In Reply: Stupid Behavior and Online Lynch Mobs

In reply to Why Did BuzzFeed & Co. Target Justine Sacco for Online Assassination

In general I'm against these social media lynch mobs and people being fired (or even disciplined) by their employers, especially for words and deeds that take place outside the workplace (and in some cases, at the workplace either.) That goes for this woman, the duck guy, Imus, the idiot who mistreated the Chick-fil-a girl back when that was going on, the girl at Arlington National Cemetery who wiseassedly mocked the sign calling for quiet and respect in a pair of photos posed on her Facebook account, and maybe even Bashir, too... While the people/companies they work for have the right to let them go if their words or deeds reflect poorly on the company products or brand, I think it's a mistake for employers to get that involved in their employee's off work political or social behaviors.

The same goes for people who disagree with bloggers or political partisans and take/make their attacks on them offline, by releasing personal information about where they live, work, shop or worship, and who their spouses or kids are, thus condoneing (and let's be honest, in some cases encouraging) people to harass them and their families or try to get them fired from their jobs. (I see little difference between the hounding of this woman and the personal attacks (not the policy disagreements or even the photoshop mockery, but the personal attacks on the kid, himself) on PajamaBoy, for instance. YMMV... -- For more on this, there's a great discussion on the Popehat Blog, at a post titled "The Political Is Personal. Why?")

In short, this liberal pretty much agrees with this post...

Posted 12/21/13, about 1:40 PM (Blog uses relative times--currently "3 hours ago"--I'll fix the times later, if/when the blog gets more specific.)

And when someone pointed out that I hadn't mentioned Paula Deen...

Yep, her too...
In her case I think she might've done some of what she was accused of, but it was a long time ago, and she seemed to be legitimately sorry. I believe people can screw up, and then learn and grow and do better. (I'd also put Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond in that category... and yes, I think Trent Lott got railroaded trying to say something nice to/about an old man.)

(On Edit): See also: Dixie Chicks

And... I also didn't mention Baldwin. He verbally exposed himself too many times. Whether he's a bigot or has anger issues (or both), he deserved what he got, and sooner than he got it, too. 'nuff said.

Posted 12/21/13, about 2:40 PM

On a similar subject (sort of): Donald Douglas - An Ethical "Push-me, Pull-you"

In Reply: Whiny Wingnut Victimization and Unsubstantiated Speculation Masquerading as "News"

In reply to No More Mister Nice Blog: I DON'T BELIEVE THE AURORA MASSACRE WAS POLITICAL

The "poor me" whiny wingnut victimization is getting entirely too thick. Brian Ross's problem wasn't a hatred of the Tea party types, but unsubstantiated speculation masquerading as news. (Same goes for the asshole(s) at the Breitbart sites speculating that the shooter may've been registered to vote as a Democrat...as though one's voter registration is somehow relevant. And no, their childish pleas that "they--that is, Brian Ross--did it first" in no way absolves them. If it's wrong to speculate, it's wrong to speculate, no matter who's "side" your speculation helps or hurts.) Michelle Malkin has a piece up crying about what a victim she is in all this, and the lower--tier bloggers are all following suit. (I even saw one ass blaming Steve (the "No More Mister Nice Blog" blogger)for his quote of the Breitbart piece above and blaming Steve, not the Breitbart author or Brian Ross, for the speculation about Tea Party involvement. Even after the facts were pointed out to him, the same blogger repeats the lie a second time. UPDATE: Same blogger goes for the threepeat of that same lie. Steve M. searched the guy's name--just like Brian Ross, and just like John Hawkins at Right Wing News. Steve did not restrict his search to Tea Party members, nor did he report that the shooter was a tea party member--though he did quote a Breitbart blog post, which in turn quoted the Brian Ross piece, when THEY discussed the Tea Party angle. Donald Douglas is lying--and at this point, there is no doubt that he is aware of it, which calls his credibility--if not his sanity--into question.)

I can understand discussion of relevant issues like US gun policy--whether one believes that there ought to be stricter laws for the purchase of guns or that if everyone was armed, shootings like this wouldn't happen or would result in fewer innocent casualties--but linking a particular shooter to one political party based on voter registration, especially in the absence of any obvious political motive, is evidence that the speaker is awful desperate to shill for his/her own political point of view, regardless of the facts.

(I'm more torn when there is a possible political motive. On one hand, I agree that crazy folks can just as easily be "inspired" by partisan political rhetoric as by "talking dogs" or the shapes they see in their mashed potatoes, but on the other, why is it considered any more crazy to kill folks over ones political beliefs than it is to kill in the name of greed or vengeance? At some level, there has to be something wrong with folks willing to murder others, no matter their reason, but I'm not so sure that folks who kill others in the name of their political or social beliefs are any more or less crazy than folks who kill their spouses lover out of jealousy or murder innocent people while committing a bank robbery. YMMV...)

Posted 7/20/12, 8:52 PM
---

More unsubstantiated speculation:
Shooter as...
...tea party member
...Registered Democrat (Breitbart)
...Occupy Black Bloc Member
...Enemy of Judeo-Christian Beliefs'
and--perhaps most dangerous of all--
...Medical Student
---

Searching for "James" (or "Jim") Holmes" on the internet (and in some cases, irresponsibly publicizing what they found without verifying that the James (Jim) they found was the one who did the shooting.):
Colorado shooting: ABC News draws possible James Holmes tea party connection - POLITICO.com
No More Mister Nice Blog: I DON'T BELIEVE THE AURORA MASSACRE WAS POLITICAL
Is This James Holmes’ Facebook Page? | John Hawkins, Right Wing News (Hawkins wisely removed the link to the wrong guy's Facebook page, but issued no apology for pointing the finger at the wrong James Holmes in the first place.)
---

The Dishonest Donald Douglas posts, and related material:
#1) "And Steve at No More Mr. Nice Guy was out of the gate looking for a tea party perp..."

Twitterer @kathykattenburg tries to steer Dr. Douglas toward honesty: "@AmPowerBlog And I think u should read Steve's piece again because he does not "search for a tea party perp." That is a complete misreading."

Needless to say, the facts had no effect:

#2) "Recall that Steve M. also searched James Holmes' name to find tea party ties, only to find out he was too young to be the "James Holmes" he'd found at the boards."

#3) "The decent, human thing to do would to be to gather facts, and especially not go looking around the Internet to see "what party is this insane person in?", or what tea party organization, as did No More Mr. Nice Blog did. That is, the decent, human thing would not be going all gonzo trying to score partisan points to destroy your enemies." (Talk about irony...)

And the title of the blog post about which Dishonest Don complains?:
I DON'T BELIEVE THE AURORA MASSACRE WAS POLITICAL

Yeah... really.
---

Also: Half-Assed Media Speculation About the Batman Shooter - Hit & Run: Reason.com