John Scalzi has a long post up on strategies for dealing with jerks in the AOL Journal environment.
As it turns out, I happened to come across a "case study" of this. But first I should say that I've been posting on online discussion groups for ten years. And during the 1990s, I spent quite a bit of time posting on the AOL Germany and Austria message boards, where neo-Nazi types like to drop by and slime the cyberturf with their nonsense. Given some of the whack jobs I've encountered online, run-of-the-mill obnoxiousness doesn't upset me very much.
No, trolls, this is not license to start spamming me with a lot of drivel. I'm accustomed to using the delete key, and I actively manage my comments section. I'm also used to navigating the constraints of AOL's Terms of Service (TOS).
The particular comment I had in mind came up in connection with comments I posted on an item from RepublicanJen, on which I also made a post of my own. Because it touched on subjects that interest me and on which I've been posting (the antiwar movement during the Vietnam War, the Republican meme that criticism of Bush is "hate speech"), it reminded me that I had some related items on which I had been intending to post. So I did some catch-up on those this past weekend.
No, RepublicanJen is not the person I'm referring to as being a jerk. It won't surprise people who have read my previous few posts that I think her approach to this particular issue is superficial at best. But that's something different.
The example I have in mind, which also reflects the Bircher-minded element of the Republican Party, a big factor adding to the hysterical tone of political comment in FoxWorld, was a comment just added to RepublicanJen's post of 09/24/04. Since I was the only one who expressed any lack of enthusiasm about that post in the comments, presumably the, uh, gentleman's comment is directed only at me:
The reaction to this article by the "Hate America First" crowd makes it abundantly clear that the moron vote is alive and well in the lunatic fringe of the Democrat Party. To those misguided individuals who who maintain that Vietnam Veterans were not spat upon, subjected to incredible insults and worse......I suppose you believe the Holocaust was a Rightwing Hoax authored by Karl Rove.
As a veteran of two tours of duty in Vietnam, I can assure those doubting readers that these despicable actions did in fact occur with unfortunate regularity at airterminals and particularly on college campuses which were populated and the time by "the best and the brightest?" The cream of the antiwar vermin also distinguished themselves by phonecalls to and demonstrations in front of the residences of the parents and/or families of those killed in action with taunts ranging from "we are glad your baby-killing son is dead" to "your stupid son was sacrificed to an unjust war." These incidents and others similar tasteless acts were witnessed personally by the undersigned....with appropriate disgust toward the idiots perpetrating the acts.
I respect your right to express opinions opposing war....... I and many others have shed our blood that you may exercise your God-given right to make fools of yourselves. However, thhose soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who answer the nation's call have nothing to do with the decision to engage in war......their courage and dedication to duty is cause for respect rather than scorn.
To those who have threatened and otherwise excoriated RepublicanJen for expressing an opinion....you appear to have one thing in common....an IQ which matches your shoe size.
JKARLUSMC@AOL.COM
COLONEL USMC RETIRED
Comment from jkarlusmc - 9/27/04 9:16 AM
It takes considerably longer to write down how I process a comment like this than it does to actually think through it. But in the spirit of a case study, here goes:
First, the commenter claims to be a veteran of the Marine Corps and to have shed his blood as part of his military service. Is he a veteran? Was he wounded in combat? I don't have the slightest idea, and there's no way based on the information he provided for anyone to verify it.
Second, his claim to be a veteran is pretty much irrelevant to his comment. Here is my comment to which he is responding:
As far as the historical issue of the "spitting on soldiers" folklore from the Vietnam War era, you may want to check out the work of Jerry Lembcke (a Vietnam veteran himself) who did extensive research on this particular tale for his book, The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam.
An article by him on the subject is available online at: http://www.rlg.org/annmtg/lembcke99.html
If you have to believe that antiwar protesters hate soldiers, you can just dismiss work like Lembcke's, of course.
The Freepers have been using this Foster Barton incident as an example of this kind of thing. As you noted, it didn't involve spitting, although most people would take breaking his nose as a more serious type of assault.
And it may well be that this was some aberrant antiwar zealot who decided he was going to attack Barton because he was a soldier. Since there were six witnesses, I would think there's a good chance the guy will be charged. So it would be interesting to see if the guy's history actually justifies this interpretation. Is the attacker an antiwar activist? Did he have some personal grudge against the Barton? Was he a violent nut who hadn't been taking his meds?
It's also eye-catching that the incident occurred after a Toby Keith concert. If you don't know, Keith has made a point of striking a jingoistic pose ever since 9/11. It seems odd on the face of it that someone would be inspired by a Toby Keith concert to whack an off-duty soldier on the head. But stranger things have happened. - Bruce
Comment from bmiller224 - 9/24/04 6:11 PM
So, let's look at his response. Hating America? Frivolous invective.
"Marine veteran JKARLUSMC" dismisses my reference to Jerry Lembcke's work out of hand by changing the subject to ... Holocaust denial? "Marine veteran JKARLUSMC" , I think you may have mistaken this for the AOL Germany message board.
"Marine veteran JKARLUSMC" claims that he personally witnessed families of dead soldiers being taunted by protesters with things like "we are glad your baby-killing son is dead" and "your stupid son was sacrificed to an unjust war." Now, for the Freepers, it may have a lot of credibility that some guy on AOL who identifies himself only as "Marine veteran JKARLUSMC" claims to have personally witnessed such things. A reference to a contemporary report might have more credibility for those not living in FoxWorld. But, hey, I guess this is at least as credible as the claims of the Swift Boat Liars for Bush.
"Marine veteran JKARLUSMC's" claim that someone (apparently more than one person) has "threatened and otherwise excoriated RepublicanJen for expressing an opinion" is more immediately checkable. My comment to which he responded is about the factual issue of whether Vietnam veterans were specifically spat upon, as claimed in the folklore, and about the particular facts of the Foster Barton case as reported. "Marine veteran JKARLUSMC" had to use a considerable amount of imagination to get threats or "excoriation" out of any of that.
Finally, "Marine veteran JKARLUSMC" manages to associate me in his comments, none too subtlely, with the "Hate America First" crowd (whoever they are), the moron vote, the lunatic fringe of the "Democrat Party" (this is one of the stranger habits of the Freepers, who never seem to use the parallel bad-grammar construction "Republic Party"), misguided individuals, Holocaust deniers, antiwar vermin, tasteless actors, idiots, fools, scorners of soldiers, and those of low IQ. "Marine veteran JKARLUSMC" would relate to Chuckie.
Scalzi's final piece of advice on the AOL-J jerks: "The thing to remember about jerks is that attention is their oxygen. Give it to them, and they thrive. Deprive them of it, and they suffocate. It's your hand on the air valve.You make the call."
I guess in this case I may have made the call to feed the fire with additional oxygen. The other side is that this kind of Bircher raving can burn itself out pretty quickly, too. But if "Marine veteran JKARLUSMC" can explain to me the grammatical theory behind the construction "Democrat Party" and "Republic Party", as opposed to the use of the normal English adjectives "Democratic" and "Republican", it would be worth hearing from him.
Somehow I think we're less likely to hear of any contemporary documentation of the ghoulish protests he described outside the houses of grieving parents of soldiers killed in action - a claim that I've never come across before, by the way. But I don't hang out a lot in Freeperville.
A final note to RepublicanJen: ideology aside, if a comment like that appeared on one of my blog posts, I would either remove it or add a comment of my own clarifying the bit about alleged threats. That part of "Marine veteran JKARLUSMC's" entry is genuinely sleazy as it appears there.
10 comments:
Oh, I've had worse. The amusing thing about comments is that they reveal more about the people who posted them than the ones at whom their invective is directed. That is why I generally leave offending comments out to dry in my journal. I tend to pity them actually, seeing that their ignorance and/or stupidity precedes them.
The personal nastiness aimed at opponents of the war is something I see a lot of, even within a generally friendly AOL environment. The recurring theme is that we do not support the Troops and that we are unpatriotic for not supporting the President.
Naturally, there are people on both sides who will throw insults at the candidates, but the Bush folks don't stop there -- they seek to demonize people like you and me for opposing the President and the war. Our patriotism is challenged, and we are accused of animosity and disrespect for our veterans and active members of the Armed Forces.
We also love and support our Troops who would end this war and bring them home.
Peace,
Neil
I have had one small instance of something like this. Someone took offense at a link I have in my sidebar (to the NRA Blacklist to be specific) then thought it was pertinant to compare gun owners to Ted Kennedy and his use of a vehicle in relation to Chappaquiddick. Talk about a leap of "logic." I went crazy, blocking and deleting every comment that person had ever made to my journal. That person later accused me publically (in his journal) of censorship. In the meantime, I felt bad about my actions, and had unblocked him, although I'll admit I didn't inform him of that fact. I did make a post in my journal about it, but he has chosen not to revisit me (as far as I know) and I choose not to have direct interaction with him. Works well for me.
Since then, if I see something offensive, I ignore it usually, sometimes I delete it if I find it off topic too much. And I have deleted comments that agreed with me because I found them offensive. I wouldn't want anyone to think I was tacitly approving of what they said.
One of the many many fallacies in their reasoning that those who are against the war also hate the troops is the fact that many of the soldiers coming home and many that are over there are against the war, and will not be voting for Bush. Just last night my sister was telling me that her neighbor's brother just returned home from Iraq and that he said the war is a mess, they are not doing what they were supposed to be doing, and they never should have been sent over there in the first place. Other than that he isn't allowed to speak openly about it because he is still int he service. So to buy their philosophy, those soldiers that are against the war would have to despise their fellow soldiers, and themselves I suppose.
Eazyguy, I think this particular kind of hysteria is a reflection of the kind of authoritarian mentality for which you gave various recent illustrations in your post "The New McCarthyism":
http://journals.aol.com/eazyguy62/AmericanCrossroads/entries/393
It's an effort to try to bully people into not criticizing the current administration. If people give in to it, then it becomes a vicious cycle. Bush's foreign policies are collapsing, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. The problems will continue, so there will be more and more serious issues to suppress with hysteria.
The online trolls are somewhat of a different issue, if only because some of them are just twits trying to be annoying.
But rightwingers do try to use zingers and insults and off-the-wall distractions to try to kill or sidetrack discussions at liberal sites. It's not entirely avoidable. But it is manageable.
Having seen a number of squabbles on "listserve" type groups and AOL message boards over the years, I think Scalzi's advice was pretty practical. Manage the comments, use the delete key when appropriate, don't let loonies distract you, and keep up a healthy skepticism about unverifiable online claims. - Bruce
Today has been very frustrating -- one more day of running headlong into the Bush brigade. And people debate how polarized we are in this country! We are so polarized that you cannot even have a civil discussion with the folks from the other side.
I find the Bush supporters in this AOL community just heap insults on you if you question their candidate's wisdom and effectiveness.
There is no real dialogue -- no reasoning -- no explication of assumptions and factual foundations -- and no hesitancy to express contempt for anyone who tries to open a discussion that implies a challenge to their positions.
I accept that people who visit my journal will sometimes disagree with me -- indeed, I hope to draw a diverse group and to have them contribute comments. Even if that means there will be a few jerks in the mix...
What I hadn't been prepared for was how difficult it is to engage people from the other side in civil discourse.
I think this is worse than the problem of the occasional j-land jerk.
Neil
Just for the record, JKarl is indeed a Vietnam veteran and a Colonel in the Marine Corps. I've known him for many years and he's a great American. He was partially responding to some emails that people had written to me that I'd shared with him. Some were particularly nasty towards me (one was a death threat), and they were from anti-war activists. JKarl was stoked, and rightfully so. I appreciated his sounding off on my blog because when you have nasties sending you hateful emails, you need all the encouragement you can get.
Whether or not the comment was directed towards you personally, you will have to ask him. He's been made aware of this blog, and will probably be visiting you soon.
BTW, Don Bendell (donbendell.com, I think) emailed me about the spitting incidents in the 60s and 70s, and he said they are absolutely true. There are many veterans with personal accounts towards this end. As you might have seen on my blog, there is one personal account sent to me where fecal substances and eggs were thrown at wounded veterans. I directed Bendell to Lembcke's article, so it will be interesting to see if Lembcke changes his tune.
Good luck!
"Marine veteran JKARLUSMC" may be a "great American," as you say. That quality was not at all evident in his sleaze-slinging comment that I referenced in this post.
You claim you've received "particularly nasty" comments in private e-mails from anti-war activists. It may well be true. But this kind of unverifiable, anecdotal information is pretty much what people use to make their case that critics of the Iraq War are the soldier-hating characters you're claining they are.
I would also suggest that the appropriate course of action if you receive a death threat is to first report it to your local police. That is a serious crime in itself. It's nothing to fool around with, and nothing to use as an anecdote to be proving some fringe political point.
If "Marine veteran JKARLUSMC" wants to leave comments here, that's fine. If they're as silly as the one I referenced here, I don't expect to respond to them. - Bruce
For BMiller24:
Perhaps I was a bit hard on you in my initial response to this missive; however, I have little patience with those whose response to any disagreement with their preformed and uninformed opinions is an immediate and personal attack on the messenger. I am not going to dignify your questioning my service nor my use of the language other than to say it is but a lame effort to draw attentention away from your ignorance of the subject at hand.
First, it is obvious that you have no personal knowledge of Vietnam; aqccordingly, you have no credibility. Seccondly, I have no knowledge of Mr.Lembcke or his research on the subject. Nevertheless, I must question his veracity as it does not conform to my personal experience or those of others. Before you place to much credence in the author of this obviously flawed document, I recommend you look to tth recent example of Dan Rather and his futile attempt at immortality.
Additionally, your identification of the Swift Boat Vets as the Swift Boat Liars begs the following question: "How can a reasonable person deny the probable veracity of 264 veterans against a total of 7 who support Senator Kerry?" Since two of those Swift Boat Veterans are retired Rear Admirals, one should have serious throught before questioning their integrity.
In summary, my advice to you is to pause and at least consider that you do not have all of the answers before you attack one whose only crime is that he disagrees with your asessment. Additionally, please stay on subject..... assaulting one's use of grammar is a bit inane to say the least. If I may be allowed to demur, the words Democrat and Republican are grammatically correct in common usage.
Shooting the messenger is a mark of ignorance...nowhere in your diatribe did you disprove anything I alleged.
Respectfully. JKARLUSMC
Let's see: "Hate America First", moron, the lunatic fringe of the "Democrat Party" , misguided, Holocaust denier, antiwar vermin, tasteless, idiot, fool, scorner of soldiers, low IQ.
Gosh, which parts of those strike you a "a bit" harsh? At least none of that was "an immediate and personal attack." (!?)
I'm quite sure that you won't take much time from the Swift Boat Liars' sleazy and vapid attacks on John Kerry to look at Jerry Lembcke's work.
But if you have any references to contemporary souces, or even any worthwhile secondary sources (hint: not likely to be published by Regnery Press or the John Birch Society) that document what you say you personally witnessed - families of dead soldiers being taunted by protesters with things like "we are glad your baby-killing son is dead" and "your stupid son was sacrificed to an unjust war" - I'm sure RepublicanJen would be glad to post them at her blog.
As for grammar, I'm perfectly happy if Republicans want to use a phrase like "Democrat Party," because it just sounds dorky. Which is why you don't hear Democratic partisans saying "Republic Party." - Bruce
Post a Comment