This blog is closed
On blog policy
I just renewed my ownership of this domain for the next three years, which feels nice and secure. I don’t have any plans to make big changes around here. But three or four disparate threads out there in the blog world make me think that there are more and more internet users with unreasonable — in fact, unjust — expectations of a blogger’s duties to them. This hasn’t been a problem here, but I’m making some announcements to keep it from becoming a problem.
OK, I admit it: I don’t think it’ll become a problem here, and, as will become clear, I don’t even care if it becomes a problem, because it won’t be a problem for ME. But hey, any excuse to take a stand on an obscure issue.
I reserve the right to:
— Delete any or all content from this website at any time for any reason. This includes comments, blog posts, and entire blogs. Clearly, since some of the blog posts on this website belong to writers other than myself, the obligations of friendship will propel me to try to make sure the writer(s) is/are content with the decision. But despite well-argued objections to the impermanence of blog writing by people I greatly respect, as long as I retain copyright, my writing belongs to me and not to the Internet nor to anyone else not specifically designated by me. This right extends to the other bloggers on this site as well: they may remove anything they own for any reason without consulting with me or anyone else. Though I hope they don’t. Publication of material on this website implies no obligation to linkers, readers, search engine operators, carnival compilers, or anyone else.
— Sell this domain to any person or corporation I choose for any reason at any time. Ampersand is taking heat for selling his domain because he sold it to a company in an industry that many of his readers find abhorrent. I find that business abhorrent as well, not only because of the pornography aspect but also due to the Search Engine Optimization aspect. In addition, it looks as though Amp handled the transition badly. His critics have one thing right: he owed some accountability to his co-bloggers, whose work helped make the site an attractive item for sale. But he does not owe his community of readers any oversight or veto power whatsoever over the disposition of his property, any more than he owes people veto power over who he sells his car to just because he gave them a ride in it once or twice. Should I ever decide to sell the faultline.org domain, I will hew to the demands of my conscience in choosing a buyer. But only my conscience. No one else’s.
— Link to anything I choose. Best editorial and accessibility practice requires that I at least consider providing some hint as to the nature of the content to which I link, whether it is not safe for workplace viewing, grotesque, bandwidth-consumptive, contains sound, be on a topic you wouldn’t have clicked on had you known how uninteresting it was, or anything else that might prove an annoyance or inconvenience. But I am under no obligation, having made a good-faith effort from a usability perspective, to insult your intelligence by adding what is increasingly referred to as a trigger warning. I reserve the right to assume that my readers are intelligent enough to know that clicking on a link labeled “rape porn” or “war casualties” or “goat.se” or “David Gates and Bread video archive” may bring up something they would rather not look at.
— Disavow any implied endorsement of anyone who links to or mentions this site in any manner. You’d think this one would be a no-brainer. But Amanda Marcotte is taking heat for Playboy Magazine’s having mentioned Pandagon in an approving manner, with one especially tendentious person referring to it as a “bridge Amanda built with Playboy.” Some of the accusations leveled at Amanda in this context — and oddly ignoring Pam, half of the Pandagon team, who also failed to excoriate Playboy for mentioning the blog — could be lifted word for word from misogynistic criticism of sexual assault victims for not fighting off their attackers, or not being properly upset after the fact, with attendant judgments being made as to the character of the victim. I assume no responsibility for criticizing any odious people or organizations that may link to this site, in a positive or other fashion. Adults, you see, choose their battles, and know what things to let slide. In fact, I reserve the right to:
— Refrain from participating in ritualistic condemnations of the bad thing that everyone else is upset about this week. Because really, that shit is boring as hell, and if you do that on your blog all the time no one wants to read it except the other sheep. It reminds me of sitting in a movie theater in Berkeley with Becky and Ron and Joe watching O Brother Where Art Thou, and having a handful of the audience members applaud when the Cyclops Klan character played by John Goodman got spanked by the burning cross. Because, you know, it’s possible that the rest of the audience in Berkeley might actually have felt support for the Klansmen in the movie, and only by the brave action of booing Klansmen in a dark movie house in Berkeley, California could those folks make sure that their stalwart opposition to cartoon evil was made known in every possible venue. One wonders if those folks hiss “sexist!” at Snidely Whiplash when watching the Cartoon Network. If you can’t figure out from reading any two random posts on this blog that I’m still against extraordinary rendition even if I last wrote something about it a year ago, I can’t help you.
Posted by: Chris Clarke
Note: A database glitch in 2008 ate a bunch of archived comments. Don't be offended if yours isn't here, or confused if the conversation seems disjointed. Thanks!
Because, you know, it’s possible that the rest of the audience in Berkeley might actually have felt support for the Klansmen in the movie, and only by the brave action of booing Klansmen in a dark movie house in Berkeley, California could those folks make sure that their stalwart opposition to cartoon evil was made known in every possible venue…If you can’t figure out from reading any two random posts on this blog that I’m still against extraordinary rendition even if I last wrote something about it a year ago, I can’t help you.
The whole thing is well said, but I give special applause to this part…wait a second.
By: By Auguste on 2006 10 11
What Sara said. But that Auguste guy is a jackass who can’t even spell people’s names right, and you should ban him.
By: By Rob G on 2006 10 11
Well, it’s not true that I owe you nothing. I’m hugely grateful to all of you, commenters or lurkers, regulars or sporadics, for stopping by.
By: By Chris Clarke on 2006 10 11
And, Chris, we’re eternally grateful for your superb writing and your eminent reasonableness (as in this post).
Now you need to scare up some quality trolls to accuse you of assorted crimes against teh left and/or America. Otherwise this thread will get dull fast!
By: By Ben Alpers on 2006 10 11
Thanks, Chris. I couldn’t agree more. Common sense in the blogosphere seems to be slipping away while being victimized by radical socialism and assumed obligations. It’s nice to see someone who hasn’t fallen prey to the sheeple mentality.
By: By jason on 2006 10 11
His critics have one thing right: he owed some accountability to his co-bloggers, whose work helped make the site an attractive item for sale.
I have to disagree, Chris, that this is the only thing his critics have right. I think he owed it to his readers to notify them of the sale and that Alas would be connected to hard-core porn sites. Alas is a feminist blog, and many of his readers are dedicated anti-porn feminists.
By: By Violet Socks on 2006 10 11
I sat in a theater watching “O Brother Where Art Thou” in which the two people in front of me actually cheered the KKK, up to and including giving zieg heil salutes to the screen. I know that’s not really relevant to the point of your post, but it still makes my skin crawl thinking about it six years later, and I really wanted to share.
By: By bobbo on 2006 10 11
Violet, my phrasing is imprecise there. I didn’t mean to say that was the only valid criticism. I agree with what you’ve said. He ought to have been above board with this so that his readers knew in advance. Not having done so opens him up to the criticism that he was using anti-porn feminist traffic to boost porn site Google rankings. I don’t know whether that was intentional, or merely an unfortunate effect. I like to presume the best of people, even people with whom I have nasty fights. But I have to say your “shoe tying” argument is very persuasive.
And people have the right to criticize Amp — God knows I have — and to complain about the sale, even if he’d sold it to Ms. Magazine. Complaining about publications changing hands is a fine old pastime.
But he had the right to sell the site to whomever he wanted. And I see that being challenged, as if readership of a site conveys ownership.
By: By Chris Clarke on 2006 10 11
Good god, thank you. I am rapidly tiring of the frantic leftier-than-thou criticism I see everywhere lately. Even when I agree with the basic critique, the tone of moral outrage and personal offense overwhelms meaningful discussion.
By: By uccellina on 2006 10 11
But he does not owe his community of readers any oversight or veto power whatsoever over the disposition of his property, any more than he owes people veto power over who he sells his car to just because he gave them a ride in it once or twice.
This argument is not persuasive to me, because giving people a ride doesn’t increase the resale value of your car (and if your friends are anything like mine, it likely decreases it), whereas Ampersand’s domain was only valuable for the purpose of search engine optimization because of the size of his readership.
By: By tps12 on 2006 10 11
As Chris infers, I’m amazed blog readers feel they have some claim to the blogs they read. Nothing could be further from the truth. There’s a certain respect involved from an author’s point of view when it comes to informing the audience of significant changes, but there is nothing akin to a requirement. It’s a privilege to be allowed to peer into the mind of a blogger. It’s equally presumptuous to assume that opportunity gives readers some level of control or influence. We don’t demand our favorite authors change a novel simply because we didn’t like the content. Why are blogs different? If readership falls off because of the sale, so be it, but that still doesn’t give the readership any control over what the blogger does. I guess I’m missing the point of this “if we read it we own it” mentality.
By: By jason on 2006 10 11
As always, very sensible.
I love David Gates and Bread. “If”? Even Dolly Parton covered it.
By: By Hugo Schwyzer on 2006 10 11
This argument is not persuasive to me, because giving people a ride doesn’t increase the resale value of your car (and if your friends are anything like mine, it likely decreases it), whereas Ampersand’s domain was only valuable for the purpose of search engine optimization because of the size of his readership.
Fair enough.
Let’s say Violet’s house becomes very valuable because Sting stays there for a month, and all his fans want to buy the linoleum she made him sleep on. Does Sting get to tell her who to sell it to?
By: By Chris Clarke on 2006 10 11
Frankly, I find the “it’s not the porn, it’s the lying about the porn” arguments as compelling as “it’s not the sex with the intern in the Oval Office, it’s the lying about the sex with the intern in the Oval Office” arguments. I’ve never seen anyone flip the fuck out when someone links, say, an Austin Chronicle article, and they accept advertising from porn and, er, “escort services”. A lot of anti-porn anger seems like it’s very close to observing a taboo, like blessing someone after they sneeze. The fear of contamination is conquered if people can convince themselves there’s enough steps between them and the porn, even if the steps have little or nothing to do with bona fide complicity.
By: By Amanda Marcotte on 2006 10 11
Sounds like a great contract for those guys, Kathy. They can charge the government millions of dollars for a couple years and then send the feds a link to Technorati.
By: By Chris Clarke on 2006 10 11
No, Amanda, I think the disclosure issue is key. That’s what matters to me. Alas is supporting pornography (the pornographer feeding off of the blog’s high ranking) and is being supported by pornography (the free server hosting Barry gets from the pornographer, in addition to whatever cash amount he got for the domain). Since pornography is a feminist issue, the readers of a feminist blog—and even more, the people who link to it and post on it—have the right to know about that commerical relationship.
By: By Violet Socks on 2006 10 11
I’m still reeling from the Bread-induced PTSD. But, I accept that it’s not your responsibility on you blog to protect *me* from the horrors of my past.
By: By Dr. Free-Ride on 2006 10 11
Complaining about publications changing hands is a fine old pastime.
Don’t I know it.
By: By Roxanne on 2006 10 11
Me too, if a bit less obviously.
By: By Auguste on 2006 10 11
Confidential to Rick G:
Eat it. :)
By: By Auguste on 2006 10 11
Amanda Marcotte,
Hi, you know what makes me angry, not the porn. It’s the racism and goddamn sexism of the porn in question. Funny how that’s been written off.
By: By anashi on 2006 10 11
Here’s a fine example of what Amp is supporting with his blog:
“Review of Ball Honeys
Score: 87
Sub-Section: Ethnic
Company: BangBros Online
Date: Jul 16, 2006
Ball Honeys is the premier BangBros ethnic site. BALL. Black, Asian, Latina, Ladies. I don’t think I can be any clearer than this. Some of the finest ethnic babes around. All featured in hot scenes, new every week. This is actually one of my favorite sites. The girls they find have the hottest asses around. Nothing beats a big, round booty. Nothing beats the Ball Honeys. Each week, the boys at BangBros deliver a new ethnic mama and get down to business.
By: By anashi on 2006 10 11
That is reprehensible stuff, anashi.
Incidentally, since this thread is getting a lot of traffic, I will say this while this is all still civil. And I’m not aiming this at anyone who’s commented so far.
The flamewar that is in progress in other parts of the net will not spread here. Period. I don’t care if I have to ban my grandmother. I’m tired of it and it’s not coming here.
Which is not to say that discussions of racism, sexism, etc. in posts or comments here are unwelcome. Far from it. But there will be no trashing of other commenters here. And if you don’t know the difference then don’t post.
By: By Chris Clarke on 2006 10 11
I agree with Jason that common sense is having a tough time; that happens with free-range, all comers discussions. They can easily get hijacked by, um, passionate people (I’m grasping for a polite term; nothing wrong with passion). But if we’re talking about the larger blogs, where is the radical socialism? I ask because there seems to be a huge difference in the meaning of the S word, depending on whether you live in America or not. In the States, it seems advocating universal health care can get you labelled a radical socialist, so I’m just curious.
By: By Rob G on 2006 10 12
I mean socialism in the sense that everything belongs to everyone; communal property as it were. Thanks for pointing out the disparity in that, Rob, because you’re right about the difference between the American definition and the real definition. I was using the term to mean the belief that anything blog readers can see is assumed by them to be as much their property as it is the actual blogger who’s writing the content, paying for the domain, managing the site, and so on.
And hopefully I’ve not completely lost my mind and forgotten what the word really means.
By: By jason on 2006 10 12
WRT to the Pandagon/Playboy thing—VS was critical, but was taken aback at the wholesale trashing of Pandagon by some folks. I’m not so surprised by it.
And I’m not impressed by Amp’s decision, but it’s his blog, and there are a bunch of blogs written by women that I choose to read and spend my energy on. Though I’ll note that the so-called sex-positive folks out there don’t seem to mind the filthy racism in the porn featured in the links. Guess it’s okay if it’s “just sex.” :::Rolls eyes:::
By: By Sheelzebub on 2006 10 12
Ah, all is clear now Jason.
I have a little sympathy for commenters who start to feel proprietal about blogs they frequent; one feels comfortable, perhaps understood, and among friends, even though they are not really friends (one of the horribly overloaded words in English, that).
It doesn’t hurt to remind people now and then that: This is my place, not yours: No, you can’t smoke here: Please do not piss on the rug: If you do piss on the rug, don’t be surprised if you are not asked back.
By: By Rob G on 2006 10 12
Er, proprietary. I have an aversion to words with more than two r’s in them.
By: By Rob G on 2006 10 12
That was probably just a spasm in the verbal centers of your parietary lobe, Rob.
By: By Chris Clarke on 2006 10 12
No, I think the problem was in my Temporary Lobe.
By: By Rob G on 2006 10 12
Let’s say Violet’s house becomes very valuable because Sting stays there for a month, and all his fans want to buy the linoleum she made him sleep on. Does Sting get to tell her who to sell it to?
Still not quite right, I don’t think.
Let’s say Violet lives above a storefront, in a building she owns. She sets up the storefront as a community drop-in center, and welcomes the folks in the neighborhood to hang out there. Over the years, those folks support the center in a variety of ways—- they donate furniture, they paint murals, they run ads and articles in local papers publicizing it.
Then one day Violet is having trouble paying her mortgage, and she decides to rent out part of the center’s space. That space has become more valuable because of its local fame and the goodwill that attaches to it.
I think that analogy is a better fit than the Sting one, and it seems clear to me that Violet would have far more of an ethical obligation to the folks who helped her build up the community center than she would to Sting.
Having said that, though, I agree one hundred percent with your bottom line: Amp certainly did have the right to sell the site to whomever he wanted.
By: By Brooklynite on 2006 10 12
And, Chris, we’re eternally grateful for your superb writing and your eminent reasonableness (as in this post).
Now you need to scare up some quality trolls to accuse you of assorted crimes against teh left and/or America. Otherwise this thread will get dull fast!
I agree with Ben on both counts, and as for the latter, I nominate my own Troll of the Moment, Kirby Olson. For as I’ve made clear in my own blog’s Reserve Clause, I reserve the right to trade trolls with any other blog at any time prior to the official Blog League troll trading deadline. I personally draw the line at bot trolls whose comments provide links to porn sites, but I endorse most human trolls who will mock people who make sure that their stalwart opposition to cartoon evil was made known in every possible venue.
I understand that some blogs oppose troll trading on principle, however, and I have entered into troll-sharing arrangements with two or three of these. The details of our contractual agreements, however, are private.
By: By Michael Bérubé on 2006 10 12
If I didn’t trust you to be intelligent and reasonable, I wouldn’t be reading you to begin with. If I stopped thinking you to be intelligent and reasonable, I would stop. You don’t owe me nothin’, s’truth. I do appreciate that you do write.
But then, there are many readers who thought Doyle owed them more Holms stories, and Douglas Adams should write another Hitchhiker’s book, and LeCarre should write more George Smiley, and that Kirk and Spock should have hot, steamy…. um, I’lll stop there. Greedy fools. Do what you do as long as you want.
And thanks.
By: By zhoen on 2006 10 12
Kirk and Spock…hot and steamy
By: By gordo on 2006 10 13
Chris,
You rock. I hope you won’t take offense if, at some point, I might want to lift (with proper attribution and no derivative work) some of what you wrote in this post (if ever I get to the point of having to).
Cheers.
By: By Kai on 2006 10 13
Though I’ll note that the so-called sex-positive folks out there don’t seem to mind the filthy racism in the porn featured in the links.
Um…really? Do you have examples?
By: By Auguste on 2006 10 13
Heh.
Example?
Not of the links, of them giving racist porn a pass.
By: By Auguste on 2006 10 13
Chris—
There are all sorts of things that can be used to justify/excoriate what a publisher does.
Several (OK, more than “several”) years ago, DAW Books (a publisher of mostly SF/F) carried in their line a series of novels that, personally, I found repellent, and also poorly written—all with titles of the formula “xxx of Gor.”
The publisher was roundly lambasted, often crudely, by people Felt He Should Do Better By *Their* Definition Of Right.
He would try to explain (often), in a very reasonable and non-confrontational manner, that selling *that* tripe (and it *did* sell, very well, for quite a while) that the profit his publishing house made from those books was monies he could use to afford to try to market books by authors that were not guaranteed successes, either because of genre expectations or name recognition of the author.
I don’t think we can try to say that “Alas” is in the same boat here, but, which would be preferable—to have the forum *available* or to have the forum *disappear* because of cost constraints?
(BTW—I found the Gor novels personally repellent on several fronts, but I think the one that still vastly amuses some who know me was that DAW was the publisher of note for something that was so *badly written.*)
By: By Craig R. on 2006 10 13
Auguste,
One could argue that many of the people arguing that Amp’s actions are no big deal are also saying racist porn is no concern. Wade through the comments at Alas (both threads) and you will see Belledame222, who claims to be so opposed to racism in the burka threads, say things like this:
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/10/11/i-sold-amptoonscom-comments-are-now-open/#comment-192830
“Yeah, it’s true, some of us don’t see pr0n as as big a deal as some other people, no. Then again, some take some other issues a bit more seriously, perhaps.
Here is Natasha of Feminsih in the same thread:
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/10/11/i-sold-amptoonscom-comments-are-now-open/#comment-192770
“John - Why exactly is it that Amp should be called out for betraying an ideal that he doesn’t share? He isn’t anti-pron himself, (and you know, every time you spell that correctly you feed the search engine pron beast) and the female members of the feminist blogging community have had scorching debates about this issue among themselves without Amp needing to be involved. It’s far from settled doctrine, and I can think easily of several more objectionable sorts of businesses that could have piggybacked this domain’s ranking.”
Here’s Belledame222 again:
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/10/10/link-farm-open-thread-38/#comment-192187
“anyway, i’m sure it’s a moot point, because clearly that would have made no difference; obviously Amp “sold outâ€? not because he, like, needed the money to run the place, but because he is EVOL.
well, so am i, so that means nothing really. i know. i know.
VIVA the PATRIARCHY!! VIVA!!! i say!! YAY! for the PRON! OUR SINISTER AGENDA IS NOW REVEALED! MUHAHAHAHAHAHA! “
Haven’t seen Bitch/Lab as Bitch/Lab but bet she’s there under alternate pseuds. Those people don’t care about racism. They like having power over other people and stirring up trouble. Burqa horrribly, terribly bad, racist porn fine? Give me a break.
By: By burnedoutonallthis on 2006 10 13
Also: note how this comments ducks the racism issue (and “Kate” sounds familar, no?)
“I just want to say the only criticism I can see that is valid is that you should have told everyone before it happened, or at the very least, when it happened. Since you have heartfully apologized for that, I see no reason to berate you. I must say I’ve considered far worse things when confronted with difficult financial matters, and I don’t blame you for doing what you thought best for you.
As far as not being sufficiently feminist, well, that’s just plain old horsesh*t. if we all had to live up to some perfect standard of feminism I’m sure a great many of us, myself included would fail. My idea of feminism has always been to try to include as many people as possible rather than exclude people because they may have made one or two decisions over the course of their lifetime I deem “non-feminist�. If we applied that standard to everyone, (and really, what would that standard BE exactly?) I’m quite certain there is not a person in the world who would be able to be called a feminist then. And that just seems counterprodictive and silly.
I guess I’m just saying, I think you are most definitely sufficiently feminist and I don’t so much care about links I never go or can even find, so I’m certainly planning on continuing to read, learn and enjoy here at Alas.”
Doesn’t care at all about racist porn. Silly her, can’t even find it.
By: By burnedoutonallthis on 2006 10 13
Brooklynite: by your reasoning and despite your disclaimer, the San Francisco Giants owe me and my fellow fans the right to veto trades or the sale of the team. Even those fans who never go to games and never buy team merchandise. That’s silly. But, more to the point, Barry Deutch never offered a community center, he offered an online journal with no guarantee that anyone would like what he wrote, much less like how he dealt with whatever financial strain imposed on him by this journal. The ones who are fools to themselves are the ones who feel the existence of a comments space gives them some sort of stake. Deutch will get his in due course; he’ll lose readers. What else does anyone want?
By: By Douglas in Saint Paul on 2006 10 13
One could argue that many of the people arguing that Amp’s actions are no big deal are also saying racist porn is no concern.
You could, but that would be arguing in bad faith to make a point. “Pro-porn” people on the left rarely, if ever, state that all porn is good, besides a few nuts from the Bitch Lab posse. And even they would probably flinch from excusing racism, even if it is to get a man off.
By: By Fat Doug Lover on 2006 10 13
Before I start, I have a dumb question, is everyone misspelling pron on purpose so it doesn’t show up in searches or something? I’m assuming that’s the issue, so I’ll follow suit.
I’m not really sure who you think I am, but I probably am not whoever you think I am, since the only two blogs I really visit are rachelstavern and Alas, and a mommy blog or two because it’s mostly all I have time for. Came here only because someone posted a link in the Alas thread about the blog policy. Anyway, i’d like to defend myself for a moment if I can.
I do NOT give racist pron a pass. I think its abhorrent, but like the rest of pron, whatever my personal feeling about individual stuff is, it’s not at the top of my hit list for issues. I personally would much rather discuss and try to do something about the racism involved in everyday media, or when people assume the colorblind ideology and pretend that race just doesn’t matter. I am white, and so I am sure I am racist somewhat, I’m not certain I can grow up in this culture as a white person and NOT have at least some of it in me somewhere, though I do strive to be anti-racist in my thought, action and speaking.
I couldn’t FIND the links to the pron because they are not on Alas. I don’t ever go to “amptoons.com” I have Alas bookmarked as just the blog and that’s all I ever read, so pardon me for being lazy and stupid, but I couldn’t find said links because they aren’t there (on the blog page anyway). Also, my understanding from what everyone (particularly Shelly and Achilles and Patroclus) has written is that it is NOT readership that makes his blog more valuable it’s the linking. AND, the sale of his domain did not make racist sexist pron hit several notches higher on a google search, then say, feminist blogs or whatever else, it made racist,sexist pron hit one or MAYBE two notches higher on a google search than OTHER equally racist and sexist pron. I really am not convinced that without the sale of his blog those particular pron sites would have ceased to exist, so I have a hard time believing that he has “supported” the filth… In fact, it’s just the other way around, the pron is supporting a profeminist site that strives to be anti racist and anti disablist etc as well. I think there’s a sneaky irony in that. Would I prefer to be able to never ever in my life do anything that supports an industry I find abhorrant? Sure, but I don’t have the time or the money to research every last purchase I make to be certain that a major corporation with questionable practices doesn’t somehow support or profit from it. But then again, I sometimes shop at Walmart, despite knowing and thinking they are evil incarnate because well, we are seriously cash strapped,and sometimes I have to do what’s right for the indiviudal rather than the greater good and although I feel guilty and don’t like to do it, sometimes I feel I have no other choice, so you probably won’t care what I think anyway because I am just as equally a “sell out.”
I completely agree that disclosure is the problem here. I think he should have been much more upfront with everyone, particularly the co-bloggers and those that link to his site. It isn’t required of him, but it was probably ethically the right thing to do. He f*cked up in that department, he knows, and by taking all the heat he is taking now, I think he’s trying to make up for it, not that it matters for most of his critics. I guess, I have more empathy. It’s not RIGHT, but sometimes, when there’s something I have to do that I’m not proud of or don’t want to think about, I dig my head in the sand and want to pretend it isn’t there. i think, given his explanations, this is what he did. It clearly wasn’t the right thing to do, but I can empathize none the less.
Sorry so long.
By: By Kate L. on 2006 10 13
You could, but that would be arguing in bad faith to make a point. “Pro-porn� people on the left rarely, if ever, state that all porn is good, besides a few nuts from the Bitch Lab posse. And even they would probably flinch from excusing racism, even if it is to get a man off.
That’s pretty much what I was trying to get at, burnedout (and who can blame you? by the way). Amp’s decision or lack thereof would not end all racist porn tomorrow, and decrying racist porn every time it rears its ugly head is not required to be assumed to be against it.
By: By Auguste on 2006 10 13
Amp acted in bad faith.
Amp is a pro-feminist activist. I don’t know him, but I’ve always assumed that he started Alas in part to make the world a better, safer, fairer place.
I’m sure I’m not alone in the progressive blogosphere when I say that I read blogs partly because the discussions I have help me to be a better person and/or a more effective activist.
I’m not anti-porn. I just think it’s incredibly unseemly for an ostensible feminist ally to secretly use feminist traffic to promote something that many of his readers find deeply repellent.
In effect, he’s asking his readers to make the world a little worse (from their perspective) in order to participate in the Alas community.
By: By Lindsay Beyerstein on 2006 10 13
prwn businesses.
Now you’re making me hungry - but I prefer shrmp.
By: By Auguste on 2006 10 13
Excellent questions, spyder.
Myself, I wonder about the whole Congo rape war thing, which likely would not have happened without huge demand in the US for tin and tantalum. The world prices of both tin and tantalum spiked as a result of sales of laptops, PDAs, mobile phones and so forth. The Congo Basin is a major world source of both, and when the price spikes the incentive for one faction or another to conquer mineral-rich territory is enhanced. without laptops, no warring armies in the Congo: without warring armies in the Congo, the hideous epidemic of brutal rapes by soldiers would likely not exist.
Being an environmentalist is often all about drawing lines of complicity. The line between passive consumerism and hideous evil is rarely as clear and direct as it is in the case of Congolese tin and tantalum and the Rape War. It kind of puts a new perspective on the notion of getting a laptop or PDA so you can do more progressive blogging.
By: By Chris Clarke on 2006 10 13
Auguste:
<blockquote>Amp’s decision or lack thereof would not end all racist porn tomorrow, and decrying racist porn every time it rears its ugly head is not required to be assumed to be against it.
So, what, that makes it O.K. for him to personally profit from the trade in white supremacist pornography?
You could excuse doing absolutely any rotten thing that’s prevalent enough using exactly the same reasoning. For example, you could just as easily make this argument: “Well, Amp’s refusal to help market child pornography would not end all child pornography tomorrow, so why not?” Or this: “Well, I’m personally opposed to running guns into war-torn regions, but if I didn’t do it, somebody else would do it anyway. So why not make a bit of change off of it?”
It is not as if Amp were just picking up some money that racist pornography peddlers happened to leave sitting out on the ground. Amp is getting money and free services from pornographers because he has gotten himself involved in an ongoing business relationship with them, and they profit from the resources that he offers to them.
Whether or not you are right about this particular fracas over Amp’s decision, you need a better argument to show it.
By: By Rad Geek on 2006 10 13
God, thank you, Rad Geek, for calling this porn what it is. This past week has made me absolutely furious with some feminists for ignoring the fact that this porn is deeply racist and sexist. They’re trying to turn this into a sex positive vs. anti-porn debate, which makes me want to bash my head into the wall. People are making so many excuses for Amp. When there really are no justifications good enough for supporting something as disgusting as this.
By: By anashi on 2006 10 13
>Haven’t seen Bitch/Lab as Bitch/Lab but bet she’s there under alternate pseuds. Those people don’t care about racism. They like having power over other people and stirring up trouble. Burqa horrribly, terribly bad, racist porn fine? Give me a break.>
Okay! Fabulous! Sockpuppetry accusations, “they’re all in a gang because they disagree with Me” accusations, -and- incredibly lame misrepresentations of positions, all at once!
Well, 1) what Auguste said as well as what CC said: hi, just because i’m not decrying something 24/7 doesn’t mean i, you know, support it. I was supporting *Amp.* Not the garden variety grody mainstream pr0n (yes, it is full of nasty racist and sexist stereotypes, is much pr0n: film at fucking eleven); and frankly you know it isn’t I who was turning this into “sex-positive versus Defenders of the One True Feminism” (but I mean, what -isn’t?-)
and yes, i admit, i have an axe to grind against certain people in this, some of the same people who most got their noses out of joint wrt Ampgate; because IN my opinion they have been EPIC fuckheads. to me, to people i care about. if they want to claim it’s because they’re just so passionate about the pr0n and the harm it does to Women, well you know, they’re certainly free to do so.
and by the way, I don’t know anyone who says categorically that “all porn is good.” I can think of exactly one, maybe two people who consistently come to the defense of not just sex workers but sex -work-, including mainstream pr0n. This is not the same thing as saying “all porn is good.” And I often do not agree with this person(s). I’m not gonna demonize ‘em, either, though. If that means I get demonized in my own turn, well so be fucking it. However, best not expect me to shut up about it either. As BA said in another context, “We Are Not the Borg.” and no one likes being reduced to a cartoon any more than you do.
i know this makes matters decidedly less convenient; but there it stands. Y’all aren’t going away; fine. Neither are a number of other people, however. Deal with it. And meanwhile, a more accurate representation of peoples’ actual positions would be nice, you know, if you intend to engage them at all.
Oh yes, and, especially in the wake of this latest round of bullshit with Bartow? You may want to consider how easily you toss around accusations of sockpuppetry. At best, you know, it’s -really- annoying. That is one of those things that people are innocent of until proven guilty. Come up with evidence or can it. And no, “these people all sound alike to me because i am apparently incapable of distinguishing between various people who don’t sound like Me and are possibly even friends with each other” doesn’t count.
By: By belledame222 on 2006 10 21
Now:
2) per burqa. Yeah. I know this is really really difficult, but let me try this one more time:
It’s not about the burqa joke as an isolated incident or about being “correct,” any more than Althouse slamming on Jessica’s tits was reducible to “oh, chick fight, some woman made a joke and some other girl has got her panties in a wad, how trivial, they’re just so -sensitive,- doesn’t anyone have a sense of humor anymore?”
Get it now?
There is an underlying context here: the unbearable whiteness of leftiesphere and feministsphere. In case you never noticed, that ...tension has been having a number of eruptions from “A list” level on down for quite a while now.
The problem here as I have been understanding it (and frankly, people have been pretty fucking clear; it has often seemed to me that it would take an act of sheer will to misunderstand, say, brownfemipower as thoroughly as some people seem to be doing), is this:
It isn’t about being -offended.- It is about being -ignored.- Unless and until it’s convenient for the more mainstream, bigger, yes whiter, blogs, to -use- POC, really a number of people who aren’t representative of the “standpoint” (white, middle-of-the-road, American or at least “First World,” straight, a few other things) for their own convenience, whether as pity symbol or comic relief as a joke/weapon between one group of “standpoint” people and another.
And, it isn’t okay.
-That- is the beef; this -isn’t- the first or even hundredth of similar incidents that people have been upset about; and this particular one only-became- as huge as it did -after- people started in with the, (after apologies were made and accepted), no, really, no one should have to even apologize! for anything! and Black Amazon must really want to cut Amanda’s throat! well okay we know she didn’t but at least she shouldn’t be so ANGRY! not at US! we’re the good guys! let me explain again very patiently and condescendingly about why she really needs to tone it down, on her own blog! three white bloggers and a passel of POC, who clearly must all be in a gang together! certainly they’d be incapable of coming to any conclusions about what is or isn’t offensive independently! and oh say I certainly didn’t mean anything personal about -any- of these bloggers, why i’ve never even heard of them before. YES. THAT’S EXACTLY THE DAMN PROBLEM.
There are some really interesting, witty, passionate, -brilliant- people writing out there who are well worth reading. Not -because- they are people of color and *sigh* i guess i’ll be “guilted” (wtf is the point of -guilt- in this context anyway, may i ask?) into doing my liberal duty. Because they are -interesting- *for their own sakes.* And would provide valuable and worthy additions to these intrablog conversations…but, for some inexplicable reason, often just don’t seem to feel particularly -welcome.-
And there is a reason for that.
Because, at bottom, it’s not about how careful people are and aren’t to not say “the wrong thing,” ever, for fear of -offending- anyone. It’s about: it’s pretty fucking clear that a lot of people simply. aren’t. interested. in what a number of other people who -don’t-, not so much -look,- sure, we all see no color, yeahyeah…but, who don’t SOUND pretty much just like them… have to say.
Unless it somehow related back to ThemSelves, which is why these discussions, these -points of contact- only ever seem to happen when, like, someone says something that someone else finds particularly offensive.
the worst part of it being not so much the offense but the very clear knowledge that -if girlfriend or boyfriend had taken any time at all to be reading these other people in the first place, sie probably wouldn’t have made the mistake.- At minimum, would know them well enough to treat them like any other friend/ally whom they’d inadvertently rubbed the wrong way; as opposed to what has happened here: Stranger attack! To the barricades!
Which, you know, I think, hurts, yes. At least for a while. Till people just get numbed out and cynical and tired of trying.
But also: y’all’s loss.
By: By belledame222 on 2006 10 21
“the posse.” I mean, really. or, “Shannon’s friends,” many of whom didn’t know her at all before that. Are you all a “posse?” Is that what this is? -All- this is? Turf fight! So and so dissed my bud! Let’s get ready to RUMBLE! Jets v. Sharks, GO!
please.
By: By belledame222 on 2006 10 21
and no, she said, anticipating, i am not saying that -no one- who is cool with the burqa thing, much less anti-pr0n, is other than white.
i did think the frantic searching till “aha! see?! HERE’S someone who IS of the correct demographic and DOESN’T SEE THE BIG DEAL! WHEW! WHAT A RELIEF! *ignores or dismisses the other umpteen zillion people who DO have a problem*” was a bit weak.
Let me just ask this. Is the point of all this—I mean -all- of it, the blogging, the political beliefs, the activism (such as people do)—well, what is the point? Because if it becomes primarily about defining oneself in opposition to those people over there; if “consciousness raising” becomes not so much about -becoming more conscious, which is a goal in its own right- but “one more tool to beat myself and/or others over the head for not having sufficiently purged of Taint”...well, I dunno.
and, it is frustrating when one’s own problems with any given thing inevitably seem to be funnelled into that worldview as well. “Oh, sie’s saying such and so a thing is racist. -Sie must be saying i am a bad or at least insufficiently conscious person.- Therefore, the *only* possible responses are to go on the guilt trip or defend passionately against same.”
The possibility of, “huh, I never saw it that way, but that is -interesting,-” much less the consideration that -actually it isn’t all about you and your relative good intentions-”—well, that just doesn’t seem to be penetrating for some people.
I’m not sure what else to say about it at this point, honestly.
By: By belledame222 on 2006 10 21
Categories:
Blogging
