Burningbird's RealTech

I was reading posts and comments at Mathew Ingram's weblog, when I ran into a comment where the person referenced "Google haters", and I stopped reading the comment at that point. I no longer cared to read what the person had to say.

I have developed an intense dislike, loathing really, of the term "hater". It's little different than the term "hysterical" when applied to women commenters in order to demean the person or persons referenced, rather than views, attitudes, writings, or other work. It's a lazy noun by lazy people who don't want to take the time to write about why they agree or disagree with what the person is saying—just use the word "hater" and that should be sufficient. And quick, too.

I feel towards "hater" about the way I feel towards moonbat, wingnut, or any of the other terms used by indifferent writers incapable of writing a detailed, thoughtful criticism or disagreement. These writers don't have time to spend on their arguments, because they're too busy looking for the next hater, moonbat, or wingnut to vilify. My suggestion to them is to pick their targets and write well, rather than quickly. Don't use epithets like shotgun pellets, firing haters, wingnuts, or moonbats hither and yon in an effort to blanket as many people as possible. This approach might net them a bigger following, but of what kind of people? The barely literate xenophobe?

...

I just finished one change to my Drupal-maintained web site, which I'll cover later for those few who might be interested. I have many other changes I want to make, primarily because I want to try out some new technologies and I like to use my sites as testing ground.

I am thinking about cutting off comments, not the least of which is the ACORN post, which ended up being linked by Drudge Retort. The issues are too hot, too partisan to have a decent debate, and I'm tired of dealing with what passes for online "debate" anymore. I figure I have my space, others have theirs, and we can all have our say. Perhaps without the debates, we'll actually resort to more thoughtful postings.

What I should do is just leave comments open on some of the posts, such as the purely technical. But even they have become increasingly "partisan" -- we have become a people living on the polarized edge.

I did not follow through on my promise to myself to back away from the political and focus on the technical, or the artistic, or whatever. Damn me, too, for allowing myself to be hooked on the many lines tossed out into the aether. I feel like the old catfish in the Mississippi river, worn out from all the battles fought to survive, giving into the hook for the last time.

I just wanted to point out that I have re-activated new user registration on most of my sites, including RealTech. If you register for an account and I know you, I'll also give you trusted user status and you'll be able to comment without the comment going into moderation. You don't have to use your real name or provide a web site to register.

If you register and I don't know you, become known (leave comments) and I'll change your status in time. In addition, for those (hi Bud) who have asked, I am looking at how to provide comments feeds, but so far all I've found with Drupal is per-user feeds.

The only reason I have comment moderation on at all is because I still have problems with spammy comments. These are not the automated type; they're from people hired to hand enter comments into sites, while linking back to a commercial site. I am not going to provide free text link ads in my space.

I've been rather fortunate not to have problems with comment trolls, and haven't since my sites started coming in under the radar. I'm not sure if I'm not getting trolls because I'm not writing on controversial topics, or if I'm doing something that creates an anti-troll defense. Of course, I'm also liberal when it comes to the term troll. For instance, I don't mind passionate, even angry, disagreement. Anger is not an artificial construct, and I won't slap a person down if they write genuinely, but angrily. I may not like what I'm reading, but unless it becomes obscene, or I get wet from the foaming-at-the-mouth froth coming through the screen, I figure it's one of those things. I do mind pat-on-the-head condescension, no matter how politely termed. Nothing will bring out the fire in me quicker than condescending behavior.

Others are less fortunate (or more popular) in their comments, such as Matt Asay at CNet, who does seem to have some trouble determining the difference between using a pseudonym when leaving a comment, and leaving a comment anonymously. Rogers Cadenhead responded in comments to Assay's post and at his web site, noting this difficulty.

H3h wasn't anonymous. He referred to his web site (h3h.net) in another comment on CNET, and that site contains his real name, which is presumably how you got it. Making an example out of him, simply because he posted a single rude comment you didn't like, makes you look like a noob. To save you time, my name is Rogers Cadenhead.

About negative commentary, Rogers has this sage advice:

If you publish on the web and accept user comments, you're going to be a punching bag for a steady procession of dillweeds. Your choices are to stop taking comments, pick them off one by one like Asay, or just keep telling yourself you're a beautiful snowflake and soldier through it.

I will never be able to get "beautiful snowflake" out of my head when it comes to comments, ever again.

I also wanted to point out another comment attached to Assay's post.

One of the strengths of Ubuntu is the civility (enforced if necessary) of the community that goes with it.

I had no idea that Ubuntu enforced civility in its user community. I thought it was only the Mac that whipped out a titanium hand and slapped you across the face if you behaved badly.

But, I digress. The worst comments I have received over the years were all from people who attached their names to their comments. Most of the time, the comments weren't even overtly hostile— coached in honeyed terms but with dagger edges, meaning to wound, while seeming to help. An anonymous "troll" is nothing in comparison.

I think anonymous commenter bashing is more of a control issue than a problem, and by that I mean people wanting to control their space to the point where perhaps they should not have comments.

We also have to accept some responsibility for the tone of comments we're getting. If we make an outrageous claim, or take a controversial stance, we're going to attract more negative commentary. We're free to delete the commentary, but we shouldn't feel victimized because it occurs. For instance, when Asay makes statements such as the following, I find it difficult to feel sympathy:

I mostly have stopped reading comments to this blog because what passes for "discussion" in the comments section tends to be inane, rude, and/or vapid, and often all three at the same time. "On the Internet, no one knows that you're a dog," goes the saying. Or that you're a jerk.

I'm sorry, dear, but if this is the caliber of material you typically write, I'm not surprised most of your commentary is negative. What a condescending, and downright rude statement to make about the people who take the time to register at CNet and leave a comment at your sorry ass site.

How we treat commenters was also an issue related to the recent BoingBoing discussion. What fed the fires at the BB site was how badly even the more mildly censorious commenters were treated by the moderators. If you treat people like crap, don't be surprised if they act crappy.

Oh, and by the way, Mr. Asay, if you read this, my name is Shelley Powers. Now you won't have to spend time looking up the obvious.