Wait...whut?

[liz_marcs]

This post brought to you through a metafandom link, because I always headdesk when people are not using their commonsense. I'd link to the actual public post, but that's apparently considered a hostile act by the OP.

Sooooo, linking to a public post is considered a hostile act now?

Bwhuh?

Oh, wait. It's if you link to a public post and "your intentions are bad."

And we know this how? Through telepathy? Because the person who's linking (let's not forget) to your public post makes a comment that they disagree when they link?

Ummmm, then if you're afraid of getting wanked, shouldn't you be FLocking the crap that's liable to get you wanked?

I, personally, don't think FLocking is an act of cowardice, by the way. It's a way to stay safe when you're feeling like you're on somewhat shaky ground in some way or you want to keep the trolls out or if you simply want to protect yourself. That's what the FLock is for. That's why you can create custom FLocks.

People, they're there to be used, so use them. I use them (very occasionally), people on my FList use them, just about everyone uses them in some manner. So don't be afraid to use the Almighty FLock!

If this was a complaint about spilling the contents of a FLocked post or a FLocked journal, yes, I'd agree. That's not just the the height of rude, but also potentially damaging to the person who's FLocking. Although, I always say, if you want to be double super-sekrit squirrel safe, don't post something you think is going to get you in hot water physically, emotionally, legally, or career-wise online at all. If you have to write it down somewhere where no one can possibly find it (hey, it happens), use a pen and paper. Pen and paper is cheap and easy to use. Really.

But a public post? One that any monkey with a computer can stumble across, read, flame you in comments, and then speed off and tell all his or her monkey friends that you should be flamed?

Hate to say it, but fair game. It's public. It's probably on LJSeek and Google even as we speak.

I mean, hell, I've had flaming monkeys (not many, but a few). Know what I do with flaming monkeys? I kill their comments, that's what I do. Disagreement is fine, provided it's polite. But if a flaming monkey states that they hope I drown in a pile of pig shit and then someone sets fire to my corpse? I'd place that very safely in the flame category and will have no conscience about deleting the comment, which is most likely to be anonymous anyway.

Other people have stricter rules about commenting, others have looser rules. Know what? It's all good. Their ElJay, their rules. They've got every right to set them and enforce them how they see fit.

Plus, I do enforce some rules (however loosely) in this space. While I haven't been moved to ban anything more than a few spam journals, I do have that option open to me. I also have the option of freezing comments when shit gets out of line (I haven't had to do that either). Furthermore, I can also forbid people from making comments to a post at all (maybe once or twice in almost 4 years). So, really, it isn't like there aren't some frontline tools available.

And if you really find yourself in a bind, delete the entry, or put it to private (I had to do that exactly once in 4 years...and it was due to a complicated situation that had nothing to do with fandom or anyone in fandom.)

However, in those cases of flammage or gazillion comments from people I don't know, what it boils down to is this: I did make a public post. So really, I am putting myself out there with a full realization that I'm taking a chance. I may not be ready for a response or even the size of a response, but that was the chance I took.

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but most of the time it doesn't even matter.

I'm not excusing the behavior of the flaming monkey, by the way, but post publicly and you are taking a chance that flaming monkeys will happen.

Why, oh why, do people seem to think that the wild and woolly Internet should have the manners of a Victorian tea room? (And I say that with no disrespect to Victorian tea rooms.) There are all kinds on the Internet. Some with good intentions, some with bad intentions, and some are good people who get momentarily taken over by their inner asshole.

There's a huuuuuuge difference between abuse, harassment, and stalker-y behavior and people linking to a public post because they disagree or thought you said something stupid. (ETA: And as bubble_blunder points out, there's a huge difference between linking to a post and stating you disagree and linking to a post for the sole purpose of siccing your fellow flaming monkeys after them.)

No, really, there is.

Now I'll be swanning off to contemplate my special snow flakeness and feelings.

Or, finally ripping apart a WiP that really needs to be ripped apart now that I've found a solution to my problem.

Also, please don't go bug the OP. Leave him/her alone. He/She is entitled to her opinion, even if that opinion makes me want to put my head in my hands and groan that some people are kind of not getting this whole journaling/blogging thing.

Comments

[ladycat777.livejournal.com]

You don't link to the actual post...? I think it go lost :)

Also, you (general you) can always say 'Metafandom please don't link' somewhere near the top of whatever's being posted. It's not going to prevent other people from seeing and linking and wandering in by accident, but if you have that up there, then metafandom will not list you. They have awesome people there :)

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

I can completely understand the whole "metafandom, plz don't link," and I can understand why people would do it to prevent being slammed or attracting trolls. The OP didn't do that and it is linked in the latest entry.

But...don't link to a public post? Ummm, hunh? As bubble_blunder mentioned below, linking to a post because you disagree is a far, far cry from linking to a post because you want people to flame. So at what point do you decide linking to a public post is "hostile linking?" Seriously?

[bubble-blunder.livejournal.com]

Well, at least I'm not the only one who had a *headdesk* reaction to that post.

Here's what I don't get about the whole thing. Isn't linking to things, even the things that we disagree with, and encouraging a public discourse kinda the point of lj, blogs, hell, even the internet? I know it's probably my absolute favorite thing about it.

When I started out on LJ, I knew exactly one person on here, the friend who convinced me to open an account. But, because she linked me to posts from people she read that she thought might interest me, and because those people linked me to others, I developed a list of people whose journals I read and participate in discourse on. It's how I discovered fandom, it's how I find fics to read (or avoid), and it's how I get to occasionally use my journal as a soapbox for my own personal beliefs, opinions, etc. instead of only using it as a diary like the one I had when I was twelve.

Bottom line here is that if I post it without an f-lock, I do so fully expecting people to read it, comment on it, and link to it if they feel strongly enough about it to tell everyone who reads their journal that they really agree with it or really disagree with it. I don't expect everyone who reads what I write to agree with me, and I don't expect those who don't to keep their mouths shut and refrain from ranting about it on their own journals. And in general, I don't consider anyone hostile for doing so.

The only times I can think of where linking could truly be considered a hostile act would be if someone was linking and saying something like, "Hey, this person is a bitch. Would everyone on my flist go over to this post and call them a bunch of racial slurs because I don't like them." That is hostile. But feeling strongly enough about another person's post to tell your flist about it isn't hostile. It's using LJ as it is supposed to be used. It's what makes us a community.

~Lisa

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

Yes! Exactly!

That's why I was all, "Bwhuh? What?"

I just...don't get it. If you don't want to be linked, then FLock. Or, hell, state right in your public post that you don't want to be linked.

My default is, "Hey, I made it public. So if someone wants to link, and I didn't make it clear that it shouldn't be linked, then I can't exactly say no, can I?"

And you're right. There's a big difference between telling all your monkey friends to go flame, and linking to post with an argument that the OP is wrong. And for heaven's sake, if you don't want to end up on Fandom_Wank (I seem to get the gist that the OP is particularly annoyed with them), then don't be wanky. Now, to be fair, sometimes you end up there anyway, but again, that's the chance you're taking.

*shakes head*

Yeah, mystified right there with you.

[vichan.livejournal.com]

Hooboy. This needs to be posted here. Not about linking to public posts, but about internet etiquette. Real life vs. the Internet. Not embedding, 'cuz I don't know if you'd appreciate the embedding. O_o

"Welcome to the Internets, child."

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

I have no problems with embedding, but other people might. :-)

So thank you for the courtesy.

And BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Let's all go home and masterbate!

[janedavitt.livejournal.com]

In kerfuffles, I always link and the hell with it. If it's a public post and I disagree with it, I'm going to let people see the post as well as my take on it, so they can see both sides of it for themselves. Paraphrasing can slant things amazingly.

I don't consider that hostile; I consider it fair.

Unleashing minion armies is a different thing, as you say, but vagueness and hints often lead to more trouble than they're meant to avoid because everyone assumes stuff you didn't necessarily mean.

In short, word :-)

And no one can stop you linking to a public post; it's open for the world to see, read, comment on. If you don't want it to be, as you say, you lock the sucker down.

Linking is hostile. Sheesh :;rolls eyes:: Some fragile little flowers out there.

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

See, I totally agree. It's better for people to make up their own minds about things, so it's better to link. :-)

I mean, sure, there've been instances where I've linked that the linked posts got locked later, but I can at least say I made a good-faith effort.

Which is why I didn't feel comfortable leaving no link at all to the OP, and did it in a round-about way. At least let people see that (to an extent) she has a point (at least in the case of linking to sic the flying monkeys or to bully someone), and where I think she's really expanding the definition of hostile way, way, way beyond where it should be.

Then again, it's her LJ, her rules. She has the right to define hostile however she wants and act accordingly. But, I'm with you. If you're that worried about it, then FLock the post or the journal and save yourself the headache.

But, honestly, public posts are like walking down the street with $100 dollar bills hanging out of your pocket. No, it doesn't excuse the mugger who whacks you over the head and takes the dough. They still did something wrong. But walking down the street with $100 dollar bills hanging out of your pocket can be an invitation to big trouble, too.

[hobgoblinn.livejournal.com]

hobgoblinn giggles rudely in the OP's general direction. Though that may be tinged with a bit of hysteria as the insanity of Nanowrimo begins to take hold again.

At any rate, while you're contemplating your special snowflakiness, Hob will be happily munching on this bone: Or, finally ripping apart a WiP that really needs to be ripped apart now that I've found a solution to my problem.


Becuz Hob Believes, with all her cold little heart, that one WIP crossed off the list slides "Water Hold Me Down" that much closer to the top of the stack.

*hugs*

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

Yes, it would move it one peg up indeed!

And you crazy for doing Nanowrimo. Then again, I do the equivalent at work in the course of three weeks (writing for a living FTW!). So, really, I probably shouldn't talk about people's relative sanity.

[maggiebloome.livejournal.com]

I don't know, Victorian tea rooms could be pretty vicious. Just as long as you look perfectly calm you can insinuate pretty much anything.

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

*sigh* I lack the subtlety for entering Victorian tea rooms.

I knew it was a bad metaphor. I need college-level courses in the art of pointed comments and looks, don't I. :-)

[julia-here.livejournal.com]

Oh, Jesus, her.

Queen of the countries of tl;dr and tmi, defender of the right to ignore earth logic.

Julia, but at least she doesn't have the influence of the loons I've been observing at Wikipedia

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

I was wondering why she sounded so familiar. Hooo-boy.

And how about this for ignoring earth logic: In the comments she and the people agreeing with her are "tee-heeing" that they've done their share of "hostile linking" (although if I remember the OP's history, she'd one it for the purposes of causing problems). And they don't seem at all sorry about it.

Yeah, definitely getting the whiff of hypocrite in there.

[slashpine.livejournal.com]

I guess I only agree with some of this. I think there's some middle ground here. Yes, people can post more cautiously (or not at all!). But at the same time, other people can also behave with civility and choose not to pile on to the free-wheeling harassment meme.

If you link to a post but your intention is not hostile, and you'd rather your readers *not* take this as you inciting a riot of harassment -- one can simply say that, as easily as demanding that others always flock. "Hey, I linked to this post that really annoyed me so you can see what I'm annoyed about but *please* be adults, be my friends, don't go start throwing shitwank all over them ok?"

Of course, they can choose to go do exactly that. But harassment is their choice, not their obligation. I notice that some people like to hide behind a sort of pseudo-Hobbesian ethics -- "Everyone's an Asshole! So I can't help it! I am an asshole because I'm forced to be! I have zero control over my obnoxious crap-flinging fingers and my general assholery."

But 99.99999% of Fandom Wankers using that as their excuse doesn't make it true. People who wank choose to wank. Blaming the victim for posting/ not flocking/ existing is simply blaming the victim -- for the wanker's behavior. Seriously does not compute.

That said, I agree with you 100% that everyone should also think twice before posting a strong opinion, anywhere. Like this one. Someone reading it could choose to come be a jerk on my journal. That would be boring.

I sometimes see a claim that the victim "deserves" it, e.g., "SHE IS A JERKWAD so she DESERVES anything including Death with a dirty SPORK!" But that's simply ad hominem bias, a personal hate-thing, not rational thought. I tend to chalk that type of thing up to youth/ naivete/ pre-coffee confusion, and avoid anyone who does it a lot. Because again, blaming your behavior on someone else's existence, or their post last year, or their hairstyle, whatever -- shows a poor grasp of the concept of responsibility for oneself.

Pointing to them and saying 'what an idiot'? Sure, free country. Ganging up? Sending flamers their way? Woah, get a grip. A better hobby. A life.

Then there's the claim that "Anyone I attack should have defended themselves better! Or not be alive!" Uh yeah. Blame the victim some more?

To be sure, there's also the passive-aggressive conniving manipulative creek who *says* "I don't mean you all to attack him..." but is hoping for *exactly* that. With deniability.

True story: I'm in a bar with some other grad students, and Lorri leans over and says, OMG don't all look at once, but that guy's got his *thing* out and you can't see from your angle, but he's rubbing it on that stupid girl in front of him, and she's so drunk she doesn't even notice! Is that disgusting or what?"

Now, having murmured this (as much as you can in a bar in a college town, but this is the "older" bar, and relatively quiet upstairs), and having said, "Don't all turn around and look or point or anything," we assume that her intention is *not* to stir up public humiliation and possibly a fistfight with the idiot drunk guy when he gets called on his creepiness.

However, then Mike says, "OMG that's my friend Tracey! I can't believe that creep ... GRRR." And he decides to erupt out of his chair and a generally nasty scene ensues as Mike and another guy *do* go harass the guy ...

... who it just so happens is Lorri's detested ex-boyfriend.

Now after discovering how happily she watched him nearly get beat up and arrested, I am not so sure he was being all that disgusting. Two drunk people, yeah, one of whom (him) should have been more discreet or at least a lot less skanky. But the bitter ex-GF Lorri? Just as skanky in her own twisty manipulative way, IMHO.

I try to avoid people in RL and online who attract trouble through rashly expecting everyone to look out *for* them. But even more, I avoid and abhor those who *like* to stir up trouble, whether through lies or fluttery-eyed "WHO ME????" manipulation, so they can then claim it was only "natural" for them to behave like jerks, or that the other person "deserved" it. Just because Fandom_Wank exists doesn't mean we should all behave that way.

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

At no point am I saying that if Person A is being an asshole, does it excuse Person B being an asshole (which I say straight out in the post several times, by the way).

My post is not about blaming the victim. My post is basically, "If you're afraid of this happening, then use your common sense and lock that crap down."

Public posts are public, which means both polite people and raging assholes have access. Yeah, it sucks when a raging asshole shows up and starts throwing shit around, but to not have that possibility in the back of your mind whenever you post publicly is naive at best, asking for trouble at worst. That's the nature of the Internet and it's always been the nature of the Internet. Doesn't make it right, but you've got to deal with the reality you've got, not the reality you wish you had.

Furthermore my point is that the OP in this case is expanding her definition of "hostile" way, way, waaaaaay beyond the cases of bullying and flaming (issues that are legitimate complaints — and issues that should not be tolerated).

She doesn't think when people are acting like asses in a public post should be called on it. Let's pull out, for example, the whole recent spate of racism and anti-Semitism going back over the past few months. Do you honestly think people shouldn't have been called on that?

[By the way, if you read the comments, the OP's answer to that seems to be that all of it was "hostile linking."]

To cap it all off, in the comments, the commenters and the OP are all: "Tee-hee! I've done the exact same thing (linking with hostile intent)." Several times. Which, to say the least, isn't helping her case. If anything, it makes her and the people agreeing with her look like raging hypocrites.

What it seems to boil down to is that she doesn't want people to do it to her. Even though she's done the same thing, and will most likely do it again in the future.

Kind of kills her whole point, no?

[doingsoso.livejournal.com]

My dear Lizbeth,

*Throws arms wide* I think I love you:) I have been snickering and snorffling up my sleeve since I started reading this post. You made my day! You have such a sublime way of expressing yourself, LOL.

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

Heeee! I always aim to amuse. :-)

Seriously, though. The concept of "hostile linking" does seem to me to be a strange to the least.

[teh-no.livejournal.com]

Well, when it's Fandom_Wank, I think we can take it as a matter of course that the intent is hostile, the sky is blue, and women have secrets.

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

I disagree. *shrug*

I've ended up on fandom_wank once or twice, usually as part of a round-up and never really as a solo act, true, but I have ended up there. And there have been a few pointed comments in my direction when I have, but people are totally entitled to their opinion just as I'm entitled to mine.

I tend to look at Fandom_Wank as more watercooler gossip as opposed to some kind of "hive vagina with teeth" or "hostile camp." It's fairly harmless in and of itself and I think hostility in this case is sometimes very much an "eye of the beholder" kind of deal.

Besides, Fandom_Wank and similar comms over on JournalFen do have rules and those rules are enforced if someone is caught breaking them. Granted, people aren't always caught, but the fact is I think the mods over there do their level best to keep someone who gets spotlighted from getting trolled by members. You really can't ask for more than that.

So a post Fandom_Wank makes fun of one of your posts or your opinion. So what? As long as you don't get mass-invaded by trolls, it's easy enough to ignore. Besides, once the post drops form the top two or three, it's usually buried and forgotten anyway.

Which speaks to my point: If you're posting publicly sometimes you draw unwanted attention. Yeah, it sucks if that unwanted attention results in splooge all over your journal. And yeah, no one likes it when people point and laugh. But if you're going to soapbox, then you really need to be prepared for it, and you really need to decide if you're going to let it bother you.

*shrug*

I'm not saying that Fandom_Wank members are innocent little lambs, and I'm not saying that there's no such thing as a grudge wank, because, yeah, sometimes it does get nasty. But I don't think Fandom_Wank or any of the wank comms are anywhere near as bad as people make them out to be.

Just IMHO.

[sabrinanymph.livejournal.com]

I've read both this post and the OPs. In my personal opinion anything that is unlocked is unlocked for anyone to read. It's something that is difficult to remember sometimes because we often sit in our cozy little friends groups with the people we read and we forget that our employer, our Grandma, our stalker down the street, and that arsehole we hated during high school can also read what we're writing.

Sometimes I'll post something publicly, think better of it ten minutes later and go back and FLock because I realize that I don't actually want that to be read by anyone and everyone. However, if you're going to make something public, you have to be aware that people can come along and make comments both in the form of praise and in the form of mockery, and you need to be able to take it. It doesn't mean that I enjoy the mockery or flame-types, but they are there.

I also think that disagreeing/ranting + linking does not = hostile. It can - F_W even though I read and shake my head sometimes is certainly hostile a large percentage of the time!

I'm a librarian and there's a lot of discussion about teaching users proper privacy guidelines for using social networking sites, and so forth. And this sort of falls into that. So, while I see the OP's point, I think there's nothing wrong with using a FLock, nor, frankly, if you start getting a lot of flames is there anything wrong with freezing the comments in the post and/or locking it down until everything blows over. It may incite more drama elsewhere but you aren't dealing with it in your journal, are you then?

Public posts? You may get comments or publicity you didn't really want.
FLocked Post? You know who's reading it.
Linking? The way of the internet, and not likely to change anytime soon - it might be polite to ask someone if you can link to their post, but it doesn't happen all the time so generally you can assume that if it's public it may be linked to.

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

Exactly.

You roll the dice, you take your chances. No, it's not fun when you come up on the losing end, but people really need to get it through their heads that a public post on LJ is far more accessible than they think. I think that's the other part of the problem I have with the OP. She seems to be conflating "public" with "FLocked," or rather, she thinks that we should be treating public posts like they're FLocked posts unless we 1) Agree with it wholeheartedly; or 2)We know that it's perfectly fine with the poster to link all over hell and creation.

[elf]

I agree that linking to a public post can be a hostile act.
I don't agree that the internet is supposed to be a non-hostile space.

Don't want to be open to hostility? F'lock. Don't want to be F_W'd or ganged up on by swarms of screaming fangirls? Don't post opinions on controversial topics.

RULE 1:
YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED.

Can't handle that? Stick to locked AOL chatrooms.

And I happily acknowledge that there's a big difference between "hey, let's go gang up on the idiot who thinks [all blacks are gay/Snape is Jewish/Republicans can't be Christians/LJ's staff is clueless morons um well-trained in mediation errr seriously underpaid sympathetic to fandom (or whatever)]" and "interesting thoughts about [sex in gaming/the history of men in fanac/women's writing is all pointless reverie] over here; go contribute to the discussion please."

But that difference isn't as important as the basic principle of "if you don't want random strangers' comments, block them." Whether a particular set of comments by some set of random strangers qualifies as "discussion of controversy" or "hostile wank" has nothing to do with whether it's "ethical."

Don't want flaming monkeys? Wrong internet; try again later.

I do notice that the people who bitch about being wanked tend to be ones who want public posts to draw supporters but not detractors... the people who freeze threads when they go in directions they don't like.

I mean, yes, it's a bit much to send your crack team of fandom-wankers to the post of some sixteen-year-old fan-newbie with a f'list of 12, who said "Gay is sinful and Rowling has ruined Potter for me by making Dumbledore a big sinner." But really... how often does that happen? F_W likes *debate*, not shooting fish in a barrel. It's no fun if they lock down & run away after three comments. F_W is about controversy, not "winning." There is no "win."

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

F_W, I thought, had a no under-18 rule. I know I've seen posts yanked because the wankee was underaged.

In either case, yeah, I agree with you. Expecting any semblance of privacy when you make a public post is really a hope that's of the false. Linking happens. Search engines happen. And sure, that can be easily forgotten if you normally have a FList of 20 and it's normally just you and people you've friended. And I agree that people like that can be easily overwhelmed by a response if they get linked.

But it doesn't follow that linking is inherently hostile (which I definite as "with conscious malicious intent") if the context of the linking is negative, or in disagreement, or even if the post being linked to pissed the linkee off.

I also suspect that I would disagree with the OP's definition of "malicious" as well. To me, it seems there's a personal dimension inherent in malicious or hostile linking. I don't thank that 90% of the posts on Fandom_Wank even come close to fitting the bill but I rarely get that it's at all personal. I'm not saying that it's never personal (i.e., grudge wanks), but I don't think it's normally that way.

I'm with you. Sure, sucks when it happens, but it does happen to all of us at some point or another. And you have to post with that thought in mind.

[chopchica.livejournal.com]

Considering that on the first page of her journal alone, there are three links to public posts, put there specifically so that people can follow and be outraged (burr posting on a community, burr talking about why he posted on a community, and people being mean to mamadeb), I'm incredibly unimpressed with her argument here. I think she means it's fine for *her* to link to things, but not for other people to link to *her*, because then she ends up on FW and they laugh their asses off about how she still can't shut up about how much she hates them and how mean they are, even though she used to be a member herself and adored everything FW stood for.

But that could just be me.

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

Oy vey. *rolls eyes*

Like I said, I don't know the OP and I've never dealt with her. I also didn't check out the rest of her LJ to see if she was practicing what she was preaching, but yeaaaaaahhhhh, way to torpedo your own argument there.

Of course, I thought she pretty much torpedoed it by those "tee-hee" asides in the comments about how she'd done the same thing with no guilt.

But then again, I thought her basic premise was horribly flawed to begin with, because she did expand hostile way beyond "malicious intent" in her post.

[melusina]

Amen! I was further boggled by the comments in the discussion in which someone said that if your flist is above a certain size, it's mean to even post generally about something and *not* link.

Except maybe not, because when I've linked to a post I disagreed with (to provide context to those reading my disagreement) I've been accused of siccing my flist on the original poster. And when I've failed to link, I've been accused of misrepresenting the original poster's argument and/or harassing someone while sneakily leaving myself plausible deniability. So it seems that no matter which way I go, I'm likely to offend someone.

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

There's a phrase for this: Catch-22.

*rolls eyes*

In the end, all you can do is make a good faith effort to do the right thing (whatever the right thing is) and stick by it. That's what I do, because, honestly, I can't do much else.

[carmarthen.livejournal.com]

I think linking to a post and saying "Go attack this person" would be hostile, yeah. But I also think not linking tends to stifle discussion ("But what did the other person ACTUALLY say?" go the readers) and can be passive-aggressive. It's one of those things that depends a lot on context, as far as I'm concerned. And while people with small friendslists might not expect dogpiling, that doesn't make their posts fundamentally more sacrosanct than Jane BNF.

But I do think the internet could stand some more courtesy--maybe not Victorian tearoom courtesy, but more than is usually exhibited. It's too easy for people to hide behind relative anonymity and bring out the ad hominem attacks. I think it's bad for productive dialogue and I also think courtesy is generally a good thing (up until someone does something that loses them that respect) and just because we're on the internet doesn't make courtesy less valuable. (I don't always live up to my own ideals, but I'm trying.)

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

I agree. A lot more courtesy would be absolutely fantastic. But unfortunately (I agree again) there are a lot of people who look at the anonymous Internet as a perfect way to get away with being an ass because they can.

(And I admit my *ahem* disclaimer at the top is somewhat passive-aggressive...so yeah, my better angels aren't exactly on display here, either.)

Unfortunately, the best anyone can do is to try not to be an ass. It's just sad that you can't automatically assume you'll get the same courtesy in return.

[kita0610.livejournal.com]

Well, I think it's obvious that the OP has an Agenda of some kind which we may not be privy to. But putting that aside, I think it *is* an important conversation to have. And I think that what gets lost is something like "authorial intent". Because if you have a big enough FL, and you post a link, maybe it doesn't matter what you want to have happen, it's certainly possible that your friends will follow the link and have their say in a manner you might not approve of.

[jennem.livejournal.com]

Because if you have a big enough FL, and you post a link, maybe it doesn't matter what you want to have happen, it's certainly possible that your friends will follow the link and have their say in a manner you might not approve of.

This is true.

Then again, I'm of the mind that unless a clearly destructive intent is displayed on the part of the author (i.e., "Go and flame this dumb bitch."), I'm not inclined to accept the proposition that Person A is "responsible" for what Person B says.

I realize that its not applicable to the current context (because, you know, we aren't the government), but free speech doctrine really does supply a useful analogy. People are free to spew as much hatred and rage as they want, they just can't do it in a manner that is likely to incite violence.

I would argue that 99.9% of pissed of linking and/or ranting doesn't even come CLOSE to exhibiting the kind of pure hatred that is deemed "acceptable" (and not subject to regulation) by our government.

So, in general terms, unless a post really rises to the level of go-and-hurt-this-other-person (which is something that I think is generally, more clear than people pretend it is), I don't think authorial intent should really be inferred as automatically hostile.

My main problem with the OP (not Liz, but that other OP) is her argument that people should just admit that they are "hostile" (which is a loaded word), and if you aren't willing to admit that you're "hostile," well, then...your argument really isn't that worthy of respect or consideration.

Which, you know, comes really close (though, I'm sure it wasn't intentional) to How to Derail a Conversation About Race 101.

Bah. Back to studying. Stop having interesting thinky-thoughts when I'm trying to study, woman! ;)

[chronolith.livejournal.com]

I just have to ask: what the fuck is wrong with engaging in debate?

The way that she and others have taken this 'linking with hostile intent' to mean is that any of the regular back and forth in fandom debates is 'hostile' because, zomg, someone doesn't agree with you. And if they don't agree with you, or don't go on and on about how it is perfectly acceptable to think/feel/fling poo the way you do you are flaming them. And, really, all I have to say about this is what the christ.

Maybe I've spent too much time on SA & in Helldump, but god damn. The internet is not a nice place where everyone agrees with you and admires your special snowflakeness. Also? When someone call you on your bullshit that's not hostility, that's calling you on your god damned bullshit. In some places it might even be considered an act of kindness.

But, really, where I am most troubled is the implication that debate by its very nature is hostile. I object to that. I object fiercely to that. But I am not hostile in my objection. I'm not sure she gets that because of the entire disagreeing with me = flaming me thing she's got going.

[melusina]

Yes, *this*! Particularly, But, really, where I am most troubled is the implication that debate by its very nature is hostile.