Friday, July 20, 2007

Words can hurt

This just hit me like a kick in the stomach. Wanda Watkin's cousin comments on Big Blue Wave:


I just wanted to thank you for your support....Wanda is my cousin and when my family and I came across CC's blog about her today, I felt sick. I fail to see how crass and hateful comments foster positive dialog and debate about the issues...I only hope that my cousin doesn't come across CC's disgusting rant.

-Monica

Well, Monica. Your cousin may come across that garbage someday, but if she does please let her know that the vast majority of Canadian bloggers support the troops and their families.

Warren Kinsella was outraged too, and said that "just when you think the blogosphere can’t get any more hateful, someone comes along to surprise you" (July 18). However, I believe most bloggers are decent folks. Hate is everywhere; not just on the internet.


Mr. Erl's post, "An End to the Cynical Debate" contains several thoughtful comments (Warning - please don't read anything by 'Ti-guy' or CWTF):

Anonymous said...

As a serving soldier, I find the crass comments of the various lefties like Ti-Guy, cherniak_wtf et al very offensive, seeing as they are coming from individuals who would probably not have the fortitude to join us. But guess what, sunshines - my job is to make sure you can all spout whatever nonsense you like without anyone beating you up or worse. Our job is even to defend the rights of a guy like CC. We can't choose who we defend.

That being said, whether or not you agree with the war, respect for the dead and the grieving is a basic courtesy that should be part and parcel of civilization. To see so many "progressives" act like loud-mouthed, spoiled children makes me wonder whether our progress has reached the downwards slope of the evolutionary curve. In my father's day, people would have shown a modicum of decency, whether they agreed with the politicians or not. Those of you who oppose the war, take your quarrel to the politicians who got us there. Leave our dead and grieving alone.
July 19, 2007 9:08 PM


And Paul makes some great observations 10:14 PM:

I think that my position on some of this is different from most bloggers. Here is my take on the likes of CC:

Blogging is a public forum; in most cases blog posts are published for the general public. In many ways then, blogs are no different than a magazine or newspaper as their words are made available to an unlimited audience. CC denigrated a real person, naming her in print, yet he himself remains anonymous. Not only is this cowardly, but it steps well outside normally expected bounds of free speech. Let me explain.

Imagine if CC's rhetoric and profanity were published openly under his real identity or by a magazine ... there would and could be court action and other forms of counter action, all legal, all based on the rights and freedom of a civil democratic society and laws that govern it.

The only thing, as far as I see it, is that blogging gives people anonymity, and therefore they can behave in ways they never would outside the cyber community. They avoid the repercussions of their words ... repercussions both legal and personal.

So are they really practicing the right of free speech ... they are faceless digital entities who are not even citizens of any country until they have location, name, and number ... they aren’t marching, protesting, singing, or doing anything in the normal sense of things, and I'm not sure that CC, who is no more than a digital entity, has any rights of free speech as a pixel...


Read the whole thing. Paul expands on his thoughts here. And Kate provides the reason why we shouldn't feed the trolls.

Now I'm going to follow my own advice and ignore that particular 'faceless digital entity' and a few others.


* * * *

Final Update: I would just like to address some crazy fabrication out there that I suggested a blogburst. Nothing could be further from the truth, although it is possible that some scatter-brained dipsticks misread my comment here at 7:40 am where I questioned Mr. Erl's call to arms for 'Bloggers of Canada' to all stand together and demand an apology. My comment was:

"As you can see from the link that Mr. Erl provided, I have been a victim of CC's little smear campaigns as well, although this one aimed at Mrs. Watkins is beyond the pale.

The remarks in this post aimed at a woman who lost her son in Afghanistan are just sick. I just wonder if a blogburst against his post might feed his warped little ego though."


So if you read that carefully, you can see that I am questioning the wisdom of a blogburst as an effective way to handle the situation. Some people have taken the whole thing out of context to try to prove... I'm not sure what?

If you're going to go to the bother of starting a flame-war folks, at least get your facts straight.

Pathetic.

36 comments:

Cherniak_WTF said...

Okay JJ, what's offensive about:

Erl (if I maybe so bold), how about defending your ideas instead of what looks like someone crying because some don't agree with him.

If you want "honest" debate, how about showing that you are capable of rising above talking points and obtuse thinking so prevalent by the blogging whores?

You talk about debate but then go on to state that you will not engage CC...

While you demand an apology, I will continue to think that it's a silly request...
---------------

Joanne (True Blue) said...

blogging whores?

So that was in your least offensive post...

The sad thing is that if CC had actually stuck to the issue and avoided pillorying a woman who had just lost her son in Afghanistan, he may have had a legitimate point to make. But sadly, he choose the low road - against all common decency.

ootpoot said...

If you were Ann Coulter's cousin, would that justify supporting her inflammatory lies about the 9-11 widows?

It is quite apparent from even a quick reading of the Canadian Cynic commentary that he is using a writing style called "satire" to highlight the two-faced obsequieousness of the rightwing's support of Coulter-style rabid attack dog moonbattery.

You seem to have easily slipped into the self-righteous whining "Boo hoo, think of the children" defense that particularly characterises the fundamentalist hypocrites.

Not buying it, JJ.

Anonymous said...

Well, well, well....my little pal cherniak_wtf...

If you want "honest" debate, how about showing that you are capable of rising above cheap insults, foul language and ad hominem attackes. See - it's pretty clear you trolls aren't interested in debate, just in people rising to the bait. And you're a master at it, cherny, a real master baiter.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Ootpoot, you have made a bizarre comparison there with Coulter. It's not even worth addressing.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

And just so you all know, I will delete any comment on a whim.

No reason. No apologies. My blog, my rules.

SouthernOntarioan said...

Ootpoot, cherniak_wtf:

Canadian Cynic told a grieving mother who'd lost her son to 'fuck off' and to go fight and die in Afghanistan herself if she wanted his death to have some meaning.

HELLO!?! Do you guys have any sense of common decency?

When a grieving father attacks the government for not paying enough money for funeral costs you guys cheer him on. When a grieving mother begs Canadians to support the worthwhile mission we are taking part in under a UN mandate, you guys tell her to 'fuck off'.

Cherniak_WTF said...

JJ, apart from that bit of profanity (and why did you assume it was directed at you?), I note that you also don't address some of the issues.

PS - it was neither my "most offensive", nor the cleanest...

Cherniak_WTF said...

What Watkins wrote was:

"We don't want any family to experience the terrible pain of losing their son or daughter, but if Canada and NATO abandon the Afghan people, the sacrifices Lane, our family and others have made will be for nothing,'' Watkins said Monday.

"They deserve your respect. In supporting them, you'll make our loss much easier to bear.''


This is a political statement. I understand that she is trying to find a meaning to her son's death.

CC pointed out (and I agree) that in itself that is not justification for the War in Afghanistan. We can debate why we are in Afghanistan later.

The debate then changed when CC told Wanda to shuffle off. The faux outrage from some is refreshing in it's hypocrisy because these are the same kind of comments the right has been dishing out for years. It seems to be a reversal of roles.

SO - I've never encouraged the grieving father to ask for more money.
My point of view is that if you join the military, there maybe a chance that you will die in a combat or other mission. That is the reality of it.

Leigh Patrick Sullivan said...

I just surfed CC's site for the first time to see what the buzz was about. Turns out, not much.

All I saw was a blogger whose site is built on insulting others; someone who claims to be 'snarky' but, in reality, is just a bitter amateur. What else would you expect from a leftist?

...and leave Ann Coulter alone. She speaks more sense than CC ever has.

Kingston said...

Cherniak WTF. See there is the problem, If Cynic had said,"to shuffle off", your words not mine, then this entire thing would of been avoided, I do not believe that anyone in here has a problem with CC telling Mrs. Watkins to be careful when she treaded into a political statement, or even to debate that she had crossed the line into making a political statement which I do not believe she had any intent of doing, it is totally in the manner in which he did so. CC should apologize for his profanity.

Kingston said...

I have a suggestion, and I would like to hear other thoughts on it. The vast majority of our little blogging family that we all surf to belong to BT,Liblog, or PBlog. Can we not request the leaders of these three main entities hold a meeting and form some kind of common ground rules that will be adhered to, even to sitting up a non-partisan little disciplinary board to govern the common blogs. i.e. penalties could be, some form of censure such as removal from blog rolls, etc. I think it could be easily setup if Mr.Taylor, Mr. Cherniak, and not sure who runs Pblog were agreeable.

Cherniak_WTF said...

kinston, point well made about Watkins.
I wonder if you will point this out when someone on the BT steps over the line (whatever it may be).

I don't take offence at profanity, but I do watch it here out of respect for JJ (it's one ground rule she has).
I'm not for any form of censure when it comes to language. I don't think that we could agree on common rules - too much room for abuse. Cherniak (I"m cherniak_wtf) would likely ensure that I never get on the Liblogs because I mostly think his views are immature and idiotic. I find many of the views on the BT to be reprehensible and hateful - would they get censured?

PGP said...

See Jo ..... I told you that the nasty little buggers would be loving the idea that you suggested a boycott of one of their hive mates!!!
They'll all be congratulating themselves now on how clever brave and strong they are......

Once you've mastered the ability to actually ignore them you'll be better off I think.

Kingston said...

Cherniak WTF, As to pointing it out on blogs I have many times including Garth.ca, SDA etc, asking people to mellow out and keep it civil. my concern is that soon, and I mean real soon someone is going to cross the line of no return and big brother/sister is going to start to try and regulate the blogs which will turn them into nothing but a on line letter to the editors.
I know that it could be a taunting task and I am not concerned about profanity in the general since, i.e what the &*^% was he thinking, but the use of it in personal attacks such as on CC recently. I think that it is worth considering, call it a code of conduct for blog administrator because in the near future it it doesn't change they are going to be held accountable anyway. As to Cherniak, your right, sometimes he fire from the hip without aiming his gun, but I find it amusing and I have never had him not post one of my comments when disagreeing with him, Maybe because I refuse to attach anyone personal, and to this include calling all politicians by their proper names, no matter how much I disagree with them.

Kingston said...

P.S. that should of been daunting, not taunting, and lets be honest, a lot of the blogs out there are starting to look like QP in the HofC.LOL

Cherniak_WTF said...

kingston, I can see myself having being able to debate (and disagree) with you because of the way you approach the exchanges. Sure we may rarely agree but there will always be a degree of civility.

I find PGP approach to be egregious to any discourse. It's remarkably childish and self-congratolory. It makes little sense in the context here (or any context to be honest) and seems to be a dialogue he's having with himself..Like moths to a flame, this is the level of discourse that seem rampant from the BT.

I'd really hate for big brother/sister to start regulating any more than they already are. Call it the Libertarian in me... I don't think that a code of conduct is the answer - I'm not sure that there is one....

Kingston said...

Cherniak WTF, There is a perfect example of what we all have to stop, you made your point concerning PGP with your first line, you then went on to call his post childish which just discourages any improvement in debate, Lets be honest, most of the blogs are not ever going to be place where differences of opinion are going to be tolerated to any great extremes( nature of the blogging beast). An example is My Blahg, where if you do not agree with Robert your attacked. I think I might of lead you down the wrong path with my Code of Conduct or explained it badly, what I was suggesting is the three orgs get together and basically say to each of its members after coming up with some rules about civility, that personal attacks will not be tolerated, all will be treated with respect, and Non Political figures will be cut some slack. Once that person steps firmly into the realm of political activism, the the gloves are off. The owner/host of the blog will be held responsible and the inclusion in these three orgs could while be the penalties. Most political blogs as I see it are drawing there traffic from these orgs and by the side bars of other blogs. I do not know if it would have any long lasting effect but it is only a matter of time until someone somewhere launches a lawsuit, and I know that I do not have the funds for a Freedom of Speech Defense and I am sure most bloggers do not either as the recent AGWN just illustrated.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Kingston, I like your Code of Conduct idea. You might consider following up with Stephen Taylor et al.

I'm not sure which blogrolls CC is affiliated with if any, but he sure did cross the line this time and has lost a great deal of credibility (if he ever had any to lose in the first place.)

SouthernOntarioan said...

The problem with blogs in general is as I think kingston pointed out is that most blogs thrive on the controversy and rarely involve rational debate. For the most part they are just echo chambers that reinforce the reader's previous views.

Just imagine how much traffic Canadian Cynic will get because of his rant. There'll be a lot who'll disagree and think he's full of it, but there'll also be a lot who think he's right to speak to her the way he did.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

For the most part they are just echo chambers that reinforce the reader's previous views

Yes, that's true for the most part, but here, I welcome dissenting points of view as long as there aren't any personal attacks of a vicious nature.

The problem is that emotions get going and then the brain stops working.

Kingston said...

I think more people should use the email rule of write, spell check, go do something else for five minutes come back read it, take out all the stuff you do not mean to say, delete the emotion, and then hit send.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Kingston, really good advice for anything to do with the internet.

There have been a couple of times I've hit that 'send' button, only to realize two seconds later it wasn't what I had wanted to say at all. You almost want to try to grab it back in transit.

There are a few blogs (too few) where you are forced to wait at least five seconds in preview mode before the program will accept 'publish'. I wish blogger would adopt that format.

Cherniak_WTF said...

Cherniak WTF, There is a perfect example of what we all have to stop, you made your point concerning PGP with your first line,
I could use but he started it.... but I'm sure that's not what you want to hear...
I'm offended that you did not chastise PGP but instead decided focus on me as if I was the guilty party.

To some, I may have steeped over the line but part of my reaction is due to months abuse of this kind by PGP. No matter how civil the discourse, I don't see the general trend changing.


A code of conduct has to be enforced by the blog owners. JJ has stated that she does not like vulgarity - most have done their best to oblige her. SHe has also stated “And just so you all know, I will delete any comment on a whim. No reason. No apologies. My blog, my rules.” - how it that supposed to foster debate if there is so little respect as to what maybe written?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

how it that supposed to foster debate if there is so little respect as to what maybe written?

I appreciate that you respect the no-vulgarity rule.

I have lost patience with a few "guests", and will simply delete anything they post. You are on the thin edge. ;)

But for some reason, you do have some civility in you, and therefore I let your comments stand. There are a few that are so totally foul and negative that I don't even want to see their names on my blog.

Kingston said...

Chernik wtf, I thought by saying you had made your point was sufficient concerning his point and implied my agreement. As to what PGP posted it seemed more like a personal comment to JJ, then an attempt to contribute to the debate.

liberal supporter said...

I appreciate that you respect the no-vulgarity rule.
It was difficult though, during the thread about "we're not having enough kids". My proposed solution would have been deleted.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

My proposed solution would have been deleted.

Ta-dum! Now I'm the straight man.

Cherniak_WTF said...

JJ: Let's be PC here "Ta-dum! Now I'm the straight woman."

Joanne (True Blue) said...

CWTF - Ha! That thought had crossed my mind. ;)

Mac said...

cherniak_wtf said... "Like moths to a flame, this is the level of discourse that seem rampant from the BT."

The level of discourse from Blogging Tories is much higher, more respectful and tolerant than any of the leftist blogs... but that's not hard to do.

While you often blather about debate, c_wtf, I've yet to see you assemble a meaningful, logical argument. Take the Should MP's pay a price for quitting? thread... Your "answer" is a simple "ad hominem" attack on the author. Bravo!! Wonderful debate... NOT!

I'm sure CC is patting himself on the back for having upset so many people... and I'm certain he loves the comparisons being made between CC and Coulter. Might I point out one critical difference? Ann Coulter has published several best selling books. CC? Not so much...

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Ann Coulter has published several best selling books. CC? Not so much...

On the other hand, who knows when he/she tries to stay anonymous.

Cherniak_WTF said...

While you often blather about debate, c_wtf, I've yet to see you assemble a meaningful, logical argument. Take the Should MP's pay a price for quitting? thread... Your "answer" is a simple "ad hominem" attack on the author.

Odd how you’d like a debate on “Should MP's pay a price for quitting?” and seem to take offense when I point out that the framing of the question was a biased one. You accuse me of launching an Ad hominem attack on an article that was basically a thinly veiled attack on Liberals and now you’d like me to address the question she asked? That’s ratter of odd of you. I have a suspicious feeling that the author does not care herself, she just repeated a few Connie talking points and decided that is was enough to bash the Liberals. You see, if she really wanted to talk about the cost of these kinds of elections, she would have stayed party neutral. Instead, because it looks like the Liberals are disproportionally quitters at the moment, she used that excuse for her tirade. You’ll notice that I did not attack the author, but her ideas and the way she presented them.
Your sanctimonious indignation, while maybe genuine, rings hollow in the context of her article. If you want to debate this, I suggest that you ask the question on your blog. I will gladly participate although….
Well it seems that you don’t think much of bloggers unless they have some kind of book out. By your arguments it is perfectly acceptable to spout garbage if you are published? Are Ann Coulter’s view more permissible or valid because they are published?.... Is that your benchmark? Don’t talk about the underlying ideas then. Harry Potter must be a god in your household….. he’s amazingly popular.

Mac said...

Odd how you’d like a debate on “Should MP's pay a price for quitting?” and seem to take offense when I point out that the framing of the question was a biased one.

I took offense? How amusing. I merely point out your fallacies. You didn’t say much about framing the question. You simply attacked her credibility (the very definition of an ad hominem fallacy) because you didn’t like the fact she referred to the numerous Liberals who’ve been jumping ship... including those who did so with the stated intention of enabling a couple of failed leadership candidates have a chance of being elected in “safe” ridings.

You accuse me of launching an Ad hominem attack on an article that was basically a thinly veiled attack on Liberals and now you’d like me to address the question she asked? That’s ratter of odd of you.

How odd that you have such a fascination with the word “odd” and appear to be trying to use it as a label. You dance nicely but you still haven’t answered the question which I originally posed: would you apply those same lofty standards to left-biased journalists when they attack Conservatives? Somehow, I doubt it.

I have a suspicious feeling that the author does not care herself, she just repeated a few Connie talking points and decided that is was enough to bash the Liberals. You see, if she really wanted to talk about the cost of these kinds of elections, she would have stayed party neutral. Instead, because it looks like the Liberals are disproportionally quitters at the moment, she used that excuse for her tirade.

So the journalist is biased because she pointed out it’s going to be costly to run byelections for a bunch of Liberals jumped ship? That’s interesting. I didn’t notice any reference to the Liberals being quitters in the article or even an inference of such. Apparently, you’re much more sensitive to that kind of thing than I am. If I acted like you have on every left-biased journalist’s use of Liberal talking points to bash the Conservatives, there wouldn’t be enough hours in the day to write all my objections. Where were your objections when the MSM were all weeping along with Dion because PMSH hasn’t agreed to run all the byelections at the same time to save money for the Liberal Party?

You’ll notice that I did not attack the author, but her ideas and the way she presented them.

“Personnally Licia would have more credibility if her article was not an excuse to bash Liberals....” This looks like an attack on the author to me. Text book ad hominem fallacy.

Your sanctimonious indignation, while maybe genuine, rings hollow in the context of her article. If you want to debate this, I suggest that you ask the question on your blog. I will gladly participate although….

Funny how when I point out your fallacies, I’m suddenly transformed to being sanctimonious and indignant! I didn’t feel a thing! Is there something wrong with Joanne’s blog? I’m sure she doesn’t mind hosting this conversation. Correct me if I’m wrong, Jo...

Well it seems that you don’t think much of bloggers unless they have some kind of book out. By your arguments it is perfectly acceptable to spout garbage if you are published? Are Ann Coulter’s view more permissible or valid because they are published?.... Is that your benchmark? Don’t talk about the underlying ideas then. Harry Potter must be a god in your household….. he’s amazingly popular.

Is your main source of exercise jumping to conclusions? I only pointed out a rather pointed difference between Coulter and CC... Millions of people have paid good money to read Coulter’s works; such is not the case for CC. Any further conclusions you extrapolated from that very basic point are your own... and I hate to break this to you but Harry Potter is a fictional character created by J. K. Rowlings, a British author.

Cherniak_WTF said...

Talk about "not getting it" mac...

BTW, many consider Coulter to be a fiction author...

Did I attack her credibility? Don't be silly. I've stated that her question is phrased in such a way that it's a hollow diatribe against Liberals.

I'm glad that you are true to : It doesn't have to make sense, does it?
Indeed.....

Mac said...

There you go, folks...

Keep this thread in mind the next time you see c_wtf bemoaning lack of debate on Blogging Tories.