I wonder how many of the angrier participants actually identify as feminists in real life. I think there is a lot of astroturfing, sockpuppeting, concern trolling and intentional disruption that makes it hard to figure out what's really going on with actual, committed feminists.
That's not to say that feminists can't be hard on each other, of course. I just wish more people blogged and commented under their own names and took responsibility for their words and actions. That's not meant as a jibe at you (Fred and Mary) at all, I just think anonymity gets sorely abused in the blogopshere far too often.
That may well be part of it. A lot of the angriest posts do seem to be anonymous.
Right. If you type your full name on the Internets, you are automatically 1) more honest, 2) less angry, 3) a better feminist 4) builds strong bodies twelve different ways. also, no one ever writes their full name and then it turns out that that was never their real name in the damn first place, or any other details.
because most of us just kind of take it on good faith -as a default- that people are who they say they are, you know. otherwise, well, you start kind of getting into tinfoil hat territory. jadp. there are other ways of being self-protective than automatically assuming the worst of people, even the ones who disagree with you, yes.
ftr, since I suspect I've probably been lumped as one of the "angrier" people (to wit, angry at -the wrong people- for -the wrong reasons-): first name: Barbara. My photo's floating around the 'Net in several places (is yours, Ann?); I've met a number of the "real name" bloggers in person, they know perfectly well who I am and where I live; I've made allusions to the district and even the neighborhood in which i live enough places that, yah, not exactly the damn Unabomber, here. I don't want to give it -all- away here; I sometimes enjoy the -illusion- of privacy/mystery, even though I know damn well that in this our modern woild and particularly under this administration, any such illusion is a hilarious joke no matter -how- many precautions i might take, just sometimes, you know, people don't always want to make it -too- easy for trolltastic, stupid assholes to harass them. at least if you make them work a little, you're likely to get a -better class- of trolls/harassers, perhaps.
I mean, I'm sure that everyone who has an unlisted number clearly has sinister purposes. I go by B. and then my last name, but that has -nothing at all- to do with wanting to make it just a teeny bit more difficult for random mouth-breathing asshats to go, ooh, female name! check! dial, wat R u waring?
and clearly if i did "out myself" the world would be a much better place for it. FEMINISM would be much better for it.
you know what: the problem isn't outing or not outing; the problem is fear.
I don't want to live in fear, no. Not fear of random harassing jerks; but also not of the not-so-subtle pressure and insinuations of people like you, Ann. I'll do it if and when I'm goddam ready. meanwhile: back off.
or for that matter, you know, some of the most loathsome people on the -right- wing are notorious for "outing" or at least hinting around that they know where you live, muhaha. Malkin. Patterico. Goldstein. *nod.* Does this make them more honest? Does this elevate the discourse? Does this help anything at all except their own strange murky little purposes? Hell no. It's bullying, and I won't have it. And if someone -else- wants to keep as private as possible, dammit, that is -their right.- They have their reasons. Sometimes damn good ones. It has fuc
oh, and I don't know what constitutes 'actual, committed feminist" to you Ann; but i for one am heartily sick of the
HEY BABY! SHOW US YOUR CREDS!!!
game that goes on. frankly as far as i'm concerned it's -that- that ruins the discourse as much as anything else. ad fem.
i don't like what you're saying! YOU'RE REALLY A MAN, AREN'T YOU.
oh, you -are- who you say you are? well PROVE IT. prove you mean well; prove you are a Real Feminist (tm). answer these questions. jump through these hoops.
and you know what, finally: no.
No one owes you anything.
What matters in a -discussion- is what's being said. Sure, there's a context in which you can place it, sometime: familiarity with the greater body of person X's work and where they're coming from is a good thing, yup; -that- -does- elevate the discussion, or helps, certainly. But that might take actual work, you know, as opposed to blind knee-jerking reaction.
anyway, all I know is that I've been hit with "concern troll" and suspicions of being the same person as [somebody else], perhaps; an evol "anti-feminist," only out to (hilariously) give succor to the Menz. patriarchy enabler! kapo! ...haven't heard that one, no, but i betcha people would if they had the faintest idea what it meant; o yah, one -other- problem with this whole mess is that no one seems able to rouse themselves to open a damn book, like, ever. hey, why look it up when you can -make- it up?
...anyway: get hit with all of those, have seen dear friends (whom i have met live and in the flesh, yes) get called "a man" (for whatever reason, haven't gotten that one myself. shrug). and funnily enough, it only ever seems to happen when you disagree with Certain People. or certain Ideologies, i suppose. some of whom (People) use their full names and some who do not. but as long as they tow the line it doesn't matter; they are above suspicion, apparently.
for that matter: Ann Althouse uses her full name, doesn't she? somehow i don't think that made a lot of difference wrt what went down with Jessica Valenti.
anyway, bottom line: I agree, more people ought to take more responsibility for their words and actions. Yes.
("toe the line," dammit).
Belldame222:
General observation: Anonymity can be legitimately used, andthere is a rich history of this that vastly predates the Internet. But it can also be abused. Lying about one's personal circumstances for advantage is an abuse, as is soliciting donations under false pretenses, and misrepresenting one's race, gender, or political affiliation for instrumental reasons. Launching personal attacks under multiple identities, and/or making threats are abuses. All these things corrupt the discourse. Some are not only unethical but may also constitute legal violations.
Specific observation: It's one thing to disagree with (for example) Amanda Marcotte on issues. It's quite another to launch personal attacks like this one of yours:
(from here: http://brownfemipower.com/?p=500...?
p=500#comments )
just a hint, you know, after all this time, i SUSPECT that Amanda Friggin’ Marcotte is NOT a WOC.
goddam, her brain’s not even connected to her typing fingers, is it?
…or, wait, is this some of my best co-bloggers are?
anyway:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
*wiping away tears.*
No, Amanda, honey baby cookie sweetie. I don’t think you’re a racist; or, well, i don’t actually think that’s your biggest problem. lord knows it isn’t your biggest FEAR. i mean, sure, you’re racist, hello; (and heterocentric, and stuffed full to the brim with all kinds of bougie terrors and snobberies) but in a way that’s the freaking least of it.
No; you know what you are, Amanda? You are a prancing lightweight. A birdbath-deep mediocre intellect with a serious Daddy complex and an even more serious “I am constitutionally incapable of paying attention to anything that doesn’t have MEMEME in it.” complex. -And- a product of your culture, which you have “examined” -rather- less thoroughly than you examine your skin for lines and blemishes every morning. That’s it. That’s all.
Well, even if no one else will (and who can blame them):
I forgive you, my child. Go, and be an asshat no more.
well, anyway, i don’t have to read you anymore, so i can FANTASIZE that you’ve stopped being an asshat, and in a way that’s almost as good. maybe even better.
‘cuz, hey, it’s kind of fun, right? this making up the “person” you want to see instead of dealing with the actual person in front of you? Makes life so much easier.
well, anyway, it’ll sure make -mine- a lot more pleasant.
Ciao.
That kind of attack, I think, illustrates Fred's point in this post. To claim that it was justified because "she asked for it" is to give the answer almost every abuser supplies.
So, this isn't a reaction to the comments thread, but to the post. I like it and I agree, people got downright mean in some of those comment threads, and it wasn't useful. And I say this as someone who does not put 'being nice' and super-sweet as first priority.
Probably it's silly of me to make this correction, but I sold amptoons.com to a google search optimizer, not a pornographer. However, the search optimizer who now own amptoons has clients who are pornographers. This may, admittedly, strike some people as a distinction without a difference.
That kind of attack, I think, illustrates Fred's point in this post. To claim that it was justified because "she asked for it" is to give the answer almost every abuser supplies.
Yeah, but harsh words on the internet != intimate abuse and rape. And you're pointing to a post by a person who blogs under exactly one name, so it's really more of a red herring than support for a point about multiple identities.
What you're doing here with the "real name" crap is _also_ abusive. People blog anonymously for plenty of good reasons, including anxiety about being injured. There's no correlation between anonymous or pseudonymous posting and angry posting; the pitch of some of your own past comments is proof of that. There's also no point in conflating being out IRL as an internet operator and having a single integrated persona online. Most of the people here, particularly those with careers in academia or any other sensitive/the children!-related profession, are committed to the latter but averse to the former.
I'm curious about how you are so certain that any particular person blogs and/or comments exclusively under one name. Perhaps you have a trusting personal relationship with Belledame222, but I recommend caution with respect to trusting too many people on the Internet.
This comment is interesting:
There's no correlation between anonymous or pseudonymous posting and angry posting; the pitch of some of your own past comments is proof of that.
The first clause is demonstrably inaccurate. Every computer intermediated speech study that I am aware of has concluded that anonmymous speakers are nastier, more sexist and racist, and more dishonest than speakers who use their own names, by a large margin. Every single one.
But why let accuracy get in the way of a fun thrashing, right? The second part of your comment is of course a nasty personal attack. No, I'm not perfect, is pointing that out supposed to make me respond with defensiveness and derail the thread?
I am not challenging anyone's right to post or comment anonymnously. I am instead suggesting that people remain very cynical and questioning about the authenticity, honesty and integrity of anonymous speakers.
Any one who studies cyberspace can document a whole lot of subterfuge and dishonesty online, and anonymity makes it so easy. Anyone with an interest in this should google terms like "astroturf" and I think the accuracy of what I say here can be easily substantiated.
Fred, thanks for your post. You obviously hit a nerve.
Of possible interest:
http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.e....sc.edu/?
p=1115
I'm curious about how you are so certain that any particular person blogs and/or comments exclusively under one name. Perhaps you have a trusting personal relationship with Belledame222, but I recommend caution with respect to trusting too many people on the Internet.
...Said the woman who's attacking other people for refusing to reveal details of their offline identities.
I have no reason to believe that either she or you has some anonymous sideline, and likewise no way of knowing whether either of you in fact does have one. If you have reason to believe that Belledame is interacting online as Belledame and asst'd sockpuppets, then by all means: attack her for it. Do not, however, attempt to conflate her consistent pseudonymous blogging with anonymous blogging designed to make it difficult for people online to connect your statements to any single person. And do not imply that she is doing something duplicitous unless you have some evidence to support it.
The first clause is demonstrably inaccurate. Every computer intermediated speech study that I am aware of has concluded that anonmymous speakers are nastier, more sexist and racist, and more dishonest than speakers who use their own names, by a large margin. Every single one.
That's not quite the issue here, though: you're arguing not that anonymous posters are more abusive as a class, but that pseudonymous posters are pseudonymous in order to abuse. My phrasing was lazy, admittedly, but your arguments are flawed.
But why let accuracy get in the way of a fun thrashing, right? The second part of your comment is of course a nasty personal attack. No, I'm not perfect, is pointing that out supposed to make me respond with defensiveness and derail the thread?
It's not a "nasty personal attack" to point out that someone complaining about "nasty personal attacks" from pseudonymous bloggers has not let her eponymous blogging prevent her from making "nasty personal attacks" herself. What accountability did you have due to your real name? That's evidence rebutting your argument. "Not perfect" is not the issue; "not consistent" is. You might or might not get defensive, and might or might not choose to derail the thread. I have no responsibility to ignore gaping holes in your perspective because you might feel humiliated when people highlight them.
I am not challenging anyone's right to post or comment anonymnously. I am instead suggesting that people remain very cynical and questioning about the authenticity, honesty and integrity of anonymous speakers.
Any one who studies cyberspace can document a whole lot of subterfuge and dishonesty online, and anonymity makes it so easy. Anyone with an interest in this should google terms like "astroturf" and I think the accuracy of what I say here can be easily substantiated.
But yes, you are. You are positioning blogging under anything but someone's rea
...under anything but someone's real name as dishonest, when most of the time it is nothing more than a sane decision to protect one's privacy. You apparently don't see any reason to protect yourself--more power to you, and here's hoping no one ever takes advantage of that. Other people make the opposite decision, and they have every right to do so, and be supported for doing so.
Bear in mind as well that you are attacking the decision to remain private in a forum where people's right to privacy is frequently violated. That reads like a personal attack, more than anything else.
People who post detailed personal information on a blog, or who don't understand the technology of the Internet works are putting themselves at risk of exposure, and they need to understand that. As an illustrative hypothetical: if someone "anonymously" posts an article on a blog and claims authorship of it, and someone else googles the article and thereby learns the real space identity of the author, do you think there has been a crime? An ethics breach? A privacy violation?
I doubt a judge would find that the poster had any reasonable expectation of privacy, but that is just my personal opinion. Don't take it from me, do a little research on your own, and you will see how little anonymity or privacy anyone can realistically expect in cyberspace. Surely in your blogging you have seen IP addresses that identify people quite specifically; don't you think people deserve to know how exposed they are?
Moreover, a couple of google searches will ascertain the identities of almost anyone who divulges certain kinds of personal information online.
Googling people is quite legal. Do you feel it is unethical? Can you honesty say that you do not do it?
Technology aside, think about the law for a minute. All a lawyer would have to do is serve your ISP with a subpoena and she could probably have your real space identity by the end of the afternoon. Maybe you would hire a lawyer to try to quash it, and maybe you would succeed, but maybe not. If you think you have a "right to privacy" online that courts or law enforcement will vigorously recognize on your behalf, you are sadly mistaken, and there are a lot of court opinions that document this quite powerfully.
On a final note, the more nasty, offensive things you say about someone, the stronger the case they might have to uncover your identity in the context of a legal action they might bring under a speech tort theory, or depending on the factos of the dispute, possibly even under a criminal law theory (e.g. the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act). Again, please don't take my word for it, and let me be clearthat I am not offering legal advice. I urge you to educate yourself about these issues.
You're derailing and confusing issues and circumstances--feel free to consider that a "nasty personal attack." This is not about the legal right to privacy or expectation of privacy, but about the moral obligation not to violate anyone's privacy, threaten to violate anyone's privacy, or impugn anyone's right to privacy in order to stifle their speech. I am fully aware that this protection is fragile; still, it exists and is worth preserving in lieu of revealing my real-life identity.
Googling people is quite legal. Do you feel it is unethical? Can you honesty say that you do not do it?
Yes, I can honestly say that I have never googled anyone under circumstances like the ones you describe, yourself included. (I have of course used google to track down things like Raven Kaldera's essays and Kate Bornstein's speaking engagements.) I wouldn't call it unethical. I will say that its results are frequently immaterial.
You can't argue or bully people into respecting your privacy, it doesn't work that way. Quite the contrary - by launching nasty personal attacks you may motivate them to expose you. You may view this as immoral, but they may see it as self defense. People see issues like this through a variety of life experiences. When someone has been threatened or stalked or abused, it colors her views about privacy (and whether the stalker or abuser deserves any) quite dramatically.
Well Fred, Piny has apparently taken this to Feministe without linking here to Stone Court, and of course the vitriol is flying, proving your point yet again. Sad, really.
Thanks, Ann. I'm really at a loss what further to say right now....
> by launching nasty personal attacks you may motivate them to expose you.
O i see! You mean, "they had it coming?" How very interesting.
What a curious mind you have, Ann.
So, for examine, something like this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
art...09469_2,00.html
>POLICE warned internet users to protect their real identities after a man was convicted yesterday of Britain’s first “web rage” attack.
Paul Gibbons, 47, of Bermondsey, southeast London, attacked John Jones with a pickaxe handle and knife, slitting his throat, after tracing Mr Jones to his house after an argument in an online chat room....>
***
But I mean, no doubt the guy was just "very very angry," and clearly if the other one had just had the guts to post his full name in the first place, or played "civil" (which is as we know all about not slinging meen words and swear words, and has nothing to do with creepy stalking behavior), this probably wouldn't have happened, nu?
And he shouldn't have been wearing that short skirt, too.
By the way, Ann, speaking of Googling: had you been following along at the bfp thread? Cause I never saw you there, and i found it a tad curious that you used -that- of all things to respond with. No, nothing illegal about it. Kind of creepy, though. I mean, one might almost get the impression that you were, once again, "very very angry" and went on the google-warpath in search of anything you could use, as you understood it, against me, regardless of any actual bearing it has on the argument here. i.e. the necessity of anonymity/pseudonymity.
Or, well, i -figured- it had nothing to do with anything; but now here you are saying that, what, people can get -provoked-? by anonymous people saying nasssssty things on the Internets? Really. Which people, Ann, and what sorts of things do you consider 'acceptable' in the name of retaliation? I assume throat-cutting is beyond the pale.
Then again, you're a lawyer; you have plenty of resources at your disposal. I'm sure that you -could- make life very very miserable for someone who'd pissed you off if you so chose. Not that you would do any such thing, of course; you have integrity. Even if and when you do get very, very...angry.
Fred - I can't seem to find your e-mail address. Could you e-mail me?
Thanks,
Ann
bca9c5 d063a0324c
Aloha,great page. Congratulations and keep on the work consulting unternehmensberatung tees logo eiweiss im urin
Hi! I'm sorry. Are you looking for a Free Naughty Nati Video Go here
Naughty Naty OR here
Free Naughty Nati Porno As for me Naughty - the best girl in the world
358
Commenting by HaloScan
