[This is a response to Sarah Tanner's latest blog post "On Bitchiness and Other Online Crap". My response is so long that I decided to post it here instead of clogging her comment system.]
Hm… I’m so not sure. There are so many questions and issues in this. Let me try to break it down a bit. Sorry if it ends up a mess (which it probably will be).
“One of mine happens to be bullying. If I see what I perceive to be instances of unfair treatment of others, I go postal.”
and
“The insults then spread over onto Twitter. Now unless I’ve missed something, I don’t understand why Magdalen’s comments generated sarcasm and belittlement.”
I don’t understand why would you associate “unfair treatment” with “I don’t understand why M’s comments generated sarcasm and belittlement”. Would you say negative comments about – say – Mrs Giggles, Smart Bitches, this blog, etc. are part of “unfair treatment”?
If Person A makes a negative comment about Person B because of what Person B has written, whether it is ‘unfair treatment’ depends on the nature of Person B’s written note. If it’s harmless and unprovoking – such as “I went to Borders and didn’t find anything I liked” – then yes, Person A’s comment is uncalled for.
If Person B’s note is about a touchy subject, then that’s the way it goes. It’s not unfair treatment. It’s a reaction to Person B’s comment. When you write, you have to accept that there will be some who think contrary or uncivilly, sometimes to the point of defining you by what you write. It’s the nature of the internet (and media).
“I’m simply astounded that Magdalen received such a bashing for stating her opinion.”
I’m astounded that you would even be astounded at all. Why would you be surprised? We all are used to seeing people reacting to columnists’ opinion pieces. They say all sorts, positive and negative, about the columnist. Blog respondents can’t and won’t be protected from similar reactions. It’s a risk one has to take.
As for online bullying – It’s surprisingly difficult to define online bullying. If a group of people gang up on one person, we should look at possible reasons why they do it. Is it to argue with that person’s probably “unpopular” point or comment? Is it right to bullying that person into agreeing he or she was wrong and they were right? Of course not. What if the sole person’s belief is that interracial marriage shouldn’t be legal that prompted a group of people to pile on him? Is this an act of online bullying?
We all have different ideas of what defines bullying, nastiness, incivility, bitchiness, respect/disrespect, and many more. My idea of disrespect, for example, is ignoring a person’s pointed question. Some don’t see anything wrong with this. Name-calling? Calling a person a smug cow? Doesn’t bother me at all. Probably because I have been called that many times. 
If a person makes an uncalled-for comment about one person, how often the person did this? Every day? Every hour? One-off? And where? Every message board? On their own blog or Twitter account? If the person said it once on their own Twitter account, is it online bullying? If it is, then I must be a bully because I have made negative comments about books, authors, bloggers, respondents, celebrities, my family, and so on on my account.
Where do we draw the line between having a right to expressing an opinion – civilly or not – and being classified as disrespect, a bully or a bitch, though? We all are judged by our comments and in some cases, blog posts. We earn respect, not given. Ideally we all would be given respect and we do. Whether we could retain that respect depends on how we write or respond.
Has it occurred to you that by your definition, you’re a bully by writing this blog post? We all are inconsistent with our opinions and stances on Twitter. Some days we may be harsher than we meant to be. Some days, passive aggressive. Some days, moody and unfair. Other days, fair and thoughtful. Some,thoughtless and tactless. It’s an ongoing stream of moments. On top of that, there’s 140 character limit. So with this in mind, are you being unfair in singling out a Twitter comment that was probably made on a spur of the moment as a Very Bad Thing? I feel it’s a different thing if the person wrote a blog post about Person B because a blog post requires time and effort.
I read a tweet not along ago that one thought I was a racist bitch because of what I said during the Lamada awards fuss. I responded to that person to ask why she thought I was racist. She responded later that she re-read and realised she had misunderstood my comments. And she said she was in a bad mood that day, too, hence her hastily-made comment.
This is why I don’t take what I read on Twitter at face value. It’s inconsistent and too fleeting to be taken seriously.
Anyway, you said it yourself, everyone has a few who aren’t keen on them, but so what? It’s part of the Internet life, isn’t it? If you going to write something that will make people’s eyes go swirly, deal with the consequences as best and civilly as you can – or don’t write at all. Or in my case, stick fingers in ears and sing “la la la la” and then carry on responding.
But seriously, if a person writes something that may cause reactions – how do you think it should be handled? Civilly? But it’s not going to happen, is it? There will be name-calling as it’s always been. IMO, the best course of action is ignore the uncalled-for comments and move on.
This is such a long, cold mess. Sorry! Hope it makes sense somehow.
It’s not the first time Magdalen has received a major push-back for having an opinion which dissented from the majority. Robin accused Magdalen of gaslighting her. I was astounded by that. I understand “gaslighting” to mean intimidation of someone and/or psychologically manipulating them into doubting their own memory. Obviously Robin’s perception of the tone and intent of Magdalen’s comments was very different to my own.
I’m not sure I understand your comment about me being a bully for writing my post. If that were the case, no one would ever be able to stand up for themselves without being accused of bullying someone. I felt Magdalen was unfairly treated in this circumstance and said so.
Oops! No edit button.
As I’m being accused of being a veritable Pollyanna on my blog, your post offers another perspective!
So? Robin and I head-bashed each other a few times over years. She said things that I felt weren’t warranted and I her. I’m not a fan of her ‘when I was at a law school…’ quirk, but that’s something I accepted as part of her. I have some quirks that regularly piss her off, but I assume she accepts these as part of my persona.
Your quirk – you seem to believe that what you write or your opinions have a tendency to cause outrage or dissent. And you seem to have a tendency to take things personally. Both are annoying traits, but I accept those as part of you. It doesn’t subtract nor add to who you are or reasons why I like interacting with you. Does this make sense?
You being a bully – singling out one single Tweet. It’s just an example of how a perspective of an action differ and unexpectedly.
Standing up for friends is a good thing, of course. I have learnt a long time ago, though, that it’s best to leave it for the targeted person to handle it by him or herself (Unless I was asked to help, of course). Because when friends wade in to defend their friend, it can cause a flame war and unnecessary messy drama. It’s best to go in if I want to address a particular aspect of a comment.
Heheh!
Sorry about lack of editing fuction. Will look into this.
I had a few wack jobs email about a couple of my posts. Might be why I got they impression they’d caused outrage. Maybe all bloggers get crazy emails from time to time. You know, that’s something I’ve never thought to ask!
It wasn’t a single tweet. If I recall correctly, this is the third time I’ve seen people tweet about Magdalen without addressing her directly.
I must live in a rarefied environment because generally speaking, the only name-calling I encounter is online.
Oh, yeah. When I had the old blog, I had a few dodgy emails and read more negative comments about me, my blog, or my rants about Scottish historical novels and other aspects of the Rom genre (virgin widows, etc.) on message boards, Yahoo mailing lists, etc.
o_0 You never came across the name-calling in real life? Not even on TV? At school? Jesus, you’re so lucky. I got name-called a lot. Mostly racist, granted, but it happened.
I should clarify: in my real life today I rarely encounter name-calling. There’s been the odd instance of a xenophobic comment but the Swiss usually mistake for a German, so it’s kind of hard to take deep offense!
I was badly bullied at school which is probably why I’m over-sensitive to what I perceive to be unfair treatment of others. My mother was a single parent which was rare in Holy Catholic Ireland when I was growing up. Ironically enough, last I heard every third Irish birth is out of wedlock these days. Times change.
Ah, right. It still exists in mine today. Boo hoo.
Then, we have something in common. My mum was also a single mother, raising me alone, until she met and married my step-dad. Up to then, we had a difficult time with the locals (yet my bio father wasn’t vilified, apparently because he, even though married with adult kids and was 20 or 30 years older than her, couldn’t control himself with a fifteen-year-old schoolgirl(!)). So, I think I know where you’re coming from.
But yeah, it seems my sense of fairness depends on a cause-and-effect factor. I think I’m more likely to react strongly to blatant acts of hypocrisy or/and double standards.
So, here’s what I’m enjoying about this, and here’s what I’m upset about. (Not that anyone asked me, but that’s the beauty of the Internet generally and comment threads specifically: we’re all allowed to post — within generally accepted guidelines of what is and is not “intolerable slagging off.”)
I agree with FancyReader — I wasn’t bullied. Sure, I was upset, but I was cool with it, until one very specific thing, and it wasn’t the “gaslighting” comment.
I really lost it when Jane (DA herself) posted a lengthy comment in the Sexuality/biology/morality comment thread that was about a post on MY BLOG.
D’yall see where we are right now? We’re commenting on FancyReader’s blog because FancyReader posted her thoughts on a subject generated by Sarah’s post on MonkeyBear. So Sarah and I have come over here to comment. We respect the so-obvious-I’m-amazed-I-have-to-say-it custom that you comment on a blog post at the blog where it was posted.
Who the hell knows why Jane decided to post her comment, referencing the statements of a market research executive quoted on my blog, in a comment thread on her blog. I found her actions extraordinary, particularly as
1) She’s ripped at commenters in the past for being “off topic” in DA comment threads, and
2) It was rude to others reading her comment and having no idea who Michael Norris was because he wasn’t quoted at DA.
I offered her the chance to have the discussion at Promantica, and she declined.
So, FancyReader — is that a blatant enough act of hypocrisy and/or double standard for you? Do you think for a moment that Jane would have allowed someone to do that to her — just hijack the ideas and opinions on DA to discuss on the other person’s blog?
I’m here at your blog because I’m responding to your post, and to the comment thread here. That’s the right thing to do. I believe what Jane did was wrong — it was rude, disrespectful, hypocritical, and just plain mean.
You lost me on this one, I’m afraid. Two reasons:
a) I have no idea what is going on between you and Jane as I wasn’t aware until you brought it up here, or do I know who Michael Norris is.
And I don’t see how it’s to do with double standards/hypocrisy – and to be honest, I don’t quite appreciate you associating the spat between you and Jane with something so personal (double standards/hypocrisy) to me.
b) Attributions, credits and references – it’s up to every person’s policy to decide whether to reference a source or not. My policy: “always credit a source. Always.” The others? It varies. And none of their policies is wrong. It either fits in with what you believe is right, or it doesn’t.
If you’re convinced that she’s used your blog post as a reference without credit, then disregard her as a trustworthy blogger and stay away from her blog. That’s my usual course of action, anyway.
You have to be 100% certain that she did it, though. Coincidences are a lot more common than you may realise. It happened to me a few times, which is why I now don’t take it personally whenever it feels as if someone used/repeated my blog post/comments without credit.
If I were you, I’d just let it go because:
a) people can see it for themselves, e.g. they read your post and saw her comments, they will have their own conclusions, rightly or wrongly
b) it is a lot more common than you may realise
c) no one cares. It’s a horrible thing to say, I know, but honestly, no one cares. I ranted about various topics and at the end of the day, no one gives a crap. Reading online is a means to pass time or a form of entertainment.
This is why you have to be selective of which to take to heart and when don’t. It’s honestly best to tsk loudly to self and move on.
“Who the hell knows why Jane decided to post her comment, referencing the statements of a market research executive quoted on my blog, in a comment thread on her blog. I found her actions extraordinary, particularly as
1) She’s ripped at commenters in the past for being “off topic” in DA comment threads, and
2) It was rude to others reading her comment and having no idea who Michael Norris was because he wasn’t quoted at DA.”
1) We can’t talk off-topic on her blog but she can? That’s how it is. It’s her blog. Her blog, her rules.
It’s same for other blogs. Some don’t allow the others pimping their blogs in comments (which is fair as it’s rude). Some don’t tolerate criticisms of their blog posts.
I don’t mind off-topic responses at mine (like you bringing the Jane/Norris issue here) and I actively welcome criticisms or feedback of my blog posts and don’t mind respondents having a conversation (off-topic or not) among themselves. And I won’t tolerate any form of mob mentality – or a personal bitchfest about readers or bloggers – taking place anywhere on my blog. My blog, my rules.
Perhaps you should create a rule at yours: “don’t reference any of my blog posts without a credit to me”.
2) Rude? I don’t understand what you mean here. Quite a few people mentioned various names, terms, incidents, topics, etc. without any explanation. Acronyms, too. Such as TMI, TBR, SEP, JAK, etc. It seems to me that what you really are saying is, it was rude of Jane to reference to your blog post without acknowledging you as a source?
I accept that you believe what Jane did is wrong and that it was rude, disrespectful, etc. I support your right to feel that way.
I’m sorry if I’m not supportive enough; it’s probably because I’m an old hag who’s too used to the ways of the Internet – such as etiquette, coincidences, etc.
But I hope your issue will be resolved peacefully and soon, though!
I don’t agree with throwing the baby out with the bathwater — i.e., eschewing Dear Author just because Jane was a Mean Girl on this occasion. (But if you really can’t find her comment on the Robin/Janet post comment thread, either she’s deleted them all — which would be craven — of you didn’t look hard enough.)
I admire Dear Author — just blogged about that at Promantica — and I deplore the high school-age antics of some people on some occasions in Romlandia — and just blogged about that.
Don’t need your support — but if you’re going to deplore hypocrisy and double-standards, you might recheck whether it took place on this occasion.
I’m in a rush, so excuse the shortness of my response:
You might want to re-read my comment about double standards and hypocrisy. Or at least, note the context.
To clarify: I was referring to the society’s treatment of men and women.
Well, Sarah, I guess that makes us even, because I was “astounded” that after a 2000 word blog post and numerous comments, that someone would make a comment that translated to me as: ‘well, you can read Harlequin books, so why do you have a problem?’ To which my honest response was: ‘are you trying to play with me?’ Because that’s the way I thought to deal with the insult I felt was dealt me (i.e. diminishing the effort I put into writing what I think is a small piece of an important set of issues).
Was Magdalen intending to be insulting? Probably not, but why am I not allowed to feel insulted?
And for the record, I didn’t “accuse” her of gaslighting me. What I said was, “assuming you’re not trying to gaslight me,” which I felt was a way of saying you probably don’t mean this, but it’s coming across to me like this.
I’m also confused about Magdalen’s beef with Jane commenting about her blog post on DA. Magdalen was the first one to bring the issue over to DA, so why shouldn’t she comment on it at DA? And as a warning, the reply I’m composing to Magadalen FOR DA is going to reference things Magdalen directed TO ME on her blog. Because I’ve written my piece on DA, because Magdalen is responding to my piece on DA, and because she’s mentioned the Norris stuff on DA. So am totally confused as to why a response on DA would be out of line.
In fact, it just occurs to me that Magdalen wrote a response to MY original Morality and Romance post on her own blog. Am I supposed to be pissed about that? Because I wasn’t, but I can be worked up to it.
“Magdalen’s beef with Jane commenting about her blog post on DA. Magdalen was the first one to bring the issue over to DA, so why shouldn’t she comment on it at DA?”
Wait. If I interpreted Robin’s comments correctly — Magdalen, are you upset that Jane didn’t leave her response at your blog after you left a link to your blog post at her blog?
If that’s right, why didn’t you correct my misunderstanding earlier? I thought you were saying she used the info from your blog post as her own and without credit to you.
Anyroad, when you pimp a link to your blog post in a comment at someone’s blog, that’s where all bets are off. (Blogging etiquette: http://blogs.suite101.com/article.cfm/blogging_etiquette)
Example: If I left a link to my blog in a comment at yours, you’re under no obligation to respond.
When you want to respond, you’re free to decide where and when to respond. You want to respond to my blog post at your own blog, instead of my blog? Go ahead. It’s your right.
It’s not mean, rude or hypocritical of you if you did it this way. It’s your right. Just as much as it’s for Jane’s – or any other blog owner’s.
I hope it makes sense.
Maili, All I can tell you is that the comment thread on the post remains full and intact. Magdalen links to her own blog at comment 38 and Jane responds in comment 79. There’s one more exchange in comments 86 and 87.
“And for the record, I didn’t “accuse” her of gaslighting me. What I said was, “assuming you’re not trying to gaslight me,” which I felt was a way of saying you probably don’t mean this, but it’s coming across to me like this.”
Robin, my interpretation of your comment is obviously different from yours. As, it seems from the several emails we exchanged yesterday, is your interpretation of my blog post about the Smart Bitches ad.
You clearly feel I’m twisting your words in this instance, as I feel you’re doing to me with regard to SB Sarah. As we’re never going to change the other’s mind, why don’t we agree to disagree and move on?