Please read this BlogIntegrity post if you haven’t already. That post got someone outed and had their children threatened. The sound you hear is sawing and hammering in the basement, as we work on what to do next.

Actually, Thersites was outed because of a pissing match over Jeff G’s and Thersites’ relative credentials to discuss literary theory by a person who was not Jeff G.

Jeff G actually half-heartedly removed the information, but has now gone into complete bwwahhaa mode. (See comments to Oh My! at Protein Wisdom.)

The thing about Thersites’ kid was actually posted on his blog (Metacomments), was unrelated to any outing, and it is unclear whether or not a commenter to Protein Wisdom posted it.

Thanks! It’s not totally clear what led to what (no word from Theristes yet), but I added an update.

To be more clear, the pissing match was basically all Jeff who wanted to know what Thersites credentials were. I’m pretty sure Thersites never brought up Goldstein’s but some other commenters may have either at Metacomments or at Protein Wisdom. Though Thersites does refer to Jeff as “paste eater” and “dork” and so forth (with plenty of like minded insults coming the other way). Thersites and Jeff have some history because Jeff was basically a dick about Eschacon last year; google ‘”jeff goldstein” site:metacomments.blogspot.com’ if you care that much.

Basically Thersites and Jeff have been having a back and forth over the past few weeks on intent and meaning between their blogs. I honestly lack the theoretical chops to appraise how that went, but it basically starts here. Though, Jeff’s pretty much on shaky ground with his “meaning is fixed at the time of signification and only at the time of signification” intentionalism.

This Post highlights the odious thing said in regards to Thersites daughter. It is also what Jeff G has “had it” hearing about that put him into bwaahaa mode. But if you look at the Oh my! thread and the previous thread regarding Thersites, you can see that Jeff’s commitment to privacy was pretty thin to begin with.

I don’t think I could have put a less clear clarification up.

Nah, Bas, I’m a lot less confused now. The way I read it, a bunch of folks got salty at one another on a couple of blogs and at least one of ’em ran off the rails and did some ugly shit. Truly funky stuff, mi amigos, and sadly lacking in teh funny. Think I’ll go over and read Marie Jon’…

mikey

Actually it makes sense. I had seen one of the metacomments posts about JG, and it was super-duper mean, really accurate, and kind of pretty funny.

I hear the Online Integrity Coalition is considering impeachment proceedings. They might take JG’s blog away or place him on double secret probation.

Here’s the original. Why is Goldstein attacking Thersites cred rather than that of Nate Charlow? I’m not sure, but I wonder if “have him” and “for lunch” might be part of the answer. I’d also like to point out that writing “[a]s for the Michelangelo thing, well, you can have your fun with that, if you wish. I’ve no interest in explaining the origin of that bit of personal history as it relates to the classes the notes were prepared for, so seize upon it!” when it was pointed out that it was in fact Da Vinci who painted the Mona Lisa kind of refutes the whole “text has a single meaning determined by author” jazz, as in addition to what the writer meant, it also clearly means the writer can’t admit when he’s made a mistake, but I probably don’t have the right sort of education to allow me to.

Here’s the original.

The Thersites/Jeff Goldstein thing on Goldsteins’ radical intentionalism goes back a few more weeks. Nate got incorporated into the argument by reference

If you really want to go all inside baseball on this episode, it really begins when JG didn’t realize that the phrase “exterminate the brutes” came from Heart of Darkness.

Actually it makes sense. I had seen one of the metacomments posts about JG, and it was super-duper mean, really accurate, and kind of pretty funny.

Yeah, that’s the thing. I’m completely for “destroying reputations”, but not for destroying anonymity or the safety of online participation or the reasonable expectation that a blogger’s family is off-limits. Wingnuts can’t see the distinction, but then of course they can’t: they’re evil fucking assholes.

“Destroying reputations” for us consists of humiliating vile people who’ve said stupid and awful fucking things, people whose politics and value-judgements are an insult to humanity. Calling them names, exposing their lies and hypocrisy, laughing at their ponderousness and pomposity, pointing to the latest cigar that has exploded in their face. All of this is fair game.

What’s not fair game is children and personal info like phonenumbers, names, SS#’s, and employment information.

Wingnuts bloggers are well aware of the forces they unleash when posting such info. Jeff Goldstien’s “doubt” that one of his commenters could say such a thing as what was said about Thers’s child is like Charles Johnson saying that he couldn’t believe one of his commenters would call for genocide — these assholes know their readership better than that, and indeed I’ve seen one of Goldstein’s commenters ask for 20$ in gas money from JG so that he could show a certain liberal “where Jimmy Hoffa was buried” hint hint.

But the point I’ll make here is that all that should be obvious, which is why it’s suicidal to try to reason with such scum. Fuck being nice, fuck civility, fuck trying to find common ground. We have principles — we’re not going to out them or attack their children — but anything else (invective, cruel cruel cruel invective, photoshop glee, humiliation, constant razed-ground verbal annihilation, unforgiving cataloguing of everything awful they’ve ever said) is fair game.

How we should deal with them is that we should have long memories and quit being so fucking nice and forgiving. Jeff Goldstien’s a psychopath who has threatened sexual assault. Post the evidence of it EVERY FUCKING TIME HE CLAIMS HE’S CIVIL. The internet is the ultimate preservative; I suggest we use it as that.

FUCK REASONING WITH THESE PEOPLE!! They are UNREASONABLE. Jesus fucking christ.

I don’t care whether you are a right-winger, a left-winger, or something in between. If somebody is abusing you on the internet, I’ve got your back. Those who out other people, ruthlessly and unscrupulously go after their reputations via comments bordering on slander nd and libel and those who abuse others on blog sites are poor excuses for human beings. The Rolling Stones even seemed to have Sympathy for the Devil. Not me. If somebody crosses that boundry between acceptable and unacceptable blogging behavior, I have

No Sympathy!
Dr. BLT & The Rolling Scones
words and music by Dr. BLT (c)2006
http://www.drblt.com/music/nosympathy.mp3

It is classic blogwars, but with so much writing over a couple weeks that your eyes just gloss over… till last night.

For some reason last night Jeff decided to start asking about Thers credentials… and posted comments wanting to know who the heck he was. Of course being the internet a couple sluths at Protein Wisdom were able to find links and tracked down Thers wife, and then Thers himself. They shared the “outing” info on Protein Wisdom… gloating like little kids… and then you have today with Thers asking that his personal information be taken down and Jeff runnin around laughing at Thers for being “just” a community college PhD.

I would say it was the most boring blog war till last night… then Jeff went below the belt asking/directing minions to dig up dirt.

Doc, those are nice sentiments, but you completely miss Retardo’s point, which is to distinguish between outing and destroying reputations (those reputations being that of the chosen online persona). Instead, you equate the two, because you didn’ t like what Mikey said about you a few days ago. Of course, because I post under my real name, I can’t be outed, but that’s not possible for everyone due to job considerations.

Thanks, Bas, I didn’t realize I’d come in at the middle, or even pretty late in the game.

If somebody is abusing you on the internet, I’ve got your back. Those who out other people, ruthlessly and unscrupulously go after their reputations via comments bordering on slander nd and libel and those who abuse others on blog sites are poor excuses for human beings.

And that’s why you’re an idiot.

If I call Jeff Goldstien a paste-eating cretin, that’s fair. If he calls me a dipshit wanker, that’s fair. Both are slurs. Elaborate if puerile insults are part of blogging. Rude characterizations are part of blogging. “Being mean” is part of blogging. Cursing is part of blogging — a beautiful demotic part of it that I hope rollsback some of the prissy, pompous fucktardery one reads in the newspapers.

All this is different from outting someone so that some freeper white trash dullard will look them up in real life and do them harm. All this is different than saying something horrible about a blogger’s toddler. All of this is different from trying to get someone anonymous fired from their day job.

And, yes, I will have something up about Goldstien in the next few days.

Well, the Doc is trying to hit a consensus here, man. He’s a decent person despite the differences we so often talk about.

[And I’ve been watching the legal-recourse argument without saying anything. No need for that kind of talk here, I think.]

It’s the people who aren’t basically decent who are the problem. They’ve been a problem since we were all running around in hyaena-hide loincloths, or whatever people wore back then….

But that’s the thing, Gavin. Fuck that kind of triangulating consensus.

I don’t know if Doc is a decent person or not. Which is why I wasnt taking to task his morals but rather his judgement. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, actually, by calling him an idiot.

It’s not right. There is a distinction between being mean and outting people and I’m not going to cede any ground from it by trying to be nice and meet doc half-way. Doc’s consensus is stupid.

But you’re right about the decent people thing. And I suspect most of our comrades know you’re right. But many of them lack the courage of their conviction.

In saying the following I have no one in particular in mind but rather an attitude that I wish to indict and, indeed, execute.

Here’s the deal. It’s OBVIOUS that Jeff Goldstein is a loathsome human being. It’s been obvious for a long time. Patrick What’sHisFace is loathsome. Josh Trevino is loathsome. They’re not going to be honest or decent; they’re going to be awful. It’s been a pattern for so long it’s a given — assuming that they operate in bad faith should be SOP for lefty writers.

So, No Mercy. And it’s foolish to count on the liberal assumption of some underlying humanity from these people. The idea that if one puts the argument against indecency logically enough, that the wingnut will be swayed, is a fool’s errand. These people are hopeless, they have no prediltion for reason, their moral compass was found broken in the bottom of a fucking Froot Loops box.

One would think that our comrades would finally understand that there’s *some* degree of correlation between political depravity and personal depravity. Jeff Goldstien’s pro-torture. OF COURSE it’s at least then likely that he’s going to be indecent on a personal level. These things often, though not always, go hand in hand.

People like Goldstien — which is to say, most wingnuts — forfeit not their political rights because of their beliefs (that is the wingnut response, see, that’s fascist, we’re not like that) but do rather forfeit their expectation that they should be given any sort of respect for their arguments in the ‘civilized discourse” sense.

Too many on the left reject hate, which means they begin to be used as a punching bag by people who live for hate. Hate qua hate is not necessarily evil. Some things are absolutely worthy of DESPISING. For instance, it is a moral imperative to HATE torturers and torture-apologists. JG is a despicable person with despicable beliefs and any attempt to rationalise with the human being that is JG is bound to fail — that part of him is cut off, so who are we but suicidally well-meaning liberals to go in search of it.

No compromise. No triangulation. No search for common ground. The decent ground has already been demarcated, and I’m not moving from it. That’s a higher principle to uphold than the “let’s all just get along” thing, which wingnuts inevitably translate as “let’s punch the well-meaning liberal in the face” — which they do.

The problem, as I see it (granted, I wasn’t following the weeks-long fight over at Thers’ place – and yes, in the spirit of full disclosure, I’ll gladly tell you that Thers and NYMary are dear friends of mine) is that JG waded into intellectual water that was too deep for him. Realizing he was floundering, he started lashing out at Thersites about his Ph.D, nagging him, without rebutting any of Thers’ charges, for the thesis of his dissertation as proof of his expertise. Then it just kinda . . . exploded.

Yeah, that’s the thing. I’m completely for “destroying reputationsâ€?….

This is sort of like me being completely for ruling Mars, isn’t it? Neither of us are even vaguely equipped for achieving our respective dreams. Although in my case, the limiting factor isn’t self-imposed. Which means you may have hope, come to think of it.

But probably not.

I’d say I’m looking forward to your hate-piece on Goldstein, but if I really want to get my quota of blundering futility, I can just watch the Royals play.

Did someone invite Lord High Grapefruit-up-the-Butt?

I’ll enumerate Goldstein’s literary pwning:

1. Not knowing ‘exterminate [all] the brutes’ is from Conrad.
2. Resorting to ad hominem when his freshman lit-theory got spliced and diced.
3. Saying Michelangelo painted the Mona Lisa.

And thus, having been pwn3d, he set the pasticules on the sniff. What a narcissist.

and here comes Josh again, drawn like a moth to even an offhand reference. sigh. get some help dude.

if I really want to get my quota of blundering futility,
or just review your blogging history.

Bas-o-matic’s take is basically correct.

Tacitus; any defense for this? Republishing information conceded to be private because you’re upset about what someone else says at your blog? Anything about what you should do when it’s someone on your “own side”?

I’d say I’m looking forward to your hate-piece on Goldstein, but if I really want to get my quota of blundering futility, I can just watch the Royals play.

Or spend a few hours perusing Swordscrossed.org, or Onlineintegrity.org. They’ll fill that quota nicely.

Good God…Fat Pat, Pasty and now Ticky-Tacky, all at Sadly, No!

I’m amazed at how completely interchangeable they all are. Is this uniformity in personality a result of the hermaphroditism?

Right ON! Retardo. In many ways, we were complicit in allowing them to create this situation.

The whole argument sounds kinda stoopid to me, but what do I know? I think in Limericks…

There once was a wingnut who said
Civility in discourse is dead
So I’ll ID the blogger
His wife and his daughter
Scorched earth is my daily bread

mikey

This is sort of like me being completely for ruling Mars, isn’t it? Neither of us are even vaguely equipped for achieving our respective dreams. Although in my case, the limiting factor isn’t self-imposed. Which means you may have hope, come to think of it.

But probably not.

Aww, still sore about all that huh? Though I guess it’s probably right to say that when I humiliated you, it didnt destroy your reputation — you never had one to begin with, at least with people who count.

I’d say I’m looking forward to your hate-piece on Goldstein

Cool. The hate in my posts you may take as a direct emotional borrowing from your own hundreds of entries about Kos, but the facts and humor are of course all my own.

Now I am become Goldstein, Paste-eater of worlds…..

Tacitus rigorously obvious the omerta of Online Integrity. You will not hear a peep from him about J. Goldstein.
He certainly won’t take him to task, because that would give Pasty more traffic.
OI was a deliberate scam to enable and encourage outing by the right.
Scumbags.

Oh, Tacitus wants to get all baseball on Retardo?

Awesome.

There once was a wingnut who said
Civility in discourse is dead
So I’ll ID the blogger
His wife and his daughter
Scorched earth is my daily bread
mikey, that’s genius!

Realizing he was floundering, he started lashing out at Thersites about his Ph.D, nagging him, without rebutting any of Thers’ charges, for the thesis of his dissertation as proof of his expertise. Then it just kinda . . . exploded.

*Snicker* Jeffy doesn’t like it when anyone criticises his writings and/or knowledge — see the last four or five comments on this post. Especially not people that don’t even know what the hell he’s talking about/referring to, nor hold a degree, nor are employed as critics or editors.

I also don’t see how Jeff can look down at Thersites’ credentials — after all, Thersites actually holds a degree, no matter where he got it. (And as long as it’s accredited, a community college PhD is as legit as one from Harvard. Seriously, the only people that care about things like that are people that you probably don’t want to spend a lot of time with anyhow.)

Well, it wouldn’t be the FIRST time Goldstein’s violated that pledge: http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/20268/#162526

I think some commenters are in error. Thers has a Ph.D AND teaches at a community college.
There is no CC in the country which awards Ph.Ds, but there are many Ph.D’s who teach at CC’s

This whole thing is childish and shouldn’t be a part of politics. Since when did we throw out the belief that we only attack the views, but not the person?

I just read a couple of Thersites’ posts about all this. Good Lord. What the hell is wrong with people?

Khonsu, did you sleep through the Clinton administration?

What’s this now? A blogfight gets out of control, goes way too far, and people start acting like absolute assholes? And oh my, Jeff Goldstein is involved? And he and his commenters act the most egregiously assholish? Why I’ll be damned – will wonders never cease!

Marky — gah, so much for me. That’s what happens when one posts in regards to something they refuse to research on the basis that page upon page of ‘intentionalism this’ and ‘signifiers that’ makes their brain hurt, much like trying to read/understand anything on post-modernism.

I still stand by my assertions, though — Thersites holds more degrees than Jeffy; anyone that condescends to anyone else based on -where- they got their degree (or where they teach) is not someone that one would probably want to spend much time with. Besides all of that, teaching is far different — and far more difficult — than merely lecturing. Anybody can get up and speak droningly about whatever; not everyone can -teach-.

And now I’ll be quiet.

Gavin–I think you meant to link to the subsequent Blogintegrity post…

OT!!! Hey, D. Sidhe, this probably won’t be up long, since it’s a bit of illicit camcorder-fu, but I guess the Snakes On A Plane teaser is showing in theaters now. I’m sure a “good” quality version will be up soon at an official site. This link will probably stop working within 24 hours of now.

Considering Mars is presently unpopulated; I would say you have as much of a shot at ruling it as anyone else Tacitus.

“The decent ground has already been demarcated, and I’m not moving from it. That’s a higher principle to uphold than the “let’s all just get alongâ€? thing, which wingnuts inevitably translate as ‘let’s punch the well-meaning liberal in the face’ — which they do.”

First of all, calling somebody an idiot, though it may not be a far cry from outing somebody, publically impugning the person’s character, and threatening members of that person’s family, is not the high ground either. It’s a small step in a downward spiral staircase. Why do blog sites have to be places where people spew verbal vomit all over each other? isn’t the world messy enough as it is?

Furthermore, I’m considered a wingnut by many who visit here, but, I’ve never translated “Let’s all just get along,” into “let’s punch the well-meaning liberal in the face.” I’ve always translated it into “Let’s all just get a song.” And when I throw out my Rodney King adaptation, I mean it in more than just a literal way. Harmony between folks with disparate views is a noble goal, and I believe that it is something we should all work towards. I don’t always reach the goal, but I always strive to move towards it.

Outing somebody does not begin with outing somebody, it begins with a heated exchange that gets personal–an escalating series of emotionally-driven statements that regress into careless name-calling, character attacks, cursing and the like. It’s a downward spiral. When I get insults from immature, emotionally-reactive commenters there is a great temptation to go down to their level. If one allows themselves to be dragged down to that level of discourse, the person who initially sparked that reaction (a person who invariably has no boundaries) will take things down yet another notch, and then, before you know it, you have two individuals who have regressed to the point of being less than human, and, in some cases, virtually inhumane. At some point, one person in the exchange has to decide to take the high ground. If the other person keeps getting lower, then the more noble of the two has no alternative but to explore every option available to make the other person accountable for their careless, reckless actions.

PS: Gavin, I have no intention of starting a love fest here, but it takes a decent human being to see decency in another.

If the other person keeps getting lower, then the more noble of the two has no alternative but to explore every option available to make the other person accountable for their careless, reckless actions.

(Let me be a little more clear: Of course I mean “every option available” that falls under the category of being ethical, legal and socially acceptable).

Snakes! On a plane! Marq, I love you. Not in a gay way. Well, actually, yes, in a gay way. But not in *that* gay way.

I’ll pass the link along to my snake-lovin’ pals. So far we’ve had to make do with watching “Anaconda” and “Passenger 57” on DVD players side by side.
It’s just not the same, man.

This is one reason I always post under my real name…so that nobody needs to dig up what I really do for a living (I’m in the movies) and drop that news on my poor mother. She’s known for ages, and has always been supportive.

at least thers has a job and doesn’t rely on his wife to support him. maybe that’s what gets to paste eater. he’s ashamed that he’s a house husband. i know i would be.

First of all, calling somebody an idiot, though it may not be a far cry from outing somebody, publically impugning the person’s character, and threatening members of that person’s family, is not the high ground either. It’s a small step in a downward spiral staircase. Why do blog sites have to be places where people spew verbal vomit all over each other? isn’t the world messy enough as it is?

No, it’s not a slippery slope. I’m pretty tolerent. Dont lie, dont out people or threaten their kids, and dont advocate murder and torture — and I may make fun of you still, but I wont declare blogging war on you. Do those things, and I think you deserve wrath. No mercy, no common ground, no discussion — just everything I can do to humiliate you, to heap scorn on you, to crush whatever reputation your online persona has, to demonstrate your vileness and stupidity to all.

“Isn’t the world messy enough as it is?” Well, yeah. No thanks to insane fucking wingnuts. I’ll make a deal with you — you fuckos on your side stop torturing people, defending it, shredding the constitution, defending that, and I’ll try to encourage my side to not call you meany meany things like “fucktards” and “idiots” because oh dont you fucking know such things are so close in moral equivalence?

Outing somebody does not begin with outing somebody, it begins with a heated exchange that gets personal–an escalating series of emotionally-driven statements that regress into careless name-calling, character attacks, cursing and the like.”

I wondered when this would come up — it’s the squishy, blameless, psychological rootcause excuse, which used to be the specialty of liberals but is now practiced by wingnuts. I get it Doc — it’s not someone’s fault when they out people! No, it’s because they were called names first! Some liberal started the slippery slope, so it was just inevitable that some poor wingnut would be “forced” to retaliate by outting them or messing with their kids or some other Goldsteinism. Everything would be fine and dandy in the world if liberals would quit calling poor wingnuts names. Now if liberals wish to convert to wingnuttery or even wish to dignify torture or constitution-shredding by “having a civil discussion about it”, then that’s more like it! But liberals being appalled, offended and disgusted by wingnut depravity so much that they curse and call them names? Why, that’s unacceptable and plainly deserves an escalation into outting and child-threatening.

Doc, you *are* an idiot — intellectually and morally.

at least thers has a job and doesn’t rely on his wife to support him. maybe that’s what gets to paste eater. he’s ashamed that he’s a house husband. i know i would be.

That’s no good at all. Next are you going to tell us that he has his balls in his wife’s purse? In what other ways should we sell ourselves out to go after JG? Cause, you know, there’s a HELL of a lot there that doesn’t involve sounding like a redneck.

BLT is indulging and that academic liberalism that works really hard at finding meaning and import in an opposite point of view (for the sole purpose of sounding complex and serious). Where that developed, I’ll never know….it certainly isn’t part of the liberalism I’m familiar with. I don’t have work really hard to determine the value of points of view I reject out of hand. It’s responsibility of the supporters of those positions to argue their case to me in good faith, supported by credible evidence and sound reasonning. When it comes to political liberalism, I find entertaining non-liberal politics to be a total and complete waste of time.

BLT, these discussions aren’t therapy sessions for you to lead. No one is obligated to feel the exact degree of dismay you do over the tenor of public discourse. Certainly, when it comes to wingnuts who support torture, aggressive war, unethical behaviour (lying, outing) who take a cavalier attitude toward the rule of law and who are generally unpleasant and humourless, it looks insensate and foolish to be weak and overly-conciliatory.

So what does calling somebody an idiot, whether morally, intellectually, or in any other way, do to bolster your argument, or to render your argument more effective? The more names you call me, the more tempted I’ll be to call you names back, and I’ll be tempted to become increasingly childish, and then finally, barbaric. Is that what you want? Now if I were to go the barbaric route, I would ultimately have to take resonsibility for my actions. Your calling me an idiot would not represent the cause, because as a free agent, I chose to either go down that personal attack path with you or not.

At this point, I choose “not.” Are you suggesting we all lower the level of discourse, to render the path to all those things you despise so much in others easier to get to?

If you’re suggesting I don’t think it’s somebody’s fault when that person outs somebody, you couldn’t be further from the truth, and you apparently read only what you wanted to read of my last comment. If somebody does something to seriously harm you or members of your family, that person should pay the full penalty. I have always been careful to make the distinction between “contributing factors,” and “causes.”

Like I said before: “If the other person keeps getting lower, then the more noble of the two has no alternative but to explore every option available to make the other person accountable for their careless, reckless actions.” Of course any reasonable person would realize that making the other person accountable has to stop short of taking the law into ones own hands. It seems to me that you want revenge, but the thing about revenge is that it is never really satisfied.

Good God, you are one crashing, somniferous, bore, BLT. And your passive-aggression is clinical. Maybe we should hook you up with Dr. Sanity and the two of you can give each other therapy.

Apparently, paste is a hallucinogen. Who knew?

For all the right-wing “intellectuals” love to moan and whine about how immature and dumb all us lefties are (when they’re not busy writing 20-page essays on why we’re the real fascists), they sure do act like morons. What are they, 15 years old?

Just to establish this- posting personal info of anonymous internet folk- bad.

However, having waded through PW, I’m curious about the comment about Thers’ child. Do we have any evidence or support for the assertion that JG or minion was responsible for the sexual comment about Thers’ child? Did Thers’ accuse him/them of something really vile in the absence of evidence?

Please don’t pile on me- I’m genuinely curious, and Thers doing so wouldn’t change the wrongness of outing someone online.

But it is a question that hasn’t been answered, and by his own admission Thers has only just now checked the ISP on the pedophile comment. Was JG implied to be responsible, and if so, on what basis?

Did Thers’ accuse him/them of something really vile in the absence of evidence?

As best I can tell Thers was upset about a vile comment concerning his daughter. Thers posted an update stating that he did not believe JG wrote the vile comment. The dispute continued unabated and JG posting personal info.

Did Thers’ accuse him/them of something really vile in the absence of evidence?

Why ask that question when obviously (“Was JG implied to be responsible, and if so, on what basis?”) you meant it rhetorically? Just come out and say what you mean. Does Thers have to put together a prima facie case to satisfy some bullshit sense of justice? I think not.

I can’t believe you wingnuts are still trying to play blame the victim. Maybe you’re no Sherlock Holmeses, but try this on for size: Thers gets into an academic argument with Pasty. Pasty gets desperate. Pasty – whose minions have an established history of cowardly, anonymous harassment of anyone who shows up their pseudo-intellectual hero – subtly, or not so subtly, suggest that he needs some help in the thrashing he’s taking. Then someone anonymously posts vile comments on the same post where this whole argument is taking place. And we’re supposed to believe that it was just some random nut who just happened to wander onto that particular thread? Please.

If Pasty was so fucking concerned about the anonymous poster being associated with him, then he could quite easily have asked Thers for the poster’s IP and Jeff could have checked his own site stats. But no. Instead, he takes fake umbrage and suddenly paints himself the victim.

All the while conveniently ignoring his original bullshit argument. Which, incidentally, sounded just like this. When, in fact, Pasty’s original argument could quite simply be summed up as: “I like to look at a dead writer’s ‘intent’ because then I can ascribe any meaning to their words that I want and I will always win the argument.”

Dobby:
I can’t believe you wingnuts are still trying to play blame the victim.

I can’t believe you’re accusing someone of being a wingnut for the simple act of asking for additional information.

If Pasty was so fucking concerned about the anonymous poster being associated with him, then he could quite easily have asked Thers for the poster’s IP and Jeff could have checked his own site stats.

According to PW, Goldstein did just that, which you can take with as much salt as you like. However, by Thers’s own admission he didn’t request the IP from blogger, and so did not have any sort of concrete information about the poster of the pedophile comment. While Thers’ doesn’t have to establish a prima facie for anyone, please excuse me If I think for my self regarding the claims of two people I don’t know. Thanks.

Incidentally, you do realize that the same standard of proof you’re using vis a vis Protein Wisdom is the same one Malkin uses to imply that the collective “Left” is all about racist ping ball jokes, don’t you? I find that argument repulsive when Conservatives do that, and repulsive when you do it, Sherlock.

Back to the issue at hand:
The only evidence I’ve been able to glean that ties the pedophile comment to PW relies on reference to the picture of the 1 y.o. child. If there was a picture of the child linked to via PW but not Metacomments, that would be strong evidence for the pedophile poster at least being a PW regular- however, I haven’t heard of any picture of the child, and the many comment deletions means we may never know exactly what happened.

But thats beside the point. Outing = bad. Pedophile comments= bad. Accusing people of vile acts in the absence of evidence (which may or may not have happened in this instance)= bad.

Accussing people of being “wingnuts” for asking for more information? Fucking retarded.

I can’t believe you’re accusing someone of being a wingnut for the simple act of asking for additional information.

I can, since you’re not asking any of the people who might actually know for sure; JG or Thers.

That’s what I’d do if I had a burning desire to know more…but with every new episode with Jeff Goldstein, the whole thing gets more and more uninteresting. The guy’s a loon; case closed.

Accusing people of vile acts in the absence of evidence (which may or may not have happened in this instance)= bad.

Then pay attention, Watson, because Thers specifically stated that he did not hold Pasty personally responsible.

Accussing people of being “wingnuts� for asking for more information? Fucking retarded

Christ on the Cross! If you’re not a wingnut — and a quick Gazoogle suggests maybe you’re not — you sure are quick to take their sides. I’m sorry, but I’m firmly in the Retardo camp on this one. Boo-fucking-hoo, the child sexual assault comment just happened (by some miracle of spontaneous random-nut trolling) to coincide with this whole brou-ha-ha. So that gives Pasty the right to “out” Thers and his wife? Give it a rest already. It’s this “maybe Jeff Goldstein isn’t such a bad guy” triangulating bullshit that gives us liberals the unfortunately deserved reputations as wimps. Fuck Pasty. Who is he? What is his precious reputation that might be harmed? What job does he have that is in jeopardy? None and None.

Maybe next we can sympathize with the scumbag who made the child-sex comment. Should we find out what their “intent” was and maybe that’ll make it alright? Nice gets you nowhere with these folks and you should know that by now.

Chadwick, may I have a little more information on your political status? Just kidding. Note to unconscious self: Stop being so damned passive-aggressive!

Exactly ten years ago this very month, I had my own little Pasty episode with somebody as result of online participation – on a single-topic mailing list. Not all the details are the same as T’s – some aspects were more demented, some less. Politics were not so much involved, but Jesus and “civility” definitely were. (All this time later, the “online civility” canard” gives me shivers. It’s no surprise that some of this has turned out the way it did.)

My Freak did manage to amass a small crew of devotees and definitely landed some real-world damage, but I odn’t think he ever inspired the solidarity and loyalty or commanded the number of nutjobs that JG clearly has.

Some things in the immediate aftermath, however, look EXACTLY the same. One of the big things when you’re dealing with people this ill is that they absolutely go ballistic when you refuse to JUST SHUT UP about what they have done. It drives them crazier than any original offense.

That one of Pasty’s crew would tell you to keep the most odious remarks under wraps and be a good little boy now – well, I’d like to say “Don’t take it personally” but how can you not? I sure can’t say I fully managed to move on, as I can recall the month and year in which this hell was unleashed on me. But at least it’s been a few years since the events have consumed my waking moments, and almost all conversations.

Advice?

Document everything. Now. Don’t put it off.
Take some control over avenues of entry into your life (includng the comment areas on this very website,
as has been suggested.)
Don’t be “shamed” into anything.
Learn how to live comfortably with phrases like “I don’t know what you’re talking about” as part of your vocabulary, particularly if your employer gets involved. At the very least, admit nothing to him/her/it, and let THEM tell YOU what problems (if any) that they have.

Hope this helps.

Mal de Mer-
I can, since you’re not asking any of the people who might actually know for sure; JG or Thers.

So asking questions of the wrong people (in your opinion) is now evidence of wingnuttery? I can’t think that maybe the collective readership of this blog might be able to help or point me to relevant information?

That’s what I’d do if I had a burning desire to know more…

So now everyone who doesn’t behave exactly as Mal de Mer does is automatically suspected of being a wingnut? That’s a pathetic defense of an asinine accusation, mal. I don’t know whether you or dobby should be more embarrassed.

dobby-

Then pay attention, Watson, because Thers specifically stated that he did not hold Pasty personally responsible.

In an update, and having read it, the first part seems to strongly imply Goldstein made the offensive remarks. That Thers clarified is admirable, but I am still curious about the evidence that led to the original implication of guilt.

Christ on the Cross! If you’re not a wingnut — and a quick Gazoogle suggests maybe you’re not — you sure are quick to take their sides.

I’m not PW/JG’s side, moron. I’m on the side of “all the information I can get”. If asking questions means I can’t be a liberal, then take my card already, asshole.

So that gives Pasty the right to “out� Thers and his wife?
How many times to do I have to post “outing=bad” before it gets through your impossibly thick skull, idiot? Huh? How many times do I have to castigate Goldstein’s outing of Thers before I get to ask my goddamn questions? By my count I’m up to 4. Is that enough? “Outing is bad”. There, 5 times. IS THAT ENOUGH?

Frankly, I’m hoping you’re actually a Republican, because having an ass like you on my “side” is too depressing to deal with right now

Nice gets you nowhere with these folks and you should know that by now.

Integrity is both expensive and priceless. You don’t get it by signing a pledge, and I’ll be damned if I abandon my integrity because other liberals are afraid I’m being “nice”. I’ll do you the favor of leaving your “root causes” strawmen where you left them, though.

Does Goldstein really want to support the “outing families of opponents is alright” game? Even if he doesn’t have the basic decency to see that it’s just wrong, there’s the self-protection angle of not dishing out to others what you don’t want for your family.

Chadwich, Mal de mer tends to react emotionally and viscerally to comments by those he disagrees with. Unless you’re a cold-hearted stone, it’s hard not to take his comments personally, so I have found that it’s best not to get into it with him. TonyRz, I’m sorry to hear about what happened to you. The blogosphere is full of bullies. It can become the school of hard knocks. I’d rather not learn that way, so I appreciate your advice.

So asking questions of the wrong people (in your opinion) is now evidence of wingnuttery? I can’t think that maybe the collective readership of this blog might be able to help or point me to relevant information?

Well, that…and becoming increasingly agitated over a simple common-sense remark. Yes, you are sounding wingnuttier with every comment.

So now everyone who doesn’t behave exactly as Mal de Mer does is automatically suspected of being a wingnut? That’s a pathetic defense of an asinine accusation, mal. I don’t know whether you or dobby should be more embarrassed.

Yep. Full-blown wingnutitis. The prosecution rests.

Mal de mer tends to react emotionally and viscerally to comments by those he disagrees with.

Good of you to notice, but I’d avoid the tactic of insulting me by referencing me indirectly. It’s very passive-aggressive.

…and boring.

Watching certain nameless commenters here, at PW, etc. gives me images of kindly concern trolls at Auschwitz
telling about to be gassed Jews that they need to get a grip on their emotions—-“I’m only trying to help you! Your anger isn’t helping you at all. I’m sure you can see that… Why are you so angry?” followed by “NEXT!”

I’m sorry if I insulted you, Mal de mer. As noted above, I’ve already put my unconscious mind on notice for its alledged passive-aggressive tendencies, but I guess it didn’t listen and let yet another passive-aggressive reply slip out. The boring part may just be the fact that you have grown accustomed to people repsonding to you in kind—instinctively and viscerally. So when somebody actually engages their mind in the exchange, it may be experienced by you as boring. Or, I may just simply be boring. Just in case that’s the case, I’ll try harder not to be my same old boring self. My passive-aggressive tendencies may take a little more time to work out, Mal. It is probably as difficult for me to refrain from being passive-aggressive as it is for you to refrain from being overtly aggressive and mean.

Whatever. Keep it shorter. I’m charging you by the hour.

Chadwick. It was pretty clear from the start, actually, that the thing regarding his daughter was over in Thersites mind as soon as it happened. However, I think it’s a pretty reasonable assumption that whoever the commenter was got there by way of PW (far more reasonable than the theory put forward by some Protein Wisdom commenters that Thersites did it himself in order to get sympathy). Unfortunately it looks like Thersites may have nuked his blog over this or I’d direct you over to where Jeff’s defenders are saying things like what was said was merely an “inartful comment.”

But at any rate, that was really a dead issue until Thersites personal information started appearing in Goldstein’s threads after Goldstein asked if anyone knew what Thersites bona fides were. Things got more heated at that point and then that comment came back up again (but it was not brought up by Thersites). And now JeffG and his commenters have elevated it to a full point of greivance that somehow justifies posting Thersites and his wife’s (who had absolutely nothing to do with th conversation)* personal information when they posted it before they became fully aggrieved. Nice trick that.

* By the way, Just Passing Through over at Protein Wisdom is completely full of shit with regards to NYMary and Anne Althouse. NYMary never posted there. That guy is hallucinating whatever sequence of events he believes led to her personal information coming to light over at Althouse’s blog

Bas,
I shudder to think of the arftul version of that comment.

Mal de Mer-

over a simple common-sense remark.
I don’t think that asking questions equals wingnut in any form of common sense. I’ve observed that wingnuts makes ignorant statements with God-like certainty, much like yourself on here. I think you used an appeal to “common-sense” because you’re lazy and wrong in this instance.

Are you going to quote any conservative talking points I’ve repeated, or are you merely going to scoop more “Well if you weren’t a wingnut, you wouldn’t…” out of your ass?
(In this case, I’m a wingnut for a) asking questions and b) having emotional reactions. Apparently everyone on earth is a wingnut, save for that uncurious Vulcan, our very own Mal de Mer.)

Yep. Full-blown wingnutitis. The prosecution rests.

So, your argument is “People who get upset being called wingnuts must be wingnuts”?

I think people who appoint themselves prosecutors are just projecting the symptoms of their full-blown Acute Wanker Syndrome (AWS) on others. Tell me, is your AWS painful? Does it compel you to make bullshit assertions about everyone, or is that a special treat you save for us here at Sadly, No!?

Bas-O-Matic-

All agreed. Goldsteins commenters are scum- it’s just unfortunate dobby and mal de mer aren’t much better.

it’s just unfortunate dobby and mal de mer aren’t much better.

I’d like to retract this- as pitiful as they are, neither dobby nor mal de mer threaten people, which makes them much better than PW commenters. I apologize for posting this in haste.

And yes, I am intending to damn both of you with faint praise.

I have a new diagnostic criterion for wingnuttery: high noise to signal ratio, despite high letter count in the signal.
Pasty is the worst. He’s one of the most verbose, empty-headed wankers I’ve ever seen.

And yes, I am intending to damn both of you with faint praise.

And I apologize for mistakenly calling you a wingnut.

And I apologize to you, Mal de mer, for not being in touch with my passive-aggressive side sooner, and for boring you with my comments. And I apologize to myself for allowing myself to be out-shrunk by a non-shrink.

So, your argument is “People who get upset being called wingnuts must be wingnuts�?

Yeah, that would be the one. Remember, I’m not from a place that’s having a “tribal/culture war” (except for the tribal wars Canada has had for, like…forever) so “wingnut” doesn’t always mean the same thing for me as it does for you.

And I’m not apologising for anything; for my laziness, my wrongness, my pitiableness, my assinine accusation and my pathetic defense thereof…not apologising for obviously disappointing you so thoroughly and completely.

And I forgive your lack of contrition, Mal de mer. Now let’s stop this, everybody, before it turns into one big love fest.

marky said,

I have a new diagnostic criterion for wingnuttery: high noise to signal ratio, despite high letter count in the signal.
Pasty is the worst. He’s one of the most verbose, empty-headed wankers I’ve ever seen.

Funniest thing said in a completely unfunny episode (From one of threads over at protein wisdom)

I will point out that Jeff understands his subject matter well enough to be concise. That concision is found at various points along his essays.

An important distinction between Jeff and Thersites is that Thersites (and Hamsher for that matter) does not understand the material well enough to be concise. He might ‘know the material’ but hasn’t figured out a way to convey that knowledge with any sort of brevity or, for that matter, in his own words.

OMG, bas… that comment was a parody, right?
I know the commenters at PW are the bottom of the barrel, but…

Dobby-

I accept, and apologize for the ad hominems I chucked at you. Moving on.

Mal-

so “wingnut� doesn’t always mean the same thing for me as it does for you.

Sweet Zombie Jesus, an honest to god relativist roaming the earth. So your argument is basically that we were using different terms and neither of us are wrong because you’re using a rickety old Canuck insult variation instead of the American version?

Dude- don’t be a hoser. You post here entirely too much to not know what “wingnut” means in civilized countries..

Alright, that’s all the anti-Canadian chauvinism I can fake.

To be honest, mal, disappointment is the correct word. I thought folks around here might know if the “Thers called JG a pedophile” was thoroughly debunked, so I could go on, maybe link to it or at least disprove JG’s allegation that he would ban the asshole who made the remark. (Incidentally, while the PW commenters are by and large disgusting, there was a lot of enthusiasm for banning whoever made that comment. They’re not *completely* amoral, just mostly.). I asked some questions, repeatedly stated I was against outing, requested not to be piled on-

And here we are, still discussing each others failings. I know you’re not apologizing, but having read your humor comments on other topics, this whole conversation been pretty fucking disappointing. I’m not expecting an apology though- that would require class, and Dr. BLT (!) is the only one on here who’s displayed any of that.

Good day to you.

Was it something I said?

Chadwick 11:09,
meet Marky 10:02
KISS

Comments on the thread in question on Respectfully Republican must now be “approved by the moderators”.

Whimps.

What BLT fails to realize in this particular instance is that Thersites did indeed WALK AWAY from the discussion. He posted it up there in big bright letters for all to read that he was letting the argument go. It is JG who failed to let it go, and, in fact, took it to a whole new sewer. Justify JG’s behavior in light of that, BLT. Justify why JG did not do the same. Justify how JG’s behavior qualifies as civility. You cannot and you know you cannot.

I tried to make the privacy argument in one of the comments at Theri’s site, directly asking JG to respect the man’s privacy. I knew this guy was about to out them. He displayed every damned sign of it. And then he did it. Did it make his point in the original argument right or better?

It was a disgusting piece of work, and, I don’t care what the provocation, it was wrong. As far as I’m concerned, JG’s server should remove his site, permanently.

“Justify how JG’s behavior qualifies as civility. You cannot and you know you cannot.”

I cannot, I know I cannot. I wouldn’t want to justify any of this. Violating somebody’s privacy in that way is a terrible thing. In some cases, it can put somebody’s life in danger. It is something I would never condone. Show me where I have even implied in any way that I condone or excuse this sort of abhorent behavior.

Good for you, Doc. Your last post is right on.

It is something I would never condone. Show me where I have even implied in any way that I condone or excuse this sort of abhorent behavior.

I don’t doubt that for a second that you would ever condone behaviour like this. I just question what it is you think you’re doing by drawing focus away from the issue at hand (unethical behaviour) by framing it as an issue of tenor in public discourse. What exactly is the value in that…here…for anyone besides yourself? The last few years of discussing very hard, very terrible things have been paved over with this veneer of phony civility, hypocrisy and wishful thinking and it’s gotten all of us absolutely nowhere.

Maybe it’s something you’ve forgotten over the years, but very often (in fact in the majority of instances, I happen to believe), there’s great value in saying nothing at all.

I agree with you Mal de mer, and I stand corrected. I should not have framed my discussion in terms of tenor in public discourse because it tends to imply that when one allows public discourse to regress to a certain level, whatever a person may have done to add fuel to the fire ultimately justifies what comes to them. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I always felt the phrase “blog integrity” was up there with “military intelligence”‘ “compassionate conservativism” and “christian rock”.

There’s at least one commenter at JG’s site saying that it’s OK for JG to disregard the Online Integrity principles in regard to Thersites, even if JG signed the pledge, because Thersites didn’t. And I thought lefties were supposed to be the relativists?

Oh, well…now that makes perfect sense. If that commenter is older than 16, there’s real trouble there.

This is a great job! Well done. Thank you sharing your ideas and knowledge.