Letters to the Editor
-
The 25% rule
Good article on a timely issue: how do we deal with trashmail vs free speech? With the further test of misogyny.
In that context I'd like to raise my theory of the "25% rule". I've generally observed that, at any given time, about 25% of the human race is engaged in some kind of "antisocial" behaviour. About 25% are addicts of one sort or another, about 25% are criminals of one sort or another and about 25% are just plain moron-level jerks.
Fundamentally, you can't do anything about these jerks, they're like dog shit on the sidewalk: if the dog owner didn't get rid of it, someone else will have to, or everybody just walks around it.
What you can do is reduce their intrusion level. I gather that Salon is going to institute some comment control. That's a good response, the best thing you can do is to deny these jerks the attention they crave. Think of those predator 'traps' so popular on TV (to mention another misogynist aspect of our culture): these idiots apparently think there are hosts of 13 year old girls eager to have sex with fat, bald 40 year old guys (guess we ran out of 13 year old boys). These guys are not put off by reality or even sense, likewise the bile-spewing, misogynist rageaholics are not daunted by your anger or moved by your pain; they feed on it and are preternaturally happy so long as they have your attention. Deny them that attention and they'll crawl back down into their basements to drool over their "Girls Gone Wild" tape collections.
-
It's about boundaries
I do not believe that everyone has a right to have an opinion published in the forum of his or her choice. If people feels strongly that they should be heard, they can find their own forums without polluting the public conversation.
Thank you! That's exactly what I was trying to distill my own thoughts down to.
I'm not a huge fan of censorship, for reasons that will be immediately obvious to anyone to clicks through to my website. However, I'm also not a huge fan of people who take over a discussion by shouting everyone else into the ground.
Here's the thing about the web: there's room here for all of us, but it isn't all one room. It's many rooms, and like physical rooms, they have boundaries. They have to. I would hate it, for example, if someone tore down the wall between my room and my adolescent son's. Destroying that boundary between our private physical spaces would make our relationship much harder to manage. The web is the same way. Removing boundaries results in a lot of unnecessary strain on all concerned.
Moderating a message board, blog or letters section isn't censorship in the sense that someone is being deprived of a voice. It's a question of keeping the discussion on topic, maintaining the boundary between one intellectual space and the next. Otherwise, you get a soulless free-for-all.
To change metaphors midstream, while it's true that writers can submit to any publication they want, they editor has the right to reject the piece. The internet is beginning to operate the same way, which I think is a good thing.
And yes, I limit and delete comments from my blog, although it's small enough so that the biggest problem I had was advertising.
-
Your letter was hypothetical?
Yes, It could have been a woman who wrote my hypothetical letter
But she would have been pretending to be a man, most likely. Very few women believe that women hate men and that we live in a vaginocracy.
If you guys want to fight this very true statement, go right ahead.
-- LeCastor *
Your letter was hypothetical? It didn't really exist?
Another true statement, very few men believe that men hate women and that we live in a penisocracy.
Are you sure you're a law student? Anyway we can get some proof of that?
-
it's already HAPPENING!
"bad, bullies, bad!" i remember where Ben Dover's second post was, clearly, since i was trying to tell Jane how to read him. it was deleted. without notice. nice going walsh! it's starting, huh? as for "maybe i should have just left it at "sounds like ben dover needs a hug"? i don't know? what do you think?" i'm not katrina, but i'd say yes. it's snide enough. serves just as well. Susan ["vast numbers of letter have little or nothing to do with the article, much less the author ... they are in response to OTHER LETTERS, DUH."] you don't "Mostly i read it all" you didn't read mine. so i reiterate in brief. you want the author-idolizing, author-anathematizing broadcast model, where you all gaze at the Supreme Leader ignoring the folks at your elbow. i don't. i collect community. i want to *know* the participants. i want them to have histories, fleshed out personalities not snippets. so you can tell if someone has had a bad day or was being deceitful or ironic. truly angry or just put-on. using that, i could tell Jane that Ben Dover wasn't "mean" - how did i know? little chance i will tell you. you don't *deserve* to know what ben will listen to, how he can be reached. you can only do that for yourself by being here a long time and learning what your fellow particpants are like. along with the anonymites, (and really, what influence can anyone have who is too scared to do anything more identifiable than voting?) there are the "one offs" the joking pseudonyms like yours. unless you are going to use that as a monicker, i'll never know anything about you. true, you can be clever. but never convincing - convincing takes time - and a personality.
-
Mr. Sugarman
but where were you when "alizoom" was calling me that? there's another generalization about black people i'd like to share, they're straightforward - emotionally. white people, in general, aren't. (hey! that's my opinion! my experience.)
You're welcome - and, sorry, I'm not always here: I prefer sites with more 'balance' (Man, I hate that word). And, yea, my experience is that black people are more straightforward, emotionally, as well. (Now if we can only encourage more to embrace education again,....hard to do when liberals applaud our worse impulses.)
About the 'The 25% rule':
It's generational. Most people grow out of stupid shit - maturity does that - but being honest, with most, helps 'em on their way. We don't have enough honesty, and err on the side of caring about 'feelings', like being disappointed - or found to be wrong - is the worst thing in the world. Trying to get a woman - like Sierra - to abandon her feelings and think clearly is hard to do - and dangerous to themselves (bad boyfriends) and to those around them:
Look at what's happened to Chris.