Daily Archives: January 28, 2010

Blogiquette 101: When is it OK to delete blog comments?

To delete or not to delete?

That is the fucking question.

My boyfriend has accused me (only half-seriously, I think [I hope…]) of deleting comments on my blog pieces if they are comments written by individuals who simply disagree with me.

Not so.

Thing is, my blog is my baby, and for anyone to just come along and shit and piss upon it — well, again, my blog is my baby, and I’m a fiercely protective mother.

I’m fine if someone disagrees with me. However, I want him or her to put some time and thought into his or her disagreement, as I put some time and thought into my blog piece. I don’t like drive-bys. Drive-by comments on my blog pieces are vulnerable to deletion.

In addition to drive-bys, I hate wingnut trolls who just want to pick a fight instead of have anything like a meaningful discussion. I’ve had more than my share of those.

One wingnut recently started off being somewhat civil when he left a comment, but when it became apparent after a few exchanges that I wasn’t going to convert to his side — the dark side — as a result of what he must have thought was his brilliant fucking rhetoric, it got ugly, with him calling me a “faggot.” (Because those right-wingers are so nice. They have God and Jesus on their side, after all.)

Delete, delete, delete. And he’s banned. Hate speech, directed at me or at someone else, I delete.

Delete, delete, delete.

That’s the only thing to do to an ugly string of exchanges with a wingnut whose only intent is to be destructive, as evidenced by the fact that your comment exchanges no longer have much, if anything, to do with the blog piece that you’re supposed to be discussing.

One old wingnut troll recently left an unsolicited comment on one of my pieces. He disagreed with me. Fine. At least he was sticking to the subject.

But then he and I exchanged several comments until it became clear that it was only destructive, and I told him point-blank at one point in our e-fight that I wasn’t going to keep going around and around with him.

Still he kept leaving malicious comments, which I deleted. I’d told him that I was done with the pointless exchanges. But I left his earlier comments intact, deleting only the later, more ugly and destructive ones.

Later, I decided to leave a thought-out, point-by-point comment on one of his pieces (of shit) — which he promptly deleted.

That is the kind of wrongful deletion that my boyfriend wrongly accused me of. This assbite deleted my comment out of spite, not because my comment wasn’t pertinent to what he’d written. (And, of course, my comment blew him out of the water and made him look like the fucktard that he is. So of course he deleted it. Cockroaches loathe the light.)

It was fine for him to leave an unsolicited comment on my blog, but when I went to his blog for the first time to leave a comment, he deleted it. Winguts can dish it out but they can’t take it. They’re all talk and they cut and run.

After I saw that the old wingnut wouldn’t let me post a comment on his blog after he’d posted on mine, I went back and deleted most of his comments, as they had contributed little to nothing to the discussion. However, because I’m much more of a man than he’ll ever be, I at least left his original comment intact.

However, because he deleted my very first comment from his blog, he’s forevermore banned from posting a comment to mine. Ever. Again. 

This wingnut is old, and so thankfully it shouldn’t be too long before the Universe deletes him.

Anyway, these are my own personal rules of thumb for comments on blogs, mine and others’:

  • You are entitled to only one or two, maybe three comments on any one blog piece, as long as you stick to the subject at hand and don’t use abusive speech or hate speech. The blog’s owner doesn’t have to take your abuse or let it become all about you.
  • If your comment isn’t as thoughtful as the blog piece is, don’t expect your comment to be left standing. Especially if your comment is just a drive-by — especially especially if it’s just a slam or a slur — don’t expect it to stand. (And yes, I prefer even a doting fan to add meaningfully to the discussion, not to just tell me that he or she liked my piece. Surely there was something that I could have said in my piece but didn’t, and so I like the comments section to expand the discussion.)
  • If you get into a drawn-out cat fight with the blogger and the blogger later deletes the ugly chain of comments between the two of you, it’s probably because the ugly chain of back-and-forth backbiting comments grossly detracts from the blogger’s original intent, which was, hopefully, meaningful dialogue, not an opportunity for you to virtually vandalize his blog’s comments section with your venom and bile.
  • If you pitch a fit when others delete your comments that constitute only graffiti that deserves to be removed, but you delete even well-written comments that are germane to the subject at hand, like this old fucking hypocrite does, then you suck and you should go to hell and die, like he should.
  • Just because the blogger is engaging you in his or her comments section does not mean that you are entitled to personal information about the blogger, like this creepy codger thinks he is. You are entitled to discuss only the subject at hand, Dr. Lecter.

Those are the guidelines that come to mind.

You’re free to comment.

Subject to deletion, of course.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Assorted shit

I wish that the whole John Edwards thing would just go the fuck away already. It was way back in August 2008 that I wrote, in a piece titled “Good Riddance, Guy Smiley!”:

I never much cared for John “Permasmile” Edwards. A millionaire trial lawyer who perpetually grins from ear to ear and claims to care sooo damned much for the poor — I always sensed that something about him was, um, off. I could tolerate him, but he never made me moist

Thank Goddess that Permasmile never really had a chance at the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, now that he admits that he cheated on his cancer-stricken wife in 2006.

Just when you thought that the Permasmile sleazefest couldn’t get any skeezier, there is this from The Associated Press today:

Raleigh, N.C. – Dealing with a pregnant mistress and a suspicious wife, John Edwards and a close aide agreed by the middle of 2007 to solicit funds from a wealthy widow who had promised to “do whatever it takes” to make him president, according to the former confidant’s new book.

Bunny Mellon, the widow of banking heir Paul Mellon, began sending checks “for many hundreds of thousands of dollars” hidden in boxes of chocolates, according to The Politician by former Edwards aide Andrew Young.

The tell-all account describes how Young took the money and used it to keep mistress Rielle Hunter happy, hiding her from the media and a cancer-stricken Elizabeth Edwards.

Young claims the former vice-presidential nominee later said he didn’t know anything about the cash even though the two discussed the matter and the cash began arriving soon after Edwards made a call to Mellon.

The Politician is due in bookstores Saturday. An advance copy was given to The Associated Press by publisher St. Martin’s Press.

The book has received a lot of attention because of its racy details about the affair, the crumbling Edwards marriage and the candidate’s efforts to keep the paternity of his child with the mistress hidden. John Edwards finally admitted last week that he was the father of the girl, who is now almost 2 years old….

I said good riddance to Permasmile back in August 2008, but now we have stories of Gumpian boxes of chocolates. The man’s political career is over, but he just won’t go the fuck away.

Oh, well; as I noted back in August 2008, at least Baby Daddy Permasmile seems to have proved wrong Ann Cunter, who once called him a “faggot.”

Now, all of a sudden, ending discrimination against non-heterosexuals in the U.S. military is a priority of the Obama administration.

It wasn’t that long ago that we dykes and faggots were told that the nation has more pressing issues, that we’d just have to wait.

Why now, then?

I’m thinking that Team Obama wants a progressive win in order to get its base fired up again, and this probably is the quickest and easiest win that Team Obama can achieve within the near future. (Much easier than, oh, say, real health care reform….)

I don’t know why anyone, heterosexual or non-heterosexual, would want to join the U.S. military when the U.S. military hasn’t been about actually defending the nation from actual threats since — when? World War II?

If you have two brain cells to rub together, it will be clear to you that the U.S. military these days primarily is about funneling billions and billions of our tax dollars to the fat cats legally via the military-industrial complex’s perpetual war machine.

The military-industrial complex is about killing innocent individuals in foreign lands, ensuring that the United States is hated around the world, giving the military-industrial complex a constant supply of “enemies,” real or imagined, an excuse for its continued bloated-beyond-belief existence.

“National security” — what fucking Orwellian bullshit. Yeah, to steal billions upon billions of dollars from us, they have to tell us that it’s for our own good (health care, by contrast, is bad for us). Fucking traitors is what they are.

But I digress. My point is: Why do gay men want to waste their gifts that they have to give the world on the military-industrial complex?

OK, for lesbians I can see the attraction of the military, I guess, but for gay men? [Insert dropping-soap-in-shower joke here…]

Still, discrimination based upon sexual orientation in any sphere is wrong, and equal human and civil rights in the U.S. military, such as the U.S. military is, is another step toward equal human and civil rights for non-heterosexuals throughout the United States in all spheres of the nation.

And it’s about time that the Obama administration accomplish something, for fuck’s sake.

P.S. The Repugnicans are arguing that we can’t change the U.S. military’s current policy of discriminating against non-heterosexuals while we’re still fighting in the Middle East.

Oh, fuck them.

As the Repugnicans want nothing short of perpetual fucking warfare for their defense-contractor cronies, that means that non-heterosexuals would never get equal human and civil rights in the U.S. military if we wait until the wingnuts deem that it is the “right time.” (I wonder if it never was the “right time,” according to the stupid white men, to stop racial discrimination in the U.S. military, too.)

If the members of the U.S. military can’t handle the fact that there are non-heterosexuals among them, then they are too fucking pussy to defend us anyway — even though they aren’t about defense anyway, but are about enabling the war profiteers and basically amount to being thugs for the corporations (a la “Avatar”) paid for by us taxpayers (and corporations, of course, don’t pay their fair share of taxes).

Can I sense a trend or what?

After Open Salon created an “open call” for our favorite most underrated actor and I picked Joseph Gordon-Levitt as mine, The Associated Press posted a nice piece about him titled “Gordon-Levitt Goes from ‘3rd Rock’ to Sundance Kid.”

According to the piece, Gordon-Levitt has wowed this year’s Sundance crowd with his latest starring role, in the film “Hesher,” as he wowed Sundance last year with “(500) Days of Summer.”

Here’s another gratuitous photo of a shirtless Gordon-Levitt from “Hesher”:

In this film publicity image released by The Sundance Film Festival, ...

Associated Press image

And after I got my first Open Salon “editor’s pick” — which means that my piece appeared on Open Salon’s home page — for my piece titled “Urgent Memo to Jerry Brown: Be a Scott Brown, Not a [Martha] Coakley,” a Sacramento Bee political columnist wrote a column titled “Will California Be the Next Massachusetts?” He wrote:

U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer and the lone likely Democratic candidate for governor, Jerry Brown, are taking their cue from [President Barack] Obama and lashing out at corporate executives, including potential Republican challengers, for leading the nation to economic downfall. It’s potentially potent positioning in a state with 12-plus percent unemployment.

Their Republican foes, meanwhile, are portraying Boxer, who is 69, and Brown, who is 71, as aging career liberals who are part of the problem, not the solution, clearly hoping to capitalize on the angry, anti-establishment wave that Scott Brown rode to victory.

Robert Cruickshank, a Monterey college teacher who writes on the liberal website Calitics, declares in a recent article that Jerry Brown could be California Democrats’ Martha Coakley – the Senate candidate Scott Brown defeated.

Is California ripe for a political shift? Anything is possible in a state as inherently volatile as this one in a year like this one.

We are in confusing times, and so yes, I can see California’s voters making stupid (that is, self-defeating) choices at the ballot box in November 2010, but I surmise that Boxer’s re-election is surer than is Jerry Brown’s getting another crack at being California’s governor.

I think that the title of “aging career liberal” sticks to Brown — who still is haunted by the retarded, unfair moniker of “Governor Moonbeam” — much more than it does to Boxer, but again, if Brown doesn’t act like Martha Coakley did, like his win is inevitable, then, well, I think that he’ll most likely win. His most likely Repugnican challenger, billionaire Megalomaniac Whitman, is truly repugnant, which should be a big boon to Brown.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Samuel Alito, judicial activist

I love the wingnuts’ pathologically hypocritical accusation that judges who disagree with their oppressive, retrogressive, anti-democratic, anti-American views — and who actually stand for the American principle of liberty and justice for all — are “judicial activists.”

Not the majority of the American voters, but the wingnut-stacked U.S. Supreme Court, chose the nation’s president in 2000. If that isn’t the epitome of judicial activism, I don’t know what the fuck is.

Now, the same 5-4 skewed-to-the-right U.S. Supreme Court, in order to help the dying Repugnican Party, has ruled, against a century of legal precedent, that corporations may funnel unlimited amounts of money to political advertisements.

But that’s not judicial activism or anything.

Both President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden have pointed out that the court’s ruling allows — or would allow, if Congress cannot correct the court’s error through legislation — foreign interests to influence our elections for their benefit. To allow that to happen smells a bit like treason to me.

U.S. Supreme Court “Justice” Samuel Alito, a BushCheneyCorp appointee who is, of course, one of the Gang of Five, apparently pulled a silent Joe Wilson during President Obama’s State of the Union address last night when the president correctly criticized the court’s radical-right ruling.

“Alito made a dismissive face, shook his head repeatedly and appeared to mouth the words ‘not true’ or possibly ‘simply not true’ when Obama assailed the decision … in his State of the Union address,” The Associated Press reports.

Oh, fuck you, Samuel Alito!

You don’t uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. You’re a fucking judicial activist for the wingnuts.

Hopefully one of the wingnuts on the nation’s highest court will retire or drop dead soon and we progressives will start to see 5-4 decisions in our favor — that is, in favor of democracy and in favor of the principle of liberty and justice for all, not just for stupid rich white people.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized