Showing posts with label metablogging. Show all posts
Showing posts with label metablogging. Show all posts

Thursday, January 09, 2014

In Reply: Standing up and speaking out against on and offline bullies is about encouraging us not to passively accept their nonsense and to protect and defend ourselves and each other.

Revised and extended a little, in reply to the following comment at the intentionally lyin'assed Other McCain post "Portrait of a Stalker Troll: @Repsac3, Also Known as Walter James Casper III," by "journalist" Robert Stacy McCain:
Actually, no...that's exactly what it's like within fandom communities. Politics, fandom...it's generally the same online because the Internet is like never leaving junior high.

And...you missed my point. But I think I know what the problem is. I'm sure you know what the Streisand Effect is. (My personal favorite example is the now infamous Charles Carreon) So here are a few helpful guides. (Sorry for the language, folks)

The Complete Guide to Not Giving a Fuck.
The actual advice in here is a little questionable, but the important thing is the point that people are going to believe things about you that you don't think are true, and no amount of "setting them straight" is going to change that, like our friend Girl B's situation. She just wants people to hear her side, too. Does it work, though? Nope. The only thing you can really do is Not Give a Fuck. And as the writer notes, most people neither know nor care. I certainly didn't, and I can tell you this fact right now: if you hadn't responded, I would have forgotten about you already. Really.

My guide to not giving a fuck // Alden Tan.
This one, IMO, has more practical advice, primarily because he's pointing out that bitching on social media won't solve anything. Seriously, I don't even use it to vent. Private journals are a wonderful thing.

And finally, my personal favorite:

wadewilson: Internet Drama And You.
Though this is centered around that wacky subset of fandom known as roleplayers about whom I plead the Fifth on knowing anything about, it's still good advice about this issue. (So you can skip the whole "Pretendy fun time games" bit...unless you want to apply that to political discussions online. Because really, is anyone in any position to do anything even paying attention to us? Ha...big bag of NOPE.) But the big point here is that even though you might not start Internet drama yourself, you can end it.

Oh, and have I been there? You bet your ass I have. Someone on one of these commiseration spirals had badmouthed a good friend of mine. It hurts even worse when one of these spoiled little girls insults someone I care about, but part of learning to not give a fuck was learning that their opinion of her wasn't even worth the thought I was giving it. They weren't going to change their single functioning collective brain cell over it, so I had to make the hard choice to just drop it. Was if fair? HELL NO. Did I have a right to defend her? Sure I did. Was it worth it lowering myself to their level? Not even remotely. But ultimately, I just wanted these mouthbreathers to leave us alone, and they did. The price of that was allowing their short attention spans work in my favor. That's pretty much the universal Internet currency of peace of mind: letting people forget about you.
- La Pucelle

All I can say is we disagree... In my opinion you put entirly too much responsibility on the people being attacked, and virtually none on the people doing the attacking. I would never want to live in a world where people--victims, potential victims, and good people everywhere--don't stand up to bullies, online or off. Standing up and speaking out isn't about convincing the bullies; with very few exceptions, they're a lost cause. It's about encouraging the rest of us not to passively accept their nonsense and to protect and defend ourselves and each other.

You certainly can ignore a single isolated incident or two (and yes, it probably is in your best interest to do so, for exactly the reasons you describe.) But follow McCain's link to Donald Douglas' behavior over the last year or so one more time. These are not single, isolated incidents and they are not motivated by anything I do or do not do. The behavior shown at that link is Donald Douglas' responsibility and cross to bear. That he has chosen to make me the object of his "affections" has nothing to do with me, and my pretending that he isn't behaving the way he is isn't going to make him stop behaving the way he does toward me.

In any case, adding the guy's posts to a list the way I do may not be your solution, but it surely isn't stalking, harassment, or trolling, either. I trust you can see that. (If it helps, think of the list as my tiny contribution to Dr. Douglas' own little Streisand Effect. His attempts to obfuscate his responsibly for his strange behavior, and instead accuse me, is just as deserving of that sort of pushback, is it not? I mean, it's not like you're saying no one should've posted about Charles Carron's (or Babs') bad behaviors, right?)

Thanks for the conversation, though... I appreciate your thoughts, even though I don't entirely agree with 'em...

Personally, I'm glad you haven't "forgotten about me already"... Aside from the enlightening conversation, your willingness to discuss it with me renewed my longstanding belief that, even here on the internet, not every partisan from the "other" side (or "our" side, for that matter) is obligated to behave like all is WAR!!! While I don't plan to spend much time in McCain's comment sections, I hope to run into you again.
--

Posted Thursday, January 9, 2014, 10:25 AM (or thereabouts)
--

When I was posing La Pucelle's links here, I took the time to read them more thoroughly than I did initially. The following, from The Complete Guide to Not Giving a Fuck, actually argues for my position, and I'm sorry I didn't notice it until long after I posted my reply comment to him on McCain's site. (It may also explain why he found some of the advice there "a little questionable."):

STEP 4. Tell the truth.

You don’t need to be an asshole, but the world does not need another conflict-avoidant, evasive person. No one wants another individual who steps in line with everyone else. The status quo is doing fine without you, so it’s up to you to call bullshit if you see it.

Wednesday, January 08, 2014

In Reply: I don't agree that I should willingly silence myself against those who lash out and lie about me, even if I'm throwing away the opportunity to be the better man by speaking up

Revised and extended a little, in reply to the following comment at the (surprisingly, willfully dishonest) Other McCain post "Portrait of a Stalker Troll: @Repsac3, Also Known as Walter James Casper III," by "journalist" Robert Stacy McCain:

OK, here's the deal: I'm going to give you a fair shake because you're actually coherent. (unlike Schmeldfelt) I was right, I've seen this before. Specifically on LiveJournal fandom communities. As much as I'll admit that I look down on teenage girls in fandoms, they've provided a lot of insight and some of them have been surprisingly mature. So here goes.

Girl A and B are in the same fandom, let's say Doctor Who, and they both write fanfiction. Girl A is upset at Girl B for some reason, let's say that Girl B doesn't like the Doctor/Jack Harkness "ship" and writes Doctor/Martha fanfiction. So Girl A starts writing gossip on her LJ about Girl B, and Girl A's clique gets in on it. And even worse, either Girl A or one of her clique starts posting in one of the many anonymous communities about Girl B and her fanfiction. (They're like 4chan. If you don't know, don't ask. Believe me, you're better off not knowing) Every manner of high school gossip you can think of, with a bunch of "anons" badmouthing Girl B among a relatively small community. However, they keep their gossip and badmouthing to their own journals and the anonymous community; they never contact her directly.

Now, Girl B usually has two options. The first option is to go on these communities to defend her reputation. Occasionally, the friends of the injured party also get in on the act to defend their friend, i.e., "whiteknighting", thereby escalating the incident and earning Girl B a reputation as a "wanker", someone who drags out drama. By answering drama with more drama, Girl B ends up making a bad reputation all on her own where one usually never existed in the first place.

The other option Girl B can take is ignoring the threads about her on anonymous communities or on the journals of Girl A or those of her friends. And eventually, the drama started by Girl A fades away, since Internet memories tend to be short unless there's something to the rumors or the issue is exacerbated and artificially extended by Girl B herself.

Is it fair? Hardly. Welcome to human nature. But it's been accepted by both courts and by piddling little online fandoms alike that being gossiped about online is not cyberstalking. When badmouthing crosses over into direct and continued contact, it becomes bullying, and persistent following of someone crosses into stalking. One tweet does not constitute stalking or bullying, but continued attempts to contact a target is, even if the stalker in question thinks he is "trying to set the record straight." No one else sees it this way, nor will anyone but the stalker ever see it this way.

So that's pretty much where we are right now. You have the same options as Girl B.
- La Pucelle

First off, the nature of partisan blogging is that it is confrontational... We frequently post on our blogs about the facts, ideas, and attitudes that another blogger is discussing on his, sometimes in agreement, but far more often in opposition. Sometimes the confrontations are all about the ideas, and sometimes they get personal, but ether way, it's built into the thing in a way it more than likely isn't in the communities you're describing.

That said, there has been no contact between Dr Douglas and I in about 9 months. He posts about me on his blog or via twitter, and I respond in kind, posting about what he said or making note of the fact that he once again lashed out, on my twitter feed or blog...

Sure, I have the choice not to post... (...just like Dr Douglas does, and just like every blogger or commenter or twitter-user does, just before posting about what some liberal/conservative asshat said on their blog.) But being cowed into silence because the crazy ass who's writing about you will be somewhere between slightly-and-somewhat more likely to post additional crazy shit about you if you respond to what he says (and will perhaps have friends who'll pile on along with him, taboot) is no way to live your life...

I call Donald Douglas out when he attacks because much of what he says is patently untrue, and he shouldn't be able to lie about me on his blog without my pointing out every lie he tells on mine if I so choose...not even if some think that not doing so would be the smarter or more "sane, grown-up" way to behave.

I understand what you're getting at but no, I don't agree that I should willingly silence myself against those who lash out and lie about me, even if I'm throwing away the opportunity to be the better man by speaking up... (I decided a few years ago to curtail being the guy who lashes out in the first place as often as possible--and yes, I have at times failed at doing that, since...but that's about as far as I'm willing to go...)

(As an aside, if even half of we partisan bloggers and commenters were sane grown-ups, the partisan blogosphere would shrivel up and die.)
---

Posted Wednesday, January 8, 2013, 10:45 PM (or thereabouts)

Saturday, December 21, 2013

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"

Tuesday, October 08, 2013

In Reply: Conservative Site Vehemently Defends Anti-War Protesters (because Obama)

In reply to: Clarifying A Developing Story Turned Faux-Outrage….. Veterans Arrested At War Memorial ? It’s not DC, it’s NYC !! It’s not what it appears…. | The Last Refuge:

Maybe the source you list above was vague or tried to make folks believe something that wasn't true, but the truth was out there, including from the protesters themselves on Monday morning: Veterans to Face Arrest at Vietnam Veterans Memorial Plaza | PopularResistance.Org

The Atlantic's story about it was pretty clear, as well: Police Arrest Vietnam Veterans at NYC Memorial - Brian Feldman - The Atlantic Wire

Nevertheless, at least one conservative site didn't see the big picture and--despite knowing it happened in NYC, blamed Obama for beating up on those patriotic vets: Outrage! Obama has Vietnam Veterans arrested in New York
---

Submitted for moderator approval Posted October 8, 2013 at 2:52 am

ADDED: It isn't like I didn't try to tell the blogger at Fire Andrea Mitchell. S/He just didn't seem to want to hear it...or let anyone else know s/he had, either:

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

X-Post: Methinks Creepy-Clown Stalker Donald Kent Douglas Doth Protest Too Much...

American Power: Bwahaha!! Poor Widdle Wepsac3 Whines Hilariously: 'I'm the Victim! It's Me, I'm the Victim!'

"BWAHAHAHA!! Time to bet back to school, loser. Math is hard!"
So is spelling, apparently... (Muphry's Law is a mean ol' bitch, and catches Dr. Douglas every. damned. time.)


Sadly, no... I am aware of only two blogs where my comments have been moderated away before the fact; Donald's blog, and Zilla's. (And, in a comment she posted on her blog at the time that was lost when she changed blogging platforms--which I cited here at the time, but unfortunately did not screencap or quote--Zilla stated that she blocked me primarily because Donald was her friend, and she didn't want him to be uncomfortable when visiting her blog. It wasn't about anything I ever said there; it was about protecting Donald's fee-fees.)

UPDATE: Lookie what I found:



(For the record, I have no recollection of whatever Dishonest Don is claiming happened with Tania Gail. I think she posted a link to a youtube video on a blog (hers, or in comments somewhere else), and I probably followed the link to youtube and joined the commentary there rather than at that blog. But this happened back in 2006 or 2007. Like I was saying yesterday, Donald is r-e-a-l-l-y r-e-a-c-h-i-n-g into the past, and generally finding a whole lotta shit to get all worked up about that no one else even cares about, anymore... And finally, protecting Tania's reputation as much as my own, I am aware of no time where Tania Gail ever threatened any sort of violence against me or anyone else. While she and I disagreed pretty vehemently, she always behaved like a lady. Whatever Dishonest Don believes, it simply didn't happen.)

---
So yeah... Dishonest Don is actually...bragging?...proud?...that I missed a pair of tweets from June 5th where he also lashed out at me. I stand corrected, Dr Douglas... You are indeed two tweets more obsessive and pathetically creepy than I thought you were...

Here are those tweets a little larger, and linked:

Link

Link

(And, perhaps because I'm just a bad victim, or perhaps because McCain's mistaken, I have no recollection of having "attacked him during the Kimberlin stuff." While I'm no fan of lipless McCain and the rest, I seem to recall standing with them during that whole thing. YMMV...)

The bottom line on all this is, the facts are quoted, linked, cited, and screencapped in a whole lotta places here at American Nihilist. Concerning the specious allegations in Dishonest Donald Douglas' screed here, primarily in these two posts: BTDT FAQ Files - Workplace Harassment and Obsessed much, Dr. Douglas?. Those who read what each of us have written (or don't) and nevertheless choose to believe Dr. Douglas' verbal anecdotes and shoulda, coulda, woulda's are welcome to do so. One can only lead an ass to water, after all...
---

An American Nihilist x-post
---

Comment:

Dishonest Donald is among McCain and the rest of them, but he's not one of them. We know it, they know it, and worst of all for Dr. Douglas, he knows it too.

So much of this game he's playing is "Look!! I have a guy harassing me just like you guys do...," but it's obvious to EVERYONE --even Donald himself, though he's loathe to admit it-- that he's carrying on about shit that happened years ago, and never rose to the level that he's claiming it did. Whether they'll ever publically admit it or not, they see right through him. (Which is why for the most part, they so seldom comment on his crazy victimization posts or defend him in any way... They know what he's up to...)

No matter how much Donald may wish it were otherwise, there is no state in America where submitting 35-40 comments to the comment section of a moderated blog over the course of two years is illegal. Not even if the blogger in question asks you not to... (That's why almost all (if not all) blogging platforms have moderation tools.)

Donald made a bunch of accusations and threats of legal action, but when push came to shove, he didn't have the goods, and everybody saw how limp his little dick really was... And obviously, that really upsets him, so he continues to periodically lash out, hoping to somehow clutch victory from the jaws of his epic defeat. I feel bad for the guy, but it really is over...
-- June 18, 2013 at 10:33 PM

Sunday, June 16, 2013

In Reply: Donald Kent Douglas is Obsessed with Perpetuating This Conflict

In reply to the following comments at the American Nihilist Post Complicated? It Certainly Must Be!:
Oh Happy Day! Donald still loves and remembers us. I was afraid he'd fallen and had some kind of brain injury (beyond his obvious mental problems, that is). Just curious. Is this actually true or is it just some of the bullshit that he spouts unconsciously?
Stalkers have no right to directly address you after they have been warned to cease and desist.
Not sure what's a greater sign of his insanity the Tourette's-like whining over workplace harrassment or the blatting about "you tried to comment on my blog." Wahhhh! - Kevin Robbins, June 16, 2013 at 3:39 PM

I don't typically follow any of the internet grievances of the day. But I did at least put in a search for Bill Schmalfeldt and if half of what he is reported to have done is true then he's a total asshole. And if Donald thinks that is comparable to leaving a few comments at a blogsite then he is a total asshole. But then, we already knew that. - Kevin Robbins, June 16, 2013 at 3:48 PM

And yes, I realize that Lee Stranahan and possible even yours truly may also be total assholes. - Kevin Robbins, June 16, 2013 at 3:51 PM
---
Aaand...

The Schmalfeldt situation is current, whereas--aside these two comments I made at an AmPow post at the end of March in a moment of weakness--none of us have even attempted to comment at Dishonest Donald's blog in well over a year.

At no time has anyone sent repeated comments, tweets, e-mails, or any other directed communication to Dr. Douglas, or threatened him or "anyone he ever knew, loved, touched, stood next to, heard of, smelt, felt, dreamed about." Not one time, ever.

While Donald is claiming his "poor me, pity me" victimhood, the fact is that he's the one repeatedly and regularly seeking me out and posting about me...not the other way around. While he's legally welcome to do so, it blows his claims of "harassment" and "stalking" victimhood out of the water...and presents a pretty strong argument that it is Donald Kent Douglas who is obsessed with perpetuating this conflict, as well...

Folks--including folks on his ideological side--have already called him out for becoming the same kind of harassment troll he claims to rail against. Even now, he's playing the "@ symbol separated from twitter name isn't a directed mention" argument made famous by Schmalfeldt and TeamKimberlin...which is not the least bit surprising to anyone who knows Donald...
---

Posted June 16, 2013 at 7:11 PM

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

X-Post: I bet he can write his name in the snow with it, too...

Epic loser Dishonest Donald Douglas thinks I care...



They're like two teenage boys in the high school shower room... (I can understand McCain's fascination with his blog-hit / follower penis size... It is his only job, I think... But Ol' Dishonest Don just wants to fool himself into thinking he plays with the big boys...)

Original link: Epic Loser Walter James Casper III 'Isn't a Very Effective User' of Twitter

Twitter / rsmccain: @AmPowerBlog The troll to whom ... (and still misusing the word "troll," I see)
---

And lest anyone forget, I answered that tweet a few days ago, as well:



Reporting speakers you don't like to the authorities is no way to stand up for free speech...even if "the authorities" laugh in your face (or behind your back), and refuse to act on your whiny complaints...
(...and what's with that "#retard" thing? Methinks Sarah Palin (or Trig, at least) would not approve...)

Quick update: Saw this tweet. Suspect McCain thought I was defending the Schmalfeldt guy (who I know very little about, and haven't the time or inclination to find out about, either), rather than questioning how Dishonest Don's mind can turn a small number of on-topic comments submitted to the moderation queue of his blog--generally at posts where Donald attacks me by name--into "harassment," and then try to report that "harassment" (those comments) to the police, the FBI, his local congressman, lawyers, Google, etc...

It's ok, McCain... I probably wouldn't be following my story either, if Dishonest Don didn't keep dragging me back into it by periodically lashing out at me...
---

Obsessed much, Dr. Douglas?
---

An American Nihilist X-post

Nerd Score (Do nerds score?)