« Beware The Ides Of April | Main | Zoomorphic Pussy »
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Yeah, What Trifecta Said (Again)
A response to the Great Markos Screw Em Affair of 2007 that is almost Imus-worthy:
I don't disagree with anything Lindsey wrote. I disagreed with using a bloggers threats as an excuse to foist upon us all a "Blogger Code of Conduct".
That's what I was saying. 1) There are assholes that will 2) email stupid shit to any public figure (which includes bloggers, but 3) that won't be stopped by any blogger code of conduct.
You see, stupid asshole psycho threatening emailers don't care about codes of conduct. That's all.
After 3 days, here is his response to all the outpouring from women bloggers who have detailed rape threats, being raped in real life, knowing others who have been attacked, stalked, and were outraged by his chauvinistic attitude. That was it.
Yup, it's both bogus and sad, and Markos conveniently forgets that he said Sierra should grow a thicker skin (presumably thick enough to deflect weapons) and implied she never really was threatened ("where are the e-mails, huh?").
I agree with Trifecta that there are better progessives out there (myself not included, quite frankly) and that our eyeballs should gaze elsewhere. I stopped reading dKos on daily basis because the front page rarely did anything for me--too much inside baseball for my taste--and the threads just ain't my cuppa. Not that Atrios is a Champion of All That Is Progressive And Good, or even a great writer or analyst, but I just prefer the community there. And through that community I'm finding more interesting blogs like Trifecta's.
I do have to disagree on one niggling point:
Markos got to be where he is through a combination of hard work, some talent, as well as fortuitous timing.
As NTodd's Pa has always said, it takes luck, timing and talent...in THAT order. And just as Imus can lose his position, so could Markos...
ntodd
[Update: Mary Beth has started another tracking thread for the responses to Markos' responses to the responses to his response to...]
April 15, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/25771/17747992
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Yeah, What Trifecta Said (Again):
Comments
Dear Markos,
Not every blog is like yours.
Thanks.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Apr 15, 2007 3:39:40 PM
I can't believe this is still going on. As I wrote chez moi this afternoon, Markos's original point was valid: no "code of ethics" was ever going to be enforceable to begin with. It absolutely wouldn't stop any determined loon from making or carrying out a death threat. I never aw anything remotely resembling misogyny or a belittlement of anyone who had suffered an attack--just an acknowledgement that almost nobody who makes threats by e-mail ever has the gumption to do anything about it. And if someone does make a threat, you don't swat them on the nose with a copy of some POS bloggers' code, you call the FBI and report it. I would have thought that was so obvious as to be self-evident.
Now I'm wondering if people aren't looking for excuses to pile on Markos since he's pretty well established himself at the top of the heap on our side of Blogistan. Conservatives are known for falling into lockstep; we're better known for eating our own. And I think that's what's behind this tempest in a teapot.
Posted by: Michael | Apr 15, 2007 4:24:38 PM
Dude, it's not an excuse to pile on Markos. He dismissed the threats that started the stupid Code discussion. Yes, his point about the Code is spot on: I've said so lots of times this past week. His tone deafness about misogyny is at issue, and he's shown time and again that he doesn't seem to appreciate what many women experience online and off. And damn right I'm gonna fucking stomp his ass on that shit.
Posted by: NTodd | Apr 15, 2007 4:31:11 PM
One more thing: this isn't "eating our own." It's more like, "my bloggers right or wrong. When right, to keep right; when wrong, to set right."
Posted by: NTodd | Apr 15, 2007 4:32:28 PM
If his point about the code is "spot-on," then how is it misogyny to point that out? Not to mention that I've still not seen any evidence of misogyny in anything he wrote on this issue. Nor has anybody accusing him thereof provided any examples. So you'll pardon me for not jumping on this bandwagon going nowhere, and also for thinking it looks suspiciously like eating our own.
Posted by: Michael | Apr 15, 2007 4:38:28 PM
The beef isn't with Kos thinking a "code of conduct" is pointless and silly, it's about him dismissing a female blogger's reaction to threats of sexual brutality.
Posted by: Lesley | Apr 15, 2007 4:55:50 PM
Lesley. Nail. Head.
Michael. Not. Markos'. Misogyny. Internet. Markos. Ignoring.
Hamlet. In love. With the old man's daughter. The old man thinks.
Posted by: NTodd | Apr 15, 2007 5:25:50 PM
the code of ethics issue is irrelevant to what we are talking about. it happened to be the issue that markos was talking about when he made incredibly outrageous statements dismissing a woman's legitimate fears about being attacked (legitimate enough that the police are investigating).
as i said, just because markos wasn't the one making the death threats doesn't excuse him of misogyny by omission. i have mis-appropriated eldridge cleaver to this issue: when it comes to institutionalized misogyny (or bigotry), if you ain't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
by ignoring or minimizing the very real problems ms. sierra experiences from cowardly men who could be dangerous, markos (and others) encourages same.
Posted by: skippy | Apr 15, 2007 6:27:50 PM
Reditto what Lesley said.
Posted by: trifecta | Apr 15, 2007 7:03:43 PM
the code of ethics issue is irrelevant to what we are talking about. it happened to be the issue that markos was talking about when he made incredibly outrageous statements dismissing a woman's legitimate fears about being attacked (legitimate enough that the police are investigating).
I don't think the code of ethics is at all irrelevant. Go back and read Markos' original post. It was about the pointlessness of a code of ethics in addressing the kinds of threats aimed at Kathy Sierra.
And I think everybody agrees he's absolutely right about that.
If there was any sin in what he did, it was, as I've said before, not researching what happened to Sierra before popping off a post that *appeared* to dismiss what happened to her as just the complaints of another whiney blogger.
And I say appeared because I don't think that's at all what he meant.
His post was not directed at Sierra, it was directed at blogistan in general. Not once in the entire post does he use the words 'you' or 'she'. He uses 'they' -- obviously aiming his comments at more than just Kathy Sierra. And he isn't even aiming them at just women bloggers. He's talking to all bloggers.
So yes, if he was going to write a post using Sierra as an example, he should've done more research than read one BBC article about it. But given that it looks like he didn't, how was he supposed to know that what happened to her was more serious than run-of-the-mill lunatic commenters?
And given his admittedly ill-informed opinion of what happened to her, then what's wrong with what he wrote? His post is spot on in dismissing any code of conduct as a solution.
There wasn't any intentional or even inadvertent misogyny in what he did. It was simply a misunderstanding of how serious the threats against one particular blogger were.
Posted by: flory | Apr 15, 2007 8:53:21 PM
Funny how after time enough to research the story, he still hasn't said thing one about Kathy, misogyny, etc. Not unlike Rich vs Cox...
Posted by: NTodd | Apr 15, 2007 9:10:29 PM
Funny how after time enough to research the story, he still hasn't said thing one about Kathy, misogyny, etc. Not unlike Rich vs Cox...
Yeah. He'd have been better off not saying anything than throwing up a half-assed post that doesn't really address the issue people are so upset about.
Then again -- his wife did just have a baby. I doubt he's firing on all cylinders right now.
Posted by: flory | Apr 15, 2007 10:55:13 PM
flory - I'd allow Markos the Baby Defense if his Screw Them post hadn't also been in April, hadn't a history of dismissing womens' issues and hadn't been a complete ass in his follow up "defense". Shit, it's not like other people in this world have had some stress associate with, say...having babies or people dying or losing their jobs or having the shits or stepping in cat puke.
Posted by: NTodd | Apr 15, 2007 11:03:58 PM
NToddler:
I'm gonna have to agree with michael -- I would like to see some evidence of Markos' "history of dismissing womens' issues".
Granted, he doesn't blog about them. Then again, neither does Atrios.....or you for that matter.
So what's this history?
Posted by: flory | Apr 15, 2007 11:35:05 PM
Don't make me fucking work. I don't get paid enough for this shit.
And pattern or no, HE FUCKING DISMISSED THIS BITCH'S DEATH THREATS AND TOLD HER TO GROW A THICKER SKIN. That's stupid, insensitive, and given whatever the hell I recall of his assholery in the past, it's enough for me to condemn him, shit on his blog and declare him Not At All Nice. No, really, at the moment that's the extent of my argument.
He's a fucking 12yo who acts like Cock On The Walk because he's got a convention and blog with lots of traffic, so God Damn Those Who "Pile On" when he says something stupid and insensitive. And he never posts pussy pictures, which right there shows he's a lame blogging git with no interest in engaging women or catbloggers.
For more thoughtful stuff on this very important subject, check out all the hot feminists who are mad at him that I'm flirting with and hoping to get laid by...
Posted by: NTodd | Apr 15, 2007 11:50:21 PM
Don't make me fucking work. I don't get paid enough for this shit.
You just raised your prices. Plus, you get prezzies.
And pattern or no, HE FUCKING DISMISSED THIS BITCH'S DEATH THREATS AND TOLD HER TO GROW A THICKER SKIN.
Based on a misunderstanding of how serious those threats were.
Which is not remotely evidence of misogyny.
That's stupid, insensitive, and given whatever the hell I recall of his assholery in the past, it's enough for me to condemn him, shit on his blog and declare him Not At All Nice. No, really, at the moment that's the extent of my argument.
Stupid is posting about something while admitting in the post you don't really know much about the subject. So yeah, I'll give you stoopit.
It would only be insensitive if he knew how serious the threats were and dismissed them anyway. Which he apparently didn't. So not insensitive.
We're still waiting on the evidence of assholery.
There goes your argument......:)
Posted by: flory | Apr 16, 2007 12:03:59 AM
Based on a misunderstanding of how serious those threats were.
Which is not remotely evidence of misogyny.
A misunderstanding which he has yet to correct. And I'm puzzled: when did I say Markos was guilty of misogyny?
Stupid is posting about something while admitting in the post you don't really know much about the subject. So yeah, I'll give you stoopit.
Point to NTodd.
It would only be insensitive if he knew how serious the threats were and dismissed them anyway. Which he apparently didn't. So not insensitive.
Nah, it's always insensitive to dismiss threats against women. And the error is compounded when it's pointed out and the asshole continues to say, "but that's not my point!" Imus. Markos. One's old and wrinkled, one's young and dimpled. That's all the difference I see thus far.
Posted by: NTodd | Apr 16, 2007 12:19:17 AM
And I'm puzzled: when did I say Markos was guilty of misogyny?
Well -- now that I'm rereading it, I'm not 100% sure you did. But I'm not 100% sure you didn't, either....
Michael. Not. Markos'. Misogyny. Internet. Markos. Ignoring.
Given the possessive form you used on Markos' name...I'd say you prolly did.
So...neener.
Nah, it's always insensitive to dismiss threats against women.
No. Sometimes women whine for no reason. We're human, just like men. Not that I'm saying Kathy did, but think about the repeated "victimization" of your various batshit insane future ex-wives for example.
And the error is compounded when it's pointed out and the asshole continues to say, "but that's not my point!"
True. But I already agreed his response post was worse than useless, so you don't get any extra points for this one.
One's old and wrinkled, one's young and dimpled. That's all the difference I see thus far.
One intentionally offends people to make money. The other inadvertently offended people while trying to make a point about serious principles.
Big difference.
Posted by: flory | Apr 16, 2007 12:39:45 AM
Michael. Not. Markos'. Misogyny. Internet. Markos. Ignoring.
Given the possessive form you used on Markos' name...I'd say you prolly did.
Nope. NOT. Markos'.
Geesh.
No. Sometimes women whine for no reason. We're human, just like men. Not that I'm saying Kathy did, but think about the repeated "victimization" of your various batshit insane future ex-wives for example.
Yeah, like I've posted graphical representations of their deaths. TOTALLY the same!
One intentionally offends people to make money. The other inadvertently offended people while trying to make a point about serious principles.
Funny thing is that Markos coulda made the same point without saying Kathy needed to grow a thicker skin, and when called on his insensitivity, coulda acknowledged it.
Sorry, ain't gonna give Markos a pass just because he's on our side, had a baby, or runs a big blog. He fucked up and unless he acknowledges that, I'm gonna mock him with the same fervor that I do Althouse and Magalangandingdong.
Posted by: NTodd | Apr 16, 2007 12:44:55 AM
Nope. NOT. Markos'.
Geesh.
Nope. Michael. NOT.
Geesh.
Yeah, like I've posted graphical representations of their deaths. TOTALLY the same!
You said "it's always insensitive to dismiss threats against women."
The fact that it was insensitive to dismiss this particular threat, doesn't mean its always insensitive.
Funny thing is that Markos coulda made the same point without saying Kathy needed to grow a thicker skin
He didn't. What he said was that public figures who can't handle "a little heat in their email inbox" should try another line of work. Nothing aimed directly at Kathy alone and clearly indicating a misunderstanding of the seriousness of the threat.
and when called on his insensitivity, coulda acknowledged it.
You keep tryin' to get extra points for this, and you ain't gonna.
He fucked up and unless he acknowledges that, I'm gonna mock him with the same fervor that I do Althouse and Magalangandingdong.
Well, he definitely fucked up, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. So you can mock, and I'll give you shit about it.
Posted by: flory | Apr 16, 2007 1:24:15 AM
You said "it's always insensitive to dismiss threats against women."
The fact that it was insensitive to dismiss this particular threat, doesn't mean its always insensitive.
Uh, you're going from a sufficient condition to a necessary condition. Logic don't work that way.
What he said was that public figures who can't handle "a little heat in their email inbox" should try another line of work. Nothing aimed directly at Kathy alone and clearly indicating a misunderstanding of the seriousness of the threat.
Yeah, and the context of Kathy's situ was irrelevant. A little heat? Death threats? Publicly posted threats and depictions of violence? Nope, sorry, the catalyst was Kathy, he didn't bother to research the situ (ala the SCLM we deride daily), and when called on it refused to do even a cursory follow up.
and when called on his insensitivity, coulda acknowledged it.
You keep tryin' to get extra points for this, and you ain't gonna.
I see, so if Imus is called on being a bigoted sexist and doesn't acknowledge it, that's bad, but when we call one of our own on being ignorant, insensitive and/or tone deaf, when he continues to be an ass, we're supposed to put our tails between our legs and say, "oh, sorry, Markos, feminism just ain't your bag, baby?" Bullshit.
Well, he definitely fucked up, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. So you can mock, and I'll give you shit about it.
I'm confused: he fucked up; I mock him for it; you give me shit for mocking him for fucking up? To quote Joke Line: it does not scan.
Posted by: NTodd | Apr 16, 2007 1:33:56 AM
Uh, you're going from a sufficient condition to a necessary condition. Logic don't work that way.
Actually, I think you were.
Yeah, and the context of Kathy's situ was irrelevant. A little heat? Death threats? Publicly posted threats and depictions of violence? Nope, sorry, the catalyst was Kathy, he didn't bother to research the situ (ala the SCLM we deride daily), and when called on it refused to do even a cursory follow up.
I've already acknowledged that his sin was insufficient research before he wrote the initial post, but you're not willing to acknowledge that given his understanding of the situation at the time he posted, what he wrote was neither insensitive nor wrong.
And I've also already said I agree that his response sucked.
You keep tryin' to get extra points for this, and you ain't gonna.
I see, so if Imus is called on being a bigoted sexist and doesn't acknowledge it, that's bad, but when we call one of our own on being ignorant, insensitive and/or tone deaf, when he continues to be an ass, we're supposed to put our tails between our legs and say, "oh, sorry, Markos, feminism just ain't your bag, baby?" Bullshit.
Jeezo. All I was saying was that I agree with you his response post sucked and he should have addressed people's concerns in it. You don't get extra points for bringing it up again when I've already given you the point.
Well, he definitely fucked up, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. So you can mock, and I'll give you shit about it.
I'm confused: he fucked up; I mock him for it; you give me shit for mocking him for fucking up? To quote Joke Line: it does not scan.
Well, here I was trying to lighten things up a little and point out we're not gonna agree. Guess it didn't go over so well......
Posted by: flory | Apr 16, 2007 3:34:29 AM
I think Kos's star is dimming and we shall soon be blinded by the ascending star of one Jerome Armstrong
This former "trusted user" stopped reading dkos going just over 18 months ago and the only thing i miss are the banshee screams of the dean fanatics.
Posted by: Syd B | Apr 16, 2007 7:34:39 PM
[checks goat entrails]
Yup, I think you're right.
Posted by: NTodd | Apr 16, 2007 9:44:57 PM
Buy me stuff off my 
