Letters to the Editor
-
people like sue
show that some people really delight in exaggerated claims of great injustice to them. These old culture warriors with inflated stories of battle they've told 100x till the stories themselves become the glue which bond them together.
It becomes a part of their identity and meaning in life. A catchall on which to blame any injustice, real or perceived, or even just to console oneself in moments of insecurity.
The malcontent which becomes comforting over time.
-
now, No Name Given,
it was *I* who was, perhaps, too literal. or rather, foolish. i have a tendency to believe words that people put down unless i know they were lying. Sue, why don't you give time and place?
-
yes, Palladino
and let's go back to the horse and buggy - no global warming!
-
They attack women because they don't agree with them
Sometimes answers are obvious if you step away from your personal feelings.
Are there men who hate women? Yes.
Are there women who hate men? Yes.
Are there white people who hate blacks, Yes.
Are there black people who hate white people? Yes.
Jews, Arabs, fat people, thin people, Wasps? Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes. Yes.
But these facts mislead us to the real problem. .
When some people disagree with what you've said, they attack whatever they can "target" about you.
Tom Cruise, the most successful actor of this generation is attacked for being short.
Rosie for being gay.
Janet Reno, the brilliant Attorney General, for not being attractive.
In most societies, the way to attack a woman is her appearance... or her sexual behavior...or her intelligence or simply by spewing hate.
The way to attack man is to claim he is weak... or his appearance... or his intelligence or simply by spewing hate.
Everyone who stands up will be attacked. This is reality.
But historical prejudice blinds the individual. It makes you think "they" are attacking you because you are a woman, or black, or gay, or Jewish, or whatever. No, they are attacking you because they don't agree with you and they target you in any way they can, and being a woman, gay, etc. simply provides them with the target.
But being attacked is hurtful. So you can't see beyond the hurt to the reality. The same people who attack a woman on the web would defend her if she wrote things they agreed with.
Now wasn't that obvious?
-
Turn them in
If a post or e-mail threatens violence, forward it to the police and/or FBI.
-
People who hate people
I don't know why it comes as such a surprise that women who blog are subjected to the worst kind of invective from other bloggers.
Hasn't the blogosphere exploded because it has provided such an easy platform for anyone with an Internet connection to bless us all with their sage personal insights? I mean, how did we ever survive as a people without the global musings of conspiracy theorists pecking away in their basements?
Every medium invented by mankind has proven corruptible.
For every Jean Cocteau film, we have a million versions of "American Pie." For every "Oprah" there's a "Jerry Springer." For every "Masterpiece Theater," there's "World's Most Shocking Animal Attacks." For every "Saturday Evening Post," there's a "Hardcore Porn Magazine." For every MySpace page, there's a sexual predator. For every NPR, there's a Rush Limbaugh. And on and on it goes.
I happen to believe that blogs are just as vulnerable to the forces of the marketplace as other things. People vote with their feet or, I suppose, their keyboards.
No one loves smart discourse more than I do, it's why I've been a loyal Salon reader for more than five years. I used to enjoy reading smart blogs until a certain tone began creeping into comments. That "if you don't agree with me, you're stupid" tone. The "if you don't agree with me, you're my enemy" tone. Once a blogger's comments became an opportunity for a mob of people to begin an attack directly against that blogger, I stopped reading. Who cares? Reading comments that remind me of the kind of thing people write on bathroom walls isn't what I come to blogs for. So I don't come. The virtual marketplace is so crowded with really good and some even great content that I don't need to return to blogs that provide a forum for annoying teenaged boys sitting in their underwear in the mothers' basements pretending to be political analysts.
Of course, the unfortunate but not surprising aspect of Kathy Sierra is that she learned what people who work in the dreaded "mainstream media" have always known, which is that there are a lot of truly vicious people out there.
Sierra may have had the purest of intentions when she started her blog. And she may truly be someone with expertise and insight to offer in her field.
But Sierra has run up against the hypocrisy of so-called "citizen journalism." A blog is a point of view. It creates a community of people with similar points of view. Points of view are not fact. In America today, if you voice your point of view, you run the risk of being attacked. Valerie Plame? No one should be surprised.
-
No irony or hypocrisy there.
Hasn't the blogosphere exploded because it has provided such an easy platform for anyone with an Internet connection to bless us all with their sage personal insights? I mean, how did we ever survive as a people without the global musings of conspiracy theorists pecking away in their basements?
Every medium invented by mankind has proven corruptible.
Wow. That was really deep (basement level) sage personal insight.
-
When Will Walsh Address Paglia's Own Hate Rhetoric?
I am not much of a Walsh fan most of the time, but I appreciated this piece very much. I have long been deeply troubled by this aspect of the Web. Misogyny is definitely a huge part of it. But homophobic attacks are rampant as well. And what about fat? The intensity of anti-fat hate is not merely a symptom of misogynist looksism. It has a life of its own. And you don't have to look much beyond Salon to encounter equally vile racist sentiments. I have always been very uncomfortable with the "get a thick skin" response to it all. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I appreciate Walsh opening the dialogue. However, I did feel a little ill seeing her include Camille Paglia as a victim of this. Not that Paglia doesn't generate over-the-top vile and sexist responses from trolls. But Walsh needs to be held accountable for her endorsement of Paglia. I don't feel that objections to Paglia's use of "fagged out" to describe Maureen Dowd (to cite just one recent and relatively mild example) is the online equivalent telling her to "dress less provocatively." Paglia does provoke, as well as perpetuate exactly this kind of childish (at best) and hateful rhetoric. No, she doesn't deserve violent threats and sexist rants in response. But Paglia's own hateful rhetoric is on the same misogynist and homophobic continuum as that of the trolls. If she doesn't want to be seen as a hypocrite, I think Walsh needs to address this.