c is for cat

Rules for Anchorites

Letters from Proxima Thule


  • 1
1) Leaving it there means fresh hurt to every new person that finds it. And renewed and absolutely justified anger.


2) The posts leading up to his general request for advice told me that, after his initial defensive reaction subsided, he was reading messages he received, conceding they were right, and coming to regret the harm he caused.


Because of those two things together, as I see it, it did no good to anyone for him to leave that post up.

This is absolutely no substitute for not having posted it in the first place.


But in internet parlance, it's a coward's move to delete a post. It looks like one's trying to cover up that it ever happened, and also deletes comments without the permission of their authors.

Not to mention, I don't think he really regrets much of anything besides getting caught.

And so for violating the Bushido of the Internet, I suppose he can be called a coward by various bloggers for a while on top of the other things he's drawn down on himself.

called cowardly forever I am sorry to say.

Unrelatedly I wonder this: is there a good move in these situations, do we think? They seem to come up a lot, and I rarely ever hear tell of one where someone responded in a way that was generally felt good and appropriate.

I think a genuine apology that is not also a backhanded confirmation of previous offensive opinions is a good start.

These "you" is the second person impersonal you. I don't mean you, I mean you. yeah.

Well no, it's not.

The problem with *deleting* the post, though I'm sure someone has explained it already, is that it's the ultimate silencing and stilling of voices, and there's no clear way to clear the suspicions of people that it was anything *but* a cover-up, trying to pretend that it never happened or to make it go away.

I know, it doesn't seem like there's a good solution on what to do here, right? It's still out there laying the hurt if you leave it up, and you're sweeping it under the rug and pretending nothing was wrong if you take it down, even if that wasn't your intent.

So take the third way.

Go back and annotate that post, leaving the original comments intact, with easily detectable insertions on a point by point basis, discussing what people said in response, and how it changed your mind, or what you didn't consider before, or even admissions of where you haven't really changed your mind, but you can see the point.

You've changed your ways? Show your work - don't delete it and promise you're all better now, because we don't have any reason to believe.

EXAMPLE

LOL STAMPEDERS SUCK GET A REAL FOOTBALL TEAM NUBS

(it was pointed out that this statement was really dismissive and absolutist - how could anyone have a reasonable dialogue about the quality of Calgary's football team with such diminishing language in place?

And I can see it. If someone marched up to me and started hollering about how the Toronto Argonauts, a team close to my heart, wasn't real and abjected their competence in the language of sexist rape culture, I'd get a little hot under the collar myself.)


Re: These "you" is the second person impersonal you. I don't mean you, I mean you. yeah.

It seems that he deleted the comments by accident, if you believe him. Of course, that doesn't address deleting the entire post later, which was an obvious CYA attempt.

I'm rather curious as to what an acceptable apology on his part would involve, because he obviously still believes the fundamental things he said, from his religious perspective. "I'm sorry I expressed my opinions, which I still think are valid, in an immoderate way, but I still hold them?" I think the disagreements are on such a profound level that even an annotation isn't going to satisfy anyone.

(Note: I certainly do not share his opinions in any way/shape/form, I just find the issues here interesting ones.)

Re: These "you" is the second person impersonal you. I don't mean you, I mean you. yeah.

I agree-- there can be no way to express an unremitting hatred of a large group of people in a way that would avoid angering that group.

We who are of reviled minorities have had generations of experience in keeping our opinions to ourselves-- helpless anger and outright hatred of the powerful bigots who rule our world.

So I do not feel as if I'm advocating censorship is suggesting that hatreds ofthis nature are best left unpromulgated-- supposing one cares about the public's opinion of oneself.

  • 1
?

Log in