Time to be Tattled on

It seems there is someone so annoyed by the position that context matters that it is highly likely he will contact my department to ... to ... report me?  Inform them that I blog? 

I'm not sure.  I admit to being baffled by the threat of tattling. Is this a common tactic among online leftists?  I wouldn't think so—I'm a leftist frequently online, and I've never considered contacting someone's employer—but it seems to be happening everywhere now. 

Scrolling through my comments in that thread, I'm trying to identify which reprehensible thing I said this person will include in his missive.  Maybe it was this:

When people emerge from the woodwork claiming that the link-as-endorsement policy isn't operative on a particular blog, it means that the basic context ... has been misunderstood.

Imagine a situation in which Blogger X posts a link and excerpt to every antisemitic slur written by Author Z. When a prominent Jew dies, this person posts a link and excerpt to despicable obituary Author Z wrote. A friend of the prominent Jew sees Blogger X's post and starts a campaign to have Blogger X fired.

Would you say that the friend of the prominent Jew did his due diligence? Do you not shudder at the thought that you could be fired on the basis of someone else's ignorance?

Perhaps my quick take on Speech Act Theory offended:

Context is part of the meaning of any statement. If a waiter at an Italian restaurant asks if I would like some cheese on my pasta, I could reply "I do." I utter those exact same words in another context, I enter into a legally binding agreement to have and hold someone so long as we both shall live. I stress the notion of due diligence here because, well, because I don't want to marry my waiter or ask my wife-to-very-soon-be for cheese.

It could have been my disgusting opinion on racism:

You missed my subtle point.  All racism is vile. Some of it is criminal too, and it can lead to amorality, but vile is vile. No need to be all nuanced about it.

Now that I think about it, though, it must have been my refusal to engage him in a debate about the history of racial politics in America. I mean, he spent all that time "teaching" me things I already know, and I didn't respond to them for the simple fact that they were irrelevant?  I'm surprised he's stopping with my department.  Why not just contact the FBI already?

Comments

[ilyka]

I see.

Vigilantism: It's the new core liberal value.

[ilyka]

But admit it: You're really looking forward to being schooled by a guy calling himself "The Ghost of Adolph Rupp." I mean, right? I would be.

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

So long as there are no mandatory on-campus meetings in which such a schooling occurs, then yes, I can picture the look of bemusement on the director of English graduate student's face when she receives an email from "The Ghost of Adolph Rupp."

[Rich Puchalsky]

Scott, I think that this whole thing is ... poorly advised. I'll get the easy things out of the way first: the threat to report you is both silly and stupid, and who knows what the anonymous guy is thinking. But you're reacting in a way that perpetuates a conflict, on a side that you're not really on. OK, so you received a weird comment from an Internet nut. That's no reason to write "Is this a common tactic among online leftists? I wouldn't think so—I'm a leftist frequently online, and I've never considered contacting someone's employer—but it seems to be happening everywhere now." It's no reason to write friendly replies to people like Ilyka when they write "Vigilantism: It's the new core liberal value."

I didn't elect the Jesus' General guy to be avatar and representative of liberalism. Still less did I elect whichever of his random commenters happened to say something stupid, threatening, or misogynistic as avatar and representative of online leftism. The people who want to pick fights over this are crazy, and bringing the crazy here is not really a great idea, I think.

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

Rich, you're certainly not wrong. You're also a much more experienced commenter than I. Sounds sarcastic, but isn't meant so. I really don't comment all that often, and was honestly taken aback by this threat. Not that it will amount to anything, mind you, but the annoyance alone is too much. What I need, I think, is a Puchalsky filter ... a device that beeps incessantly when I violate a rule I'm not aware of but you are. My life would be much, much easier.

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

And by "certainly not wrong," I mean, "you're absolutely right."

[ilyka]

no reason to write friendly replies to people like Ilyka when they write "Vigilantism: It's the new core liberal value."

Sarcasm, Rich. Pure sarcasm and smartassery. But thanks for advocating that Scott be unfriendly to me because I dropped by to express some support for him.

[CR]

The thread you're dipping into over there is frightening, Scott. All of this, the whole affair, does underscore how scarily Limbaugh-esque the mainline liberal 'sphere is becoming. There's a Weberian / charisma deal to write about it, if you're up for it... (I'm certainly not...)

On the other hand, you do like to cause trouble, doncha? Which is a great thing, and really what it's all about. And you know that, at least in the past, I loved to cause trouble too. But suddenly at some point I realized that there is a terrible consequence differential in many on-line discussions. You and me are paid to think and write, and if someone catches us out, frames us the wrong way, we are royally fucked. But many of our interlocutors, for whom this is the only thinking and writing (if that's the word, in certain cases) in their lives, have no such issue.

Assymetrical warfare, I think they call it...

Anyway, it's a very weird situation. In "real" academic life, you trust people a little bit, but not all that much, not to cause you harm if you get into a scrap. So you try to be collegially-open but stay mostly guarded. On here, we swing between our coterie of very trusted folks - people that are in the group, and that we know won't break the rules, or take things the wrong way - and the Whole Wide World, where you never know what kinds of numbnuts or general malcontent you're going to run into. One gives oneself away in a manner that you'd never even think of doing in meatspace, and then someone comes along to show you that you shouldn't have done that.

In short, this is why I've stopped with the comment box fights, altogether. Asymmetrical stakes etc...

But that is a bullshit thread indeed...

[anon]

Welcome to speech and thought policing. Welcome to identity politics. Welcome to modern mainstream feminism.

If you don't approve of these tactics you may wish to become a free-speech feminist, or a free-speech liberal, or a free-speech libertarian.

You may wish to read Wendy Kaminer at http://thephoenix.com/TheFreeForAll/, or Nadine Strossen.

It is most likely the case that you will want to be more thoughtful about what modern mainstream feminists have to tell you about how speech needs to be controlled.

In the meantime do be careful of what you say around Ilyka, she has a nasty habit of calling people like Maga racists, people like JG misogynists, and she even called me a rape apologizer for the crime of saying that false accusations of rape should be seriously investigated.

So there's your vigilantism right there. Suggest that false accusations of a crime should be taken seriously in modern america and some sort of self-identified modern feminist will call you a rape apologist.

[Rich Puchalsky]

I'm certainly not saying that you shouldn't be annoyed by this threat -- it is annoying, and your personal blog exists among other things as a place where you can bring annoyances. It's just that any hint of generalization from one Internet commenter to an entire community, much less a political tendency, mixes really badly with the aftermath of this thing. Ilyka's comment isn't "[dropping] by to express some support", it's continuing the "I hate whitemaleprogressives so much right now" (quoted from my last link) bit.

As I wrote in the last thread on this, I think that perceived disrespect for the dead was the primary driver for the initial reaction. The desire to get group payback for the resignation seems to be the primary driver for the counter-reaction. (That and various conservatives, concern trolling.) Those are both ultra-toxic motives, and anyone commenting who appears to be on one side or the other is going to have people trying to drag them in.

[anon]

That's the blogger Maha that Ilyka decided was a racist....

Maha's crime? Apparently she suggested that it was possible for african american can actually be racist too. Ilyka apparently disagrees enough to stand and point at Maha, tilt her head back, and shout, "RACIST!"

On the other hand, she feels she is JG's enemy, and I gather you feel you're JG's enemy, so perhaps you two were meant for each other and you only need to sit and think for awhile to understand why that might be.

[Rich Puchalsky]

"All of this, the whole affair, does underscore how scarily Limbaugh-esque the mainline liberal 'sphere is becoming."

As an aside: this is one of the reasons why I always thought Zizek-flavored radicalism was fairly amusing. Want an online left (or an online mainline liberalism?) Want, in addition to that, party discipline? Then this kind of thing is only the first hint of how the gears grind. It may be fine for the Zizekian to admire Lenin, because everyone knows that there is no chance of a Western academic actually being involved in shooting people for the revolution. But taking any steps for Leninesqe casting-out of deviationists, or enforcement of party discipline, or simple badmouthing of competing groups -- what do people think that Lenin actually *did* for most of his career, before he got military power? Yet strangely enough "procedural liberalism" also becomes shorthand for all that is supposed to be timid and temporizing.

[Rich Puchalsky]

I should clarify that CR is not, to my knowledge, much into Zizek.

[Kevin]

Well, it seems to me that ever since that bullshit that went on with Bitch PhD (and remember, that whole thing started when one of Bitch PhD's supporters decided to email whatsisname's department chair) a while back that yes, this is becoming a more common tactic amongst online leftists. I don't know. Maybe I hang out in different blogging corners, but I'm seeing nasty shit like this all the time now.

I'm sorry that it had to get this bad, Scott.

[Karl Steel]

All of this, the whole affair, does underscore how scarily Limbaugh-esque the mainline liberal 'sphere is becoming

All this 'becoming': I don't see evidence of a trend. I see anecdotes. I've seen nasty shit like this at least since I started hanging out in lefty blogs (2002). Likely I've even engaged in it myself, although as I recall, it was against someone who was cheering on Abu Ghraib even after the reports of child rape came out. And I can imagine that anyone who's ever hung out in political conversations, let alone with activists, whether it's left or right politics, has had to deal with all manner of sharp personalities and puerility, with the politics of purity (or politics of destruction, if you want to call it that), with cults of personality, with fantasizing about the Revolution, or with internecine tattling.

Certainly I don't remember the political conversations of the 90s as a halcyon time of decency. Those of you who were doing usenet or listservs in that period know how crazy it could get. And I remember the nastiness of bbs's in the mid to late 80s. We might go back, at least, to the American left of the 60s. And we might want to wonder if the left is more inclined than the right to engaging in all this nonsense, but I'd advise strongly against any identification of trends unless, you know, you have evidence.

[Rich Puchalsky]

Kevin, I don't mean to go off on you, but come on. One of Bitch Ph.D.'s supporters? Jesus' General is at least a blogger; if we're going to include the actions of commenters as defining the "online left", then the standard of behavior for a whole group is allowed to be defined by whichever anonymoid decides to be nastiest.

But I won't take the easy answer of "it's only commenters". Jesus' General, I should point out, writes to people's workplaces -- that is what he does, always, and has for years. No one seemed to care as long as it was right-wingers than he was writing to. The objections to this instance seem to have come mainly because it was friendly fire, not because of the tactic itself.

In my own, offline, activism, my actions have contributed directly towards one or two people being fired -- employees of polluting companies who their employers chose as scapegoats. I've also participated in direct attempts to get corrupt regulators fired -- those hardly ever succeed, sadly, but they do put people on notice that they'd better be less obvious in their corruption. Politics is sometimes nasty. Any serious online politics is going to be too.

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

CR:

You and me are paid to think and write, and if someone catches us out, frames us the wrong way, we are royally fucked. But many of our interlocutors, for whom this is the only thinking and writing (if that's the word, in certain cases) in their lives, have no such issue.

It's the framing that bothers me. I suppose this is what we all have to worry about, even if we don't participate in online scrums. Someone can easily rip our words from context, and our explanation (any explanation, for that matter) will seem petty.

And while I do like to cause trouble, in this case, that wasn't my intent. My inability to stop the spigot when I see idiots behaving idiotically, however, is something I need to work on.

Anon:

I'm sensing (from here and Slant Truth) that there is a history—nay, a context—to your post that I'm not getting. I say that because I'm not understanding the cause of your complaint. While I'm not partial to identitarian thought myself, I understand and appreciate its tactical value in the public sphere. I've run into Ilyka before, and while she is vehement, I've never found her the shriekingly incoherent ideologue you're painting here.

I gather you feel you're JG's enemy.

Not in the least. Just African Americans can be racist, intelligent people can write stupid things. If the forum is structured such that you can't call them on it, the scene will stagnate. (Intellectually, at least. I suspect it will become quite popular among a certain set of "thinkers.")

Rich:

It's just that any hint of generalization from one Internet commenter to an entire community, much less a political tendency, mixes really badly with the aftermath of this thing.

Point taken.

Ilyka's comment isn't "[dropping] by to express some support", it's continuing the "I hate whitemaleprogressives so much right now"

She can't hate them that much, since she dropped by to support one. Her hatred is aimed at a particular group of whitemaleprogressives who, I must say, are oftentimes deserving of it. (I'm sure you've read Chris Clarke's "resignation" already, but I'll link to it anyway.)

Those are both ultra-toxic motives, and anyone commenting who appears to be on one side or the other is going to have people trying to drag them in.

Though I attempted to remain above the fray, it quickly became apparent—when everyone insisted that she was my Brittany—that doing so is impossible. While I don't want to judge that side of the 'sphere by its worst elements, I will say that the dynamic there is such that it makes anyone who particpates (either actively or, as so many do, via fawning appreciation) appreciably dumber.

Kevin:

As Karl notes, it may not have started this, but with this particular crowd, that seems to have been the watershed moment.

Gah, more later. I'm annoying myself and have work to do.

[ilyka]

Scott, your explanation is basically it. I'd only add this to Rich:

I'm sorry you read "whitemaleprogressives" and felt indicted. The contraction of the three words into one was meant to be a clue that I was talking about a particular type, a subset of white, male progressives. That contraction is an adaptation of The Unapologetic Mexican's "WHITEPROGRESSIVE" label, which he also uses to denote a particular type.

That said, I would appreciate it if you did not talk over my head about me to Scott when I'm right here. If you have a problem with something I said, do me the courtesy of addressing me directly, please, and I will be happy to do the same for you.

[Rich Puchalsky]

Ilyka, I'm not sure that addressing you directly is really likely to get me anywhere. But, OK: I didn't take "whitemaleprogressives" as an indictment, or as evidence of a serious lasting dislike of all white male progressives. It did indicate to me that you were looking for a stereotyped group of people to blame for what basically seemed to be an individual mistake -- no different in kind than the people going on about how Brittney's lack of context in her post was all because of Southern culture or something.

To me, it appears that Brittney was tired, JG was pissed off, and both have their friends and supporters who of course support them against attack by those others. You're one of the people who gleefully tried to turn this from two people each making a mistake into a clash of group vs group, complete with pumping up of grievances. I don't know whether you're actually a conservative and a provocateur, but if you were, I'd expect you to be doing exactly as you have been doing.

[Scivns]

Rich, I don't want to be rude, but that's really offensive (the conservative and provacateur bit). Whether you believe me or not, I don't have a history of any type of conservatism in my life, but since I, like, seemingly, an awfully high number of POC and white women on the net have noticed certain traits and priorities in a number of white male liberal commentators, does that make us provacateurs as well? I have a problem with JG's behavior, yes, and moreover, I have a problem with the way he went about addressing some of his critics. He chose to show up and behvae as a condescending, sexist person, ilyka didn't make him do it. We were there, we saw it and we didn't like it, but that's her fault? And I'm sorry if thinking that things that matter to me are important and not just accepting the fact that the white guys are the leaders, they're going to be dismissive of any concern that doesn't affect them, and that's the way it should be because they're smart and take the long view and their concerns are universal if only we'd realize it while we're just selfish and petty and insignificant and should just do the grunt work with no imput ad no obnoxious squeaky wheel stirring the pot, let it go, who cares, if it doesn't matter to me it doesn't matter, makes me a saboteur. What you see as a gleeful stirring up of an individual mistake many of us see as yet again encountering an attitude that we're so damn sick of encountering all the time from people who are supposed to be on our side.

And thanks for doing her the courtesy of addressing her directly, I hope it "got you somewhere."