment on that. Do people really want lots of moderation? I do have to admit that I enjoy reading other people's comment fights, so, I dunno. If two people want to yell at each other, I guess I'm hypothetically okay with that. But I was struck by how hard it was to avoid getting in a fight on the blogosphere, even when I was trying my damnedest to not get into one.
This comment has no major real point, I guess, so I'm ending it now.
-
*
[Read the article: Queen Hillary's disruptive court]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hey! It's Camille Paglia again! And she's talkin' 'bout stuff!
You just cash that paycheck, Camille, baby. Run along now.
-
Whoops!
[Read the article: Queen Hillary's disruptive court]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...I sort of undercut the point made by Anonymous, didn't I?
I'm perfectly capable of just saying that Pagila is an idiot. It's like debating whether Paris Hilton has talent or not. Do we really need 87 pages of comments to decide this issue? Let's all move on. Next!
-
Gosh
[Read the article: Queen Hillary's disruptive court]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Gee whiz,
Salon seems to have deleted my very short comment, which was entirely without profanity, where I suggested that debating whether Camille Paglia (who I've met, because my mom teaches with her, and who was a moron in person) ...um, where was I? Oh yeah! So Salon deleted my comment suggesting that debating over whether Camille was an idiot or not is the same as debating over whether Paris Hilton is talentless or not.
You go, Salon! Freedom of speech is important, yeah? I write for your rival www.nerve.com, and I remember when your website actually used to contain news. I'm a liberal, and I hate G.W.B. as much as possible, but you seem to have settled just for that, yeah? No actual news, just various "Bush sucks" columns.
Fire Joan Walsh, please, and replace her with Heather Havrilesky. I didn't even know that Joan was the editor in chief until I read it in this comment section, but, Jesus, she's in charge? Have you read her humorless, non-interesing blog? Go here:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/?last_story=/opinion/walsh/misc/2007/11/15/colbert_springsteen/
And spare me. Here's a link to my blog. I don't claim that it's good or interesting or anything. I get paid to write it, and that's that. But maybe it sucks. That's what separates me from the Joan Walshes and the Pagilas of the world: lack of excessive self-regard:
http://www.nerve.com/nerveblog/nervevideo.aspx?blogid=144
--Oliver