As promised, here is the new and I think improved comments policy.
It’s a bit long, but that’s in part because I’ve included sections that are designed to hopefully eliminate some of the contentious and often repetitive debates that have erupted in the past over the issue of ableism — in particular the use of words like “crazy” and “psycho” and the like. In the future, I am hoping that we can simply link new commenters to the policy (in particular, the “notes on ‘crazy'”) section and avoid a lot of the drama.
This policy is stricter towards those who “dig in” and insist on using problematic terms even though they’ve been informed of the rules about them; if they’ve been linked to the comments policy and persist in arguing or behaving badly, they will be banned. I’m also asking regulars to rein in their language in criticizing first-time offenders, and to not argue back with them if they persist. (There’s not much point to it, because offenders who persist will be banned.)
Not all of the changes and additions to the comments policy are in response to the ableism debates; I’ve also taken into consideration other controversies here, as well as comments policies on other blogs and broader discussions online about the best ways to moderate sites.
One other change: I will also put regular reminders in posts that all new commenters should read the comments policy before posting.
I am very much cognizant that many people who regularly read this blog — some of them who comment here regularly, some of whom are lurkers or only occasional commenters — are frustrated by the flame wars that have erupted here from time to time. I am frustrated as well, and troubled by the personal attacks I’ve seen in these discussions, directed not at trolls but at other commenters here in good faith.
I hope this new comment policy can end some of these flame wars before they start. If it doesn’t, I will (reluctantly) have to resort to shutting threads down and even suspending some commenters.
So here is the new comments policy. Discuss. Suggest improvements. Be civil.
Welcome prospective commenters!
Unmoderated internet forums quickly become shitheaps, so we have a few rules here. One thing to remember right off the bat: this is a feminist blog, designed (mostly) for a feminist audience. You don’t have to be a particular kind of feminist to post here, or even a feminist at all, but you do need to keep this in mind.
First comments from new commenters – or old commenters changing their name – automatically go to moderation. Regardless of your politics, if you start off here with a jerky or tediously argumentative comment, or if you trigger some other red flag for me, your first comment will never see the light of day.
MRAs, MGTOWs, PUAs, Red Pillers, “Equalists,” #GamerGaters and the like: you will be allowed to post here, if your first comment is amusing and/or not especially egregious, and if you more-or-less behave.
But I reserve the right to revoke your posting privileges at any time for any reason. You have a right to your opinions, but you don’t have a right to our attention. I am especially not interested in hearing your thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian (or some other target of angry dude harassment online).
Oh, and I sometimes set aside threads here as “no troll, no MRA” threads. If you post in one of them, even politely, you will be banned.
If you’re NOT an MRA or a troll, welcome!
You’re who this blog is really meant for. The comments too, provided you can participate in a generally constructive manner and can treat those you disagree with here with a certain degree of respect. Snark is fine; attacks and accusations and namecalling, not so much.
If someone – whether a troll or a regular commenter — is acting badly enough to possibly warrant a suspension or ban, EMAIL ME OR THE MODS. That’s the fastest and most effective way to get it taken care of.
Some slightly more specific guidelines.
No bigotry (misogyny, racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, body shaming, and so forth). No slurs. I’ve put the worst ones in the mod filter, so comments containing them won’t appear. If you want to discuss someone else’s use of a slur, disguise the word so your comment won’t get caught by the filter – though if you do this as a “clever” way to use a slur yourself, you may well find yourself banned.
No threats or violent comments. That includes telling someone to “die in a fire” or remarking that so-and-so would probably be better off dead. This rule is in effect even when you are talking about vile misogynistic shitbags.
No gratuitously nasty personal attacks. Yes, discussions can sometimes get a bit contentious. You’re not required to be perfectly nice all the time. Just don’t be a total asshole. And don’t drag your disagreements with someone into every thread.
No doxxing or posting of personal identifying information. Don’t spread rumors or speculate without evidence on the possible criminal activity of anyone else, whether this is another commenter or a misogynistic shitbag.
No rape apologism, pedo apologism, victim blaming, and so forth.
Don’t misgender anyone. If you do it accidentally, apologize and get it right the next time. If you do it deliberately, you’re out.
Don’t attack anyone for their sexual preferences or kinks, so long as they involve consenting adults. Refrain from weird or creepy sexual oversharing. Whatever your opinion of sex work, don’t disparage sex workers, or use words like “whore” as a pejorative. (Feel free to talk about MRAs who are using the word pejoratively.)
Don’t attack people for their religion or their lack of religion.
Don’t be a mansplainer or indeed any kind of ‘splainer. That is, don’t lecture anyone on something they know better than you, particularly if that thing is their lived experience.
Don’t post too much or try to make threads all about you. Try to avoid drama.
If you have personal issues you want to bring up, that’s fine! Use the troll-free open threads set aside for personal stuff. I’ll post a new one every couple of weeks. (I also start threads regularly to discuss big events in the news that people here are concerned about; feel free to email if you think something has happened that warrants one.)
No sockpuppeting. No lying. No misrepresentation of yourself or other people. No posting in bad faith – e.g. posting friendly comments here while trashing the site and/or the people on it elsewhere.
No pile-ons. If a number of people have already offered the same criticism of another commenter, don’t add more comments to the pile.
All this said, you don’t have to be perfect to comment here. As sociologist Katherine Cross (@Quinnae_Moon) has noted, very few people arrive “fully formed to the world of activism, the perfect agents of change, somehow entirely cognizant of the ever shifting morass of rules and prescribed or proscribed words, phrases, argot, and thought.”
I want this blog to be open to all those who genuinely oppose misogyny and bigotry more generally, even those who may slip up from time to time.
Still, if you’re new here, or new to feminism, and the regulars here are telling you to avoid certain words, or pointing out something that you’re doing that’s problematic, don’t take it as a personal attack (unless it is couched as a personal attack, in which case email me). If they tell you to avoid particular language, uh, avoid using that language, and don’t explain that in your country calling a person a something-or-other is perfectly fine.
You don’t have to agree with all the rules and/or cultural norms here; but while you’re commenting here you are expected to respect them. If you think a rule is really, really wrong or ridiculous, don’t argue about it in the comments; send me an email about it.
And this brings us to the issue of ableism, which has been a contentious one here.
NOTES ON “CRAZY”
Avoid “crazy” talk. That is, using words like “crazy,” “psycho” and the like to describe the terrible ideas and actions of people you don’t like. It’s stigmatizing to those dealing with mental illness, who really don’t need the extra indignity of being compared to MRAs. Try using words like “ridiculous” or “absurd” or “terrible” instead. Call someone an “asshole” instead of a “psycho.” Try to avoid internet diagnoses of mental illness, and don’t use autism or Aspergers as an excuse for someone’s shitty behavior.
Saying someone is “paranoid,” “delusional,” or “narcissistic” is fine, if you don’t mean it as a diagnosis; these are useful descriptive terms.
If there is evidence that someone you are discussing does indeed have a mental illness, and this is relevant to the discussion, it can be appropriate to bring this up, though you should keep in mind that a hunch is not evidence.
All this said, words like “crazy,” “psycho,” and the like are extremely common, and plenty of people (including feminists, progressives, and people dealing with mental illness themselves) use them casually without intending to stigmatize those with mental illnesses. There’s a difference between saying “crazy people should all be locked up” and “boy, Eraserhead sure was a crazy movie!”
If you’re someone who uses these terms casually, and doesn’t actually want all “crazy” people locked up, it doesn’t make you an evil person, but you need to refrain from doing it here. (Again, if you disagree with this policy, and feel a need to make this disagreement known, DO NOT ARGUE ABOUT IT IN THE COMMENTS, send me an email instead.)
If you are a regular commenter here, and someone uses a problematic term like “crazy” or “psycho,” remind them gently that this is not how we do things here, and send them a link to this comment policy (and possibly the Welcome Package as well). Unless what they have said is particularly egregious, do not insult them or question their motives.
If they argue, remind them that arguing about this rule is also not allowed. If they continue, do not argue back; send me or the mods a note and they will be banned. (This may take a little while, so be patient and please do not give in to the impulse to argue with them.)
If others have already reminded them of the rules, move on.
Again, if someone is acting really shitty in the comments, whether a troll or a regular, SEND THE MODS (or me) AN EMAIL.
One other thing to keep in mind:
MRAs read this blog. So I would strongly urge you to comment here using an anonymous handle that cannot be traced to your real identity. And to be very careful about revealing any sort of personal information on this blog. If you inadvertently post something using the wrong account, or that otherwise reveals personal information, let the mods know so we can remove those comments.
Oh, wait, one other other thought:
Enjoy yourself!
Not that it isn’t a sweet, sweet taste in music.
But anyhow, again – @Had To Be Said, the Discourse comment policy is lovely. I am too am in favor of “Short paragraphs, short enough to skim with an agreeable, upbeat tone”. It’s the writing style I try to emulate when I communicate!
But you’re also misrepresenting the conclusions of the study, viz a vie:
Which is to say that community cohesion is improved over long term by having explicit areas in which the norms of “respectful discourse” can be broken by all involved, so as to clear the air or allow for disagreements one can’t voice when trying to communicate friendly-like.
So if, say, example, randomly picked, no bias, We Hunted The Mammoth allows “trolls” comment on articles with the explicit purpose of pointing out that a) people will actually take the time out of their day to defend female slavery or forced prostitution and b) you don’t have to treat these people as if their ideas are valid or their thoughts “reasonable”, what that actually demonstrates is
c) Mocking fools with terrible ideas is okay, because terrible ideas are worth mocking. Creating an “Unprotected Class” of “Fucking idiot” is not a problem because, and here’s the kicker, you can join the Protected Class by “Not being a fucking idiot who earnestly argues that women have no souls, have no wills, and are only good for sandwiches”
Congratulations, the minimum bar for earning “protection” is assuming 50 % of the human race is human. That’s some hurdle to clear. Do I actually think MRA’s are all bad people? Yes, I guess I do. But I also think if they stopped believing women are evil harlots who seek to destroy all men they’d stop being bad people and we could all hang out and have sunshine and joy and rainbows!
So in the end – a good troll smackdown is exactly the right community practice in select communities to engender a better climate for everyone involved. Research and sociology even proves it.
Fibinachi,
Fair point. However, there’s a clear separation between the blog post and the comments. David could say as much in the rules. “While I attack Paul Elam and Roosh with the viciousness of an editorial cartoonist, community members here are not allowed to bash each other in the same way.” Or something like that.
David writes articles. One-way street.
The comments section is discussion. Multi-way street.
I think it makes perfect sense to have one standard for articles, but another standard for discussion. Especially since the history of discussion online cannot be avoided here. A blanket rule against personal attacks almost always is necessary to keep a forum alive.
Oh. So it’s not actually about civility and protection people from Unperson status, it’s about one person in charge being allowed to wield power and other people being barred from it?
Well I would hate to see vitriol flow from those unpeople who just aren’t meant to vituperate someone. It’s so boorish when people think their opinion matter and that their perspective in a multi-way discussion adds something. Far, far better to have an article attack someone viciously and have several people comment “good article”. And if someone mentioned in the article shows up to comment – which has happened multiple times – it also only makes sense that they wouldn’t be allowed to personally attack someone who write a vicious article about them. That’d be kind of rude, innit?
Hey, it’s only fair that David uses the blog that is his to post one way vicious editorials against people who then have no recourse but to do the same on their blogs. Dialogue is so chaotic, anyhow. It works better if every human communication was really just a long series of monologues read by despairing neutral third parties.
Obviously personal attacks shouldn’t be encouraged. I’m all for a rule that says “Oh, and don’t post vicious editorials about other commentators”. Is that really neccessary though? It might be. It’s entirely possible, this is the Internet after all, I just sort of assumed that “Don’t be a total asshole” covered that. But it’s a long step from there to a blanket rule that they’re not allowed and unreasonable, because at the end of the day WHTM isn’t a neutral encyclopedia with a balanced, objective stance on the philosophical and metaphysical positions of the male supremacist movement(s). It’s a site that tracks and mocks misogyny.
I think you might need a few attacks in there somewhere to manage the “mock” criterion.
Fibinachi,
Yep. I saw that.
1. Those “anything goes” forums are exceptions to the rule within the message board. A separate place defined by their lawlessness.
2. Importantly, everyone has the same (lack of) rules. I am unaware of any of the “anything goes” forums where the majority gets to bash only the minority at will.
3. The lawless forums by definition exclude everyone who does not want to inflict, receive or witness abuse. That’s a lot of people being excluded. On a giant message board, so be it. One forum doesn’t matter. But the whole thing?
In theory, yes, “Only bash MRAs” would work. But in practice it doesn’t. Everybody is someone else’s MRA or troll or sea lion or gaslighter or liar etc. It just doesn’t work in practice.
I think there’s a reason that the Unprotected Class idea is pretty much never seen anywhere.
Oh embuggerance, I coded my sarcastic tag wrong. Please insert it after the third paragraph.
@ Had to be said
The thing to bear in mind is that the raison d’etre of this site is the mockery of misogyny. As you point out, that’s what a lot of the articles are about. Commentators will also join in with the mockery of the subject of the article; often quite vigorously.
If however someone in the comments section supports the viewpoints being mocked (i.e. they are themselves promoting misogyny) then it seems an artificial distinction if they cannot also be mocked.
There is of course a danger that they may not actually be supporting misogyny and have merely expressed themselves in a clumsy way or been ignorant (in the non pejorative sense) and there is a false positive identification of trolling. The risk of that however will be mitigated by considering the context of their post and their history.
Where there is no posting history to provide content the risk is enhanced of course but it’s perhaps understandable where people raise a point that’s often an MRA cliché that people will be suspicious as to intent. Tone may assist in differentiating between a genuine attempt at initiating a dialogue and trolling. To use my evolution analogy again consider these two hypothetical posts:
“Hey guys, I’ll admit I don’t know a lot about evolution and I must confess I just can’t see how eyes could develop naturally. Might someone be kind enough to give an explanation a layperson can understand?”
“If evolution is more than a “theory” then how do you explain eyes then eh?”
Essentially the same point is being raised but the responses are likely to be quite different.
Fibi, your patience is awe inspiring.
…or, rather, your perceived patience?
Alan, you too.
@Had To Be Said
Haha, sorry for bringing it back up again! I just assumed you missed it, since you didn’t mention it. It’s kind of important though, because:
See, the thing is, WHTM has a header that goes:
So this is clearly one of those designated areas of general lawlessness, a wild frontier of comment space, the vast wide places of words that slither, slide and are both snarky and snide.
Which is why no one is stipulating that the various “trolls”, whatever kind they are, are not allowed to comment back. Actually – and if this is glib, I apologize – the only one who suggested that was you by saying they shouldn’t be allowed to comment at all. Robbing them of any way to defend their views is exactly how you get a large group bashing a small group, especially if that larger group is spearheaded by vicious editorials that are strictly one way.
That’d be a serious problem. But because trolls aren’t banned and are allowed to talk and are allowed to be mocked and mock right back (and they do! I still have fond memories of that one fitness forum who wanted to do to my opinion as they wanted to forcefully do to my anatomy. Good times, and kinda chuckle-worthy)
Yeah, it’s the sad truth of the world that you have to accept some areas come with baggage. If you choose to spend your time reading and commenting on a site dedicated to mocking misogyny, I think it might be assumed that some terrible choice words about female anatomy might be seen and a few flickering attempts at shitty ditties to mock people’s preferences crop up.
I mean, it’s kind of weird to want to read about someone mocking opinions and making slight fun of MRA’s and so but then be suddenly squeamish about other people doing the same. That’s again kind of discourse stiffling.
@contrapangloss
Patience, smatience. If I was patient, Fibtopia would not have lost the Go war with their mortal enemies you *fiend*
I lost my comment because my internet connection dropped and I had to restart. 🙁
Anyway, the shorter version is,
Asking us to be civil to bigots, having a neutral stance towards them is effectively agreeing with the bigots.
HTBS is a troll. A troll who hates that there’s uppity women here. A troll who wants to sow discord and silence us.
I truly don’t know how anyone can disagree.
Please David, don’t let this person have any kind of say in what the community standard should be. They are a troll who is using the nice on the surface notion of civil discourse to argue in bad faith.
I don’t see it. If they are promoting misogyny, then banhammer. Heaping abuse on them until they leave is a terrible way to handle it. Just ban.
Banning isn’t abuse. So you can have a forum where you either ban someone or you treat them as a person and there are no other options. Trying to find that middle ground where abuse is desired or necessary…I just don’t see it working out well for anyone.
Just ban. It’s a discussion among equals until you demonstrate that you don’t deserve to be in it. At which point ban. Abuse never has to figure into it in any way.
noooo, my words, what is happen
But
becausetrolls aren’t banned and are allowed to talk and are allowed to be mocked and mock right backYeah, but on the sliding scale of “Civility to Abuse”, I have to admit that “complete silencing and removal of voice, discarding someone from the discussion and ignoring their future input” rates way, way higher than “laughing at their opinions”.
And if you’re worried about the potential moral morass that might happen if you allow people to be a little rough (but not total assholes), I have to wonder if “Enforcing a strict unity of thought by quashing any dissenting opinion that the majority does not like with bans” isn’t way worse.
You treat people as people until they prove they’re total ravenous dick-works hungry for your brainpeace and then you laugh at them until they stop being dickworms. The core tenet of respect for other human beings is treating their internal world as if it has validity in and of itself – if you toss bans around willy nilly, you’re way more abusive than anyone else.
Plus, you know, as Alan also said, if you ban someone the first time they say something you don’t like?
Whereas if you write a silly poem that matches their name with plate and plaid and plain, you get to feel either vindicated or learn that someone isn’t actually a dick. Don’t be an abuser, Has To Be Said! Let other people have their (terrible) opinions!
Actually just banning them outright isn’t that great an idea. First of all you still have the chance of false positives, especially if only one person has to make that judgment call. Secondly, it’s actually really useful to have the trolls come in here, make their bullshit arguments, and then have the arguments either logically or mathematically disproved where other people who are perhaps on the edge can see them being shut down.
HTBS, I’m not convinced you’re for real, but if you are: If you disagree with the fundamental ways this blog operates, this blog is probably not the place for you. You are allowed to disagree, but it is profoundly bad manners to show up somewhere and tell everyone that they should be doing everything differently, like visiting someone’s house and immediately telling them that their decor is all wrong.
To state the obvious, if all you ever do is complain, no one here will like you. Particularly waltzing in with that incredibly self-righteous handle. You could be dropping the truthiest of truth bombs, but if every single one is either criticizing us or defending the assholes we’re mocking, you’ll never be “that person who drops truth bombs;” you’ll always be “that person who complains all the time.”
(Sorry for referring to you as “he” previously. That was my mistake.)
I’ve been hesitant to weigh in about Had To Be Said. I actually thought you made some good points from time to time and maybe weren’t a troll. The thing is, HTBS, that all I know about your own ideology is the following:
1. You thought you had to begin commenting in this forum by being abusive, because otherwise you would be abused (which maybe actually implies a great deal about your ideology).
2. You thought it was unreasonable to call the police on Janet Bloomfield because of her video, which maybe would have been a fair point, except that you completely based your argument on “she’s talking about dealing with an intruder to her home” and ignored the “she’s fantasizing about killing random possible feminists who didn’t act aggressively” part of the argument.
3. You’ve made it pretty clear how you think a comments section should be run (or at least how WE should run one, which may not apply to you at all).
4. I’m probably forgetting something, but I doubt it was especially enlightening about your personal ideology or anything you really care about.
You haven’t shared much of anything about anything that you personally think or believe about feminism or misogyny. I’m okay with people playing devil’s advocate, but if you truly have any interest in being a part of this community, and not a troll, then share a few things you agree with. Open up. Be personal. Otherwise, and I almost never, ever call anyone a troll. EVER. But you are here to do nothing but argue, for the sake of argument, and I think that is the definition of a troll.
Well, that and try to shape our comments policy, shame us for mocking misogynists, and try to twist the last few comment threads so that she is the blameless victim of a commenting bourgeoisie gone wrong.
I’m done with her. She wants to be banned outright? I will email the Dark Lord and ask him to oblige, and then I am going to ignore her altogether.
…heh, heh, heh. 🙂
In all honesty though, my victory was probably only due to your lack of sleep. I had the advantage of being in the ‘earlier’ time zone, and only being up 2 hours past my bedtime, instead of “that time where you look at the clock and realize going to bed is pointless because you have to wake up in an hour”.
“and then I am going to ignore her altogether.”
Normally I feel like ignoring bad behavior is not the best way to get it to stop, but in this case I agree with WWTH that she has everyone arguing with one another way too much and all of the points have been rehashed countless times, so I was about to suggest the same (even though I know I’m fairly new and don’t post a lot, so I don’t have much of a say in it).
Sorry, everyone, I didn’t realize my mistake. From now on we’ll be following Wikipedia’s example on everything. Does anyone here know how to get wordpress to post a giant picture of Jimmy Wales begging for money atop every page?
Or, wait, maybe we should handle disagreements the way these guys do, by putting on feather tuxedos and flapping our arms around.
I don’t know, maybe we should look at another example of how something very different than this blog handles arguments
HTBS, as fibinachi has already pointed out, this blog handles comments differently than a lot of blogs ON PURPOSE.
This blog is about mocking misogyny. Misogynists who come here looking for a fight should probably expect to be mocked (and oftentimes rebutted in great detail as well). Why would they expect to be treated any differently than the way I treat them in my posts? And why would I ban the regular commenters for doing the same things I do in my posts?
Given that most of the trolls are in direct violation of one or more of the site’s rules, I could just never let any of their comments through; that’s what a lot of blogs do. But the commenters here generally enjoy battling with trolls, so I let them through, banning them only when they get abusive and/or tedious.
If the trolls don’t like this policy, they could always, you know, go somewhere else. It’s a big internet.
I don’t run the comment section for the trolls. I run it for the people who are here on good faith and who generally support the aims of the blog. It’s not a “free speech zone.” It’s a private party.
I started off this blog by letting trolls pretty much post whatever they wanted. Pretty much all of them ended up acting like abusive assholes.
HTBS, unlike a lot of the commenters here. I don’t think you’re a troll. And I don’t think you’re wrong about everything.
But you are argumentative and accusatory and one of the splainiest splainers I’ve run across in a long long time and I’m thinking you need to take a break from this site for at least a few days so the rest of us can sort out the issues in peace. So take a break or I’ll ban you.
All,
I just noticed the pronoun confusion about me. For the record, I am a man.
I knew it!
Said everybody at once.
Fibinachi,
Just so you know, the “I saw that” wasn’t snark. I was referring to the stuff you were quoting from the Discourse site. I hadn’t seen your follow up yet. So no snark intended at all. I should do better at indicating which post I am referring to.
Re: The trolls can attack back. Sure, but it still creates an Unprotected Class in a way those lawless forums do not. It’s a pretty significant difference, I think.
I disagree. Banning is not abuse. Especially if the rules spell out what gets you banned. Keeping someone around for the express purpose of abusing them is much worse than banning. Especially if you know you will end up banning them.
Has anyone ever been abused into having better ideas?
weirwoodtreehugger,
I think bigots should be banned the instant they reveal themselves as bigots. There is no reason to go through a ritual of abuse and humiliation first.
Please provide evidence for this accusation or retract it. It is not fair for you to try to make me defend myself against a charge of misogyny when I have not given any reason for you to make it. I’ve never done anything like this to you, and I wouldn’t.
isidore13,
Sure, depending on severity, a warning first. That gets down to the level of a judgment call for the mods. I’m not really making a proposal at that specific level. Just advocating that the standards of civil discourse don’t get suspended for anyone. The rules apply to everyone, no exceptions.
Yeah, that sounds great. That’s how it’s supposed to work. And it doesn’t in any way require subjecting them to personal attacks. If a “troll” is obeying the rules, I think what you describe is exactly what should happen. And will probably happen a lot more if abuse is not an option.
Belladonna993,
Ignored? I think you missed the part where I condemned Bloomfield’s video in even stronger terms than David did. I called it creepy and scary and I Can’t Even and more. And I meant it. My skin crawled. You are correct that I made an argument against calling the cops first, but it actually seemed kind of urgent. It really seemed like people were going to call the police. That could easily have led to an ugly situation where the MRAs then try to call the cops on Mammoth folks (Bloomfield does not have a reputation for mild reactions). The end of this is swatting.
You’re incorrect that I haven’t shared my beliefs about subjects like misogyny. I have. (Against it, for the record.) Also homophobia and ableism. And the danger of MRAs. And my sympathy/revulsion/sympathy for MGTOWs. I admit that I haven’t made a big show of signaling my ideology like a peacock, but that’s honestly because I really don’t like doing that. It makes me feel like I’m begging for approval.
In fact, I’m least likely to signal ideological agreement when under pressure by a mob. I don’t like to beg. I don’t like to pull the “I’m a good person” routine to buttress an argument or escape abuse. It’s possible that some “trolls” who have been smackdowned out of here have the same personality trait as I. They just couldn’t bring themselves to beg for mercy, even though they have 95% or more agreement with the folks here.
I have very little doubt that many of those who have habitually abused me in this thread agree with my positions on most political and social issues. But I’m still not going to lay out my bona fides here, talking about what groups I am in, campaigns I have supported, what I have marched for, etc. Because it would feel like begging for mercy. I know the bad-faith assumptions made will be the opposite of who I really am, but still, I’m not going to beg.
(Not that I’m saying you are asking me to. I don’t think you are.)
And, hey, thanks for being nice, despite your suspicion. And thanks for sharing your thoughts about how you’ve been thinking about me.
actually
i’m kinda down with the penguin thing, now that you mention it.
(Note, just to be completely clear, my sarcasm at the start of that last comment was directed entirely at HTBS.)
It’s pretty clear that HTBS’ last comment got ninjaed by mine, so I won’t ban him for that, but no more for at least a few days, dude. If you return, try to be a little less annoying.
David can we respond to that last one? Or would you prefer if we just let it go?