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

[Queer Dewd]

There's a Weberian / charisma deal to write about it, if you're up for it...

heh. I wrote an analysis like that a year or so ago -- but it was about the feminist blogosphere. So, please, if you do write it, ping me because I, for one, would love it.

[richard mcenroe]

"Vigilantism: It's the new core liberal value."

Ilkya, you're quite mistaken.

There's nothing new about it.

[Kevin]

Well, I came here to comment again, but I see that Ilyka and Scivns have already said what I wanted to say, so I'll just say: what Ilyka and Scivns said.

Hey, does this mean I can add "Conservative Provacateur" to my trophy list of "Scott's Token Black Friend" and "Racist Klan Member"?

[Rich Puchalsky]

There is really no difference in logic between Scivns' and the guy stalking Scott's (who is doing so, ostensibly, for the same sort of reasons). If you really want to give your personal OK to that mindset if not those tactics, Kevin, go ahead.

[Rich Puchalsky]

And see here.

As before, I still have no idea whether Ilyka is really a conservative or not. As before, Ilyka is still acting exactly like one.

[Sheelzebub]

Rich, stop your slanderous bullshit.

I find it very telling that JG freaks out and demands apologies (prominently placed, no less) over charges of sexism, but you little boys can run about and call us bitches conservative and provacateurs. We say he's acting like a sexist and are greeted with demands for an apology. You do the same thing and say that's they way she's acting and it's no big deal. Gotcha.

Double-standards and entitlement. Not just for White male conservatives.

[Rich Puchalsky]

Sheelzebub, I don't see why I should stop anything. I haven't commented on any other blog about this matter. If you think that my observation above is slanderous, then I can only recommend that you read what Scott was writing about context, taking the time to understand what someone was saying, etc.

Provocateurs do exist within American leftist groups, and, more generally, in the form of conservative trolls of various kinds. One of their stereotyped kinds of actions is to take extreme umbrage at some perceived or actual action by a member of another group, and encourage some kind of damaging conflict between groups that would normally be allied. It doesn't really matter whether Ilyka's a conservative provacateur or not if he or she decides to act exactly like one. If you defend calling someone on their behavior rather than their self-image, then I can certainly do the same thing.

And really, this isn't about squeaky wheels being told to be silent. If someone wants to criticize JG for what JG did, fine. If someone wants to generalize that to the whitemaleprogressive blogosphere while still within the context of this flamewar, then they're predictably trying to expand the flamewar.

[Sheelzebub]

If someone wants to generalize that to the whitemaleprogressive blogosphere while still within the context of this flamewar, then they're predictably trying to expand the flamewar.

And unfortunately for said whitemaleprogressive blogosphere, you scamps keep proving Ilyka's point.

Golly. You folks are so oppressed.

[Chris Clarke]

I thought better of you, Rich. This is just odious.

[Rich Puchalsky]

You really think it's odious, Chris? OK. In which I guess that I have to regretfully change my opinion on your own recurring pumping up of these conflicts from "gets carried away" to "believes it's a good idea for some reason".

[Chris Clarke]

Keep digging, Rich.

[R.L.Page]

I am reminded of a common ploy used on right-wing talk-radio and on cable news shows in which the commentator goes on at great length bemoaning how much 'coverage' a story is receiving, while, of course, covering the story.

And (since context is king) I recall that the Pandagon contingent nearly lynched a poor progressive boy from Arkansas for photo-shopping a sandwich into a fat man's hands.

[sallo]

Lynched is right, r.l. The oppression boys are subjected to by being requested to do things like "hey, please don't be a condecending, racist, sexist, asshat and then expect the people you heap contempt on to be part of your movement--oh, and btw, there are a hell of a lot more women, POC, gays, fat people, etc than skinny white male assholes, so if you don't care about simple human decency think about political pragmatism" are only comperable to the trials and tribulations of slavery and the victims of the Holocaust (although of course slavery was really nothing espcially in comparison, forget lynching--being murdered and hung from a tree receds into nothingness compared to the unadulterated brutality of being asked "could you please not be rude to fat people? The problem with this man is he's an evil fascist, not his eating habits, please don't act like excess weight is a sign of moral evil, you're not 4 years old."). The bravery displayed by the white boys who manage to survive these onslaughts and endure in a society that seeks to vanquish their very souls will go down in history when we finally break the hammerlock of the matriarchy and become free people once more. But don't forget, it could be worse. The oppresion of the straight white boy is almost too much to bear, but can you imagine the tortures of the damned suffered by straight white guy billionaires? OH THE HUMANITY.

[sallo]

And apart from the sarcase, while talking to you is like talking to a blank wall, here's the point, Rich.

There is a recurring problem in the progressive blogosphere.

We can't stop conflicts from occuring, but we can stop how we handle them. "Shut up, you dumb PC morons, you stupid bitches don't know what sexism is, you think this is racist then I'l do it ten times more just to annoy you, I don't care about your feelings, just suck it up and get over it and care about what I tell you to or you're a conservative provacateur," is one way, but it tends to leave hard feelings and unnecessarily prolong the situation.

"I am sorry, we are all on the same side, I do not want to go anything to needlessly offend my freinds, I'll stop now," is another.

Which is more potentially effective, you think?

[R.L.Page]

Perhaps it's time for you to switch to 'de-caf,' Sallo ,,, (if that's your real name.)

[Sheelzebub]

RL Page, aren't you getting bored, waiting at the martyr's stake? No one's coming to burn you, dear. Get over yourself.

[R.L.Page]

Now I can just wait for you to return and try to explain your comment.

[ilyka]

And (since context is king) I recall that the Pandagon contingent nearly lynched a poor progressive boy from Arkansas for photo-shopping a sandwich into a fat man's hands.

If context is king, you might try getting yours right: First, the discussion to which you refer happened at Feministe, not Pandagon. Second, last I checked, HTML Mencken was alive and walking around breathing and everything.

Third, that you'd characterize an admittedly acrimonious discussion as a "lynching" . . . well, you do realize that this not only doesn't detract from my point that some white male progressives have entitlement problems, it kind of supports it a whole bunch?

Thanks for playing.

[Chris Clarke]

You conservative provocateurs and your "facts" and "truth" and stuff. Feh.

[Rich Puchalsky]

I wasn't going to comment further -- but since Chris still apparently thinks this is worth continuing, who am I to disagree?

Ilyka went through a full Goodbye Cruel World tantrum at her blog in response to one comment of mine, in which she said that she wanted this to be over, and wanted me to stop linking to her comments from this comment thread. (By the way, Ilyka, you link to your blog whenever you comment here -- did you know?) I had thought that she would be on her way to picking out a new screen name by now. But of course it isn't over for her, not while she can continue this conflict, if her past history is any guide.

Sallo, meanwhile, has been giving lessons in exactly how to approach allies and be effective. Apparently this involves accusations of racism and sexism against any liberal who happens to be white and / or male. I guess that I just don't see the brilliance in re-writing what I've said as meaning "Shut up, you PC moron", but maybe it'll come to me.

But Chris is really the one I should address, because I know of him to some extent from before. Chris, I've casually supported you on your blog on several occasions -- not much, but you said that you valued the words from all of the people who commented as I did. Apparently now you've decided that my odiousness is part and parcel of the rest of the progressive history of activism that you now reject. I do not consider myself to be part of "the progressive blogosphere" per se -- I don't comment on Kos (beyond a poem that I posted once), have a blog, nor have I ever participated in one of the "get someone to shut up" swarms, etc. -- but I do consider myself to be a progressive and a liberal. And the progressive movement and the progressive blogosphere aren't really seperable; one is composed of the other. You want to reject the progressive blogosphere, mostly for the same problems which most Americans progressives have due to living in a racist, sexist, and classist society? Fine. Then you're rejecting me and my work as well. Good luck with your future work. "Have a nice day. I mean that sincerely. And that. Etc."

Meanwhile, I note the kind words of Jeff Goldstein about your essay. He writes:

"But as Clarke’s essay spells out (however tentatively), the problem is far more widespread than Kaufman would like to admit—and indeed, for my part, I’ve come it see it as systemic, following naturally from an interpretive paradigm that of necessity culminates in competing narratives vying for established “truth” based entirely on the power and tenacity of an advocacy group’s insistence.

I could be wrong, of course. But I long for the days when someone would argue how this is so, rather than labeling my thinking “hate speech” and hoping that the mere accusation does enough to scare me off."

That could be a description of Sheelzebub's style, say. Of course I do not agree with Goldstein. But I note that you don't disagree.