Robert Hutchinson ([info]ertchin) wrote,

Need to stain the Internet with my thoughts!

As previously mentioned, this is Busy Week where I work, so I haven't been able to keep up with all my Internet haunts, including LJ. I mention this not to (as usual) apologize for being behind, but only to give context: I may be repeating something, in ignorance, already discussed on my flist.

Okay. So . . . let's say you're a moderately popular blogger, and you have a regular feature on your site that profiles various authors by plugging some of their work and letting them publish a short piece on your site. You have a title for this particular set of posts, even. Then, one day, you post something to this section by someone Internet-famous for their thuggish misogyny and general trollery, backed up by a truly ungodly amount of illogical bluster and smarter-than-thou puffery on the part of both him and his followers. (Followers in the sense that they will "follow" any critical mention of him on the Internet in order to mark their territory in a manner usually reserved for some feral animals.)

You (the blogger) add a disclaimer that basically indicates that you know exactly what you're doing, but hey, he submitted an entry, and besides, the discussion should be fun! The discussion turns out, as anyone could have predicted, to be a bunch of reasonable people having bricks hurled at them, until some of them finally get sick enough of it to start hurling the bricks back. It contains a few threads of supremely patient logic and a couple of handfuls of unintentional self-refutation, all buried under a huge, huge pile of shit. (When I get flustered enough, and I'm writing, I start using more and more five-dollar words in order to avoid saying things like that last bit. But I'm only human.)

People say to you, "Hey, this dude kinda likes to say extremely stupid things about women, and is really just extremely stupid in general. Why are you giving him a forum again?" You give no elaboration. People say to you, "Hey, you've put this guy under a banner that normally hosts non-beefwitted authors. Doesn't this kinda smear the contents of the aforementioned pile all over that enterprise?" You give no response. Then, you tie a pretty little bow on the pile by closing the comments and saying, defying all common sense and plain textual evidence, that it was a worthwhile discussion!

This is not an "I'm never reading that guy again!" entry. Nor is it a "shame shame on you!" entry. Life will go on, I will keep reading, and the blogger need make no note of my scribblings. It's just . . . I am freaking BEWILDERED by this. I am confronted by a mass of illogic. And it's sitting right next to that other mass, such that it stinks similarly.

Anyone? (That is, anyone who defied probability and read all of this without losing interest?)

  • Post a new comment

    Error

  • 9 comments

[info]montykins

April 11 2008, 06:08:25 UTC 4 years ago

My thoughts: I have never heard of Vox Day and have only barely heard of Scalzi. The piece in question is so incoherent that I gave up in the third paragraph, because Mr. (or Ms.) Day is so fond of incomprehensible witticisms, it completely obscured whatever the supposed point was. Then it looks like the comment thread did what comment threads always do these days, which is fold in on itself.


[info]ertchin

April 11 2008, 07:48:24 UTC 4 years ago

Oh God, you actually tried to read the post? My apologies.

Whatever is actually pretty good about not descending into comment hell. Of course, it also usually concerns comprehensible things.

[info]spiderweb888

April 11 2008, 16:26:13 UTC 4 years ago

I started reading, then noticed how many comments there were and barely skimmed. What I don't get, really, *really* don't get, is why anyone posted a comment. If *everyone* had just given it the attention it deserved (i.e. NONE) and SHUT THE FUCK UP, that would have made more of a statement than all the "reasoned" replies. Not to belabor the point, but it would have meant that he wasn't important enough for anyone to waste their time on. I'm sure no one's mind was changed by any of the back and forth.

[info]ertchin

April 11 2008, 20:30:22 UTC 4 years ago

I completely agree, but I'm not in much of a position to criticize those who responded. The same impulses that led to me having to write the above entry often lead me to wade into swamps like that one and start arguing. O, that I had never discovered political newsgroups 7 years ago . . .

[info]marydell

April 11 2008, 19:00:21 UTC 4 years ago

I didn't find it all that surprising for a feature called "The Big Idea." When I saw the entry I thought "hm, Vox Day, he's a douchebag, why is Scalzi featuring him?" and then I thought "well, he clearly has a big idea, and a book about it, so what the hey." Then I skipped the entry, because he's a douchebag.

I didn't interpret this as Scalzi endorsing his ideas, though, and I didn't think his prior Big Idea features meant he necessarily liked the books featured. He's just offering a free soap box to other authors. Some of whom are full of shit, apparently.

[info]ertchin

April 11 2008, 20:37:46 UTC 4 years ago

If I were more temperate, I probably could have just made a joke about renaming it "What's The Big Idea?", and moved on.

I should clarify that I, too, don't think Scalzi either (necessarily) likes any of the books, or is endorsing them. And I'm sure he doesn't in this particular case. It just felt like some invisible line was crossed between "let's have fun" and "let's make things awkward for everyone".

[info]ertchin

April 11 2008, 20:42:06 UTC 4 years ago

At the risk--nay, the certainty--of being an egotist:

Wow, two "new" commenters in one day! That beats my previous record of two in three months. :D Thanks, y'all. This whole Internet thing is about to break big, I just know it.

[info]adriennelily

April 13 2008, 15:04:50 UTC 4 years ago

Heh, if you really want to get some attention, you could try putting something like "John Scalzi is an Idiot" as your subject header. You'll end up with more attention than you ever wanted. :P

I am freaking BEWILDERED by this.

Exactly!

[info]ertchin

April 13 2008, 15:49:00 UTC 4 years ago

Oh, I had a (very mild) panic when I saw I had even been noticed and linked at all. I guess John really does look at his stats. :D
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…