i recently had a conversation with somebody, and made the comment that the plogosphere is not really centered around issues, but around individual bloggers. when a single blogger roughs up feathers so much so that there is a multi-blogger co-ordinated counterstrike against that single blogger, we see this in full glory.
normally, as FO, i would probably preach: look guys, lets be civil and rational, and let's not resort to such tatics. sure that dude has some pretty radical ideas, but it's his right to hold such views and voice them right? surely we can afford charity?
but is that the real story behind this counterstrike? is this about the disagreement between conflicting views, or just a sheer loss of patience towards a single blogger's persistent insensitivities and lack of grace?
bloggers are human. you irritate them enough, they will hate you. i preach, and will continue to preach, charity and civility to all bloggers. but i am also human too.
sorry dude, you're on your own on this one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
If it's "just a sheer loss of patience towards a single blogger's persistent insensitivities and lack of grace", perhaps. Unfortunately, it's probably not the case. Should we allow those who preach militant fundamentalism continue to do that? From a consequentialist perspective, I think that's dangerous. From a deontologist perspective, I think that people have a duty to prevent others from inciting senseless hate against another individual.
Aaron,
you may be right, but the only way for me to know that is to read what this guy writes. and i can't read more than a few lines of this guy's stuff. sorry man, i need to suspend judgment on that issue. =P
Ah...
May I point you to the correct place then? :)
http://whybegay.blogspot.com
Let me know if you think that this guy is any better than an extreme militant fundamentalist. :D
i got say i cannot find the place meh?
i said, i can't read more than a few lines....
=P
Aaron, some fundie got balls leh...dare to attack and sacrifice themself...this guy dun have...
FO,
Well i felt that it was necessary to point out the logical fallacies..and i admit i do have something against hate speech. And i am abit of a deontologist myself:P
nedstark,
are you calling me a "fundie" with "no balls"? =P
did it not occur to you that i'm actually on the same side as Aaron, Ben and Kitana? =P
you guys can go crucify this guy, because I personally don't really care very much about a guy who has been causing so much trouble for so long on many blogs. but take a long good look at yourselves and how you do that, and ask yourself if you are doing favours to building a civil society on the blogosphere.
Hello guys!
Dun fight lahhh... We all friends one. =) FO, no lah. Dun think Ned Stark referring to you. *pat pat*
Anyway this whole thing with WBG not really to build civil society. I think some good actually came out of it:
1) more people were made to research and read about what homosexuality is, so that the people who were never really sure how they felt it have a better idea now;
2) WBG can finally realise tt the same old tired tactics tt he has been using to irritate virtually everyone who is not a PAP supporter on the entire blogosphere does not work, and that we are not afraid to engage him at any level, be it at a rational level (which Aaron did wonderfully, I have to admit. I was very impressed), or even at his level (which was incredibly fun).
in any case, like I was telling you before, my motive in blogging is not to build a civil society. it will be nice if we can build one, but my motive has always been to let off steam and to speak up whenever something is bothering me or making me unhappy.
WBG made me rather unhappy, and "engaging" him was an incredibly cathartic experience that made me very happy.
anyway considering that he doesn't engage rationally, i don't think the whole thing affects him the way it does normal people. and where rehabilitative justice isn't in order, the enforcer in me believes tt retributive justice is at hand.
bwahaha. (not a pacifist)
I am not sure how I have fell below the standards of civil discourse but I do not that it is WBG we are talking about here although it might seem that way.
Part 5 of the Free-to-air Television Code says "Information, themes or subplots on lifestyles such as homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexualism, transsexualism... should be treated with utmost caution. Their treatment should not in any way promote, justify or glamorise such lifestyles."
This assumes that homosexuality-xx - are lifestyle choices.
There is the Penal Code that sends homosexuals to jail.
There are homosexuals once denied a job because of their preference.
There are thousands and thousands of homosexuals abused, tortured, because people used to believed they could be treated for a 'psychological' problem.
Many people growing up have committed suicide realizing that society consider them 'abnormal' and they cannot change.
Perhaps it is not clear these are what we (I) are unhappy about. That is why I buay tahan WBG. But it is not WBG the person. It is his views, and the consequences that such views have had on society.
That was ben btw
:)
FO,
erm i wasnt referring to u as a fundie...and from what u have said it can be inferred that ur on the same side as the rest...
i was referring to the homophobe as the fundie...sorry if i created the wrong impression...
Anyway perhaps i did go abit too far, but i believe in any debate sometimes things do get acrimonious and i did ask him a few questions which he refused to answer, instead relying on his same old formula of ad hominem attacks.
So once again, sorry for giving u the wrong idea...hope that no major damage was done ...
alamak,
i must be a poor writer. like nobody understood what i've been saying. sighz...
firstly, this is how you should interpret this post: "normally, as FO, I might have defended you. But since you've been such an obnoxious nuisance to the blogosphere, you're on your own."
Ben, Aaron, Kitana,
I love you guys (not romantically, i'm not bi), and there's no love lost here. I understand, and I agree how it is important to engage the views of this guy, and I totally support you guys on that one.
What I don't totally support is name calling, laughing, fake professions of love etc. I'm not saying you CANNOT do such things, or that this dude doesn't deserve it.
I'm saying I frown upon it because there are lots of others reading it, and they might think such is acceptable and good forms of engagement, and may use such forms of engagement with other bloggers on other issues.
We have a huge amount of difficulty trying to be civil in the blogosphere as it is. FO exists partly as an effort to try and change that. I can understand why you feel its justified to "sink to his level", but I hope you understand why I frown upon it.
Anyways, I still love you guys lah. And when kitana *pat pat* me, what can I do but smile back? =P
*pat pat*
I really want to meet WBG and I really want to give him a Hug. Tell him that its all right to be gay or to hold his views, even if they are not logical.
:)
But Kitana (*muacks*) and all her insinuations about backside stuff - really naughty!
hahahaha
its ben lar
u0302192 is ben..
haha
i know lah. but i kena *pat pat* by you liao mah. that's why I said "aaron if you *pat pat* me TOO (instead of AGAIN), I will thrash your ass flat"
I *pat pat* by Ben liao. dun wan to kena *pat pat* by Ben + Aaron mah. Is that so hard to understand? My male ego falters....sobz
Why be gay?
Dont *pat pat* between guys please.
haha
i mistaken
Haiz
*pat pat* myself
*sob*
Should comment on the new serious post...!
Will do it later
*Pat Pat*
Post a Comment