Harry Blalock, who led a first class chop busting of Angelo this morning for failing to appear as scheduled on Island Issues, had a great post on obnoxious anonymous bloggers and commentators. I agree with Harry. Amazing how idiots hiding anonymously start lecturing people about courage and credibility, and always put some type of nasty, personal attack, never with their name on it, because they get to hide in the weeds. I'm not talking about people who legitimately add to the debate. I'm talking about people who say nasty personal things under a cloak on anonymity. I'm not ever letting such numbnuts piggyback on my work on this blog. I don't owe them a forum, and the gutless are not getting one here. Harry explains exactly why being open matters, and that is why people will consider his thoughts, while the anonymous seem to have a small choir of other anonymous weasels.
From Harry's post: "Telling me that I have no credibility when they don't even have the guts to sign their name to anything they have to say. Credibility is something that is tied to you as a person, to your history, to your accomplishments, to the things you've contributed to in the community. The height of the lack of credibility would be tied to someone who chooses to remain faceless and nameless. Why would anyone believe anything they had to say? They have no track record, no history, no reputation, no community involvement, no service, nothing! They are just a little spineless coward hiding in the bushes spewing their venom trying to infect as many people as they can."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I am a formerly numbered, but now (since few followed my lead) temporarily descriptively-monikered commenter.
I wouldn't think of making a personal attack behind anonymity. Indeed, I feel a well-run weblog's host should delete uncivil comments from whatever source, and maintain the highest standards of discourse and rhetoric.
As I've posted before -- some may discern my writing style -- there can be valid reasons for not calling attention to oneself, including employment considerations. For instance, one would not wish to trigger a boycott of one's employer, or a judge who wanted to comment on public policy matters would be violating the canons of judicial ethics were attributable posts to be made.
Even an anonymous post by a judge might be against the rules, but I'll let someone else research that.
Challenging actions and opinions isn't the same as "spewing venom".
I'm not talking about people who legitimately add to the debate. I'm talking about people who say nasty personal things, or post pictures of people doctored so that person is covered in shit while keeping themselves hidden. That stuff is pretty gutless, not the challenging opinions part.
Actually cartoons, charicatures,photographic and other images in the same satirical and pointed vein can many times say alot more than words. You noted the photo of a person covered in excrement, for example.. what better way to respond to a post by that person insinuating beastiality by anyones mother? It's too the point, without expletives or obcenities.
Almost every day, including today, I get a message from the freak at Pragmatic Plato. Apparently, he isn't satisfied with his four readers for his obsessive drivel on his blog, so like the toddler who no one will play with, he tries to crap in other people's sandbox.
I mean really, around the clock nonsense about how Porky's is ruining the island please.
Sorry I ruined your life by kicking you out of here, but you're banned here you cowardly, gutless, obsessive loser. Perhaps if you had anything interesting to say, people would read your blog.
Until then, you're not profiting off my work here.
Go cry on your blog. Your three readers will love it.
The root of the problem lies in their anonymity. It provides the coward, a voice, which he/she normally can't use because of their fear of being exposed.
It allows for political and social opinion without conscience and without regard to the audience being able to gauge what is said against what the writer's biases and self interests are.
As with this weasel coward Pee Pee calling for boycotts while hiding behind an anonymous alias when he owns a competing business.
Cowards are basically all alike. The best way to deal with it is just to permanently delete the junk when it occurs and move on.
I posted a similar comment on another blog a couple of days ago but I think it bears repeating here, Jeff.
While the charitable poster above has an interesting side point, I would say if one is a judge and not supposed to voice opinions outside the court, then one should not do so either publicly or while hiding behind an alias. Similarly, if voicing an opinion will cause a problem with an employer, will it cause any less if the promulgator is hidden under a rock while making the comment?
All in all, I must agree with Harry, that those too gutless to put their name and their public reputation on their ramblings and opinions should be disregarded as trash unworthy of consideration.
I solve the problem on my blog as you do on yours, Jeff. I purge them. I solve the problem of their existence by never, visiting their blogs, ever. I not only will not allow the drivel on my blog but will not give their blog the benefit of even one 'hit'. Nor will I link to them.
Personal responsibility is the key. Take Ron Hodges comments in his recent letter to the editor as an example. I consider it irresponsible in the extreme. Another person might think him a godlike savior and the suggestion to sabotage the powerhouse as a reasonable protest. Either way we both know who is responsible for the comment. Ron has the courage to place his name, relationships and reputation on the line for his convictions. I applaud that. Conversely, I ridicule those without that courage, and 'fart in their general direction'.
Thanks for posting this and thanks for your comments on Harry's observations.
BB
In all fairness.. once again Jeff, you can't accuse someone of "profiting off of your blog", when you've cited their passages on your blog twice and bring them up often. It seems like it is mutually profitable.
And with regard to Bruce's "purging".. it's funny how this didn't happen until he got pissed off about being challenged for not being forthright with regards to the SCA.
With regards to Ron's letter.. as his pseudo-retraction in today's paper insinuated, he didn't mean for his statements to be taken literally. I knew that. If he did want such outrageous actions to really happen.. he would have sent the letter in under a pseudonym, or given himself some neat nickname. "V" or "The Shackled" for example. As stated before, much of what happens now and throughout history is the product of the anonymous.
Bruce wants to be taken seriously, so he uses his own name. Newspapers have a higher standard than blogs and don't allow such silliness. That's why people respect Bruce despite his often "out there" opinions. He isn't afraid to speak his mind and isn't cowered from appearing in the debate, which was the chance anyone had to ask him questions.
I have 216 often extensive posts, and I quoted that assmunch once when he made a good point, and another to point out his lies in his obsessive blog about Bruce and me. I hardly profited off him. That paragraph is maybe 0.01 percent of my blog. People quote and discuss things in the public sphere.
People with a bit of courage have far more impact than the gutless.
Post a Comment