This blog is closed
Outing sucks
And the negativity starts up again. But we’ll get back to the positivity in the next post.
I said something general and tentative about pseudonymous blogging in comments here that Zuzu found irritating. I regret that she took what I said personally, mainly because 1) she’s got plenty of good reasons to blog pseudonymously which are 2) not my call in any event.
Zuzu mentioned my having pissed her off in comments here.
In that same comment thread, a dispute arose between Zuzu and Ann Bartow, which culminated in threats of legal action.
Just in case anyone’s unclear here about the distinction: I encouraged people to consider making statements under their real names if possible. I understand that some people might disagree with that suggestion, and for various good reasons. I don’t have all the right answers, ever. I may have lost Zuzu’s friendship and respect over the dispute, and that makes me sad.
But there’s a huge difference between my suggestion — which people are free to ridicule with no hard feelings on my part — and explicit threats of legal action accompanying more or less veiled threats of outing.
That sucks. Please, Ann. Drop it.
Update: Ann clarifies her intent in comments at Feministe. I’m very glad to see this. I like Ann, and was saddened to think she’d do such a thing. Still. This never should have gotten this far. It’s a good reminder that we all need to step outside ourelves ourselves, though do step out of your elves as well if necessary and imagine how our actions and statements might appear to others.
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!
I’m sorry, Chris, but I’ve read all these posts and all the comments and still can’t figure out the melodrama from Zuzu and Ann. So Zuzu’s mad at you for what? It’s just silly. Let her read it here from me, I guess, but she needs to hear it. You said nothing wrong and nothing that insulted her directly. What you did say was enough to provoke thought and—uh-oh!—consideration, which I even think you mentioned as being your point (“All I’m suggesting is that people consider the issue.”).
The fact is you stated you knew there were plenty of reasons (not all of which you could even identify) for pseudonymity, yet she came out swinging immediately as though you’d named her specifically and made her the enemy combatant you were writing about (although, again, you’d already said that was in reference to yourself). Honestly, these blog war things are trite and immature and very pretentious, and I’ve lost a lot of respect for her just based on that incident. I think it was unwarranted to explode at you and to really call out your brother in the comments; I think it was significantly overblown to feel what you said was a direct challenge to her personally; and I really think this Ann Bartow business is beyond a tempest in a teapot being perpetrated by people who made the beds they now don’t want to sleep in. Ridiculous is what it is. I’m sorry it’s happening and has somehow caught you in the middle, especially because it’s unjustified.
As for Ann’s defamation claim, there is none. Even per se defamation is hard to prove, but that’s far from what she’s pointing at. The comments in question are in no way defamatory and instead are First Amendment exercises she’s suddenly claiming to be enforcing via attorney (apparently only important when it’s for her and no one else, I guess). That’s a big “Whatever!” if ever there was one.
Let me say this: they’ve both lost me as a reader and respecter of what they do. Both are wearing their sensibilities on their shoulders and lashing out at anyone who even offers a contrary thought. That’s so First Amendment of them, isn’t it? This is so childish as to be laughable; in fact, it’s just that: laughable! Uproarious laughter all around, please, for no other response could be more appropriate for this entire affair. You shouldn’t have been dragged into such mire even if only indirectly.
By: By jason on 2006 10 20
Let me say this: they’ve both lost me as a reader and respecter of what they do. Both are wearing their sensibilities on their shoulders and lashing out at anyone who even offers a contrary thought.
Agreed, good sir. It is most undignified when one’s privacy is threatened and it is equally undignified to display strong feelings about the matter. One must strive for placidity in all reactions and responses, lest one give the appearance of ill breeding.
There being little I could add that could be in any way considered positive, I bid you good day.
By: By Fartles von Biscuitbrain on 2006 10 20
Jason, I appreciate your support.
Still, even if we grant your positions for the sake of argument, there is an issue of scale here between the two. Zuzu got mad at what I said, and she said so, and then somehow she did not then go on to email Kat to ask for an apology from me while mentioning the involvement of attorneys.
By: By Chris Clarke on 2006 10 20
Fartles von Biscuitbrain: Snark aside, you missed my point entirely while proving it. If by inference you think I’m advocating placidity, you’re far from wrong—and my response should be ample proof of that. What I’m advocating is common sense. Chris’ post never mentioned Zuzu; it never said pseudonymity was always wrong; and between two online friends, it certainly was in no way a battle cry. What it did say was there were reasons one might go that route but that he thought it at least worth considering the alternative. I’ve read his posts and comments multiple times and still can’t find a single thing about which one might respond the way she did. It’s one thing to say the fact is debatable and to say so with conviction; it’s quite another to arbitrarily—yes, arbitrarily—embattle someone because they said something generic with which you take offense. Say why you disagree; say why you think otherwise; just leave the silliness and oversensitivity elsewhere if you want anyone to listen, and that includes underhanded insults. Perhaps I just expect more maturity and deliberation than most. Does that make me an idealist? Probably, and to a fault I’m sure. So point taken.
And yes, there’s a degree of scale that vastly separates the two. Threats are quite different from childish melodrama and being touchy. Maybe I failed entirely to differentiate my feelings on the two, but I couldn’t agree more. Ann’s actions are abhorrent. I’d even say they’re uncivilized. Zuzu’s behavior, on the other hand, comes across as prickly and quick-tempered. I think that maybe I found that as offensive simply because I felt your comments on the subject offered a bit of careful thought as it applied to my own online activities (usually done via pseudonymity); her reaction so caught me off guard that it seemed unnecessarily vitriolic rather than enlightened. Again, my idealism leaves me open to being blindsided. That’ll teach me! Luckily, I’m not overly sensitive and rather enjoy contrary ideas. It’s a great way to learn.
By: By jason on 2006 10 20
Blogs are wonderful things, but as forums for passionate exchanges (or exchanges that become passionate), they have their drawbacks. There is an illusion of conversation which is maintainable as long as passions are not aroused too much, but when they are, watch out. The mechanisms we have for dealing with personal contention are simply not there - eye contact, tone of voice, body language. One’s words are much more permanent, and re-visitable for anger reinforcement. So we need different strategies for dealing with contention, especially between putative allies. My own is fourfold; look for content before emotion; never invest too much emotionally in a online relationship; if angry, wait as long as it takes to respond rationally; most importantly - benefit of the doubt; and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope. Fivefold…
In case you’re wondering, yes, I got my Master of the Fucking Obvious degree several years ago. But sometimes the obvious bears repeating.
By: By Rob G on 2006 10 20
And Fartles, drop the snide act or I’ll let everyone know that you’re really Auguste P. Z. Bérubé-Marcotte
By: By Chris Clarke on 2006 10 20
Most excellent response, Rob G! Most excellent indeed. Well, aside from that papal business, but to each their own as my pappy once said. Or did that come from the voices . . .
By: By jason on 2006 10 20
Chris, thanks for reminding me that the exception to rule #3 is when responding to evil French bastards (ooh, double redundancy!), or evil bastards with French names.
By: By Rob G on 2006 10 20
In keeping with the “be nice” theme, I will (I hope unnecessarily) point out that
Je plaisante parce que j’aime
By: By Rob G on 2006 10 20
Nous vous entendons, Rob G. La plupart des personnes sont malheureusement trop sérieuses. Je suis coupable.
And pardon my French (literally). I’ve not used it in almost 15 years. Did I just tell you to piss off or do unspeakable things with farm animals?
By: By jason on 2006 10 20
Pretty sure there was something in there about mustard.
By: By Chris Clarke on 2006 10 20
Farm animals and mustard. Enough to get an old fart like me positively frisky.
By: By Rob G on 2006 10 20
I’ve been following the battle all day, as it wound itself through various blogs. It does suck. I don’t think there is a better way to say it.
By: By dawn on 2006 10 20
ourselves, though do step out of your elves as well if necessary
Especially if we’re Otherkin.
By: By ilyka on 2006 10 21
If someone wants to be pseudonymous, that’s fine (though anonymity is much more problematic), but using your real name is not necessarily that bad. I’ve been posting under my real name since, like, sometime in the 1980s. Basically, since I was involved in local toxics activism, the corporates would already attempt minor harassment at meetings anyway. And it was lame, and there’s no real reason to be concerned about it. That’s not the same as having a horde of right-wing bloggers after you, though; corps have money, but they also generally don’t do illegal things lightly.
By: By Rich Puchalsky on 2006 10 21
Chris, I really can’t argue with you. Being a lawyer and an academic combined with my already idiosyncratic brain really has made me see these issues very differently than a lot of other people. I always think its better to know than to not know. I tend to assume everyone else feels that way, and I’m obviously wrong in this case.
By: By Ann Bartow on 2006 10 21
One favor to ask, thuogh you certainly down’t owe me anything: Could we not call this an “outing” or at least modify “outing” somehow? An outing is when someone’s name is publicly revealed. That didn’t happen and will never happen by my hand.
By: By Ann Bartow on 2006 10 21
Y cntbrtd t Zz lvng hr blg, y sck. Y thnk t’ss s grt t blg ndr yr rl nm, hw bt f cm b Pnl nd ct yr dg’s fckng thrt? Hw wld y fl? t’s s ngh t fnd y.
[Disemvoweled by Zk’s wnr. Let’s all just move on.]
By: By Feministe reader on 2006 10 21
I haven’t been following things completely, but it’s unfortunate that a direct conversation between the two parties involved couldn’t have happened before all of this blew up, as there seem to be a number of misunderstandings.
By: By amandyman on 2006 10 21
Not in my name, pal
Hear, hear. But that’s no “Feministe reader.” A Feministe reader would (1) understand that it wasn’t Chris who inspired your hiatus and (2) never threaten a dog on your behalf particularly, considering that you are yourself a dog owner.
I’m betting it’s by the same lunatic who threatened Zeke the last time, just mentioning you as a blind. All snideness and snarkery aside, that person needs serious help.
By: By ilyka on 2006 10 21
Thankfully, it’s 99.9999% likely that it’s just some sick fuck wanting to cause distress through some gutless blowhard threats.
Mind you, if that sick fuck does do anything to Chris or any of his loved ones I’ll be on the first plane over there to hunt him down. Not to kill him, of course: but as an evil physiotherapist I have knowledge of how to cause a number of permanently crippling and disfiguring deformities, and it would be a vengeful joy to have an excuse to put that theory to use.
By: By tigtog on 2006 10 21
Sorry, that was a bit negative, wasn’t it?
By: By tigtog on 2006 10 21
Can we please get back to the mustard and farm animals? I’m terribly frustrated by people who derail a perfectly fine thread derailment.
Wait. Do two derailments make a double negative?
By: By jason on 2006 10 22
Oh, and one more thing. That nonsense about Zeke was about as detestable as one can get. For their next trick, they’re going to stomp their little feet and cry big ol’ alligator tears and scream about the unfairness of it all, what with all these people speaking non-prekindergarten English and causing them such confusion. That person definitely needs some mustard and farm animals.
By: By jason on 2006 10 22
Categories:
Blogging
