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?)
April 11 2008, 06:08:25 UTC 4 years ago
April 11 2008, 07:48:24 UTC 4 years ago
Whatever is actually pretty good about not descending into comment hell. Of course, it also usually concerns comprehensible things.
April 11 2008, 16:26:13 UTC 4 years ago
April 11 2008, 20:30:22 UTC 4 years ago
April 11 2008, 19:00:21 UTC 4 years ago
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.
April 11 2008, 20:37:46 UTC 4 years ago
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".
April 11 2008, 20:42:06 UTC 4 years ago
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.
April 13 2008, 15:04:50 UTC 4 years ago
I am freaking BEWILDERED by this.
Exactly!
April 13 2008, 15:49:00 UTC 4 years ago