Help Hugo Save Dumb Fatties

[Since it appears that this was the result of a hack instead of an Alas, a Blog-type situation, I'm removing Hugo's last name from this post so that this post won't show up in Google searches for him.  I'm also placing it below-the-fold.  That's probably obvious though, isn't it?]

Chris Clarke, Ilyka Damen, BFP, et al. have repeatedly demonstrated the failings of Hugo's tepid defense of a tired feminism.  No one needs me to recount the festivities.  But I want to pick up on something Chris wrote—in response to something Rich wrote—about the intent behind calling someone envious:

I’m in the general group of writers charged with being envious of other bloggers' "success," and yet some of the people making those accusations know full well I repudiated exactly that kind of "success" in the last year.

The same cannot be said of Hugo.  It is apparent to anyone with Firefox what constitutes success for him:

Having trouble reading that?  Let me highlight it for you:

Hugo has a sound reason to start fights, to pick scabs, to hold and periodically renew grudges:

Fat people can't spell. 

He cares enough not to insult them directly—they're already fat, after all.  What would happen to their self-esteem were Hugo to remind them they're also illiterate?  So he kindly hides his concern in the for obese idiots in the header of his blog.  When their sagging asses and bulging guts click on his site, they might not see evidence of his concern, but he hopes his message of Phentermine Love penetrates the folds and flaps of flab and communes with the thin person buried deep within. 

Ignoring him would undermine his ability to peddle his kindness.  It would be a tacit admission that you hate fat people (literate or otherwise).  So please, by all means, continue to take him seriously, continue to engage him as if his motives were as stated, lest you reveal yourself to hate the fatties Hugo so desperately wants to help.

Comments

[Scott K]

Looks like typical keyword-flooding to me, in an obnoxious and skill-free way.

[SEK]

But doesn't it smack of zombie-esque desperation?

READERS. REEEEEEEEEEADERS. NEED READERS. SPAM. SPAAAAAAAAAAAM. NEED SPAM. EAT SPAM. LOVE SPAM. AND READERS. REEEEEEEEEEEADERS.

[Chris Clarke]

oh. my. god.

[george]

Looks like his code was hacked, rather than intentionally altered to attract readers.

[Karl Steel]

Scott, I can't help but think you're wading into something again.

[Sisyphus]

Oh good ---- it's been months since he waded into something (as opposed to being struck down by the full force of a bureaucracy). I'll get the popcorn and wait for the entertainment.

I forget --- Scott, does this mean you're close to finishing some writing or you're stuck on some writing?

[SEK]

Karl, I don't think I am. If George is right and Hugo was hacked, I'll pull this down. But as it currently stands, it looks like someone's exploiting feminist controversy to make a buck. (And before we think it's not hacktastic, remember that Alas, a Blog eventually admitted to capitalizing on its Online Presence. I'd rather not think that's what's happened, but I can't be sure. But if Schwyzer tells me he's been hacked, I'll pull this. I don't want to tar someone for something s/he can't control.)

(Plus, when I saw this same invidious code a few months back, I sent Schwyzer an email alerting him to the hack. He never responded. Then, when someone linked to him again, I pointed it out, emailed him, and he never responded. I can't find the comment I made at Adam's place, but it was a while back, and that was around the third time I contacted him about this. I can only conclude that 1) he thinks I'm a nobody not worth responding to, 2) he knows he's right and that I should slink into some corner, or 3) he's deliberately ignored me for months and months, which proves that I'm envious, and, um, many other things that reflect poorly on me.)

[SEK]

Sisyphus, this means nothing, meta-speaking. It's pure annoyance about internet protocol. That said, I'm doing fine, all things considered. Crying too much, yes, but who wouldn't be? And progressing, you know, because I want to finish by March.

(But mostly crying ... especially at feeding time. Where is my evil bitch who thwaps all interlopers? Oh, yeah, that's right TEARS.)

[george]

(I don't know Schwyzer, and I haven't read him. So don't take my comments as a defense of his position in this ongoing argument.)

It seems extremely unlikely that his blog code was not hacked. In altering WordPress layouts, a blog owner (or her/his blog designer) can sometimes leave certain files universally "writable" (it's a Unix thing), making them much easier to edit but unfortunately vulnerable to this sort of exploit.

There are many forum/blog posts online about this problem with WordPress.

I first read about the problem here.

Google "wordpress spam injection" or "wordpress.net.in" for more discussion.

Note, also, that the links change. I just looked at the html on Schwyzer's blog again, and found links for anxiety and impotence meds instead of weight loss meds. It's not hard for a hacker to write code that will dynamically generate such spam links from an external database.

[va]

I hope the beautiful destruction wraught by LSU tonight bucked [no pun intended] you up, Scott.

[Meep]

Hack'd. You can read something into that, but MySQL injections are zomg easy and any site is vulnerable.

[sharon]

A Wordpress site of mine got hacked last year after the host managed to hand over a bunch of passwords to some spammers (thanks for nothing, Dreamhost). The spammers as I recall added their bilge to the main index.php file in a way that could be difficult to spot if you were using a standard WP theme (I wasn't, and it was immediately obvious something was wrong). And it wasn't enough to edit the file, they'd just keep coming back until you changed your ftp passwords. So let's just say I'm sympathetic to the hacking theory.

[Rich Puchalsky]

Oh, way to go, Scott. Of course I can't help clicking on something you link to -- so now I can see that Chris Clarke has been going off on me on his blog. For some year-old comment that he disliked. Oh, I can bet that isn't it, let's see what a search on "ilyka" turns up: yep,I'm called a jerk du jour in that one.

If anyone not in Chris' claque wants to actually read my old comment, they can see that Chris misrepresents it; it's about the presumption that political blogs should be about writing, rather than about organization or even just broadcasting propaganda to an audience, if you want to look at it least sympathetically. And writers who dismiss organization as "concern with ranking" -- well, envy or cluelessness, it's your pick. Chris, you're blogwarring and being sarcastic, all as you denounce blogwarring and being sarcastic. Leave me out of it, OK?

Oh, and you know what? Ilyka doing her best to encourage inter-group hostilities around Gilliard's death was a classic provocateur move. I know that you don't like hearing that, but there it is. I said that she was acting like a provocateur, and she was.

[Karl Steel]

Scott: by 'wading into it' I didn't mean you were wrong. I'm not making any judgment on that, just yet, since from the comments here, so far, it looks as if it could go either way. It's that this is just the sort of thing that can end in a Hello Kitty post.

Of course I love a good shouty thread, so, yeah, uh, bring it on.

[sly civilian]

up until recently, my site was one of the finest resources available on bestiality.

took forever to find all the places they'd stuck the links in my template. every time i thought i'd fixed it...the google hits kept coming.

the url strings that people used to find my site made me want to puke.

i laugh at hugo with the best of them, but this isn't likely his fault.

[Chris Clarke]

Rich, you're right about people being able to decide for themselves about what your old comment means. Pissed me off as stupidly insulting and still does, when I bother to think about it. But generally, when I don't need an example of that kind of thing, I just consider the source and move on. And I'd just as soon, honestly, not have anything to do with you directly, so I suppose I'll find other examples of such things.

And I would just move on now and ignore you, except that you've repeated your slander against my friend, and I just want to note (apologizing to SEK for the derail) that you made that statement as she was being followed from blog to blog by a reactionary who was literally trying to provoke fights about her politics regardless of the topic of her comment in each thread he subsequently visited. What's more, you made it in response to lighthearted banter between her and SEK. You helped to silence her for a long time last year, Rich. You helped silence someone whose voice is far more important and persuasive than yours will ever be, someone who is actually doing the online organizing you laud instead of just browbeating people Puchalsky-style for doing it wrong.

In sum; bite me. And stop fucking jacketing my friends.

Apologies again, SEK, for the unpleasant derail, but my one regret about my part in all that shit last year is that I didn't respond to that as forcefully as it deserved, as decency and loyalty deserved.

[piny]

Oh, and you know what? Ilyka doing her best to encourage inter-group hostilities around Gilliard's death was a classic provocateur move. I know that you don't like hearing that, but there it is. I said that she was acting like a provocateur, and she was.

You know, for someone complaining about "year-old comments..."

I read the comment and the thread. I think that the point about not casting aspersions on the motivations of A-list bloggers is a reasonable one. I'd dispute it, given the way that progressive "side-issue" real-world organizing is also treated. However, your point and subsequent complaint about unfair assumptions are destroyed by "sour grapes." If you think writing-blogs and GOTV-blogs shouldn't be conflated because their keepers have some views in common, that's one thing. On the other hand, when you say that Chris is just jellus, then you are saying that Chris is just jellus.

[piny]

I just want to note

She was also having to deal with a lot of people who didn't know her assuming that she was a reformed reactionary who, uh, still hated progressives. Some combination of convert's zeal and provocateuristining that was so nefarious that it made sense only to Ilyka.

But ANYWAY. Sorry to assist the derail!

I don't think Hugo had anything to do with this; I think it is spam. And I don't know why you want to give him another opportunity to apologize for existing, Scott. I think that's really irresponsible.

[k8]

I strongly suspect this is a hack. Currently, there have been some attacks on blogspot sites - I recently ran across one that was flooded with X-rated links. They definitely weren't placed there by the owner of the blog. There's an article about it here: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2007/12/blogspot_blogs_help_spread_sto.html

[Chris Clarke]

Clarifying point for Piny, and then I really WILL STFU: Wouldn't have cared if it was me being called just jellus. I am just jellus. Fact was, it was CRN commenter EBW, Eric Brunner-Williams, co-owner of Wampum and driving force behind the Koufax Awards, someone who's put hundreds of unpaid hours and thousands of unreimbursed dollars into building progressive blogosphere community only to have the A-listers ignore his work and his writing (some of the absolute best on the net, on Native topics and much else as well) when the Koufices were over for the year, who was accused of being just jellus.

[Rich Puchalsky]

Chris: "You helped to silence her for a long time last year, Rich."

Oh, here it comes, Chris' righteous wrath. Chris is one of those people who will criticize others to his heart's content, and tell himself that hey, if they can't hear it, that's their problem. But criticize one of his friends, and you're "silencing" them. Dude, I don't have that power over Ilyka, much as you like to think so. She chose to leave in response to my comment; later she chose to come back. I can only imagine what she'd write if one of the people she criticizes said that he had been silenced by her words.

As for you, kindly don't give me advice. I don't know what your deal is, other than that apparently Amanda Marcotte is no longer within the charmed circle of acceptable people, and I don't really care to know. Just spare me the drama that you continually denounce and even more continually stir up.

[piny]

Then thanks for the clarification; it seemed in comments like the accusation was extended to you and everyone who agreed with you in the thread.

And I'll be checking out his blog.

But ANYWAY.

[piny]

That is, I do know Wampum (I'm guessing through you) but I committed a kind of blog amnesty of my own about this time last year, and I'm still repairing my reflexes.

Are you getting rain where you are, btw?

[Chris Clarke]

Yeah, Piny. It's coming down and today's my day to drive across four bridges. Whee!

And I was being thoughtless there for a bit. Should have provided a link It's Wampum. And it's Eric's and Mary Beth's both. It's just that Eric was the one who was unable to reach those damn grapes.

[piny]

Heh. Hey, at least they're open today.

I feel horrible complaining about it, since we always need it, but it's a pain in the ass if you're a landscape painter.

[Rich Puchalsky]

You know, you might want to look up what "sour grapes" means one of these days. It doesn't mean jealous, not exactly. Here I'll quote Wikipedia, that seems close enough:

"Sour grapes is the false denial of desire for something sought but not acquired; to denigrate and feign disdain for that which one could not attain."

That old comment was about some scandal about who was linking to who. But, you know, if I look at what people were actually writing back then, no doubt I'll be attacking Chris' friends, and Chris will have to call on the virtues of loyalty and decency once again.

[R. Mildred]

Did I just read someone compare chris clarke to hanoi jane?

Oh God I can't stop laughing... *snort* BWAHAHA!

Ilyka doing her best to encourage inter-group hostilities around Gilliard's death was a classic provocateur move.

Oh and don't think people don't appreciate your commitment to never come up with a whole second faux-snarky term to sling at people. Truly no man nor uppity woman is a match for the sheer genius of your snarkalogical wizardry.

[Rich Puchalsky]

I was puzzled by R. Mildred's comment, until I looked back at mine and saw that Scott's blog put some kind of Amazon link around "broadcasting propaganda". I didn't put that link there; the only thing I linked to was Chris' blog.

Actually, I still don't understand the second part of it, but whatever. I wasn't being snarky at all. The best possible time to permanently cause trouble is right around the death of someone in the community, especially right after they've been racially taunted. Stirring people up against opposing groups -- where both groups are in fact more or less on the same side -- that's classic.

[piny]

I don't know if it matters--not because of the length of time, but because of your tendency to extend the "I'm not commenting on whether or not Clodia's a whore, but she sure does spend a lot of time sucking off strange men in the catacombs" schtick beyond the original comment before backtracking. "Envy or cluelessness, take your pick," for example.

I'm familiar with the Aesop's fable. That's why I'm reading "just jellus" for your "sour grapes." Those grapes aren't just hanging there on the vine; they've been plucked by other bloggers, and any "fox" would be pretty envious to see their success.

[piny]

Actually, I still don't understand the second part of it, but whatever. I wasn't being snarky at all. The best possible time to permanently cause trouble is right around the death of someone in the community, especially right after they've been racially taunted. Stirring people up against opposing groups -- where both groups are in fact more or less on the same side -- that's classic.

Okay, so how should we read your willingness to help people tar Ilyka as a wingnut plant, hon?

[SEK]

I was puzzled by R. Mildred's comment, until I looked back at mine and saw that Scott's blog put some kind of Amazon link around "broadcasting propaganda".

It is? I'm not seeing it. (Irony would seem to demand that my blog malfunctions after I criticize someone else when his does.)

(But I'm still not seeing it. Odd.)

[piny]

I said some things I regret--and certainly in places and ways I regret--to several people at this same time. They did have lasting consequences, and I've had to make some apologies.

However, calling someone a conservative provocateur--or, excuse me, a pitch-perfect imitation of one, and isn't that interesting--is casting aspersions not only on their actions but on their good faith. I don't think it was appropriate in this instance, and I don't think it's the same thing in general. And speaking of context, Ilyka really was being castigated not only as wrong but as an evildoer, and so your comment wasn't at such an inopportune time either.

[Rich Puchalsky]

Why, is Ilyka a group now? Did I say something about her circle of friends, or against all feminists, when I criticized how she was writing? She wasn't writing something like "that Jesus General guy did something stupid", she was generalizing to his commentariat as whitemaleprogressives.

[piny]

Why, is Ilyka a group now? Did I say something about her circle of friends, or against all feminists, when I criticized how she was writing? She wasn't writing something like "that Jesus General guy did something stupid", she was generalizing to his commentariat as whitemaleprogressives.

She was calling out Jesus' General and the commenters who either made specific comments or cheered them on as demonstrating a shared mentality. Do you have the same problem with that concept when it's behind words like "wingnuts" and "freepers?"

Feminists who get upset by things like "God, is that Ann Coulter ever a cocksucking cunt whore," and, "Michelle, you ignorant slut..." are a group with a shared grievance.

[Rich Puchalsky]

piny: "Those grapes aren't just hanging there on the vine; they've been plucked by other bloggers, and any "fox" would be pretty envious to see their success."

Well, yes, exactly. It's not true that any good writer could become an A-list blogger. There are first-mover advantages -- Glenn Reynolds is not the A-list conservative blogger because of his writing. There is the willingness to play to the audience that you need to play to become A-list that Chris says he doesn't have.

So when you observe that these grapes have been plucked by other bloggers, and then start to disparage A-listers as being about ranking, not writing -- or when Chris, later, writes about how he could have been a top progressive blogger, if he'd wanted to, but he didn't like the effect it would have had on him, and how progressive blogging isn't all that -- well, yes, sour grapes. If you assume that blogging has any political influence or monetary reward at all, then ranking isn't just ranking, ranking is power. Power determines who is heard. Power is what all political people are supposed to want. Writing has nothing to do with it.

[Rich Puchalsky]

"She was calling out Jesus' General and the commenters who either made specific comments or cheered them on as demonstrating a shared mentality. Do you have the same problem with that concept when it's behind words like "wingnuts" and "freepers?""

I call people wingnuts often. I don't do it when one of their own has just died, no.

Ilyka wasn't really the reason I started commenting in that thread, if anyone is so interested that they want to look back at it. I started commenting to tell Scott to back off, that arguing about general politics in the context of this death, and the accusations of group misbehavior on both sides, was crazy. Given that Scott has apparently gotten a semi-permanent stalker of his own out of the deal (from the Jesus' General crowd), I'm guessing that he agrees with me. There are certain times when a shared grievance is not really as important as backing off and encouraging a momentary calm. I have no doubt that the people who want to read that as a blanket silencing will do so.

[R. Mildred]

Actually, I still don't understand the second part of it

No, you really don't do you? *counts how many times Rich has said "sour grapes"*

*chortles* ooz a widdle obstructionist? Iz oo wanting your diapey changed? Iz oo 'ungry? Waz oo want? oogaboogabooga, oogaboogabooga *blows up Rich's belly button*

[R. Mildred]

Why, is Ilyka a group now?

Look up "solidarity" with wiki Rich. It's a useful tool in organisations with an alternative operational method to the top down heirachal blogofellatio you're used to, which we find works quite well, thanky very muchy.

[Rich Puchalsky]

Sure, R. Mildred. Feel free to have political solidarity with all your friends. The all-important War Against Hugo Schwyzer awaits. How's that going?

[ilyka]

Oh, and you know what? Ilyka doing her best to encourage inter-group hostilities around Gilliard's death was a classic provocateur move.

[preens]

It really was, wasn't it? Oh, I may be a bit vain, but I have to say, the way I rallied my thousands of readers to call, email, and write angry letters to the place of employment of some pathetic "liberal" woman--the artful misdirection I employed to make sure none of my foolish minions directed their outrage at the real culprit, the conservative man who was the actual author of the racist remarks this woman reposted--well, what can I say? I'd blush, but I have no shame! My work there was simply masterful. I'm so pleased to have it recognized at last.

Huh? What's that, now?

OH. Oh, shit, you're right! I didn't do any of that! That was all patriotboy! I just said that attacking a liberal woman when there was a perfectly noxious conservative man standing right there on the internet, all ready to blame and scorn and everything, was wrong, stupid, and possibly sexist.

With the benefit of hindsight, it's plain to see how cleverly this action of mine destroyed progressivism in America! You may wonder how I did it. Well, I believe my plan went something like:

1. Scream in outrage at all the misdirected outrage.

2. Suggest everyone scream at the racist wingnut instead.

3. Commiserate with others who saw it as I did.

4. ???

5. PROFIT!

You're a fool and a liar, Rich. I could take one or the other, but in combination they're toxic. I lost 7 IQ points just reading these comments.

As for you, Scott, given that you apparently have no qualms about granting this toolbag the space to repeat his smear about me ad nauseum, I have a little request for you: Please don't link to me. Ever. Again. With allies like you I don't need, etc.

[R. Mildred]

*waves rattle at rich* oogaboogabooga! oogaboogabooga! Does oo wanna rattle? Does oo wanna burpsies?

[John Emerson]

I was just thinking that Scott was due for another crisis. If this one doesn't work, try again, Scott. Frankly, it doesn't seem likely to have enough oomph.

Gender studies professor, animal rights activist and Episcopal youth minister with a passion for Christ, chinchillas, trail running, poetry, gender justice, country music, and reconciling contradictions.

This is all bad. I can't stand the guy already. He's the anti-me.

I like poetry and might have liked trail running, but I usually dislike trail runners and poetry-likers. Same for gender justice and resolving contradictions. I doubt that I like people who like chinchillas either, though I am pretty much indifferent to chinchillas per se if I never see them.

[Rich Puchalsky]

Ilyka, you know, your step 1 is really pretty accurate. The first thing you did was scream in outrage at all the misdirected outrage. You kind of neglected the reasons *why* all that outrage was swirling around, of course. Then it was on to those progressives and how patriotboy was just another example of how they'd rather attack women than men. Pretty much the exact reasoning you've duplicated above, actually.

Well, congratulations. I suggested that maybe, since this whole incident had Gilliard in the middle of it, it was better not to generalize it politically, and to assume that Britney made a mistake because she was tired rather than because she was racist, and that patriotboy made a mistake because he was angry (or a jerk, if you prefer) rather than because he was sexist. But no. You did and still do insist that grief and anger are not an excuse for anything -- that patriotboy was a good example of the whitemaleprogressive, just doing what they do.

And what are the results of your contribution to this little intervention? Pretty much the same results as all of yours. Chris, above, describes you as someone who is actually doing online organizing. That's cool. But, you know, whenever I see you, you're telling people off. I only see your name mentioned when people are writing about how they're no longer talking to other people. Somehow this organizing seems to have something lacking.

Now, I recognize that according to Chris you're someone who should never be told off. That's something that you only get to do to other people. So I'll turn to Chris instead. Chris' feminist organizing has had what results, practically? Well, it appears that he's in a closing circle, with more and more people who call themselves feminists who just aren't good enough for him. I first commented on that during Chris' revelation that PETA uses misogynistic images of women as they have for the last decade or two, when he pumped up the outrage! rather than going into why they did it, and the predictable result was -- PETA changing at all? No, mostly just a few more delinkings between feminist PETA supporters and those not. Oh, a few people stopped giving to PETA. I think a few more signed up in sympathy. But whatever. That kind of unpleasant lecture is just the kind of browbeating that I do.

Let's see, what was it about the hapless Hugo? Last seen, Chris was writing:

"If I sound angry it is because I am angry. Aside from the fact that I love the woman and condescending, dissembling attacks on people I love infuriate me, Schwyzer does not possess the intellectual or ethical chops necessary to sell The Theriomorph’s books out of a cardboard box on the sidewalk, much less criticize her writing or her thinking."

Chris has this tic where before he insults someone, he tells them it's because he loves the person they've done something to. You know, it's an odd love that is used as an excuse for bad behavior all the time; it's like one of those bad 80s vigilante movies. But whatever. Chris goes on to sum up the blogwar against Hugo, who he metaphorizes to the Klan, and links to his current friends. What do you want to bet that they all last out the year? But whatever, Hugo has certainly gained a whole lot of attention out of this. He must be really important.

At any rate, I should sum up. It's good that R. Mildred so comically brought up solidarity, because what you do isn't solidarity. Solidarity involves the recognition of a necessary connection *despite* all of the failings that people have, whether individual, or due to living in a patriarchal, racist, classist society. You don't do solidarity. You do revenge for insults to friends. And you don't do listening; listening is what other people are supposed to do, and is always coupled with an injunction to shut up. Your actions always end like yours here does: "Please don't link to me. Ever. Again. With allies like you I don't need, etc."

It's so sad that I compared this to the actions of a provocateur. People seem to think that this indicates that I was accusing you of bad faith. Alright, then I apologize for the implication of bad faith. I'm sorry -- you seem to act as a provocateur in good faith. Does that make it better?

[John Emerson]

Sorry for derailing the thread. Carry on, folks!

[R. Mildred]

Rich, Chris isn't playing hard to get, he just doesn't find you attractive. Get over it, move on, buy a real doll, take up a hobby, whatever. But just stop going through his garbage for items you can masturbate to. You've gotten one restraining order already, you don't need to re-enact high school all over again.

[Nullifidian]

It's good that R. Mildred so comically brought up solidarity, because what you do isn't solidarity. Solidarity involves the recognition of a necessary connection *despite* all of the failings that people have, whether individual, or due to living in a patriarchal, racist, classist society.

Wow, solidarity without accountability! The best of both worlds!*

*Warning: "The best of both worlds" may not apply if you're a person of color/woman of color, part of the GLBTQ community, disabled, or even a white heterosexual who stands to the left of the whiteprogressive community.

[Nullifidian]

I missed this gem the first time around:

Sure, R. Mildred. Feel free to have political solidarity with all your friends. The all-important War Against Hugo Schwyzer awaits. How's that going?

Right, because the whole FFF thing was not about solidarity in opposition to the silencing the voices of several women of color, it's all about the All-Important White Guy without whom none of our bloggy business makes any sense at all.

Naturally, this demeaning treatment of others, which crosses the border into the Land of Joyous, Abandoned Historical Revisionism, doesn't mean we still can't have Solidarity. After all, what is solidarity but a stalwart acceptance of getting kicked in the face by the whiteprogressive community again and again in the faint and fading hope that if one doesn't challenge them on their bullshit, they'll come around one day?

[Rich Puchalsky]

You know, Nullifidian, I was kind of puzzled about why this became about that All-Important White Guy too. I sort of said that several times, in fact. But maybe that's what happens when you define yourselves in opposition to whitemaleprogressives. You look around for a convenient one.

Now, accountability. To whom? According to you, Hugo is a whiteprogressive, and not in your community at all. And of course there is no actual organizational affiliation being talked about here. And accountability for what? For writing while Hugo? You can accept that everyone gets to criticize everyone else, in which case, surprise -- people will sometimes criticize you. Or you can delusively assume that every "person of color/woman of color, part of the GLBTQ community, disabled, or even a white heterosexual who stands to the left of the whiteprogressive community" thinks as you do and that therefore you are their natural representative.

Of course you can justify some writing as serious feminist critique. That witty R. Mildred is currently trying some on a Hispanic woman on Hugo's blog. It seems to involve lots of argument by "how fucking dare you".

[Ibod Catooga]

Haha my mom was a dwarf and my dad was a jigaboo.

So now I'm a dwarf jigaboo.

Life sucks.

[Nullifidian]

Hey, congratulations Rich on not having the guts to respond relevantly to a single thing I said! I can't tell you how much that makes dialogue with whiteprogressives seem like it's worth the time.

You know, Nullifidian, I was kind of puzzled about why this became about that All-Important White Guy too.

Either you're tone deaf to sarcasm, or you're arguing in bad faith. Assuming you are tone-deaf to sarcasm, I was pointing out the whiteprogressive tendency to treat every response as if it were a response about the whiteprogressive in question, rather than in solidarity to the people that they've hurt. In fact, most person of color/women of color blogging goes on with no reference to whiteprogressives, because their concerns very often do not intersect with the PoC/WoC blogosphere. When there is intersection and contention, it is because of what the whiteprogressive has DONE.

It is part and parcel of your blindness to nuance that you don't see that the definition of whiteprogressive is not about one's identity as a white or a progressive, but because of a set of actions which have come to be all to common in the whiteprogressive community. You're demonstrating a good many of them yourself, despite having it pointed out to you where the term "whiteprogressive" comes from (The Unapologetic Mexican's blog). If you wanted to, you could even go there and read his post where he covers what makes a whiteprogressive.

Now, accountability. To whom? According to you, Hugo is a whiteprogressive, and not in your community at all.

According to ME? And when I have said anything of the sort? You don't even fucking know what my community is, so don't start telling me what I have and haven't said about it. That's the kind of paternalistic, dehumanizing, and utterly frustrating bullshit that I have to put up with on a regular basis. If I told you how I self-identify, you might see that Hugo and I have many communities in common on which I can call him out. And even if I didn't, is the position that we can only call out people to account for themselves if and only if we share a community in common? So only white people can call Don Imus out on his racism, and people of colour who do so are barking up the wrong tree? Bullshit.

And accountability for what?

How about hurting people with his thoughtlessness and his words? Do you think that might be a start?

For writing while Hugo?

Of course we're back to the All-Important White Guy motif again.

You can accept that everyone gets to criticize everyone else, in which case, surprise -- people will sometimes criticize you.

So fucking what? I'm not a shrinking violet. If I act like a tool and hurt my friends and ostensible allies thoughtlessly, I WANT to be called on the carpet for it. But again, that misses the point because it implies that I can only be called out when I want it. Being an ally means that I have to accept a certain amount of responsibility to accept criticism even when I don't want to deal with it. In fact, not wanting to deal with it is often the sign of a serious underlying problem that it is my responsibility to deal with.

It says a great deal about you that the worst thing you can turn around on me is the prospect of being called out for what I've said. Oh my god! I may have to admit that I've been wrong! Horrors!

Or you can delusively assume that every "person of color/woman of color, part of the GLBTQ community, disabled, or even a white heterosexual who stands to the left of the whiteprogressive community" thinks as you do and that therefore you are their natural representative.

No thanks, I leave such delusions to the whiteprogressives. Nothing like ripping my words out of context to create a new idea which was never spoken or implied, isn't it?