Letters to the Editor
-
And
...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
-
The "truly ludicrous proposition."
I'm going to have to agree with Debaser that the author of this article advances an "idiotic thesis" in claiming that America is an "egalitarian, largely classless, and ritualles society." This "truly ludicrous proposition," while not rendering him "a fucking idiot," betrays a profound "social idiocy" on his part.
-
This call will fail.
Good manners is a battle that we are going to lose repeatedly because we live in a society where violance, thuggery and stupidity are glorified while politeness, peace and intellegence are termed weakness.
We live in a society where unpleasantness is mistaken for straight talking, and being good is seen as being insincere. We live in a society where actions that are aimed at benefitting everyone, are instantly viewed with suspicion while the public gladly bends over for those whose only aim is to worsen the lot of others.
We live in a sick, strange world where economists, those practitioners of a science which has proven about as accurate as reading tea-leaves, have their opinions weighed as being equal to those of people who actually work in the fields the economists are commenting on.
We live in a world where we are still paying for the last appeal for good manners, political correctness.
-
Another perspective on online manners
While I was reading this article, or trying to, Salon.com directed me to no less than three external pages, plus two or three popup windows. The external windows were ads, which opened full browswer windows, so just figuring out which was the extraneous window and how to get back to the article took some doing (I work on user interfaces for a living by the way, so hold your cries of inept non-techy newbie etc etc.)
I hadn't clicked on anything except the initial link to read the article, yet suddenly I was in a sea of Buick ads and god knows what. Salon is becoming like one of those traps you hesitate to visit, for fear of being innudated with flashing windows urging you "is your computer safe?".
I would submit, as politely as possible, that this represents another kind of bad manners, just as annoying as what the author mentions. No, worse, actually. And yes, I could subscribe (I used to but simply can't pay for something that publishes the right wing rantings of Paglia) but this really isn't the point. If the presentation is: "annoying rather iffy second-rate site that makes you feel like you're getting infested with spyware just by visiting-- unless you subscribe", well, I'm not sure that's what you wanted. Just guessing.
-
Dear sIR Gary Kamiya,
Every since the world has had no need for a 3X5 index card, a yellow number 2- dull-point-pencil with an eraser to rub holes in a piece of paper...it's been only a spiral downward toward massive good grief, for me. A technology whirlwind that never ends?
Can't we return to a day when we had to sit up straight, hand write a "Thank You Note" and ask, "May I Please Be Excused?" We sure ave learned how to throw tater peel scalps, and fight over Salon's smashed potatoes and vanilla ice cream on a chipped white plate?
Today's curtain will be raised in a short while and who knows what to think and how to act? If there is a script the tattered paper is whine-wine stained. Pages have been ripped loose, and the playwright is dead as a doornail and can't be consulted about the writers intent.
Marley in dang Dickens story will come this to tee-vee season. Viewers will still debate rubber ducks in a bathtub is good or horrible.
We'll spell Gary Kamiya with a small "c" and Glenn- Glean.
We'll fight about nasty rt-wing Internet blogger, Michele M., and say anyone with "two 'l''s" in a name is a Hellion. We'll wonder if that daemon is from from hades grave. O, well. Her name needs to be spelled with one 'L'- Now- No Hell in MicheLLe!
Amen- moo.moose,cow.wow.
People will be smarty pants LLieburpcontrarians and call Host radio slobber-lips, a druggie, and a Mr. Limbaugh is a one big old Lushballs. "Hey boy, you!" Kamiya- Put a roll of black electrical, or some grey-duck-tape on his mouth. okay.
If there is a 8- Tract DOD NSA tape, or a 45- round record, PLAY IT, but it's all scratched up, or warped from the sun's heat. It's barely audible and sounds like a foreign tongue.
I give up? Are we/me to remain so uncouth? Wee/me is at a loss for meaning. Pissed. Please-Put some no-eat, infeasible scotch tape, on Kamiya's lips and smash his keyboard. Toss it into a white bowl full of mashed potatoes.
The drama of "real life" is meaningful work, genuine love, pleasant conversation, and on a rainy night, or a blue moon morn, how about a little, non-rushed, gentle affection. Intimacy. Kinship. Community....
O, and just be able to have a Loud Burp Contest, pass the worst wind award, and who's gonna open the window...toilet...
to let in some fresh air?
May I please be excused to attend to see someone about the purchase of a horse?
You liberal duck quacking in the rain,
~signed with a orange crayon on a brown recycled crinkled lunch bag used all damn week.
huh.
burp.