IF YOU ARE READING THIS
you have probably come across something I've posted on someone else's Blogger account and decided to go looking for more info on me, for whatever reason. But you won't find much info about me here. Or anywhere. This is just so I can post on accounts that don't allow anonymous comments. (edit: and, I guess, post a few thoughts I probably wouldn't dare to speak with my name attached.)
I've recently been made aware of When Fangirls Attack, a site that links to discussions about feminism as it relates to comic-book fandom. I found it kind of randomly, by reading someone else's blog who linked to it. And I kinda wanted to enter the discussion, but seeing some of the discussion, I was kind of nervous. Because some of the reaction to people who disagree with some other people is kinda creepy.
Blame "nenene". Whoever the heck she is, I noticed that as I browsed around, if someone on their blog talked about a different person who didn't agree with the standard feminist/sexism party line, there she was to call them a "misogynistic troll" or something, especially if they were a guy. Maybe it was just a coincidence, but then again, I remember the name from seeing it a lot. She's not the only one, either. Some people seem to make it their duty to try and beat these people down by remote because they disagree.
SOME BLOGGER: Gosh, that Mad Thinker Scott annoys me.
NENENE: He is a misogynistic troll, I hate him too! Ignore him!
SOME OTHER BLOGGER: What is the deal with Rational Mad Man?
NENENE: I know! Ignore the woman-hating troll!
It's like every time I read a post that talks ABOUT someone else, there she is to stick her own dagger in. I mean, WTF? Is all some people do going around on other forums trying to belittle people who disagree? And not even directly against THEM, it's like gossiping behind someone's back.
So maybe all feminist comics fans aren't like that, I hope not, but enough are just a bit on the scary-obsessive side of things that I don't want to use my real name or anything around them. Yeah, I really need to disagree with someone using a real name and then have some wingnut go around slagging me on every other blog that mentions my name.
So I've made "Anon, A Mouse", an identity I can use and, if I need to, abandon. Am I lacking in guts and courage? You bet. Try to tell me I have no reason for concern. Go on.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
The irony, of course, is that I make it my business to be a mysognistic troll, but all she ever calls me is "sperm bank."
Mysoginistic troll!
Hm. I guess you just do what you can.
I went through a period of blasting & mocking what people said until I got the hammer dropped on me, & I realized I was as big an idiot as they are.
I just decided to accept that I'm still shaping my opinions, & if I say something stupid & am called on it, maybe I'll learn from it.
Your mileage may vary.
Hi mouse! Two things:
1. I assume that you're talking about me even though you spelled my name wrong.
2. Can you link to an actual example of that cute little script you made?
Oh heck, since I'm impatient, here, I'll do the work for you:
http://brokenporcelaindoll.blog.co.uk/2007/08/29/so_so_true~2891577
I commented because the post was awesome and I completely agreed with it, and yes, I wanted to support the poster because she was being trolled. The definition of trolling is showing up in someone's blog just to shit-sir, and that's exactly what Scott and RMM were doing.
It is not "gossiping behind someone's back" to leave a comment in support of a blogger who is being trolled.
But thanks for the random and unsupported slams against me, though. ;)
philippos42:
Having a discussion and finding out you're wrong, or even stubbornly sticking to your bad idea in the face of other arguments, that's one thing.
Having people tell other people that they should dismiss everything you say because you're just another sexist pig, that's another.
nenena: Yeah, but that's not the only (or even worst) example I've seen of that kind of behavior. I was paraphrasing a general tone, not of any one specific post, but of a repeated trend. I suppose if I was interested in proving it I could go back over all the weeks of backlog I browsed through earlier and link to each time I saw you badmouth someone in some third party's blog. Even if I wanted to put in that much effort, would it make a damn bit of difference to you if I did prove you did that sort of thing on a regular basis? I doubt it.
I suppose I could do it to prove it to everyone else, but aside from potentially embarrassing you (or not), I don't know what good that would do me.
Prove it to yourself, if you care that much. Go back over the comments you leave elsewhere (not just on one post) and see how many fit the pattern. See if, from now on, you wind up telling people who comment on my posts on their own blogs how I'm a misogynistic troll or some other putdown.
I mean, that'd be a good test, right? See how much my name is on your (virtual typewritten) lips from this point on...
Mouse -
Don't flatter yourself. :)~
I frequently comment on my friend's blogs (not random "third party" blogs) to support them when I agree with them. If they're being attacked or trolled by someone, then yeah, I'll make a comment about the trolls. It's not like I'm the one actually bringing up the subject.
If someone is being a troll, I don't see any problem with "badmouthing" them by calling them a troll. (Call a spade a spade, you know?) If they're not being a troll - if they're leaving me and my friends alone - then I don't mention them. There. Simple, right?
If you're not going to offer any links or proof, then please stop badmouthing me by making up fake little conversations between me and imaginary bloggers.
If you truly are terrified by the idea of intelligent feminist bloggers supporting each other by encouraging their friends to ignore trolls - and if you equate this behavior with "gossiping behind someone's back" (WTF?) - then yeah, you have every reason to be "concerned" about the blogosphere. If such decent, normal behavior seems vicious to you, then you aren't going to last five minutes here.
nenena:
I think I'll just wait and let things sort themselves out. This post is the only time I'll be mentioning you, to be sure, unless I catch you doing the same thing in regards to me.
But one clarification:
"and if you equate this behavior with "gossiping behind someone's back" (WTF?)"
I mean that in the sense that you're not directly confronting the person you disagree with, you're taking shots at them by conversing with someone else, sometimes when there's no guarantee the "troll" is reading the blog in which you're badmouthing them. True, it's difficult to completely hide from someone in this way (though not impossible), but it strikes me as having the same kind of passive-aggressive vibe.
"If someone is being a troll, I don't see any problem with "badmouthing" them by calling them a troll. (Call a spade a spade, you know?) If they're not being a troll - if they're leaving me and my friends alone - then I don't mention them. There. Simple, right?"
Only, to me, it seems that you equate any form of dissent with "being a troll". I suppose that sort of rationalization helps the cognitive dissonance go down smoother. Oh well.
Only, to me, it seems that you equate any form of dissent with "being a troll". I suppose that sort of rationalization helps the cognitive dissonance go down smoother. Oh well.
I've had people disagree with me before. I never called them trolls.
On the other hand, a blogger who makes racist comments in response to a black female blogger's post, or a blogger who shows up on feminist blogs to lecture women about how grateful they should be that men want to objectify them (classic sexism there)... YES, that is trolling.
But, as you're apparently new to the whole blogosphere thing, I'll forgive you for not being able to tell the difference. Polite disagreement is one thing. Trolling - which means bringing racism, sexism, ad hominem attacks, or other shit to the table - is different.
You know, Nenena, I was going to ignore your comments, but I’ve changed my mind because you just won’t quit bashing me.
You know that bullshit about ‘friend's blogs (not random "third party" blogs)” and “if they're being attacked or trolled by someone” and “It's not like I'm the one actually bringing up the subject.” and “If they're not being a troll - if they're leaving me and my friends alone - then I don't mention them. There. Simple, right?” So how do you explain this smear job:
http://entertainment.journurl.com/index.cfm?fa=skin.read&message=47446&group=10&thread=47839&date=all&mrow=2&trow=1
I wasn’t trolling anyone there, was I? This isn’t your friend’s blog, is it? Random third party, maybe?
And what you said stinks. “Waltz in?” Didn’t I post just like everyone else? What dances did the other commenters do? Jitterbug? Lindy hop? And how does one waltz into something that is posted on the WORLD WIDE web? Did you put that OUT there for people to comment on as evidenced by the comment section? And what’s the difference between engaging in debate and “stirring shit?” Why was my post stirring shit and not just disagreeing with you? And lecture? I commented on the same subject you did using opinion and facts. Was your post a lecture to everyone on the web? And how do I disagree with you without lecturing you? What is the difference between stating a disagreement and lecturing? And I wrote specifically why I put that picture of Anita Bryant on my blog and it had nothing to do with you. It was about how social theory can be wrong as it was in her famous and ironic case. And I have never said I couldn’t be sexist because I’m gay. The most sexist thing I’ve ever heard was uttered by a gay man. Let’s have a bet. If you can find one instance where I said I couldn’t be sexist because I’m gay, I will post it on my blog with a huge apology to you. However, if you can’t find even one, you will post an apology to me on yours and whoever wins will alert the women at WFA to link to it? OK?
But the thing that bothered me the most was this shit: “notoriously defended racist LJer stop_him.” I don’t know that I have ever read anything on race on his blog and I’m absolutely certain I’ve never defended anything racist there, but you sure made it look as if I had, didn’t you? He may be a racist. I don’t know. But I have never, ever defended anything racist he may have written, but no one reading that piece of crap that you posted about me would know that. They’ll think I defended something racist. That kind of crap makes me sick.
Oh god, Scott. I gave you a compliment in that comment. Grow up. The post was also about me too, with the "attacks on his character" bit. As I'm the person who has most publicly mocked you, I wanted to respond. And I responded by giving you a fucking compliment. Jesus.
(Based on your temper tantrum right here, though, I'm halfway tempted to rescind that compliment.)
And as for you defending stop_him's racist post:
http://stop-him.livejournal.com/38779.html
I said you defended "a racist blogger" not the racism in the post itself. But you sure as hell didn't seem to have a problem with it.
And oop, forgot the most important thing! Since you threw down the guantlet:
http://nenena.livejournal.com/77777.html?thread=374225#t374225
You said "sexist against men" even though you were clearly using the comment to illustrate that you were not sexist against women. (See the rest of that thread for context.)
Oh god, Scott. I gave you a compliment in that comment.
Which part was the compliment? Where you infer he's anti-feminist because of his "lecture me about how I should be grateful that men want to objectify 'strong' women", where you inffered his anti-racial slant because he "notoriously defended racist LJer stop_him", or where you practically call him a myogynist by stating "pulled the 'I'm a gay man so I couldn't possibly be sexist' card."
Just trying to find the compliment...
Oh, maybe it's that throwaway line about "he's changed a lot." Yeah, very big compliment. Too bad you had to run him down first before you issued it.
The post was also about me too, with the "attacks on his character" bit. As I'm the person who has most publicly mocked you, I wanted to respond.
Actually, the post seemed to be more a generalized question of why there can't be thoughtful and civil debate between people online (with Scott and Cheryl Lynn merely noted as the examples because of their recent ability to do so). I didn't see anything about "nenena" mentioned.
Of course, your own admittion of publicly mocking Scott and the obvious guilty conscience you carry over that behavior might indicate why you see what isn't really there. But honestly, that post wasn't about you. It wasn't even really about Scott and Cheryl Lynn, either. It was about a behavior pattern. One the outburst you posted only served to show why such a question was even asked.
I'm halfway tempted to rescind that compliment.
Well, I don't think "left-handed compliments" really are compliments to begin with, so you would actually have to make one, before you can rescind it.
I said you defended "a racist blogger" not the racism in the post itself.
And by neglecting to say exactly why he defended him and what the issue being defended was, you left it open to be seen that Scott was defending a "racist", because he himself agree with racism.
No, you didn't say he was defending racism, but you didn't say he wasn't, either. Intellectual dishonesty like that, is a classic debate tactic to villify and discredit another person.
And, of course, you fail to acknowledge and address the primary point to what Scott said, which was to debunk your claim that you only respond on blogs of friends and to defend them from the attack of "evil trolls", like Scot and Anon, A Mouse. You said you don't go to thrid party blogs and trash people. Yet, that's exactly what you did there. So, you lied. But rather than face that unflattering reality, you try to cover it up by distracting everyone with hollow words about "complimenting Scott" and then digging up past posts to villify him.
And you know what, you only perfectly exemplified to the person who made that post, which Scott linked, exactly why Cheryl Lynn has to thank Scott for not being a prick and why Scott has to write huge diatribes defending him character. You've also shown the kinds of behavior and tactics that make it impossible to have a serious discussion on topics like "sexism in comics" and get the real issues addressed.
Congradulations, nenena. In trying to discredit and villify Scott, you've shown who the real "problem child" is. And it isn't him.
And before you go trying to dig up anything from my own online past to villify me with, let me say I know I've crossed the lines in the past. I haven't always held up to the standards I always espouse to and I'm sure I'll slip up again in the future. But every time I fall, I get back up and redouble my efforts to doing better next time. That's all any human being can do. Past mistakes don't take away from the realities and factuality of the points one makes today. People can change over time. I have. So, too, has Scott. I hope you'll be able to get past yourself someday and become more than what you are right now, which is something that is completely unchanged (and is in desperate need to).
Meeley -
My same response to you as to to Mouse. Don't flatter yourself.
Well, well, well. Of all the things I didn't expect to see browsing WFA, this is pretty high on the list. A snipe against me that I wasn't even aware of, and not even for sexism. Gosh, thanks, Nenena.
(And sort-of thanks to you too, Scott, for pointing it out. By "sort-of" I mean that on one hand, it's something I probably ought to be aware of, but on the other, I could probably have been happier never knowing about the character defamation.)
Racist? Get real. At what point did I make any implication that any particular race was more or less superior or inferior to any other? I didn't. At best, all you can say is that I may have carelessly trivialized racial profiling by comparing it to the sexual profiling of men by women. How you construe that to actually being racism is beyond me.
Sadly, the entry seems to have disappeared or I've been blocked from it, but I remember finding this link on this WFA entry. As I recall, "redplasticglass" mused a bit on one of my posts, and you, Nenena, came in to inform her what a "well-known troll" I was and generally badmouth me.
Only after that did I appear on that person's blog to give my own opinion on the matter - which was that I had at the time only rarely appeared on other people's blogs to debate them, that I had indeed appeared on your own blog (in the same entry you linked to here), and that your definition of "troll" was pretty darn picky, considering that I'd debated you at length without name-calling.
Despite what I think was a reasonable effort on my part to remain calm and reasonable, if you read our exchange on "Gavotte", it's actually you who gets snippy first, and then you have the nerve to later go around calling me a troll on a blog where I certainly wasn't attacking anyone. Convenient for you the link is inaccessible, or else it'd be all the proof needed to show you do more than just "defend" people when "trolls" show up.
And now I find you're calling me a racist, too.
Well, go to hell, crazy woman.
Anon: Your instincts have served you well - avoid this woman, keep your real name safe. Not all the WFA feminists are like that, but it only takes one or two wackjobs to spoil your day. I might've done the same if I had only known.
Save yourself! Run!
Meeley -
My same response to you as to to Mouse. Don't flatter yourself.
As I said, I hope you can get past yourself someday and become more than what you are, which is something that is is completely unchanged (and is in despreate need of doing so).
Stop_him,
I've never been dishonest about the fact that I mock - not debate, mock - you and Scott and the like. I have a rule that I only debate those who can debate back. I don't debate trolls. Scott's comments on my blog are sexist in that they just drip of male privilege, therefore, trollbait. I'm sure that Scott doesn't intend to be sexist - he keeps claiming he's a feminist, after all - but sexism can take many forms, the most common of which is unintentional male privilege. Scott's privilege has been pointed out to him many times, and if he still doesn't get it by now, then he still doesn't get it. Likewise with the white privilege you displayed in your post and the generally dumbassery you spewed all over my post when you lost the only important debate in question and went on to devote 3000 words to why I was just like Bill O'Reilly. Whatever. I'm personally done with trying. Not done with mocking, but done with trying to engage someone on an intellectual level when he is clearly incapable of engaging in return.
(And redplasticglasses is an internet friend. I've commented on her LJ posts many times before she wrote about you. She writes about manga and comics and is a smart, cool blogger.)
"Run!" LOL. I'm still amused that people are so threatened by me. Who is it that keeps engaging me here, hmmm?
(And redplasticglasses is an internet friend. I've commented on her LJ posts many times before she wrote about you. She writes about manga and comics and is a smart, cool blogger.)
Thrilling. That doesn't change the fact that you were badmouthing me just because my name came up, not because I was attacking your friend.
It must be convenient to be able to redefine words on the fly as you do.
Why do people feel threatened by you? Seriously, I doubt you can do much more to me personally than annoy me - but I can see, in this day where people get fired from their jobs for random crap they post on their MySpace pages, where someone might not want little slivers of libel with their name attached being floated around by some crank with a superiority complex and an axe to grind.
I'm still amused that people are so threatened by me.
I think you mistake fear with general disgust of dealing with someone who is close-minded and rude. A common mistake, but I really doubt anyone "fears" you.
Who is it that keeps engaging me here, hmmm?
Well, at this point that would have to be me. But this reply aside, it would have to be you who continues to engage, since it was you who trashed both Scott and Colin (that's "stop_him's" name, and I prefer to call people by a name, rather than a "number") on that other person's blog, when they were not there posting "trollish" things and you had no real justified cause, going by your own reasoning for why you do such things, which shows that it is you who seem to want to keep engaging.
If that wasn't so, you'd have never made that post. You wouldn't keep dragging up the past to villify someone over something they said today. If Scott, Colin, and Anon are so "full of it", then you shouldn't need to drag up the past to discredit them. It should be a simple matter to do that with whatever they said at that moment in time. The only reason to drag up the past, is because you can't refute the comment of the moment and need to change the subject to a topic you think you can win on, so they can be demonizeed and you can appear "correct." It's a debating tactic that probably goes back to Adam and Eve. One that is as trasparent as glass.
Scott's comments on my blog are sexist in that they just drip of male privilege, therefore, trollbait.
And you're comments drip with "victim's privilege," therefore, trollbait.
I'm sure that Scott doesn't intend to be sexist - he keeps claiming he's a feminist, after all - but sexism can take many forms, the most common of which is unintentional male privilege.
And you engage in intentional victim privilege, which is another form of "sexism." It's one where you ignore the logic and factual evidence someone brings to the table and use emotional baggage and shaming tactics to get someone to be seen as "the enemy." You use it to force them to either get defensive and falter from the point being made, or to discredit them and the valid points made because they "just don't get it."
This has become a very popular tactic of many online comic feminists. One so widely used, I think it should be added to the "bingo card" of sexist responses at the girl_wonder site. I doubt it will be though, but that doesn't make me feel any less strongly that it should be on there.
I'm personally done with trying. Not done with mocking, but done with trying to engage someone on an intellectual level when he is clearly incapable of engaging in return.
Well, the fact you see it necessary to mock someone whom you don't agree with, no matter how much "dumbassery" you think their points are, shows that it is you who are incapable of engaging on an intellectual level. If you were as truly smart as you claim, you'd not need to employ such tactics. You'd dazzle everyone with your superior logic and factualism, that you won't need to mock anyone.
And your wanton desire to mock people, only speaks to the vindictive and petty-minded person you really are. It shows how un-intellectual you are. All which makes your attempts to paint yourself as some "morally and intellectually superior elitist" all the more sad and disgusting, because you are nothing of the kind.
If you want intellectual debate, you need to bring it, nenena. ALL the time. No matter WHO it is. And if someone else falls short, they'll hang themselves with their own words for all to see. The rest of us aren't "simple-minded sheep" who need you to point out the "wolves" to us. Which is yet another disgusting side-effect of what you do. You hide behind your guise of "defending friends," but honestly, I think you just enjoy belittling anyone who you don't agree with. Your actions and the desire to continue them, are those of a true troll.
Drop the "victim's privilege." Stop being afraid to have to face that sometimes, on things you feel dead sure about, you just might be wrong. That you aren't always being "kept down" by someone else, but by your own ego and inability to face the unpleasant truths about you and what you want to believe. In short, please get past yourself. You do no one any good being this way... least of all, yourself.
"Victim's privilege"? Are you sure you aren't talking about Mouse?
I thought this one was dead. I don't look at a post for a couple days and this is what happens.
Nenena, the whole point of this is that I'm trying to AVOID being a victim. If you or some other person decides to do some kind of hatchet job on me over something I say, well, I don't have to worry much about some internet controversy bleeding over into my real life.
And look, I can think of only a few reasons why you'd bother to post here, anyway:
1. To clear your name
2. To assure me you're no threat
3. To "show up in someone's blog just to shit-sir", in your own words.
As for 1 and 2, well, going on like you just have sure ISN'T convincing me that I was wrong about you, and since you justify "mocking" others on some pretty thin reasons, I'm not going to feel any qualms over anything I've said in my original post.
That leaves 3, and so there you go.
A compliment!?! You really believe that was a compliment? The blogger there paid me a real compliment, one that I was proud of, and you thought it just wasn’t complimentary enough, so you added stuff just to bump his compliment of me up a notch. Is that what you’d have me believe? It wasn’t that you were undermining what he said about me? You were complimenting me. You made me sound even better. “He earned that reputation, and now he has to dig himself out of it.” “notoriously defended racist LJer stop_him.” You think those were compliments that made me seem even better than how the blogger described me? See, when you compliment someone they should look better, not worse. What you said did not make me look better. It made me look worse. You see that, right? He said something positive, and you just couldn’t leave well enough alone. Even though this was not a blog of a friend of yours. Even though I wasn’t there trolling. You maybe right that it was “a fucking compliment” because it sure fucked me.
Was calling Colin a racist was a compliment too? This was a random third person’s blog, not a friend of yours. Colin wasn’t there trolling anyone. He wasn’t even mentioned, and you went on there and called him a racist. So how does that jibe with your earlier statements about only defending your friends from trolls?
I said you defended "a racist blogger" not the racism in the post itself. But you sure as hell didn't seem to have a problem with it.
Would you mind quoting the racist comment that I should have attacked but didn’t? And quote your response to it? Because that is an enormous thread (72 posts) that I didn’t read all of then and can’t bring myself to do now. Perhaps you could also point out my notorious defense. I’m not sure I’ve seen anything there that was notorious. If I defended a racist from being killed, that probably wouldn’t be a notorious defense. You wouldn’t expect me to just let him get killed because he was a racist. So simply defending a racist isn’t itself notorious. I’d have to be defending him in a way that was unethical or that I defended his unethical act. So perhaps you could point out my unethical defense and how it tied into racism and how you acted differently. Perhaps you’d even like to go back to that post of yours at the Entertainment site and amend it so that people reading it would know that I didn’t defend anything racist.
About the “I can’t be sexist because I’m gay” bit, let me start by saying that I have never, ever thought that a gay man can’t be sexist, so if you are reading something into what I write that makes you think I’m saying that, you aren’t reading it correctly, or I’ve made a typo. About this post of mine that you linked to:
So with your definition, if I look at a Tom of Finland drawing with its impossible anatomy that has the drawing passively inviting me to lust after him/it, that is objectification and inherently sexist, so I am sexist when it comes to men even though, I would never agree that men should be paid less or treated as objects or be subjected to sexual discrimination or sexually harassed or any of the other behaviors associated with sexism. Does that sound right?
OK, you wrote, “You said ‘sexist against men’ even though you were clearly using the comment to illustrate that you were not sexist against women.”
No, I’m clearly saying that I’m not sexist against men. That says nothing whatsoever about how I think of women. You can tell because it says nothing whatsoever about what I feel about women. What I’m implying is that you can’t tell that a straight guy is sexist against women because he looks at the straight versions of Tom of Finland drawings anymore than you can tell that I am sexist against men by looking at the gay versions of them. If my looking at Tom of Finland drawings of men doesn’t make me sexist against men, how can replacing the men in a Tom drawing with women prove that straight guys are sexist against women? That is my point.
In no way does that say I can’t be sexist because I’m gay. Before this, you wrote that impossible anatomy that has the drawing passively inviting the viewer to lust after the character is inherently objectification and sexism. I pointed out that the drawings of Tom of Finland do that, so they would have to be inherently objectification and sexist, and therefore, since I love the drawings of Tom of Finland, I am engaging in what you call objectification, which is according to you inherently sexist. That means that I would have to be sexist when it comes to men because I objectify them. But if I am sexist when it comes to men, it doesn’t appear to manifest itself in any other way because I don’t think that men should be treated as second class citizens in any way. That quote does not say that I can’t be sexist because I’m gay. That is saying that by your definition I am sexist against men, but it doesn’t appear to be true because in no other way would I want less for men or think less of them.
I will say that when you make comments about how I don’t want my two-dimensional boobies taken away from me, that doesn’t fit me because I’m gay. If there were no more cheesecake or Turner women in comics, it would be a happy day for me. Although you say I’m acting on my sense of privilege, I arguing against my own interest. Less T&A would be better for me. My arguments don’t help me get what I want. Still, if I thought that women were inherently too emotional or irrational, if I thought that women shouldn’t have all the rights, opportunities, or responsibilities as men, if I thought women were created for men, I could still be sexist. I may not do what you call “objectifying” when it comes to women like I do with men, but I could still be a sexist in a million other ways.
So wanna try again? According to you, there are many examples, so it shouldn’t be hard. Or you could admit that wasn’t true.
Oh, one more thing, nenena, you said that this was an example of how you defended your friends from trolls:
http://brokenporcelaindoll.blog.co.uk/2007/08/29/so_so_true~2891577
Scoll down to the bottom to see if BPD thinks I was trolling. You can also see one of the reasons I mention that I'm gay, which has nothing whatsoever to do with saying that I therefore can't be sexist.
Scott -
I knew that the minute you threw down this "challenge," any example I could come up with, you would weasel out of with your standard weasley explanations. Of course you can explain your comments, at length, after the fact: but the original comments still speak for themselves.
Try again. Okay. I was about to mention the comment on bpd's post, because joke or not, it's still pretty fucking offensive. But you've already pre-empted me without another "explanation." For fuck's sake. I'm not going to engage with you anymore on this, because you're clearly incapable of admitting your own jackassery, and there's no point in me forcing you. I learned that long ago. Whatever. Anybody else who looks at those comments will see that they speak for themselves.
I look back at this post, and I admit, Rogers's post was an inappropriate forum for my comment. Not that the things I said were false; but that was clearly the wrong place to say them. You are right. For that much, I will apologize. Roger asked a question in his blog, and I answered it honestly, even though I probably shouldn't have. For the rest, I stand by anything and everything I've written online, especially in the blogs of fellow friends and feminists. Oh, and here.
Mouse - you called me out by (mispelled) name in your post, please don't act surprised that I'm defending myself here. It's no different than what Scott or stop_him are trying to do.
I'm not going to engage with you anymore on this, because you're clearly incapable of admitting your own jackassery, and there's no point in me forcing you.
Perhaps your time might be better spent concerning yourself with controlling your own "jackassery", over that of another person's. Because all your posting here has done nothing to make anyone see you are "right", a "victim", or a "defender." Your every consecutive post only makes Anon's original belief about you appear more and more correct. Perhaps it is time for you to cut your losses and stop this, before you become little more than the fodder of mockery yourself.
I look back at this post, and I admit, Rogers's post was an inappropriate forum for my comment.
The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. Now that you've done this, perhaps you can finally move on from the past and stop playing the role of a victim.
you called me out by (mispelled) name in your post, please don't act surprised that I'm defending myself here. It's no different than what Scott or stop_him are trying to do.
Actually, what you've done is quite different. They are defending their names and reputations with logical discourse. You are attempting to defend your's, by dragging other people into it and bringing up past incidents to villify others in a sad and hollow effort to justify your own "jackassery." That is quite different from what Scott and Colin are doing.
You really need to stop this, nenena. You need to "check yo'self, before you wreak yo'self." Stop holding others responsible for your own poor behavior and antics. Stop trying to justify your own trollish behavior, by hiding behind being a "defender" or trying to clear your name. The only troll on this blog right now is YOU. Just stop it. Stop degrading yourself, as well as trying to villify others as an excuse for acting out in this way. I'm guessing you aren't a child, so quit acting like one. Just walk away from this. You aren't doing any good continuing this farce. And if you desire to do so, it only makes you look bad. No one else. Just. Walk. Away.
Oh James, it would be rude of me to walk away without first thanking you for the delicious irony that you keep bringing to this post. Thanks!
Oh James, it would be rude of me to walk away without first thanking you for the delicious irony that you keep bringing to this post. Thanks!
The only irony in this sad display of your's, is that of your claims to only attack trolls who attack friends of your's. Every post you've done since then has completely ignored that claim. The seeming joy you take in continuing this pathetic game here, only serves to show that you are no better than those you would denegrate and villify.
I see that I am only wasting my time trying to converse with you. So, now it is I who will walk away from this farce of your making.
"Mouse - you called me out by (mispelled) name in your post, please don't act surprised that I'm defending myself here. It's no different than what Scott or stop_him are trying to do."
I'm not surprised at all, I'm just pointing out that you're not doing a very good job of it, depending on what your goal is.
You're not convincing me, and I'm not seeing a whole lot of other people speaking out in your defense here. As in, none, at least not on my blog. Okay, so this last round of comments probably looks like Nenena vs the Rogues' Gallery or something, but you'd think *somebody* would have spoken up by now going "hey, leave Nenena alone" if anyone thought you were the sympathetic, put-upon party.
Really, your "defending yourself" has probably resulted in you looking worse than what I said in my original post. I'll grant you, I didn't provide accurate quotes, links, any of that. But as it turns out, you making a stink over it brought in some examples and I didn't have to raise a finger. If you'd just gritted your teeth and not said anything, I doubt your reputation would have suffered much.
Not only that, look at the post you and Scott go on about - you make accusations against him and Stop Him without links or quotes or adequate proof, so I can't really take your "please don't badmouth me without links or proof" request all that seriously.
Proving it or not is even just irrelevant. Whether or not my claim is true, it's part of my reason for being nameless (or rather, using only a fictitious name), and that's all this post was originally intended to be, an explanation of why I'm not setting up a detailed profile or giving out my real name or any of that. Anything after that is just sideshow or trainwreck.
Maybe you honestly didn't *intend* to come in and "shit-stir", like you accuse others of doing, but you've certainly churned the pot all the same.
Mouse -
I don't ask my friends to fight my battles for me. In fact, I asked them to leave this alone. Just FYI.
"I don't ask my friends to fight my battles for me. In fact, I asked them to leave this alone. Just FYI."
Wow. Just... wow.
So let me get this straight. You've been saying that you've been jumping in and defending your friends on these various blogs, and that's perfectly reasonable. I assume nobody actually asked you to do so, because that WOULD be kinda pathetic. You almost make it sound noble, shielding your internet comrades from the forces of trollery and dissent.
But not only do YOU not need help yourself, you actually tell your friends "stay back! This is MY fight!" (Is there a mailing list for this or what?) Nenena the internet samurai must battle alone!
I mean, **how condescending**! What a self-aggrandizing load! If I were one of these internet friends, I'd be kind of insulted that you think you're obliged to protect me (like I'm too feeble to handle things myself) but god forbid I should step in to defend MY friend, because... well I don't know why not, is is dishonorable or something?
You know, don't bother answering. If I can figure out Blogger's controls, I'm gonna lock this post, because this is just TOO PERFECT a note to not close on that.
Post a Comment