An Open Letter to Patriot Boy (aka Jesus’ General)

Dear General:

I take it you’re not a feminist or a loyal reader of Tiny Cat Pants, because, if you were, you’d be familiar with certain ideas we regularly discuss here.

One of them is how the patriarchy (a term we use in the Twisty Faster vein, to poke fun and to describe) typifies men as monsters who just cannot help but be bad so that the onus for insuring proper male behavior or, at the least, protecting others from improper male behavior, falls to women.

I have to tell you, it really pisses me off to see you, a man I respect, participating in and encouraging your readers to participate in the punishment of a woman who has not, by your standards, properly protected others from monstrous male behavior.

I am, of course, talking about your post today about my friend, Brittney Gilbert.  You’ll notice that you encourage your readers to write to her place of employment, to write to WKRN’s on-air personalities, and WKRN’s sponsors.  To what end?

I think we both know: you’d like to see Gilbert sufficiently punished for failing to protect you and your readers from Smantix’s bullshit.  And yet, it’s not Gilbert’s job to protect you from Smatix’s bullshit (as I explain in this thread and in this one).

Your assumption that it is, coupled with the assumption that it’s your job to punish her if she fails to do so to your liking reeks of misogyny.

That really disappoints me.  And I’d really like to believe that this is not the case, seeing as we’re all supposedly on the same side here.

But I don’t see anywhere on your site a call for folks to harass Smantix’s employer.  Shoot, I see nowhere on your site a call for folks to even harass the owner of Smantix’s blog.

Why wouldn’t you go after Smantix?  Because he’s just a monster who cannot help himself, who can never be changed?

Well, that, my friend, is some patriarchal bullshit.

It’s not as troubling as this idea that you think it’s okay to police women and find ones that aren’t performing their feminine duties with sufficient mind-reading and fortune-telling abilities so as to be able to tell that you and your readers would come by, refuse to ask simple questions that would have clarified things for you, and need to have everything spelled out for you or else you all would call her a bigot and go after her boss.

But it’s still pretty troubling.

How can you and I really be allies if you think it’s okay for men such as yourself to police women’s behavior and to send a crowd to punish us when we don’t fulfill our traditional roles (such as gatekeeping) correctly?

Just wondering.

Aunt B.

Edited to Add, Because I Want to Be Clear:

There is not a person here who doesn’t sympathize with your grief.  You lost a good friend and an important voice on the internet.  And, no, he doesn’t deserve the kind of shit Smantix is slinging about him.

And I think that most everybody, even the folks who’ve been the brunt of your criticisms, gets that you’re acting from a place of rage and grief.

In fact, I’m beginning to suspect that many of you see that you’re acting from a place of rage and grief, because the tone of the comments from people who’ve commented a few times on the NiT threads has changed from “We’re pissed because Brittney’s a bigot” to “We’re pissed because Brittney didn’t use her mad fortune-telling skills to anticipate that we’d show up here, not understand what was going on, and overreact and we’re too embarrassed to admit that we’re pissed that Brittney can’t read minds and so we’ll just go on about how she’s not doing her job, even though some of us aren’t even clear about what her job is (note that brad in my comments thinks Brittney works for a newspaper).”

I can understand that.

What I can’t understand is the arrogance with which y’all have conducted yourselves–this belief that the world must conform to the shape of your grief and, if it doesn’t, that you can lash out at whoever the fuck you want, regardless of the consequences.

Because it’s arrogant to come onto a thread and start throwing around terms like bigot and racist without first asking the person whether the meaning you’re taking from the post is the meaning she intended.

It’s arrogant to ignore your fellow liberal bloggers (such as me, Kevin Newman, Ivy, etc.) when we tell you that you’re misinterpreting what’s going on.  And believe me, that’s a sting that won’t soon fade.

And it’s arrogant to behave in a manner that might cost someone her job when you don’t even fully understand what her job is.

So, let me tell you a little bit about life on the ground here in Tennessee.  Here, we liberal bloggers are outnumbered by conservative bloggers by about six to one, I’d guess.  Here, there are maybe a dozen feminist bloggers throughout the whole state and a handful, at best, bloggers who blog for immigrant rights.

NiT is the one platform we have to reach a larger readership, to try to influence policy.

If we lose Brittney, we lose the one prominent liberal feminist voice in the state being paid by a news outlet.  We lose our gathering place, we lose our rallying place.  WKRN is an extremely conservative station.  If they don’t have Brittney, I don’t see any reason for them to keep NiT.

Your behavior threatens to take that from us–again such arrogance.

Not to mention that you’re just confirming for the conservatives we have to deal with every day that liberals are arrogant fucks who rush into all situations outrage ablazing without knowing the facts on the ground first.

You’re hurting your fellow liberal bloggers.

I can’t make that any more clear.  Your behavior is hurting us.  Just fucking stop it.

About these ads

235 thoughts on “An Open Letter to Patriot Boy (aka Jesus’ General)

  1. You can’t be serious. You cannot possibly be serious. Someone links approvingly to a piece of racist hackery that’s obviously meant as griefer trolling, and you want to criticize someone, let alone teh General, for taking issue with the approving link?
    First off, I’m sure teh General would be happy to post the original writer’s personal data if you can find it for him. Second, that trollsite is a private piece of hackery. A newspaper should have higher standards both in print and online. Finally, the original piece was written to get attention. Ignoring it is the proper response. Linking approvingly to it, however, is in many ways more offensive than the original horrid piece, which was more likely written to offend than to express actual belief.
    Gender has absolutely nothing to do with anything here, except your perceptions. I’m not open to the twisty type blaming (first off, who are you to presume the moral purity to blame anyone for anything?) but regardless of that, you’re just plain wrong on this.

  2. Oh good lord. That post and move of his was so uncool it’s not even funny.

    I don’t know who he is. I don’t even know who that Steve guy is, since I am not particularly a political/controversial blogger and I mostly spend my time talking about hard candy, ex-boyfriends, and cats. I am assuming the Steve guy must have been pretty controversial. It’s a shame he’s dead, but if you’re a controversial blogger that puts yourself in the spotlight, then there’s a certain amount of whatever you’ve brought on yourself. I would expect that if Smantix got run over by a bus tomorrow, there would be commentary all across the spectrum from “oh, that’s terrible” to “I’m glad he’s dead”. The latter would be tasteless and rather vile, but Smantix by his actions as a blogger would have basically brought those reactions upon himself. You make yourself publically controversial, stuff like that happens.

    The actions by this other blogger and this post I find just about as horrid as what Smantix posted. It’s completely uncool and I am highly disappointed to learn that it was made by someone who had your respect, B. That makes it even more of a shame and more uncool in my book for him to have to done what he’s done.

    As I said on NIT, the bottom line is that this whole thing SHOULD have been a case of “don’t shoot the messenger”. Brittney was doing her job presenting a slice of the entire regional discussion of the day, and if that presentation didn’t include the good, the bad, and the ugly (if all three were present in regional discussion that particular day), then it wouldn’t have been respective at all of NIT’s mission and purpose to show all going on in the regional discussions, good and bad.

    And these people should have been expending their energy complaining to Smantix if they were that upset. And as you pointed out on NIT, not one of them had commented over at Smantix’s place.

    With that in mind, this post you speak of and the action taken, that’s pretty f’d up and I can’t have much respect myself for a person who tries to shoot the messenger instead of taking the REAL bull and problem by the horns.

  3. I mean, I just don’t see any evidence that he expended the same amount of effort complaining to Six Meat Buffet and everyone and everything he could think of associated with it? Because that would only be fair (not to mention make a lot more sense than complaining to a regional blog aggregator).

  4. Annoying typing styles certainly prove your point. You do realize we all know the blogger in question personally and thus actually are jumping to unfounded conclusions based on an entirely original content free post?
    She.did.not.say.a.fucking.thing.you.overcapitalizer.
    .
    ,,
    .

    Tell your friend to do what’s sometimes referred to as “add content”. Nevermind the simple mistake that is not stupid to make no matter how personally you take it, she wrote a header and that’s pretty much it. Anyone who comes across it is supposed to know it’s sarcastic because the tone of the blog was well established in its long history. I should have read the archives, you’re right.
    Maybe, just maybe, the problem is your friend gave these people undeserved attention without actual expression of disagreement or even warning of hate content, which is general common courtesy. It’s good it wasn’t an approving link. How’s about she does her job and make that clear, instead of you finding personal flaws in anyone who doesn’t jump to your conclusions?

  5. So, let’s get this straight. You jumped onto a blog, didn’t know its culture, and were outraged OUTRAGED by something the host put up. And then you overreacted before you clarified with the host and got pissed when people who use the blog daily tell you that you’re acting like a idiot? I’m so surprised. That’s never happened before in the history of the Internet.

    Brad, you’re avoiding like hell our host’s point. If you have a complaint about the racism of the post, go after the man who…you know…actually wrote it. The General is a smart man and can certainly do his own secretarial work to track down Smantix if he wants to have a shaming session. (The ladies don’t owe you Smantix’s address as the price for getting the harrassment to stop. Geez, talk about assertions of entitlement…) Blaming Brittney because people don’t like racism in Tennessee is kind of like blaming Gwen Ifill for the war in Iraq. Defending doing so isn’t going to make you look smarter or less sexist.

  6. And here I was actually thinking it was kind of classy of Brittney not to include Smantix’s bile with the rest of the roundup of clips about Gilliard. That would have been ugly: putting something that poisonous in with a bunch of respectful tributes and a couple of polite (if condescending) disagreements. I like her holding Smantix up as what he is, an outside-the-pale hateful excressence. And I wouldn’t mind so much at the nasty reactions to her decision if they had come from any other source. But, please: people are coming over from Jesus’ General — Jesus’ General, for crying out loud and complaining that you can’t be expected to pick up on irony just by reading it? Um, pot kettle black, anyone?

  7. I for one (and I’m pretty sure I’m not alone) appreciate the fact that Brittney appreciate’s our intelligence. We’re not a bunch of morons waiting to know how to react until somebody tells us how to react.

    Sometimes we can actually read and figure out things all on our own. To take Brittney to task for this is preposterous. This kind of reaction is no better than that imbecilic pastor in Arkansas wanting TV stations not to show things like NYPD Blue. Get a grip..sometimes we can make up our own freaking minds.

  8. Pingback: Dump Your Trunk « Newscoma

  9. I want to take this opportunity to say thank you to Brittney for understanding that many of her readers actually have an independant brain and can figure things out for ourselves. If people can just shut up long enough to attempt to listen and understand, some things speak for themselves. Brittney was letting Smantix piece stand on its own for a reason. We’re not 3rd graders here, but apparently that is where some of the commenters and Jesus General would have us.

    Good Lord, THINK!

  10. Brittney, one saving grace, I guess. If you can stand the heat, this is driving traffic. I don’t know the situation on the ground, but it would make sense that your new boss is probably pleased by that fact.

    I repeat what I’ve said several times: this is the weirdest dust-up I’ve ever seen. If it weren’t coming from the left, I’d swear it was retribution form Steve Gill’s fans.

  11. Pingback: SayUncle » Eating their own

  12. It is lazy and cowardly to attack Brittney for linking to that bile. I didn’t agree with her decision to do it, but it sure seems to me that these bullies turned on her because she was relatively “high-profile.” Why not save your venom for the jerk that wrote the piece? I found a way to disagree with her about it without needing to see her suffer, why can’t they? I think B is right, they have been called out, and now losing face is clearly something they cannot deal with. Sad, this whole thing.

  13. As several have pointed out, it was a classy move on Brittney’s behalf NOT to include Smantix’s vile bile with the roundup of other discussion about the man’s passing and letting it stand on it’s gross and disgusting own instead.

    But some folks can’t see the forest for the reactionary trees I guess.

    BTW Hutchmo’s take on it all this morning is fabulous. Hear, hear.

  14. I just wanna say that as a person of faith, I take offense to anybody who is presumputions enough to call themselves “Jesus’ General”.

    Oh. It’s sarcasm?

    Point.

  15. This whole incident says to me that compassion and good sense will always be better than any ideological posturing. Brittney, it looks like the smart and compassionate people got yer back.

    The rest of them are deserving each other right now.

  16. oh PLEASE, people.

    rule #1 of online communication, has been a blatantly obvious truism since, oh, 1995 or thereabouts: you do NOT repeat NOT put sarcasm on the internet and expect to be understood as sarcastic. you WILL be taken literally, by at least somebody, even if you literally explain in plain english that you are being sarcastic. because that’s just how online communications work.

    reprinting, or linking to, somebody else’s words in an online forum — no matter WHAT they say, no matter WHAT the context — without any further commentary, can ONLY be taken as endorsement of the republished opinion. it will be taken as such, by probably the majority of your readers, no matter who you are. expecting literal republishing to be understood otherwise is nothing but an obscure in-joke, on any online forum.

    this truly has been thus for at least a decade. i truly am surprised that there’s anybody out there trying to be an even halfway serious blogger who so badly fails to understand the limitations and inherent biases of their chosen medium.

  17. …and yeah, that applies to JG too. from my point of view, he’s a supremely unfunny abuser of his chosen medium, too. he only gets away with it because he’s been doing it for long enough that nearly everybody’s been let in on his in-joke, to the point where it’s just about to become an out-joke already.

    but that really only makes his mistake worse; he, if anybody, ought to be aware of this pitfall. i guarantee that he gets misunderstood for being perfectly earnest, often enough that he probably doesn’t even chuckle at it any longer, so he has damn well NO excuse for slipping up here. he’s part of a problem without a solution, as far as misunderstanding sarcasm online goes, and as far as i am concerned.

  18. Well said, especially the addendum. I’ve been feeling as if there hasn’t been enough compassion for anyone being displayed, not Gilliard and not Brittney. And that’s a shame. But yours is the first truly even-handed and compassionate handling of this thing I’ve seen. Thank you for that.

  19. First of all, check out the big brain on Brad! Aunt B, Brad has spoken, and you’re wrong. What Brad sayeth GOES! Also, you lack the moral purity to blame people for things. Or something.

    Second of all, yes, let’s get rid of sarcasm on the internet. That is an awesome fucking idea. AWESOME IDEA*.

    *do I even need to point it out that this is sarcasm? I feel like I do. Because there are some brick-dumb people out there, apparently.

  20. I move that we start a ‘halfway serious bloggers’ group. Maybe THEN the readers will get sarcasm. sheesh.

    Or maybe three NITs – one serious, one halfway serious, and one never serious?

  21. you know this makes a good point, though… if there’s any fault to be handed out to brit (and i’m still not convinced that there is) it’s that she had become comfortable with the usual readers of NiT being sarcastic, opinionated, high-level readers themselves and so felt sure that we would get it… forgetting that there literal, non-opinionated, middle-school-level readers out there who might stumble across the site. i think that’s a fairly reasonable “mistake” based on the level of conversation that generally goes on over there.

    i’d vote for a never-serious NiT… NiS – Nashville is Silly… or Nashville is Sarcastic. Or maybe NsPO – Nashville says PISS OFF.

  22. If Brittney actually believes this is sexism, she’s not smart enough to be worth all this fuss.

  23. literal, non-opinionated, middle-school-level readers out there who might stumble across the site

    You have a point, but I kind of expect most of those folks would find NIT boring, much like I would the American Journal of Brain Surgery or Quantum Physics Today, and probably not really hang around except to look at the occasional pretty/cute picture.

    I’m not saying that to be intentionally insulting to that population segment – I just think it’s probably highly likely that most of those folks spend most of their spare time online, and like a whole lot better, places like MySpace or AOL Chat than a place like NIT, if they really use the Internet all that much at all.

  24. Sexists usually don’t recognize their own actions as sexism and will deny it to high heaven. That doesn’t mean they’re right. And alleging that a woman is dumb when she doesn’t agree with you? Hate to break it to you, but you don’t look like you would recognize sexism if it walked up and threw a drink in your face.

  25. @badbadivy,

    She. Did. Not. Link. Approvingly. To. It. You. Stupid. Motherfuckers. Sarcasm, people, learn it, love it. Jeeez.

    Brittney linked without context or clarification or explanation. That is a DE FACTO “approving” of it. You. Stupid. Motherfucker.

    Sorry geniuses, but in bloggyland, when you paste and link to some crap and don’t provide any context or clarification, thats called ENDORSEMENT. Anyone who hasn’t already read 50 of Brittney’s blog posts will obviously see that post and think that she is endorsing it.

    So if Brittney WASNT endorsing what she quoted, then she simply did something stupid rather than doing something mean-spirited. Either way, she fucked up.

    @AuntB,

    So, let me tell you a little bit about life on the ground here in Tennessee. Here, we liberal bloggers are outnumbered by conservative bloggers by about six to one, I’d guess. Here, there are maybe a dozen feminist bloggers throughout the whole state and a handful, at best, bloggers who blog for immigrant rights.

    Wait a second, is this blog post a criticism of Jesus’ General or a Tennessee bash-fest? Sounds like a real paradise you’ve got over there in hick heartland.

    Ever hear the phrase “abandon ship”? Maybe its time to move to the coast, Auntie Bee.

    If we lose Brittney, we lose the one prominent liberal feminist voice in the state being paid by a news outlet. We lose our gathering place, we lose our rallying place.

    Damn, and Brittney is the CREAM of the Tennessee feminist crop? How disheartening…

  26. “Hick heartland.”

    The only good thing that’s come out of this is it reminded me why I’m a conservative. I confess to forgetting sometimes.

  27. LMAO@ someone who considers that just because someone lives in the south, they’re racist, ignorant pigs calling ME stupid. Thanks for the laugh, I needed it, ya fool.

  28. @badbadivy,

    I do not assume that everyone in TN is a racist ignorant pig. But they do outnumber the others.

    I pointed out to you that “Brittney linked without context or clarification or explanation. That is a DE FACTO “approving” of it.” and then I said “You. Stupid. Motherfucker.” which was actually a verbatim reposting of what you said earlier.

    So in reality, I wasnt “calling” you stupid out of the blue but merely refuting your claim and following up with a personal attack identical to yours.

    Now you come in here and lob more personal attacks, throw around the word “fool”, but somehow ingeniously fail to address my earlier refutation where I explained that quotation without comment or context is DE FACTO endorsement.

    Thanks for the laugh, I needed it, ya fool.

    What you really need is reading comprehension skills, ya fool :P

  29. Aaron –

    “Conservatives suck.” Very thoughtful!

    Thanks for managing to reinforce every possible negative stereotype of East/West Coast liberals in just three comments. Keep up the good work.

  30. Aaron –

    While we’re at at it, please share with us what utopian oasis you happen to call home.

  31. I explained that quotation without comment or context is DE FACTO endorsement.

    No. It is not a de facto endorsement. Have you ever turned on the news to see a story about the Phelps Church protesting something with their God Hates F—s posters? Does the news anchor say, before the story airs, that “What you are about to witness is shocking, horrible and hateful!!!”?

    No. They ALWAYS air the story without comment. That doesn’t mean NBC, ABC and CBS are endorsing Phelps De Facto. It means they are bringing the news.

    Brittney brought you the news. And you, in your cabal-fueled bloodlust failed to see it that way and jumped her for it.

    Sheeple, much?

  32. Thanks for the laugh, I needed it, ya fool.

    What you really need is reading comprehension skills, ya fool :P

    Well, I did go to school here for awhile in the south. Guess it won out over my good northern education there. /eyeroll

  33. Patriarchy? Misogyny? Are you f’n kidding? Do you think for a second ANYTHING in the General’s post would be different if NiT was by a male blogger- other than pronouns? Stop seeing chauvinism and misogyny in every shadow, it makes you look stupid.

    And oh, for the “he. Did. Not. Link. Approvingly. To. It. You. Stupid. Motherfuckers. Sarcasm, people, learn it, love it. Jeeez.”, her own disclaimer says stuff on there IS her opinion. You know, since she didn’t comment on it in any way.

    If people don’t get the sarcasm, maybe she’s jut not good at it.

  34. What the hell …
    I’m at work, take a break, see Brittney has quit, this is horrible …
    Dammit.
    I wish her well and am calling Katherine for Libertarian lessons.
    Hell.

  35. I know everyone is venting, but surely y’all know the old adage about feeding trolls. These guys only want to insult and feel superior. You’ll never have a point conceded, and everyone loses. A good friend of ours is having a bad day, it sucks, but I think she’d want the trolls ignored. After all, this kind of thing clearly contributed to her decision to resign.

  36. Don’t shoot the messenger?

    Messengers usually take special measures not to resemble soldiers.

    If a house full of militant zionists flew a nazi flag above it for one day to make a silent political point, should people in transit knock on the door and ask if thats what the residents really believe?

    posting content without commentary is tacit approval. Failing to provide a crucial form in a public discussion has nothing to do with the gender of the poster, or the prejudices of those critical of that objective failing.

    IMO if JG got excited and maybe went to far, it was simply because Gilliard was a close friend of his, and given the nature of this common situation, Brittney had extra reason for diligence and forethought.

    Brittney screwed up, but Jesus General shouldn’t have gone immediately for her throat (employment) without considering that this was an oversight and not a trend.

    That said, this is all a stupid misunderstanding, these two communities of readers and posters seem to be in agreement on ideology, including the fight for sexual equality, even if we disagree on tone and tactics.

  37. OMG, get out the cameras…but, here goes…

    Hell, yeah, there’s misogyny underlying this whole thing. B is right.

    This doesn’t mean I’m going to become a leftist, but it’s there to see, plain as day.

    Mean people suck.

  38. these two communities of readers and posters seem to be in agreement on ideology

    Not all of us. That’s the nice thing about this community. We don’t agree on a lot of stuff. But we take the time to listen to what the other fellow is saying before we react.

    Love,

    Kat the libertarian

  39. “Conservatives suck. I bet you live in TN!”

    >>>Aaron, if I told you I live in Tennessee, would you automagically assume that I’m a hick conservative?

    Of course you would! Because you’re likely a Democrat living so-called Jesusland, and nothing is ever your fault!

    Good luck in the next presidential as you proceed to honor the advice of the Beltway Bums who’ve been insisting that Tennessee and its neighboring states can safely be written off. You’ll lose, and you’ll smugly blame the South yet again, and you whistle past Dixie all you want and go soundly to sleep with your Tom Schaller books as a blanket.

    But be so very proud that you claimed Brittney’s scalp. G’won back to PatriotBoy and pet your virtual pelt, but know you didn’t do a thing to arrest the spread of ignorance. You just were the best fuckin’ living example of it in this whole exchange.

    –Andy the Goddamned Yankee

    (The joke: A Yankee lives up north and comes to visit the South. A damned Yankee moves there. A goddamned Yankee marries a Southerner.)

    (I married a 7th generation Southern woman who also happens to be a yellow dog Dem. Ta.)

  40. Jebus, you people can’t take criticism. I love how instead of responding to the actual point, which is that your friend made a mistake, you go after anyone who recognizes it personally. Calling me a troll or unintelligent might keep your petty little ego safe, but goddamn do you look stupid. Especially telling me to learn to recognize sarcasm when you can’t spell simple words like “independent”.
    But hey, I’m a troll, because I don’t agree with y’all. I’m probably actually a conservative and misogynist, too, right? I disagree with you. I must be a hatemonger.
    Oy vey.
    Your friend did her job poorly. What was that about blaming the messenger, again?

  41. N before anyone decides to go nuts on a perhaps poorly chosen phrase, by “you people” i mean “you people commenting here”, which would appear to include both genders.
    I guess I’m sorry your friend lost her job. It was a mistake, but it was a simple and easily corrected one. Instead she fell on her sword.
    Me, I take this as another lesson in why one should admit and face their mistakes, instead of denying them and blaming others.

  42. this was never about patriarchal society… it’s like crying wolf, sexism, racism or anti-semitism: when it’s not really applicable, you trivialize the real examples… this is not about wanting to control women… it’s about some sense of decency in the truest sense of the word… question: I make it clear that many of my posts are satirical… did BG?

  43. I make it clear that many of my posts are satirical…

    Do you do so at the start of every individual post? Or do you just expect people to come to know that from the general tenor of your writing and vibe of your site?

    I’m guessing the latter.

    Which is exactly what BG does as well.

    it’s about some sense of decency in the truest sense of the word

    Like the decency about calling for another person’s job?!?

  44. Her job was aggregating what bloggers wrote about in the Nashville area, building community among bloggers in the region, and attracting traffic to her station’s website. Obviously, given the response here and at NiT, she was doing all of that well. I am hoping that the WKRN realizes that they’d be making a mistake in letting her go.

  45. I loved Steve Gilliard, and I loved NiT. I knew this was sarcasm, and it sickens me that Patriot Boy was not smart enough to figure it out.

    Now, we have lost one of our finest bloggers to death (Gilliard), and one of our finest local bloggers to the stupidity of others (Brittney).

  46. I am hoping that the WKRN realizes that they’d be making a mistake in letting her go.

    To be open, I’m hoping the same thing. I know she had a vacation scheduled. I’d love for her to feel like coming back after her vacation. But, really, after all that happened earlier with Gill and Krumm, I can see how this is the last straw.

  47. She quit, she wasn’t let go.
    And a basic part of journalistializin, or blogging, is making your work clear. Sarcasm is well and good, and in the proper hands quite funny, but there’s simply no way to blame others for misinterpreting that post. No rational, fair, way. There was no way to know the post was sarcastic without knowing the blogger, period. The comparison to Jesus’ General or any other sarcastic type doesn’t hold for the simple reason that JC actually writes in his posts. The post in question was a header, a link, a 5 word or so description, and a quote. There was no content, nothing expansive enough to give anyone randomly looking in the vaguest hint.
    But we’re going round in circles. The defenders have become Bushies. There is no valid criticism of their girl, n anyone who does criticize her is not only out of the tribe, but of questionable character.
    Ever consider that your personal behavior can show how empty your claimed political views are?

  48. Ever consider that your personal behavior can show how empty your claimed political views are?

    Yes. Many of my fellow lefties are giving me an excellent lesson in this.

  49. Consider this, Brad – many of Brittney’s biggest longtime and vocal detractors, outright pretty much “enemies”, and people who just in general disagree with her all the time are some of the same voices in the comments in her Goodbye thread @ NIT today. Unless you are aware of who all the usual NIT players are, you won’t know who they are because the detractors and “enemies” and disagreers are basically saying most of the same things the others who are hating to see her go are.

    That, to me, speaks many more volumes about Brittney Gilbert and her work with NIT than much of anything else I’ve read today.

    (And, I need to go post this.)

  50. I don’t know why I’m finding so much pleasure in banging my head against this wall, but who are you trying to kid, Lindsay?
    You call anyone who doesn’t recognize the post as sarcastic “fucking stupid”.
    How’s about an argument to back that up? As in reasons why, beyond you know her and know the context which means the whole world should. Cause, well, that don’t float.
    Then explain why someone can’t take issue with linking to the six meat bs at all? She gave that site exactly what it wanted; attention. The post displayed poor editorial discretion on a number of levels, but anyone who notices that is a patriarchal fake lefty?
    Get over yourself.

  51. I don’t care about the context, in truth. I don’t doubt the blogger in question is well meaning, at this point. I’m, trying, to take issue with the idea it’s sexist or misogynistic or patriarchal to take issue with that post. It isn’t, it was a poorly considered and constructed post. Maybe JC overreacted, maybe, but the idea that the blogger in question did nothing wrong and issue was only taken because she has a vagina is at best misguided, at worst a selfish misuse of the language of feminism.

  52. I never remember to proofread comments. I don’t know why some of those commas are there, either.

  53. If there weren’t just a little dash of misogyny involved, there might not have been quite so many comments about kittens.

  54. My bud Andy Axel posted at KnoxViews something kinda apropros to this discussion (bold is mine):

    The Jesus General brigade has the scalp now of someone with not much power, and a middling amount of influence. What tremendous heterosexual machismo on display. Yeah, do absolutely nothing to harm people with real power and influence, and completely eviscerate those without. There’s a winning strategy for you.

    Full post:

    http://www.knoxviews.com/node/4762#comment-29303

  55. Ok, I’ll admit that the second you mentioned “twisty” as an explanation of your “feminism,” I quit reading. The thrust is this however: Jesus’ General pulls off satire. Brittany did not, Twisty does not.

    The only other blog I’ve ever visited that required it’s readers to “be in on the terms we use here” was a lovely little place called “Cold Fury” where a small group of witless knuckle-draggers have created their own special brand of hate-blog. DO NOT FOLLOW IN THEIR FOOTSTEPS BY TRYING TO CREATE YOUR OWN REALITY. That way leads tomadness, and Dorito-crumb & Mt. Dew covered keyboards.

    It is a low bar really, a low bar to require that if one is going to be biting, satirical, or sarcastic that one actually be able to pull it off. Not so much to ask, no?

  56. I give up.

    I’m a knuckledragging right-winger, and I’ll admit, I didn’t “get” Brittney at first. But she was kinder to me than I deserved, and patiently put up with my nonsense until I got the lay of the land, then welcomed me into the community as if I were a long, lost friend.

    Very much unlike her detractors.

    Don’t even mention yourselves in the same breath as BG, bastards.

  57. Pingback: Respect for the Living « Dork Nation

  58. Gee, lieinveigleobfuscate, you left out Jesus’ General. I check in there once in a while, maybe once a month or so. Commenters who are not in on the joke there are considered fair game. And I have to say that if the satire at NiT was heavy-handed, the same tends to be true at J’sG. which is why I don’t check in there more often. Different strokes, ya know.

  59. Very much unlike her detractors.

    And Brittney’s constant and often daily detractors and basic “enemies” at NIT have been the ones who have said some of the most sincere, nicest things in that comment thread over there today. Which is just simply amazing. I continue to keep being shocked as the day goes on.

    If Stacey X or Terry Frank post something relatively nice over there before the day’s over, I may have a heart attack. But the way today’s been going, I guess it could happen, and the day’s not over yet.

    Anyway, it doesn’t matter to me that these “swoopers” swooping in on things and shooting their mouths off without getting educated first have not a clue, screw ‘em. Those of us who DO “practically live there” and DO participate daily have seen the evidence today of what a great and cool place NIT is and how Brittney’s efforts and hard work are responsible for that awesomeness.

  60. Brad, what I mean by “fucking stupid” is this: You and several other drive-by reactionaries swooped in and presumed that you knew what the author of the post meant, when you clearly didn’t, and now you’re all proceeding to act like jackasses and refusing to back down when damn near everyone in the know — everyone who is a part of this community — is telling you that you misinterpreted what was what written.

    It is fucking stupid of you to come into these forums — NiT, Aunt B’s, etc. — that have their own folkways, as Kat has pointed out already, and tell everyone how wrong they are. Demands that the writing be tailored to generic audiences so as to not risk misinterpretation are just little streams of piss in the wind; who cares what you random people want out of our local forums?

    You originally said, Someone links approvingly to a piece of racist hackery that’s obviously meant as griefer trolling, and you want to criticize someone, let alone teh General, for taking issue with the approving link and in a matter of hours you’ve downgraded that to I don’t doubt the blogger in question is well meaning, at this point. Great. We’re making progress, at least. Maybe by the time I hit “submit” you’ll have backed out of “fucking stupid” territory and coasted into “embarrassingly out of touch” land.

    It is fucking stupid for people who do not understand how NiT works as an aggregator — a human aggregator, yes, but an aggregator of ALL things Nashville is talking about, wonderful and repulsive — to come in and presume to school us on how it SHOULD work. That is fucking stupid.

    The blatant sexism part comes from what NM said earlier — people lashing out at Brittney by using very sexist tactics. Calling her “kitten,” “dumb bitch,” or “fatter than Steve.” Whatever the fuck that’s supposed to mean. I think the more subtle potential sexism comes in the form of “Why didn’t this woman shield us from this vile man?” instead of going after the vile man, just like Aunt B said. Notice I said “potential,” because it’s hard to prove that sexism alone motivated this witch hunt (ha). I can see how you might take issue with that assumption; I’m not sure I completely buy it either. But I will still call those so-called leftists who have indulged in clearly sexist bitch-punishing “fucking stupid” because sexist people are FUCKING STUPID.

    And good try there with the “you’re abusing feminism!” bit. An old trick, but as fucking stupid now as ever.

    That you don’t care about context says a lot about how difficult it must be for you to navigate these treacherous interwebs. Because, as in life, context is motherfucking key.

    lieinveigleobfuscate, when the fuck did Twisty even try to become satire?

  61. The caption “Teaching Libs a Lesson” bothers me. Knowing the blogger and having read (I assume) the post about Steve Gilliard. What in the content constitutes “Teaching Libs a Lesson” a lesson in what???

  62. I came here in response to a link to the open letter to JC posted in the comments of another site, by this site’s owner, I believe.
    It’s nice you coined a new word, “swooper”, but stop pretending it means you can lump everything you’ve seen together and onto me. The only things I’ve said about this are here, in these comments.
    Lumping all criticism together allows you to ignore any potentially valid points. It’s dishonest, and it’s lazy, and you’ve failed to provide any kind of argument.
    Yes, I was wrong to take the NiT post as approving. I was hardly alone in the mistake, and despite this exclusionary tribal mentality you’ve got going on, part of the point of the internet and blogs is for the dissemination of all sorts of information to new people in different places. Getting angry at me doesn’t make your arguments any less crappy.

  63. Re: “Teaching Libs a Lesson”

    For the millionth time, Brittney was referring to what she figured Smantix thought he was doing, you know, in the same way someone says “well, I guess you really taught him a lesson” to someone who thinks they’ve done just that but have really done no such thing. Or, to use another example, the same way you might say “well, you really showed me” when the other person really did not. Why this is so difficult for people to comprehend is beyond me.

  64. Comment by Roger Abramson — June 6, 2007 @ 5:10 pm

    I came upon that post after Googling blogs re: Steve Gilliard. I didn’t know anything about NiT or Brittney. I guess that since the ensuing post was so vile I didn’t see the sarcasm.

  65. You know, I could swallow all this bullshit about “misogyny” a whole helluva lot better if you could acknowledge that Brittney made a mistake. That’s all. Just acknowledge that she should have made her point a bit clearer.

    Even if JG is wrong (and I don’t agree that he is), she posted a vicious, mean-spirited comment about a truly decent guy, and she didn’t do a very good job distancing herself from it. She could have corrected the problem quickly, but she didn’t.

    Can’t you bring yourself to see the other side of this issue? She chose to put that hurtful crap on her blog, and she failed to make it crystal clear that she (obviously, as I now know) disagreed with it.

    I’m sure you’re right about her intentions and her past good deeds. But I think she made a mistake here. Not a mistake that should have cost her her job (if it did), but one for which a rather swift apology, or at least a rather swift clarification, was in order.

    As far as why the General didn’t go after the jerk who wrote the piece initially, it seems to me to be kind of obvious: He didn’t want to give the sonofabitch publicity by linking to his blog; and, he was taking Brittney to task for publishing the comment on a blog affiliated with a TV/radio station. Seems to me, that was the damn problem in the first place.

    But accusing JG of sexism? C’mon – that’s the lamest argument I’ve ever heard.

  66. Why am I not surprised that no one defending the General has come to the conclusion that *his* post brought more attention to the vile post than I ever, ever did?

  67. Well, y’know, Brad, all other arguments of the day aside – probably the real shame of this entire incident is that the folks from JG and other like-minded souls have now propagated the Six Meat Buffet post and link WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY far past anywhere it had gotten or would have gone when it was posted on NIT yesterday.

    If everyone that got so upset could have comprehended the post caption on NIT was sarcasm (or at least listened to the dozens of people who repeatedly told all the upset folks that it, indeed, was), the reference to that post would have dropped down in the search engines eventually and probably not been all that easily retrieved in a few weeks or months, or at least probably not on the first or second page.

    Instead, there are probably so many links to it and copies of it around the Internet NOW, thanks to all the drama from the folks who wouldn’t listen when people that participate on NIT daily were telling them it was sarcasm, that it’s probably going to come up in top several search results indefinitely, instead of drifting off into mostly oblivion like it should have. (NIT’s good, but we’re not Instapundit or Scobleizer or etc.)

    That’s irony. Sad irony and a shame, but irony all the same.

  68. Um, yeah, because he happens to have a large readership. So your point it what exactly? That it’s his fault that you couldn’t be bothered to comment on the post yourself – no sarcasm, no satire, no denunciation, no nothing? If you didn’t want to bring attention to it, then why did you quote it at all?

  69. Hmm. Seems to me he still hasn’t linked directly to it, nor has he publicized its name. Also seems you’re basically saying “she didn’t do it, but look, JC is doing it, too”.

  70. *JG.
    And don’t flatter yourself. We all saw this link pretty quick sunday or monday. Some lefty sites did make the mistake of linking to it, tho all with venom and rage.
    Brittney, is it so hard to admit you made a lazy mistake, apologize, and move on?

  71. No, I’m saying that because of the DRAMA caused by people who wouldn’t listen to people who are active participants of the site telling them the caption to the link/post was sarcasm – and therefore dropped the matter maybe after a little reasonable rational discussion – people all over the Internet have now propagated the link to the site and post all over.

    Matters not that Patriotboy didn’t link to it. Thanks to him and the others who refused to listen at NIT last night, several hundred other people (including people who are claiming to still be outraged and upset, yet they’re posting the link anyway) have now posted it everywhere.

  72. I know y’all don’t want me to bring up Al Gore, but when he spoke at MTSU last year about the declining quality of American political discourse and increasing personal and private hostility in the public arena, he held up the Internet as a fresh opportunity for public-square democracy as our founders intended.

    And when he said that, I thought to myself, “Al, bubba, you’re still a cockeyed optimist even after all the stuff slung at you, but you also remember the kinds of things they used to publish in Ben Franklin’s papers and on handbills. There is power in information and knowledge, yes. But there is also a horrible kind of power in *abuse* of information and abuse of ‘knowledge.’ The speed of your Internet carries the good and the bad equally swiftly. And I think we’re seeing the beginning of that horrible power now.”

    I had no idea it would come so quickly.

    Thank you, B, for your post. And as I’ve said elsewhere, thank you, Brittney, for your good works.

  73. Also seems to me Brittney got a hell of a lot of attention, which if she’d had any talent she could have put to use drawing attention to your little clique. Instead, everyone else is an idiot but you and yours. Not a good way to represent yourself, just fyi.

  74. Pingback: Top Posts « WordPress.com

  75. Pingback: The True Front of Progressivism, Redux « Feline Formal Shorts

  76. As I’m allegedly the 100th post here, this has been a long day in a community.
    I’m tired. I’m fighting trolls at my house, I’m sad because I genuinely like Brittney and I can’t understand, for the damned life of me, why this got so horrible so quick.
    brad, why do you keep hammering? Seriously dude. You aren’t part of our blogging community. Have you, in all honesty, ever read Aunt B. or Brittney before.
    We get it, you’re pissed.
    So are we.
    You can’t convince us. We can’t convince you. We are liberals (or most of us are) as well.
    Jeez, I loved Gilliard. He was one of the first bloggers (along with Atrios) that I read. He was great. And for the record, I’m the newscoma that 6MB made fun of in their post.
    Christ, it’s a tiring day.
    And, I’m worried about Ginger because she had a car wreck.
    That, brad, is our community. We know each other.

  77. Pingback: Six Meat Buffet » Operation: Collateral Damage

  78. The Jesus General brigade has the scalp now of someone with not much power, and a middling amount of influence. What tremendous heterosexual machismo on display. Yeah, do absolutely nothing to harm people with real power and influence, and completely eviscerate those without. There’s a winning strategy for you.

    You have to be kidding. You think my readers think “displaying tremendous heterosexual machismo” is a good thing?

  79. What? The apologies to Brittney haven’t started flowing in yet? That is depressing.

    Come the fuck on, people. Did any of you who’ve been blasting Brittney– if you actually saw her post before the shit started flying– take the time to figure out what it meant? Did you go back and look for some of Brittney’s writings or video segments to see where she was coming from? Did you stop and think to yourself “hmm…this looks peculiar; is Brittney agreeing with this piece of shit, or is this just her funky way of shining a light on his assholery?”

    By jumping all over her and calling for her execution, a whole shitload of you put yourselves in the tactical company of such tireless reactionary handjobs as Donald Wildmon, William Donahue, and the late Jerry Falwell. For the umpteenth fucking time, Brittney wasn’t insulting Steve Gilliard; she was shedding light on someone who was. Oh, I’m sorry; you didn’t get that when you first saw it? Well, a landslide of shame on you for not doing a bit more research. All you had to do, if it really bugged you, was to ask. (“Hey, Brittney, I didn’t get this. What does it mean?”) That’s what mature people ought to do.

    But no; a shitload of you want to call Brittney an idiot, a monster, a racist (!), and the like because you got it fucking wrong. And instead of offering up the requisite mea culpas and my bads to the dear lady now that you know, you cling desperately to the imagined moral high ground of your septic tank and expand your shitstorm offensive to Brittney’s friends and supporters. Way to go.

    You know, it doesn’t bother me that wingnuts of all frequencies are laughing their asses off at us right now. What bothers me (or what would bother me, if I still held out any hope for this fucking Homer Simpson nation) is that they should be.

  80. Aw, Newscoma, if only I had a prize for the 100th poster. All I can offer you are these thoughtful posts from Mag; and Ilyka, who wrote posts that made me feel like it’s not just Tennessee Progressives find out we’re not wanted in the Movement Day, but that there are folks out there who hear and understand what we’re trying to say.
    As to the rest of you, I regret not being here all day to deal with comments as they came up. Thanks for keeping things relatively civil.
    Anyway, let’s get to y’all.
    Aaronkinney, you’ll understand that, living here, at the least I can be assured I don’t live anywhere near you. I take comfort in that.
    Michael, somewhere in Boston, you say, “Patriarchy? Misogyny? Are you f’n kidding? Do you think for a second ANYTHING in the General’s post would be different if NiT was by a male blogger- other than pronouns?”
    Here’s what’s intereting. We don’t have to run this experiment because the experiment was already run by the General, yesterday. When faced with a man who wrote some crap and a woman who reposted it, the General chose to go after the woman. Could it be any clearer?
    I mean dear god, you rarely have the opportunity to see the same thing posted on two different sites, one run by a woman and the other run by a man, and to see what the public reaction to it will be. We’ve been (un)fortunate enough to be able to see what happens.
    In this case, we can say that folks will take after a woman over twice as often as they’ll take after a man (Smantix’s post has, right now, 78 comments. Brittney’s posts have about two hundred and fifty).
    If that’s not sexism, what do you call it?
    Brad, I appreciate your diligence, but please. Go back to those threads. No one from Jesus’ General’s site showed up and asked or even said, “What the hell are you getting at?” No, y’all immediately jumped in with what a racist, Republican bigot Brittney is. Not one of you said, “Fuck me, do you have any idea how someone who wasn’t familiar with NiT might take that as an endorsement? Maybe you want to reword it.”
    In other words, your attempts to rewrite history by suggesting that you all rushed over to NiT with nothing but concern for helping Brittney correct some kind of “mistake” is bullshit. Should Brittney have been clearer? Apparently so.
    Does that excuse y’all taking after her as visciously as you did, especially when the real object of your scorn was just sitting over at Six Meat Buffet, pot shots free for the taking? No, it really doesn’t, especially because your behavior has hurt not just Brittney but, if we lose NiT, your fellow liberal bloggers.
    Pete Bogs, when I invoke the patriarchy in this case, I don’t mean that I think that y’all want to control women. I mean that, I think when you all get hurt or scared or experience any kind of stress, you revert to what feels comfortable to you and what feels comfortable to you is to make someone weaker than you suffer and Patriot Boy took a look at Smantix, took a look at Brittney and made a decision, based on sexist assumptions, that Brittney was an easier and juicier target to go after. And so he did.
    Again, remember, they both posted the exact same post, with the exception of her snarky blog title, so we don’t have to ask ourselves about hypothetical situations in which a man had posted what Brittney posted. A man did post what Brittney reposted and y’all chose to go after her instead of him.
    Brad, to get back to you, you say, “Sarcasm is well and good, and in the proper hands quite funny, but there’s simply no way to blame others for misinterpreting that post. No rational, fair, way. There was no way to know the post was sarcastic without knowing the blogger, period.” To which I say, yes, exactly. That’s why it’s on you–the folks who aren’t familiar with Brittney’s writing–to either get familiar or ask questions before you jump in and start behaving like sanctimonious jackasses.
    Mark, yes, probably.
    And, Brad, the reason we’re all so defensive is that y’all attacked us! Come on. Talk about folks needing to see it from others’ perspective.
    Also, who is Andy Axel and can I marry him.
    Patriotboy, your readers think it’s good fun to jump on one of your fellow progressives and try to hound her out of a job. Your readers think so little of your fellow progressives here in Tennessee that when we ask them to calm the fuck down and actually focus their attention on the man who created the outrage instead of on a woman who runs a resource that we need, they took great glee in calling us rubes and hicks and so on, and piled it on Brittney even higher. Your readers might not think “‘displaying tremendous heterosexual machismo’ is a good thing,” but they do a damn fine impersonation.
    And I apologize for hurting your feelings for not emailing you my open letter. I had taken into account that you don’t think it’s worth your while to engage unpaid bloggers who irritate you and so made the wrong assumption that you wouldn’t actually give two shits about any email I might send you. Next time shrapnel from whatever blog fight you’re picking hits me, I’ll complain through the proper channels, especially now that I know how testy you get when you perceive women behaving inappropriately.
    In the meantime, let me reiterate: Not going after Smantix because you don’t think men can be changed is sexist. When two people post the same thing and one is a woman and one is a man, and you send your minions after the woman, that’s sexist. When people tell you to back off because you’re doing more harm than good, and you heap on anyway, that’s really fucking arrogant.
    Do I think that you hate women? Sweet Jesus, no.
    Do I think you still pulled some sexist crap on Brittney today? Yes, I do.
    Does it hurt your feelings to be called a sexist? I bet. So stop acting like it.
    Look, here’s Smantix’s post, with open comments. I bet, if you dig around, you can find his email. Take out your rage on the person you have a problem with.

  81. The General said:

    “Brittany screwed up posting that vile crap without comment, but apparently, she did so for it’s ironic value. I, of all people, understand how hard it is to pull that off successfully. She blew it. She should acknowledge that and apologize to everyone who cared about Steve.”

    That seems pretty reasonable to me. Aside of what a bunch of intemperate, unfair, anti-Southern commenters say. Hiding behind whatever progressive, feminist, left-wing credentials one has doesn’t excuse that kind of sloppiness. I’m a New Yorker who loved and cared about Steve and his work, and I hate to see the main issue–incompetence by this linker, whatever her values–clouded by some kind of internal identity-politics bloodbath. Defenders of this “Brittney”–please don’t hide behind some sense of victimhood. If you really think “we” northerners relish in taking down a southern progressive, you’re getting it all wrong. All of us ought to be worried about such egregious sloppiness. Find competent voices, because even this Wild West environment has its standards.

    Oh, and I’m a dude. Sorry.

  82. Mike, the main issue is and remains that Smantix said something that pissed Patriot Boy off, and rather than go after him, he went after Brittney. That’s the main issue.

    Y’all don’t get to reframe it just because you’re starting to feel sick to your stomaches about your behavior.

  83. “Oh, and I’m a dude. Sorry.”

    Speaking for a lot of other dudes, we’re sorry you’re one of us too.

  84. Roger,
    You are one alright dude.
    Seriously.
    Aunt B., #109 is damned straight on.
    Jesus, and not Patriot Boy who is wrong here, this day has been of the weird.

  85. Aunt B.:

    The problem is that a person with credibility and, more likely, more traffic, boosted that hideous commentary without any context. That “the one prominent liberal feminist voice in the state being paid by a news outlet” [your words] took this grotesque screed by a bigot and stuck it out there is the problem.

    I am just saying that the General is right, she blew it, and if people are supposed to come unfamiliar to her space and read her seriously, well, then that is not serious work.

    If you feel that we are impinging on some provincial area (TN) that we have no business judging or responding to, well, then maybe people in your cordoned section of the Internet should refrain from commenting on Steve and people like him, because right or left, you’ve fucked it up.

  86. Wow, your criticism of Jesus’s General might ring a little more true if you didn’t try to accuse him of misogyny for his terrible, terrible crime of criticising the actions of a woman.  Seriously, how dare he?

    People like you make it hard for those of us who actually want to do something about sexism in this culture to be taken seriously.

  87. That “the one prominent liberal feminist voice in the state being paid by a news outlet” [your words] took this grotesque screed by a bigot and stuck it out there is the problem.

    Sometimes? When I’m watching television?–The news shows terrible things happening in the world. And get this: They don’t always tell me explicitly that they’re terrible! I don’t like that. It makes me have to think and that hurts me.

    So what I do is, I call the station repeatedly, and ask to have the people who won’t mash up my news ‘nanas just the way I like them, and plop them on a silver spoon for me, fired. Because it’s only fair.

  88. Mike, I’m going to try one more time to explain this to you. When faced with the same post made by a man and held up for ridicule by a woman, Jesus’ General decided he was outraged that the woman didn’t act as a proper gatekeeper and protect folks from the man’s post, instead of being outraged at the man’s post. That’s pretty much Sexist Bullshit 101–holding the woman to a different standard than you hold the man and getting pissed at the woman rather than the man.

    Once you get a little further in the Sexist Bullshit curriculum, you’ll come to understand that one of the biggest sexist bullshit moves you can make–and hell, I’ll come out and say, it’s not just a sexist bullshit move, because people pull this bullshit on people of color and people in wheelchairs and gays and lesbians and all kinds of folks all the time–the biggest bullshit move you can make is to assume that your understanding of events is the default understanding of events and that, if folks’ understanding of events differs from yours, it’s because they’re something wrong with them, something that, in this case, deserves to be punished.

    Y’all have been told time and time again that there’s another explanation for what’s going on here, one that understands Brittney as pointing out what an asshole Smantix is, and one that is more likely than your scenario in which she’s just a cruel bitch heaping pain on the friends of a dead guy.

    But y’all would rather revel in the privilege you have to understand yourselves and your interpretation of events as the default, logical, and correct interpretation than to actually build community with your fellow liberals.

    That’s the problem.

    The second problem is that, once Patriotboy unleashed his outrage on Brittney, not one of you bothered to ask her to clarify, instead it turned into “here’s how much the South and the people in it suck” time. You can go back and read the threads, if you doubt that.

    Everyone in the whole god damned universe might say that Brittney should have been more clear, as evidenced by the fact that you all didn’t get what she was up to. But not one of you pointed that out in a civil way. Not one of you bothered to take into consideration what your fellow progressives where telling you (which, for the record, is when we began to feel like y’all had turned this into some provincial thing, where you don’t have to listen to us or treat us with the respect you treat folks in the rest of the country).

    And I’m sorry, but this whole “We’ll stop hurting you, Brittney, once you apologize for existing” thing again reaks of sexism and just general arrogance and assholism.

    You all show up here calling us all racist backwards provincial assholes and we’re supposed to bend over backwards to apologize to you for your mistake before you’ll take us seriously?

    No fucking thanks.

  89. Pingback: Let’s play spot the privilege! « Feline Formal Shorts

  90. Aunt B, you’re ignoring, willfully or not, the reason why you’re wrong, which teh General and others have explained. All you seem to see is your friend in a bad situation. I’m sorry your friend found herself in that situation, but she made the mess for herself. Stop blaming others, stop playing the victim card. It’s disingenuous, and makes light of genuine sexism, which no one here has disputed is still a real problem in society.
    Honestly, I think you should be ashamed for using this tact, but obviously you’re not going to agree.
    It’s sad and frustrating to me that you’d use a legitimate cause as cover for the mistakes of your tribe, but there’s nothing I can do to stop you.

  91. Aunt B.:

    Please stop confusing the issue. I don’t doubt that there’s an anti-southern bias. I said so. And I’m not a sexist. And the General isn’t. And if you are saying that someone ought to be excused for horrible sloppiness because we have read it but are not from the South, YOU are being provincial (look up the definition–New York City is also provincial).

    If you are so alarmed by the proliferation of Sexist Bullshit as practiced against people of color, please recognize that a person given a platform by mainstream media lent that platform to the exact kind of racist bullshit that we both deplore, without context, and understand our beef, and quit trying to demonize everyone who has an opinion about that action.

  92. I … ow.

    *hugs* You are lovely, Aunt B. And you’re right.

    But oh god, the stupid burns around here. I’d suggest you sic Mrs. Wigglebottom and her genetically mutated clampy-jaws on them, but I wouldn’t want to offend the poor dear.

  93. For the love of God, Brad, Brittney was doing her job. She linked to a post most would find offensive and let us judge for ourselves. That’s called treating people like adults. We don’t need sub-titles or little cartoon clouds pointing to what is correct or evil. We can see that for ourselves. In the world of draconian correctness, in which many of your compatatriots live, maybe you need your tags.

    You’re not getting it, Brad, and apparently you aren’t going to make an effort to get it. I’m on the left side of the line, and I am sick and tired of being the idealogues screeching. We get it.

  94. d’oh, that last line should read, sick and tired of HEARING the idealogues screeching. So sick and tired apparently, I can’t type.

  95. And I’m not a sexist. And the General isn’t.

    You can do or say something sexist, or act in a sexist way, and still be an otherwise exemplary citizen, you know. Really. My dad, I love the man to death, but he pulls some sexist shit sometimes. So does my boyfriend. So does every guy I know! I still think they’re great guys.

    Sexism happens and odds sometimes it’s you perpetuating it. But it’s really not necessary for you to get all dramatic about it.

    A couple of things you’re not getting:

    1. As someone exempted from sexist treatment, you don’t get to decide what is and is not sexist treatment. The people who are intimately familiar with that treatment as a result of being on the receiving end of it all the freaking time, they get to decide that.

    2. The solution to not being mistaken for a sexist is to listen up when someone criticizes an action of yours as sexist, see it from their point of view, and resolve to do better in the future. The solution is not to angrily demand that the mean old feminists quit calling you sexist. Because guess what? The more you stomp your feet and do that, the more you resemble every sexist creep we’ve ever had the misfortune to encounter.

    Hope that helps. Moron out.

  96. She did her job poorly. Even people who knew her style beforehand found the post questionable. You, frankly, sound like Malkin or Coulter defenders. “It was a JOKE! Can’t you people get it?”
    Here’s a hint, when you have to explain the joke to everyone not in your clique, it’s not a funny joke.

  97. Ilyka, have you ever commented without mentioning your boyfriend?
    It reminds me of bigots mentioning they’re married to a Jew.

  98. Pingback: Looking Ahead and Behind « Where’s the Mute Button?

  99. I’m confused by all these commenters who think that Brittney didn’t provide any context to her post. She most certainly did.

    IT’S RIGHT THERE IN THE LAST *TWO YEARS* WORTH OF POSTS

    It’s certainly not her fault that you all were too lazy too do your homework. There was absolutely zero need for her to say “Smantix is an idiot” for the 1,000,000th time — the fact that she thinks Smantix is an idiot is WELL DOCUMENTED.

    I for one would get terribly bored with the internet if every post I read had to dumb things down to the lowest common denominator and repeat the same pieces of information ad infinitum just to keep a bunch of lazy children from wetting themselves.

  100. Aunt B, I surely hope my chorus of “fucking stupid” up there didn’t do too much to lower the discourse’s level of civility. I kind of felt bad afterward. But goddamn. Sometimes the stupid is just too much.

  101. Moron:

    I’ve never been called a sexist. Don’t recall stomping my feet. If you’d like to encounter me and have a real conversation sans stock commentary, I’d be welcome.

    Being called a sexist by morons like you, with a canned speech, over an Internet connection, is so dispiriting. I haven’t said a word about women because that isn’t at all what is at issue for me here. I didn’t know you were a woman when I called you a moron. It didn’t seem relevant to the logic you were employing. I was here because I don’t think the boosting of a racist rant was appropriate for someone you all seem to want to defend.

    Wow, we have a long way to go. I’m sorry.

  102. Ilyka, have you ever commented without mentioning your boyfriend?

    This is seriously too dumb to answer.

    It reminds me of bigots mentioning they’re married to a Jew.

    OHNOES! You outed me! You figured out that I’m really a man-hater! You told everyone my secret!

    That does it: I demand an apology from some woman who has nothing to do with Brad. And I want it immediately.

  103. Brad, Mike, et al who don’t understand: Why don’t you take over and tell us which posts are appropriate and which ones are not suitable for adults? You obviously know better than us dumb Nashvillians.

    You come in here for two days and are going to straighten us poor crackers out. We understand the original post was tasteless. You are attacking the wrong place.

  104. I’m done.
    Seriously done.
    I’ve read what seems like a thousand posts today on this.
    Brad, no one is going to change your mind. Why do you keep hammering this?
    No one is changing your mind. You aren’t changing ours.
    What is it you want? Aunt B isn’t budging. You aren’t budging.
    A lot of us aren’t budging.
    How many hours have you spent here? Where is your blog? Do you have a link?
    She’s saying this:
    You aren’t busting Six Meat Buffet/Smantix for what he said. You are busting Brittney. Why aren’t you over at that site telling them what you think.
    Smantix can take it.
    And because you are on a feminist blog, there are questions from like-minded people who don’t understand why you and others aren’t questioning the author of that particular post at 6MB.
    The Aggregator at NiT run by the former host at that site linked to the 6MB site. Everyone is busting her. No one has said anything about the actual post she linked to. You keep busting Brittney. We get that. Many of us eulogized Steve Gilliard. Our words have been twisted.
    Why aren’t you over there? Hell, I had my butt torn up over there. Why aren’t you defending me?
    I liked Steve’s writing. I thought he was quite revolutionary and he inspired many of us to blog.
    I guess my question is, Brittney decided to resign her position. She’s no longer there, why are you here? She’s gone. If you didn’t like the way she resigned, so what. It doesn’t matter.
    She’s gone and she was a friend to many but the end result is the same.
    She is currently unemployed. Isn’t that good enough? What more do you require?
    For people to LIKE her is heinous to you? You can’t get past that?
    What do you want?
    Can you,in a rational tone, tell this thread what you are seeking? I ask again, what do you want?
    I thought we, as liberals, were supposed to at least have a conversation.
    That’s why, I thought at least, I have been a social liberal and have been for the past 25 years.
    It’s over. Or at least I thought it was.
    I’m out, B. Forgive me for hijacking.

  105. john h:

    I don’t think brad or I ever called anyone a “poor cracker” or a “dumb Nashvillian.” I wish you wouldn’t impute that to me slash call yourself that.

    I quit, I just feel so bad that that Steve got this treatment and that you guys would confuse any criticism of it with misogyny or anti-South condecension. Like I said before, the comments that suggest we have no business around here only enforce the kind of provincialism that keeps us apart and makes it hard to get where we all want to be.

    Don’t confuse this intentionally to make some shallower point.

  106. I’m not spending hours. I have no blog, I cam here because of a direct link to the open letter posted by Aunt B in another site which doesn’t need to be dragged into this. I refresh this page, along with many others, from time to time, and the impolitic nature of my comments should show that I hardly spend hours crafting them. I’m verbose and argumentative, and the child of a first gen feminist who fought for the ERA personally, who went to Vassar, both mother and child, and thus has been both well educated in seeing women as absolutely equal and used as a proxy for the misdeeds of well off white men who I resemble in almost only superficial ways. I’m not complaining, I came out way ahead in the deal.
    I’m not coming after Brittney, tho I obviously think she made a mistake. I don’t think it was a big one, and had she simply admitted to it and updated the post with a correction this never would have gotten so big as it has. I’m here because I think it’s a serious misuse of an important word to accuse teh General of sexism. It’s either misguided or selfish, and obviously no one’s opinion is changing, but I don’t feel a need to move along yet. When I do, I will.

  107. And as my final unnecessary post talking mostly to myself here, I’ll note my own mistake n say my mother wasn’t a first gen feminist, just one most active in the early 70s.

  108. Mike — couple of things:

    I just feel so bad that that Steve got this treatment and that you guys would confuse any criticism of it with misogyny or anti-South condecension

    A good deal of the so-called criticism has been framed in an explicitly anti-South manner. Please avail yourself of the comments on JG’s blog and the two NiT posts in question if you still somehow doubt this. If you can read through all the comments and still not see how we would be a little prickly by now, then I honestly can’t help you understand anymore than any of the other commenters can.

    the comments that suggest we have no business around here only enforce the kind of provincialism that keeps us apart and makes it hard to get where we all want to be.

    We’re not really suggesting that you have no business here; we’re merely pointing out that you need to familiarize yourself with a community before you presume to understand its nuances. You want to hang around and be a part of this hyperlocal community? Cool. STFU and learn some things first. Namely, those who are vile, racist asshats and those who are not.

    Brad, I’m glad your mom’s a second-wave feminist. But you just a few comments earlier said It reminds me of bigots mentioning they’re married to a Jew. in response to ilyka. Now, how is it any different that you mention your mom’s a feminist? Sounds like a get-out-of-sexism-jail-free card to me.

  109. Ahem….the word “Patriarch” is disparaged here and should garner an apology to those of us that are what that word actually means.
    I am the oldest living member among my siblings – we have no clue as to another relative with our name and we are a very tightly knit group. It just so happens that I happen to be male. I take that responsibility seriously but do not impose anything upon my siblings. Their lives are their own – I am their elder brother that they look to for whatever I can pass along their way. I have given two sisters away in marriage and stood by my brother at his wedding. I have several nephews and a couple of nieces that all know me as “Uncle Mike ” who will do about anything for them.
    I am somewhat disabled and they do more for me than I for the most part but I will never dismiss being the patriarch of my family.
    It seems you have a malevolent connotation you want to attach to it. I, on the other hand, try to be benevolent as I possibly can.
    Mike

  110. Well, Ilyka and I have a little history which need not be detailed here. She thinks I’m an un self recognized patriarchal thinker, along with many others, and I think she’s very wrong. She mentions her bf very, very frequently, and so I made a little jab, tho I stand by the idea she brings him up as some sort of proof she’s not a misandrist (sp?). I know it’s an old trope, but Twisty style blaming is, to my mind, frequently outright hateful of men. I won’t belabour the point because no one here will agree.
    Had I been all about my mom all the time here as an auto defense you might have a point. I just mentioned her so as to discourage reflexive dismissal of me as uneducated or unaware. I don’t agree with radical feminists, but that doesn’t make me anti-feminism.

  111. Well, Ilyka and I have a little history which need not be detailed here.

    The hell? I have absolutely no idea who you are.

    No, no, don’t bother–I don’t care, either. I mention it only so that Aunt B. doesn’t get the idea that I’m dragging some private blogfeud in here.

  112. Ok, and I’ll respond just so not to let you make me sound creepy. We argued once before, over a sandwich joke about a fat guy, somewhere else. I guess you made more of an impression than I did. My ego is crushed.

  113. It seems brad and Mike and a few others here don’t really have much of substance to offer. As I and B. and others have pointed out, they were wrong, and instead of just admitting that they were wrong, they’ve decided to stomp their feet and yell louder and more frequently.

    I swear, this is like dealing with Bushie sycophants. They attack you for something ridiculous (usually something they made up in their own heads either out of whole cloth or from an unrecognizable, twisted version of something you said), then when you take the time to refute them (which usually involves re-establishing reality and moving the debate there), they shift the subject so that it is still your fault.

    There is no way Brittney could have won with these handjobs. They wanted a pound of her flesh, plain and simple. They weren’t interested in the truth, or in taking on the source of the original offense. B.’s got you pricks sussed: that’s why a few of you can’t let go, no matter how wrong the ladies and gentlemen here prove you to be. You’ve been outed; you kept after the female because you thought her an easy target for your sloppy, misplaced rage. Now most of you are too cowardly to admit it, and a few of you insist on digging yourselves in deeper with really large shovels.

    A word of advice: if, by being more tenacious handjobs, you think you’re going to convince anyone in this community that you aren’t handjobs, then you’re wrong. I suggest you wander over to a more appropriate venue like Little Green Footballs or Free Republic. In those places, being a handjob is a requirement for membership.

  114. First off, I’m a woman and a feminist. Second, I was a friend of Steve Gilliard’s. Third, I’ve been blogging and participating on other peoples’ blogs for about five years.

    Blogging has conventions. Generally, if a blogger quotes and links to something without comment, it is assumed that the blogger APPROVES of what is quoted and linked to. You can complain that if someone knows the “culture” of the blog one would know you didn’t approve, but blogging doesn’t work that way. You have to assume that any given post will be read by people who have never seen your blog before. If you don’t provide clues to your own intentions in every post, it’s your own fault if people misunderstand.

    This is doubly true, IMO, if your blog is being sponsored by someone else, because what you do reflects on the blog’s owner. That’s why people were more upset with Brittney than with the original poster. This was not coming from one creep running his own blog; it was coming from an ABC affiliate. If Brittney didn’t perceive her blog that way, that was just stupid.

    BTW, I first became aware of the post from an email from another woman blogger (and friend of Steve’s) who is a flaming feminist, and SHE was outraged. At Brittney.

    I think Brittney made a huge error in judgment to give that creep Smatix any attention at all, but to quote the jerk without making it clear she didn’t like the quote was damn stupid. Stupid, I say.

    And don’t play the I’m-just-a-poor-victim-of-patriarchy card on me, m’loves. I ain’t buyin’ it. She did a VERY dumb thing, and then instead of posting an abject, groveling apology, she got defensive. And blames patriarchy? Give me a break.

    Blogging can get rough. I have pissed off some people on the right side of the blogosphere in the past and have been the target of hate swarms that included threatening phone calls. So, welcome to my world. If you can’t take the heat, etc. This doesn’t have anything to do with patriarchy or feminism; it has to do with stupid.

  115. Blogging can get rough. I have pissed off some people on the right side of the blogosphere in the past and have been the target of hate swarms that included threatening phone calls.

    It’s nice to know that the left side of the blogosphere hasn’t inundated Brittney with threatening phone calls. I guess that means they’re so much more thoughtful and progressive than the right side.

  116. Blogging has conventions. Generally, if a blogger quotes and links to something without comment, it is assumed that the blogger APPROVES of what is quoted and linked to. You can complain that if someone knows the “culture” of the blog one would know you didn’t approve, but blogging doesn’t work that way. You have to assume that any given post will be read by people who have never seen your blog before. If you don’t provide clues to your own intentions in every post, it’s your own fault if people misunderstand.

    Utter manure. A blog post does not exist in a vacuum, it exists in the context of the blog to which it is posted. Taking one post out of context of the blog would be no different than turning to page 357 in a book and getting offended because you couldn’t be bothered to read or understand the context of the first 356 pages. A reader jumping into the middle of the book has an obligation to ask who, what, when, where, and why before getting diarrhea of the mouth.

  117. I’ve come to the conclusion that brittney was asked to do an impossible job. She did it masterfully, anyway.

    I love how so many people are taking it upon themselves to define a job that simply did not exist until bg did the groundbreaking. Whatever “rules” (can someone provide a link to the rules? somehow, I missed them) there are in regular-blog-world do not apply in a media-sponsored blog. How she was able to keep the site so interesting for so long – well, one day somebody’s going to write a book about it.

    They’ve just ensured that every media-sponsored blog in the future will be bland and unintersting. Thanks a lot.

    Anyway, you have to admire someone who walks on the wire without a net.

    OK, I’ve got to quit talking about this. Oh, and sorry about my cursing yesterday.

  118. Slarti and Jon — word. Absolutely maddening that so many people have popped up an decided to define how Professional Blogging should be done, as if there is One True Rule that all of the internets got a memo on.

    You can complain that if someone knows the “culture” of the blog one would know you didn’t approve, but blogging doesn’t work that way.

    How does it work, Maha? Can I get some kind of documentation? Or will you say that these conventions you’re talking about exist out of the ether, that they’re developed by the community familiar with the blog(s) in question? That people just KNOW how it works? Because that sounds a hell of a lot like what a lot of us have been saying about context and how certain audiences understand an author’s implied meaning.

    Whether or not a particular blog should be written generically so as to be understood by every person on the freaking planet, that’s not really your call to make.

  119. Let me please go on record to Brad, Mike or any of the drive-bys. You are welcome in this community if you talk TO us, and WITH us. I don’t know anyone who enjoys being talked AT. We get your point. We don’t agree.

    and btw..kudos to Jon above.

  120. She did a VERY dumb thing, and then instead of posting an abject, groveling apology, she got defensive.

    You’re a feminist who thinks that a woman who reposts the words of a man, in a context that’s CRYSTAL CLEAR to her intended audience, but apparently not clear at all to some random guy on the internet with whom she has never had any interaction before–you think that woman owes that guy “an abject, groveling apology.”

    Priceless.

    Incidentally, this is what Brittney posted in response:

    I don’t agree with the piece, in fact, I find it abhorrent. But, Nashville is Talking is a blog that covers local blogs, which is what is happening in this case. I link to lots of stuff I don’t agree with. Take your outrage back where it belongs.

    That’s defensive? That reads like a, what do you call it, oh, an explanation. Except the last sentence, which reads more like good advice that, sadly, didn’t get followed.

    Maha, you forgot to mention the part where you’re racist.

    That’s okay, DI. Some of us remembered anyhow.

  121. Look, some of the people who complained about Ms. Gilbert did so in sexist tones that were horrible – no question.

    But the grief-trolling was egregious, almost as bad as Brittney’s refusal to admit a mistake. If she was going for sarcasm, it didn’t work and it offended good friends of a very kind dead guy. Given that, why fight? Why not make amends – change the post or the headline or take it down.

    The utter immaturity of the blogger was stunning – an this wallowing in victimhood is appalling. I thought bloggers were tough; or absent toughness, they’d at least defend what they wrote on the merits.

    The other offensive thing about this episode was the faux “north versus south” tone so many commenters took. It almost reminded me of the infamous “outside agitators” stance against civil rights in the 60s.

  122. Pingback: Acephalous

  123. “The Patriarchy”, as you put it, is an invisible sky enemy that you use as an excuse to promote hate and wage war against half of humanity as well as any women that disagrees with you.

    Twisty Faster is a bigot. If you don’t believe me, read the GLBT blogs and see how they feel about her.

    You are a bigot too.

    If you want peace, work for justice. If you want justice, work for peace.

  124. I think I just got called a radical feminist! I’m not sure what that means. Do I have to stop blogging about cooters or am I now required to preface every post with “Wisdom from my cooter…”?

    All right, folks, I’ve been mulling this over and I know we’re all busy having a fight, but there are some points being made that I wanted to address or mull over or try to understand or whatever.

    First, I might be wrong to say that Patriot Boy’s treatment of Brittney is sexist in nature. I’m willing to concede that. But, listen, here’s how it looked (and still looks) from my perspective:

    –You have to have an incredible amount of arrogance to think that you get to set the rules for all online behavior; that people you don’t regularly read, in communities you aren’t a part of, owe it to you to keep you in mind as a part of the intended audience. Who thinks that way?

    –Well, we all do. Which is a point numerous feminists, people of Color, GLBT folks, and others repeatedly try to make all the time. When we run around acting like we are the default, like we must be considered the intended audience for every conversation, and especially when we go around punishing people who “forget” that we might be out there watching and listening and must be kept as comfortable as possible at all times, it’s arrogant to a degree that it ascends into Privilege.

    Now, JG was (and may still be) clearly pissed off (as are many of you) that Brittney didn’t consider you when she was considering her audience. This was unfortunate, but I refuse to believe that it even goes so far as a mistake, since once she got back to work the next day, she explained herself.

    Why did/do I think the privilege you all feel–this right you think you have to be everybody on the internets’ default audience–is rooted in sexism?

    1. Two people posted the exact same thing. One of them really truly means it. The other thinks (in a way that is clear to that audience) it’s abhorrent. The woman is taken after.

    2. JG says, for all to see, in one of the threads over at NiT, that he didn’t go after Smantix because he doesn’t think Smantix can be changed. As we all know, it’s a common sexist trope to absolve men of the guilt of their actions by saying that they just can’t help it, that they can’t be changed. That’s why we spend so much time mulling over what rape victims wear, or whether they were drinking more than they should have, you know, whether they brought it on themselves because they failed to understand that men are monsters who just can’t help but do monstrous things. To me, when JG said that Smantix wasn’t worth going after because he couldn’t be changed, it sounded to me to be more of that same old “men are what they are; you can’t expect them to act any differently.”

    3. Maybe that was a leap for me to make–that just because he was clearly exercising some privilege for some reason and just because the exercise of it seemed to focus on a woman just because men can’t be changed–he was being sexist. From where I’m sitting, it doesn’t seem like a far leap. It seems to only logical conclusion.

    4. But if I doubted for a minute that sexism wasn’t a huge factor in this, how could I remain in doubt when folks start throwing around terms like “kitten” and “bitch”? And now? Now that y’all know that this has deeply hurt our community and our friend, you’re still saying that the only way she can make this right is to grovel for your forgiveness? Hmm. I wonder what other very gendered dynamic there is where a woman does something that doesn’t fit a man’s idea of what proper behavior from her is so he hurts her as much as he can, all the while telling her that she’s made him behave this way and, if only she’d stop and apologies sufficiently enough, he’d stop hurting her?

    5. And shame on y’all for not calling each other on that bullshit. Seriously.

    So, 6., again. I don’t think JG is sexist. I think he’s behaving in a sexist way. I could be wrong, but the very gendered roles you are assigning to yourselves and to Brittney makes it hard for me to draw any other conclusion.

    I mean, we all have said that it would be nice if, in a perfect world, Brittney had been able to anticipate that her meaning wouldn’t be clear to you. We’ve all said that. Brittney said that. Everyone is in agreement on that.

    She no longer has a job, which was clearly, I think, an acceptable outcome at the start of this for JG.

    The fact that y’all have gotten what you want–Brittney to acknowledge that she’d like to have done things differently and for her to no longer be in that position–and yet you’re still hollering is weird to me. She acknowledged regret; now you want groveling apologies. You want us to make you feel okay about your behavior.

    Why?

    If you’re really on the side of angels, why do you so desperately need us to acknowledge that what you did and how you did it was okay?

    I know that sounds antagonistic. I really don’t mean for it to be. I want to understand. You saw something you didn’t like; you came in and upended a community and, at the end of the day, the person that offended you is no longer in a position to offend you; you “won,” whatever that means. Why is it so necessary for us to say we’re okay with how you did it?

    I truly don’t get that.

  125. Read the post that arch-feminist ilyka linked to, and you will discover certain things about ilyka, about maha, about certain feminists, and about certain liberals.

    ilyka is saying that maha is a racist because maha believes that african americans can be racist. Apparently, ilyka believes that african americans by virtue of being african american, cannot be racist.

    This is identical to feminists believing that because they are enlightened feminists and women, their shit doesn’t stink, and they cannot be abusive to other people, whether they are men, fathers, or women that disagree with them.

    Far from being racist, maha was making the point that identity politics is killing liberalism. Just as ilyka, who comes rather late to the liberal side of the blogosphere, is killing liberalism as she participates at the pandagon mess of authoritarian hate speech bigots.

    And for all those that don’t know ilyka, she does have the intellectual honesty to keep her prior rants against liberals up and available online.

    Read the post ilyka is linking to. Determine for yourself if maha is a racist. Determine for yourself if it is more likely that ilyka depends more on identity politics and doesn’t like having her modus-operandi taken away from her. Determine for yourself what it would take for someone to construe maha’s post and comments as racist, and what it would take for someone to link to that post and comment and call maha racist.

    Determine for yourself and question authority.

    And if you want peace, work for justice, and if you want justice, work for peace.

  126. Aunt B,

    if I took every stupid thing you did and said it was because women are stupid bitches you might think I was overgeneralizing.

    if I took every stupid thing you did and said it was because blogging encourages and rewards stupidity, you might think I was overgeneralizing.

    if I took every stupid thing you did and said we should have laws that protect us from women and bloggers you might think I was going to be hurting completely innocent people and that was I was advocating was going to be ineffective and way off target. You might also think that cure was worse than the disease I was worried about.

    So too you invisible sky enemy the patriarchy. I will prove to you now that it doesn’t exist.

    It doesn’t exist because you cannot tell me what a world without your sky enemy does not look like. Sure, you’ve read the feminist blogs and maybe a few books, but not a single one discusses what a world without the patriarchy would look like.

    In contrast, there are lots of descriptions of what a world without race based bigotry would look like. And lots of descriptions of what a world without age based, and gender based, and gender identification based, and religious based bigotry would look like.

    But there are no descriptions of what a world without the Patriarchy would look like.

    And that is because there is no such thing as a Patriarchy as you and your friends use the term.

    It is useful to you as a way to hate and to blame others while allowing you to claim that you are not expressing hatred against other people who are most likely innocent of the crimes you accuse them of.

    It is an invisible sky enemy, and I know you find it useful, and even comfortable.

  127. By the way, I am genuinely interested in reading descriptions of what a world without Patriarchy would look like. I have identified as a feminist since 1972. I have a minor in Anthropology. I know how anthropologists use the term patriarchy. It is not “The Patriarchy.”

    I would genuinely love for someone to point me to operational, measurable, definitions of the Patriarchy. And ways for us as society to know when the problems caused by Patriarchy have been eliminated.

    I have found, like three. And two were from early in the 20th century (and one was actually very racist.)

    In all my readings of feminist blogs, I find I agree with many of the posts, but I have never found a description of a world without the Patriarchy. I have only found the Patriarchy used to defend hate speech, and to defend authoritarian actions.

    There is no Patriarchy. (This time, Neo, you are stuck in a matrix of your own making.)

  128. I think Brittney made a huge error in judgment to give that creep Smatix any attention at all, but to quote the jerk without making it clear she didn’t like the quote was damn stupid. Stupid, I say.

    And don’t play the I’m-just-a-poor-victim-of-patriarchy card on me, m’loves. I ain’t buyin’ it. She did a VERY dumb thing, and then instead of posting an abject, groveling apology, she got defensive. And blames patriarchy? Give me a break.

    I would buy this, except that patriotboy’s knee-jerk reaction was not to leave a comment on the NiT post, saying, in grief and rage (and ignorance), “how can you agree with this pus?” and then to click through to 6MB and clean smantix’s clock. No, it was, instead, to create a post on his own blog to encourage people to try to get Brittney fired. Do you not see how the one set of actions tends to elicit apologies (whether grovelling or not) and the other tends to put people’s backs up?

    Moreover, I question how much of the ignorance in this case can be easily excused. Now, I’m not suggesting that JG needed to immerse himself in NiT culture before responding, or learn the history of how Brittney and smantix characterize each other. But I am suggesting that if he was googling for blog posts about Steve Gilliard’s death, he would have noticed that Brittney made two of them. One was filled with several clips from and links to local bloggers, mostly mourning and praising Gilliard, and a couple of them fairly condescendingly dismissing him. Without comments from Brittney. And one containing a clip from and link to 6MB, full of nastiness. Without comments from Brittney. Seems to me that any old googler would have realized that by setting one of the clips apart, she was, you know, commenting on it. And I get the grief and rage, I really do. I grieved at Gilliard’s death myself, and I didn’t even know him. But anyone who found one of the NiT posts should have found the other as well.

  129. fun to see PatriotBoy and pals squeal like mad when they see themselves in the mirror of their own words.

    fine post B. one of many reason i likes reading here.

    starting to think JG should rename his blog “Idiocracy”.

  130. Brad said:

    She did her job poorly. Even people who knew her style beforehand found the post questionable.

    Your sentence would be more true if it said “Even SOME people…”

    One of the most telling things about this whole incident, for anyone familiar with NIT, is that some of Brittney’s biggest and longtime and most vocal detractors and “enemies” came out yesterday saying (mostly on NIT and some on their blogs, as well as elsewhere) that this was wrong; that Brittney had done nothing wrong; that Brittney had done nothing to apologize for; and most heaped nothing but praise on how well she has done her job for the past two years.

    For the unfamiliar, it likely doesn’t matter because those folks don’t know who’s who. But for those familiar with NIT and how it operates and who the usual players are, that spoke VOLUMES.

    In any case, as for all the rest, I don’t think you are really getting that we’re not going to agree with you and you’re not going to agree with us, but if you want to keep beating a dead horse, be my guest.

    Maha said:

    This was not coming from one creep running his own blog; it was coming from an ABC affiliate. If Brittney didn’t perceive her blog that way, that was just stupid.

    An ABC affiliate blog that clearly states on its “About” page (pretty much like any WordPress blog that carries any disclaimer does) and in bold type, no less:

    The views and opinions expressed on this site are those of Brittney Gilbert and not necessarily those of WKRN-TV or its parent company, Young Broadcasting.

    Now who’s stupid?

    Dave von Ebers said:

    Sorry to tell you, “Aunt B,” but the term “y’all” is no longer cute. In fact, it’s getting to be more than a little nauseating.

    Get over it. We say “y’all” down here to reference a group of people. All the time. Constantly. If you visit the Southeast, be sure to bring some anti-nausea medication because you WILL hear it fifty million times. Deal with it.

    I don’t go to other websites of other people from other regions of the company making smarmy snarky comments about their regional vernacular, you don’t get a pass for it either.

    Your smarmy comment was totally unnecessary given the arena you are in and you now owe Aunt B. an apology for being a jerk.

  131. Slartibartfast said:

    Oh, and sorry about my cursing yesterday.

    It’s always a measure to me of just how messed up the universe is getting when you curse! Heh.

    Aunt B. said:

    Also, who is Andy Axel and can I marry him.

    B., Andy is actually a friend of mine who I’ve known for years in the KnoxBlab (and all its predecessors) community, and I just met him in person in March finally. Sorry to burst your bubble but he is happily married! But I think you would like him and his wife a bunch, they are really cool and wonderful people. I met up with them and some others in Chicago for the Hoodoo Gurus show.

    Andy is a regular poster at KnoxViews – even though they live in Nashville he has always been more active in the Knoxville online communities. I have been hoping to get them to an NIT blogger meetup sometime, they stay really busy, but maybe one of these days. You would like them both, not only that but she would have fit in just great around the kitchen table at Casa de Coyote. They’re good people.

  132. actually, although I’m a native of detroit and have only lived here in the mid-south for six years, I use “y’all” occasionally and spontaneously, but not in reference to a group. typically, I direct it to my 12-year-old daughter in exasperation (“y’all can’t make 80 long distance calls to your friend in mayflower any more”). it slips out if I’m talking fast and agitated.

    I’m one of the lefties who migrated here from the JG blowup. I’m a regular reader of the general and was not familiar with the nashville family of blogs, but I had never heard of steve, either, until his passing. I think the whole thing was unfortunate and sad. the general reamed brittney over what amounted to a style point, and she indicated she had already suffered a thousand tiny cuts and was ready to bag it anyway, and the general won’t take it back. this wounds two net communities that have been virtuous in other respects, and it’s just human frailty that’s made it an issue.

  133. Aunt B writes:

    First, I might be wrong to say that Patriot Boy’s treatment of Brittney is sexist in nature. I’m willing to concede that.

    OK, concede it.

    Two people posted the exact same thing. One of them really truly means it. The other thinks (in a way that is clear to that audience) it’s abhorrent.

    It was not clear to me when I originally wrote about it.
    It wasn’t clear to anyone who wasn’t a regular reader of NiT

    The woman is taken after.

    No, the ABC affiliate’s blogger was taken after.

    JG says, for all to see, in one of the threads over at NiT, that he didn’t go after Smantix because he doesn’t think Smantix can be changed.

    Let’s quote the whole thing here:

    “patriotboy said,

    on June 6th, 2007 at 2:20 am

    And Lynnster, Smantix isn’t working for an affiliate of a national television network. I have no hope of changing his behavior.”

    (scroll down to comment 52As we all know, it’s a common sexist trope to absolve men of the guilt of their actions by saying that they just can’t help it, that they can’t be changed. That’s why we spend so much time mulling over what rape victims wear, or whether they were drinking more than they should have, you know, whether they brought it on themselves because they failed to understand that men are monsters who just can’t help but do monstrous things.

    I challenge you to find anything I’ve written non-satirically that comes anywhere close to that. I haven’t. I abhor that kind of thinking. It’s one of the things that is certain to prompt a post from me.

    To me, when JG said that Smantix wasn’t worth going after because he couldn’t be changed, it sounded to me to be more of that same old “men are what they are; you can’t expect them to act any differently.”

    This is where I come back to the complete quote. I was very clear why I thought it was more effective to take on the ABC affiliate’s blogger. I find it extremely unlikely that you could read that quote and determine that I was excusing Smantix because “boys will be boys.” You’re being intellectually dishonest here. I don’t know if your intellectual dishonesty is intentional or a product of self deception, but it is certainly intellectually dishonest.

    Maybe that was a leap for me to make

    A huge one. An intellectually dishonest one.

    But if I doubted for a minute that sexism wasn’t a huge factor in this, how could I remain in doubt when folks start throwing around terms like “kitten” and “bitch”?

    Did I use those terms? You seem to be suggesting that I did. But you know I didn’t. I don’t use the word bitch as a noun, ever. It is the oppressor’s slur. I avoid the language of the oppressor even in my satire unless I think it’s absolutely required to prove the a point. If you do a search, you will find one post where I used the word “cunt” to illustrate it’s offensiveness–it was in a post about a U of Colorado President who used it and then tried to say it wasn’t offensive. A few days ago, I wrote a post in which I quoted the word “spearchucker” and used the words “jungle bunny,” “faggot,” and “chink,” because I thought it was required to demonstrate the offensiveness of a remark by Brit Hume (even so, I’m still having an internal argument over whether I should have done so). Those are the only times I’ve used the language of the oppressor (as far as I can recall) and I did so only to make a point. The only rule I give my guest bloggers is that they can’t use those words in their satire.

    Oh, and i have never used the word, “cooter.’

    And now? Now that y’all know that this has deeply hurt our community and our friend, you’re still saying that the only way she can make this right is to grovel for your forgiveness?

    No, she apologized. That’s good enough for me. It’s a shame she resigned, but that was her choice. I won’t make a judgement about that. She knows better than anyone else what is best for her.

    Hmm. I wonder what other very gendered dynamic there is where a woman does something that doesn’t fit a man’s idea of what proper behavior from her is so he hurts her as much as he can, all the while telling her that she’s made him behave this way and, if only she’d stop and apologies sufficiently enough, he’d stop hurting her?

    Again, you are suggesting that I targeted her because of her gender. I don’t know how many times I have to point out that it was because she blogged for a network affiliate.

    Your insinuation that I also beat women is contemptable. How do you live with yourself. Are you a Monica Goodling/Jeffery Schlotzman type who believe that the holiness of your cause allows you to pull this kind of crap?

    So, 6., again. I don’t think JG is sexist. I think he’s behaving in a sexist way.

    Wow. Change sexist to gay and Paul Cameron could have written that.

    I could be wrong

    You are.

    but the very gendered roles you are assigning to yourselves and to Brittney makes it hard for me to draw any other conclusion.

    Again, what gender roles have I assignd to Brittney and myself. Be specific. Cite examples.

    I’m probably one of the most introspective guys on the internet. I take these kinds of charges seriously and do a lot of self examination whenever they are made. I realize that I’m a product of the culture in which I was raised, a rural Utah white Mormon culture–red punch and green jello is the food of my people. I realize that it is possible that I’m still subject to the last few vestiges of that upbringing. Hell, I’ve had it pointed out to me during my blogging career and, after a little introspection, I’ve worked hard to change it. I’ve looked hard at this whole episode, and nothing I did could be characterized as being sexist. It’s a huge stretch to accuse me of it, and you owe me an apology.

    I mean, we all have said that it would be nice if, in a perfect world, Brittney had been able to anticipate that her meaning wouldn’t be clear to you. We’ve all said that. Brittney said that. Everyone is in agreement on that.

    Yep.

    She no longer has a job, which was clearly, I think, an acceptable outcome at the start of this for JG.

    It would be more accurate to say that I didn’t care whether she was fired or not as long as I made the ABC Affiliate so uncomfortable that it wouldn’t allow such right wing venom to be published on its blog. I removed all contact info from my post as soon as I determined that she had made a terrible mistake.

    In any event. She chose to resign, and by her own admission, had been thinking about it for a long time. Although I feel bad that I helped her make that decision, it was unltimately her decision and her choice.

    I don’t care if you hate me. I do care that you called me a misogynist and are now saying my actions were sexist. You’re wrong, and with a few seconds of introspection, you’d understand that if you don’t already. You owe me an apology, placed as prominantly as you placed this post.

  134. Apparently, calling a man sexist is a horrific crime. My monitor screen is cracking what with all your whinging, boys.

    Brad and Mike, have a nice cup of STFU. You’re hysterical and don’t know what you’re talking about. If you want spoonfeeding, go to your mommies.

    JG, you did your best impression of Bill Donohue. Way to go, moron.

  135. My God, patriotboy, you are unsufferable. I have an image of you standing there in bloodstained clothes, with everyone that ever mattered to you lying dead on the ground at your own hand, and the fumes of all the smoke from your indiscriminate path of destruction…

    But, by God, you’re “right”.

    Your incapability to just give this up is not strength, it’s weakness.

  136. It would be more accurate to say that I didn’t care whether she was fired or not as long as I made the ABC Affiliate so uncomfortable that it wouldn’t allow such right wing venom to be published on its blog.

    Free expression be damned!

    God, am I glad I’m a libertarian.

    You’re dictatorial demeanor sickens me. Really. How is your insistence on dictating the terms of a blog you never read any different than someone telling a woman she can’t get an abortion because they are horrified–HORRIFIED–at the thought of a baby being murdered.

    Way to force your views on others. Join hands with the guys at Free Republic and sing a chorus of “My Way Or The Highway” why don’t you?

  137. You owe me an apology, placed as prominantly as you placed this post.

    She doesn’t owe you anything but a kick in the pants, dipshit. Not everyone’s going to like you. Not everyone’s going to agree with you. Not everyone thinks you’re a special fucking snowflake. And yes, people will give their opinions of you. Some of which you won’t like.

    No, you cannot have a pony either.

  138. You know why they’re still hollering, B. You said it, they’re busy having a fight. This is not abt the original any longer, it’s about being the one in the right. Just about everyone picked a side and started going at each other.

    I’m glad you acknowledged that it’s JC actions that appeared sexist. IIRC he acknowledged that he could have exercised more care. If he didn’t he certainly should now. Those combined mea culpas should be the end of it, and frankly, could have ended it much sooner.

    My take on the “can’t be changed” statement was that Smantix’ percieved racism could not be changed. Politics personal POV.

    I just happen to believe what JG was doing was attempting to do what people in the blogging world tend to applaud; taking down enemies and/or “giants.” You gain nothing from flaming a troll. You gain standing from Imus-ing someone. Seems that left and right are trying to score a scalp now, whether it’s a shock jock or a low rank pop singer. I can’t ascribe pure cynicism in light of what’s at the core of all this, the death of a friend, however, I think that’s at the heart of why he chose his target. It’s a steep fall, innit, from getting some one fired for blatant racism and sexism to getting a guy’s sponsorship dropped for dirty dancing to attempting to get someone fired for what could be a misunderstanding, yet, that’s where we seem to be.

    As I’ve said, it’s entirely reasonable for one not familiar with how BG throws down at NiT to think she was concurring with the view. To me it seems intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge that. So many have stoked the flames by arguing JG should have known (I completely disgree that “everyone” acknowledged she might have made her distaste clearer, especially in the beginning of this when ppl were staking out positions, seems to me most argued the opposite). No, he should have taken a moment to consider what was really going on before asking for a head on a platter. However, sarcasm is one of the most difficult things to convey in writing, period, why should anyone think it’s easy to get in this situation? Because we know her? Because it seems inconcievable that more than one person would support what was in the post?

    Moreover, I don’t think, even had he spend a day reading NiT, could he have gleaned what the site meant to local bloggers and what kind of relationships exist. Oh, perhaps now he might realize, however I don’t think he could have known he was “upending a community.”

    What’s happened is that few on either side have framed the discusion so that the other can end it with “face.” If you don’t apologize you’re nothing but a racist. If you don’t do this, you’re hurting a movement and you’re an asshole. There was no room for exiting with dignity.

  139. You do realize if I’d used the word hysterical it’d be seen as nearly calling someone a bitch? Or don’t you know the etymology of the word?
    Do you say “herstory” like other uninformed fools?

  140. Or don’t you know the etymology of the word?

    No. We don’t. Not at all. Most of us here are subliterate and only tear ourselves away from the Daily Jumble long enough to watch our stories on the teevee.

    Please school us igmos.

  141. Mark, I agree with you (what the heck is the going on with me today?) :)

    The wise, however, are not concerned with “face”. Sometimes, it’s better not to sever relationships, and quit worrying about whether or not you are seen as “losing”.
    Take a step back tactically to keep on track strategically.

  142. When used by someone with a penis who hasn’t been properly blamed, it means they’re a hate criminal.
    When used by a female or a penis-bearer who has accepted his inherent guilt, it’s an ironic and empowering overcoming of an evil word.
    Now should I explain what etymology means?

  143. Hey Slarti, glad you’re coming around to the good side of the Force :)

    Well, we are not all wise, we are all human, and in terms of socialization we believe face is important. It was one of my worst traits in having interpersonal arguments IRL, not recognizing the humanity of the other person. If all I’m saying is, “you’re not only wrong, you’re also a wetty pants butthead, and if you don’t agree with me that’s all you’ll ever be,” I’ve made it so the person I’m having the discussion with will NEVER EVER meet me halfway, even if that person does see validity in what I’m saying. If I do acknowledge the validity of their point, then I become a wetty pants butthead, and damnit I don’t want to be that.

    There are instances of course where calling someone a wetty pants butthead is entirely valid.

  144. “I’m probably one of the most introspective guys on the internet.”

    Well, aren’t we full of ourselves?

    The Internet’s a big place. Might want to rethink that one, especially when your first reaction to Brittney’s response/explanation was to call her “fucking stupid.” Very introspective, that.

  145. Pingback: Slant Truth » Teaching Women a Lesson

  146. patriotboy wrote:

    I don’t know how many times I have to point out that it was because she blogged for a network affiliate.

    (ahem)

    An ABC affiliate blog that clearly states on its “About” page (pretty much like any WordPress blog that carries any disclaimer does) and in bold type, no less:

    The views and opinions expressed on this site are those of Brittney Gilbert and not necessarily those of WKRN-TV or its parent company, Young Broadcasting.

    as long as I made the ABC Affiliate so uncomfortable that it wouldn’t allow such right wing venom to be published on its blog.

    I still don’t get how you claim to be a progressive – which I may wrongly be assuming means one stakes some value in freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and equality – yet you continue to argue that a Nashville area blog should not be published on a website that is a blog for featuring Nashville area and regional blogs and hosts an automatic feed aggregator for Nashville area and regional blogs?

    Of anything, that is the sole largest thing I have not understood in all your arguments. Now, again, I may be wrongly assuming that someone who says they are a progressive would value free speech & expression and equality – virtually just about everyone involved with NIT will tell you I am about the most apolitical and disinterested blogger in the mix. Politics, right vs. left, liberal vs. conservative, etc. – that’s not my thing. So maybe I just don’t understand the values of the progressive sector enough. I always thought progressives and liberals were mostly the same and held the various freedoms and equality to a high standard, but maybe I’ve got it all wrong. I’m sure Coble or B. or someone much more knowledgeable about such things as myself will educate me if I’m wrong about all that.

    But still, there’s some amount of logic, that has nothing to do with politics or party lines or anything such, about the fact that Smantix’s pad is a Nashville area blog and NIT has a Nashville area and regional automatic blog aggregator and features Nashville area and regional blogs on its blogroll.

    We (most of us) don’t like him, Smantix. But he’s a Nashville blogger and has every right to be heard as any other Nashville or regional blogger. How can you argue the opposite?

    You raised an argument with me the other night about if there was a pedophile blog or a white supremacist blog in Nashville, would NIT include that too? Well, in the first case, we all know that’s a pretty faulty argument because if there was such a thing as a pedophile blog, it’d no doubt be shut down by law enforcement before it got very far to begin with.

    In the other case, the KKK and its brethren, it’d be pretty much like Smantix. Most of us wouldn’t like whoever was running it. But if it’s STILL a Nashville blog then there is absolutely no reason for it not to be aggregated, whether most of us dislike the blog intensely or not.

    To leave ANY Nashville blog out (that hasn’t requested to be excluded themselves) would not be a complete picture of the Nashville blogging community and therefore the output of NIT would not be truly representative of the entire Nashville blogging community.

    And most of all, NIT itself and Brittney as its manager/producer have always been, if anything, objective, and that’s one major thing her detractors and enemies have lauded her for in the wake of her resignation. You can’t run a regional/city blog that’s representative of the entire blogging community without being objective. Brittney linked to stuff she disagreed with politically, turned her stomach, or hated as often as she linked to stuff she agreed with or liked. It was her job to cover the entire community, not just what she liked or agreed with, and most of us who are regular participants – including her detractors and “enemies” – felt she did it well. Her job didn’t require her to be personally objective at all times, but it DID require her to cover the entire community.

    And “entire community” just doesn’t mean “everybody but Smantix, even though he’s a Nashville blogger too.”

    And at the very least – throwing out all labels of progressive or liberal or conservative or right wing or left wing or yada yada yada and looking at the bare bones of the matter – how you can persist in arguing that a Nashville blog and blogger shouldn’t be part of a Nashville blog about Nashville blogs and Nashville blog aggregator is really just beyond all comprehension.

    And if I’m correct in that a progressive person values free speech and expression and equality – even more so.

  147. Do you say “herstory” like other uninformed fools?

    No, cupcake. I just mock losers who hump the cyber-legs of women while brushing the Cheeto crumbs off of their crotches in their mommy’s basement.

  148. Patriotboy,

    I have to be honest with you, I’m absolutely floored at how angry you are. You singled out my friend and sent your readers after her. You won. You ran her off. Brittney will never again be able to use NiT in a way you find inappropriate. You got what you wanted. Why are you still so pissed?

    Because not everybody on the Left views you as the conquering hero? Because we Tennesseans aren’t throwing a parade in your honor?

    Let’s just for a second entertain the idea that you went after Brittney instead of Smantix for reasons unrelated to sexism. What reason, other than sexism, accounts for the fact that you think you get to demand that the whole internet treat you like you’re the default reader?

    I don’t know. It’s still arrogance and privilege–that assumption that you’re the default reader and that belief that, if you, the default reader are crossed, you can punish the person who crosses you. I guessed wrong about what that arrogance and privilege are rooted in, supposedly, but it doesn’t mean you’re not acting with arrogance and privilege.

    I’ve explained to you in this thread and via the email you were cc’d on why I felt your behavior was sexist. I really don’t know how to make it any clearer to you.

    Fine, we disagree about that.

    Let’s move on.

    You say, “And Lynnster, Smantix isn’t working for an affiliate of a national television network. I have no hope of changing his behavior.” Which I read, “Smantix isn’t working for an affiliate of a national television network (and therefore is of no interest to me as a target). I have no hope of changing his behavior (and therefore is of no interest to me as a target).” What I think you’re saying now is that you intended for us to read that as “Smantix isn’t working for an affiliate of a national television network, therefore, I have no hope of changing his behavior through the means available to me, such as contacting his boss or his advertisers.”

    Fair enough. That doesn’t absolve you from not asking Brittney to clarify before you turned your readers on her.

    Next, you say “Did I use those terms (meaning “bitch” and “kitten”? You seem to be suggesting that I did. But you know I didn’t.” Absolutely I know you didn’t. But I also know that you know your readership and that you alone are responsible for your readership descending en masse already worked up into a frenzy onto Nashville is Talking. What you’d like for me to believe, I think, is that you just pointed folks in a direction and off they went and what they did when they got there wasn’t your fault or concern. Well, the “kitten” comment was at your place. You could have said, “Hey, this is about seeking justice for Steve, let’s leave the sexist bullshit out of this.” Hell, there was nothing stopping you from saying that over at NiT.

    I’m not holding you completely and utterly responsible for the actions of your readers. At the end of the day, each person must own his or her own words. But you fostered an environment where people were reacting to Brittney in what you admit were sexist terms and you did nothing to move the tone of the conversation away from that.

    As for you never having used the word ‘cooter,’ friend, I can’t help you. You ought to try it, just once. It’s fun and once you associate it with a woman’s body parts it makes watching The Dukes of Hazzard sober slightly more fun.

    “Your insinuation that I also beat women is contemptable.” Again, Patriotboy, step away from the edge. I’m not insinuating that you beat women. Please. I’m trying to insinuate that there’s a certain recurring gendered dynamic–woman does something that sets man off, man over-reacts and continues to over-react until the woman apologizes for bringing his anger on herself” (see also comment 169).

    Anyway, I’m glad to hear that you’re introspective and that you take these kinds of things seriously. So, hear what I’m saying to you: demanding to be treated as the default reader and punishing those who don’t take you into account when they write is bullshit.

    It’s understandable bullshit because you’re grieving. I really wish you also got that. I am sorry for what you’re going through. I’m sorry you lost a dear friend, who was also an important voice on the internet. I’m sorry that you’re hurting. But your pain does not give you an excuse to hurt other people. And what you did to Brittney hurt a lot of your fellow progressives, people like me who have linked to you for years and who have read you for years and who like you and people who’ve never heard of you.

    If it wasn’t “residual sexism” that sent you after Brittney, though, dear god, man, what excuse do you have for the mess you helped make?

    Unless you actually want to talk this out in a way that’s respectful of the fact that your behavior has had consequences that hurt a person I care about, a person who is/was on your side, with me being respectful of the fact that a person I care about did something that hurt you, here’s the apology I’m willing to offer:

    I am sorry I assumed that the arrogance and privilege with which Jesus’ General approached this whole NiT debacle was rooted in sexism. He assures me that it’s not and, in the interest of maintaining the frith of this place, I choose to believe him. His reasons for believing that everything on the internet should be written with him in mind as the primary audience and, failing that, are fair game for him to attack, though clearly the result of feeling he has some kind of privilege, are not necessarily the result of ingrained sexism. I don’t know what they’re the result of and I apologize for assuming, since he took after the woman who agreed with him, instead of the man who didn’t, it had something to do with her gender.

    If that’s good enough for you, I’ll post it. If you’d like to actually come to some kind of understanding, we can do that instead.

  149. Oh, yeah. In my last comment, I forgot to add the first line of NIT’s basic mission statement, found also on the “About” page at NIT:

    As the name suggests, Nashville Is Talking is a blog devoted to the daily conversation that takes place in and around the Greater Nashville community.

    Once again, “in and around the Greater Nashville community” doesn’t mean “in and around the Greater Nashville community, except for those we find distasteful or we don’t agree with”.

    It simply wouldn’t be “the daily conversation that takes place in and around the Greater Nashville community” if parts of that community are excluded. Period.

    How anyone can continue to argue otherwise is just, again, beyond all comprehension.

  150. His reasons for believing that everything on the internet should be written with him in mind as the primary audience and, failing that, are fair game for him to attack, though clearly the result of feeling he has some kind of privilege, are not necessarily the result of ingrained sexism.

    This makes no sense. He has never said that. But in the meantime we will all rest comforted to know that if we look back at tinycatpants we will never find a blog post commenting on anything you found or were pointed to on the net. That all of your commentary is about conversations you have previously been invited to, and that you have permission to share with your readers.

    You use words like privilege, patriarchy, and misogyny as weapons. To distance yourself from humans. To keep from having to listen to others. Or acknowledge other points of view. Or your own errors. To allow yourself the privilege of abusing others. It is weak writing and intellectually dishonest.

    If you want justice, work for peace. If you want peace, work for justice.

    What ilyka, sheelzebub, et. al., and you, have shown here today is the intellectual dishonesty, the abuse of power, and the false victimization of certain modern day feminists.

    Susan B. Anthony is rolling over in her grave.

  151. If you want justice, work for peace. If you want peace, work for justice.

    Anon, hawk your bumper stickers elsewhere.

    Does anyone else think it’s time to coin a “Godwinned”-like term for when someone invokes the name of a famous first-wave feminist as a means of shaming people for not being the right kind of feminist?

  152. anon, publishing anonymously is dishonest and intellectually weak. It’s so obvious you’re male–Susan B rolling in her grave?–get over yourself.

    I have read Gilliard twice a day every day since he started his blog. I’m having a real hard time with his death, and cry in front of my screen every time I see his name in print. I also often went to JG and was really surprised at his misunderstanding and reaction to Brittney at NiT. He reacted before checking the facts. I feel that Steve himself would have laughed and then proceeded to decimate Smantix for the spew he wrote, but I think he would have checked first with Brittney if he had never read her blog before–unlike JG.

    Here’s some news, twit. Words are weapons, and JG used them as such.

  153. Especially when the finger-wagging preacher is an anti-feminist, no less.

    I love the abuse of power comment, though. I didn’t go after anyone’s head, but because I didn’t bow down and kiss ass, I’m abusing power. Who knew? Oh, the trials and tribulations of being a man, constantly victimized by all-powerful criticisms of women. Here’s a pacifier, Anon, sweetie.

    Anon, please post again. I just love watching trolls aspirate on their own spittle.

  154. I keep getting argued with by people who may or may not be some of JG’s readers who just insist that what I said about the number of links abounding on the Internet to Smantix’s post was, let’s say, Y before JG and readers and others similar descended upon NIT and started all the drama, and now that number of links to Smantix’s post is more like YYY or YYYY because of all the resulting drama – I keep getting told that I am wrong.

    One of JG & readers’ big concerns in the beginning, as I understood it, was that people would run across Smantix’s post or it turn up in search engines while looking for info on this Steve guy. I understand that. But I also know the number of links to the post that existed on the Internet was Y before all this started, and now it’s YYY or YYYY (or maybe more, even, I don’t know), because so many other people have now commented on it elsewhere.

    You won’t find Smantix’s post linked on JG’s site nor on most of the NIT’ers sites, well, not posted by themselves anyway. Because now someone who may or may not be one of JG’s readers has taken it upon themselves to post the link to Smantix’s post in nearly every single blog that has posted in support of Brittney.

    Way to propagate the existence and publicity for that post no one wanted anyone to run across when looking for info and posts about Steve, bonehead, whoever you are, “zimzo”.

    I wish I had the stats for how many Technorati/Google links there were to Smantix’s post before all the crap started, because I’d really love to be able to compare that to how much it’s grown since then. It’s really a darn shame, but mostly non-involved interested parties who are just commenting on what’s happened are the ones who are increasing its exposure the most. Or boneheads like “zimzo”, who claim to be outraged over Smantix’s post, but are going around giving it way more exposure and way less chance to disappear and evaporate than it deserves.

    And it’s just going to increase, especially as other Web media and tech sites pick up on it. Brittney was the first full-time paid media-affiliated blogger, her resignation is big news in those arenas.

    Talk about shooting oneself (or Kirking oneself or one’s cause) in the foot.

  155. Yo, I just wanted to post that 187, fellas. Cuz I murdered it, yo.

    Hee! That was totally my mailbox number when I was in college. That just tickled me.

  156. The number of times the phrase “beyond comprehension” or close variants has been used by you, Lynnster, is approaching Princess Bride levels.
    And it’s very, very revealing y’all find a need to speculate on anon’s gender to help yourself dismiss their very cogent points.

  157. Does anyone else think it’s time to coin a “Godwinned”-like term for when someone invokes the name of a famous first-wave feminist as a means of shaming people for not being the right kind of feminist?

    “Dworkinned?” “McKinnoned?”

  158. anon, publishing anonymously is dishonest and intellectually weak.

    http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Anonymity/

    Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:

    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

    The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym “Publius,” and “the Federal Farmer” spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.

    The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus, in 2002, the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor’s office before going door-to-door.

    These long-standing rights to anonymity and the protections it affords are critically important for the Internet. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the Internet offers a new and powerful democratic forum in which anyone can become a “pamphleteer” or “a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.”

  159. for when someone invokes the name of a famous first-wave feminist as a means of shaming people for not being the right kind of feminist?

    I believe that there is some truth to most of the many waves and trends in feminism. But look no further to Sheelzebub to find the particular modern third-wave radical feminists that need to call any other feminist an anti-feminist.

    Calling members of X that you disagree with an “anti X” is a way to enforce groupthink, and shutdown dialogue. It’s abusive.

    I first identified with feminism back in 1972, in the same classes in which I learned about Susan B. Anthony. I am sorry you feel that as a male, I cannot be a legitimate feminist, but I am out, I am loud, and I am proud. And you are sexist. It’s especially ironic that you feel that way at the same time you and yours would make claims that everyone benefits from feminism, and that feminism is in many ways about human rights and eliminating the patriarchy.

    But if a male cannot be some sort of legitimate feminist, or if a male must therefore be called an anti-feminist, or if a male feminist cannot say to female feminist, whoa there Betsy I think you’ve made a mistake, or if a male is always going to be questioned about his feminism because of his own particular gender, then perhaps the movement isn’t as egalitarian as you would like to claim. Maybe it is all about accumulating power after all.

  160. The number of times the phrase “beyond comprehension” or close variants has been used by you, Lynnster, is approaching Princess Bride levels.

    Yawn. Thanks, Brad, that comment was SO necessary.

  161. Pingback: My Wartime Consigliere «

  162. look! number 200
    That means people give a shit, which is good.

    more of the little mary sunshine POV:
    A lot of people found tiny cat pants because of this
    And other good blogs…like Brittneys blog(oh, oops) and this one Brittney pointed to. http://thepeskyfly.blogspot.com/ I’ve got it bookmarked now.

    Who has the thinner skin? JG or Brittney? The judges say it’s a tie. JG lashes out and loses his sense of humor and Brittney calls it a day.
    I love JG but if he feels he has to go all grown I wish he’d go the whole way and just say “I’m sorry this happen” and not add a single word to it …not even “she started it.”

  163. The thing is that when you use the term misogyny incorrectly as in this case it does not further the cause. The General takes this kind of action all the time, if you don’t like what he did fine call him a asshole and you may be right but this had nothing to do with the sex of the poster.

  164. Brittney probably wouldn’t consider this detail even remotely silver lining, but, hey, mary sunshine wannabes have to work with what we find:
    The kerfuffle brought the word “cooter” into wider useage I’d never heard that one before–probably one of those southern things–and I plan to use it as often as possible.

    God knows we could use some good euphemisms for vaginas. Ever notice that? Talk about rampant sexism. Boys have all sorts of fun names. Pages of lists of silly nicknames. Girls have only a few, and those few are kind of stupid. I mean “pussy”? Pfah.

  165. As is the way things go with me and TCP, my post will probably kill this comment thread (and perhaps that’s a good thing since there’s so much repetition and arguing in circles, but whatever). It’s also my wont, and the privilege that Aunt B allows her readers/commenters here, to spout off. That disclaimer aside, here’s a few of my thoughts… and I probably won’t be polite but since Anon helpfully pointed out that anonymous comments are a key component of a free society I think I’m well within safe bounds of doing just that. It doesn’t hurt I’m familiar with media law either, so B’s not at risk here.

    One other thing before I get started – if you’re looking to know my “politics” I’ll give you a brief summary and background, because it will probably help if you then want to attempt pillorying me later – leave my money alone and I’ll leave your body alone. Tax me the minimum possible to keep our government running in such a way that I have maximum financial freedom and minimal interference from said government in what anyone can, can’t, should or shouldn’t do with their bodies, including mine. I could give a shit what you do to or with your body, alone or in any combination/variation of/with other human beings/substances legal or otherwise or hell, if you’re into goats, have at it, but please don’t expect me to (want) to pay for anything that happens to you as a consequence of the decisions you make.

    Oh, and I’m the son of an adopted father so one half of my entire geneaology I have absolutely no idea about as far as personal/medical histories go. Dad’s rich, though, and white, and he even goes to church (Methodist, if you must) and there’s a trust set up for my mom (first) that also will then include my two sisters if anything’s left over. Yep, there probably will be, even after the U.S. Treasury takes half of it (if current laws don’t change) when my mother then passes on. Just for dying the government gets half the assets. Nice racket to be in, isn’t it?

    So… here’s really what I wanted to say to all of you fly-in folks (I’m looking at you PatriotBoy, Brad, Anon, and some others): You dropped in on something you didn’t know anything about, started a riot, refused to acknowledge the truth of what was going on, and you are still here insisting that anyone in the Nashville blogging community who does not kowtow to you is essentially an apostate to the left’s causes because their views aren’t *exactly* your views. There is a word for that but I’ll give you two for now since they’re current: Hugo Chavez. Hey PatriotBoy, you want that ABC affiliate to suffer or agree with you, don’t you? Try the Chavez route – just shut them down. But wait, that station is getting news out via YouTube… so what the hell? Oh, that’s right – you can’t shut down free speech without becoming totalitarian. I would say I suspect that’s what you want, but you’ve made it damn clear yourself. There shall be no disagreement with your worldview or else!

    Fools all of you, and the dustbin of history proves you’re going to lose. Why the hell else do you think all of these people here in Nashville would come to Brittney’s support – even when they vehemently disagree with her politics – if we didn’t know just what NiT and Brittney’s job were? You and your ilk are at the least wannabe tyrants but since you can’t have that you did the next best thing you could. You’re doing the same thing here to B – excoriating an ally and most of it is based on academic-theoretic-emotionalistic stuff on your part. Despite your protests to the contrary, you knifed one of your own and you damn well know you did it intentionally. Own up to it and go away already. Attempting to do the same thing here proves how feckless you really are – it’s about you and your beliefs, not anyone else’s.

    You got what you wanted now but it’s not going to be what you were looking for in the end. You’ll still be laboring in obscurity going forward and Brittney (if she wants) is going to land a fat job or consulting gig making shit-tons of money doing it. Don’t doubt that for a second, and also try not to be too bitter about it when it happens because it will. When you then commence saying she’s a sellout to the capitalistic patriarchy it’s going to get even better on the irony scale.

    There’s more but I’m not up for it. There are as many idiots on the right as on the left, and many also in the middle, but as for now I am at a loss to think that there are bigger idiots than on the left.

  166. Gee, I guess if JANE HAMSHER says that PatriotBoy did absolutely nothing wrong, then it must be so. Who are we with our pittance of a Technorati rating to say any different?

    http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/06/07/vive-la-france-mon-general/

    Steve loved the General, the General loved Steve, and Steve hated stupidity. That post was stupid. The General did what the General does. The end.

    Shorter Firedoglake: “No one was harmed in the NIT dustup except for PatriotBoy.”

    Gak.

  167. Cliffs Notes of the Firedoglake thread:

    1. Usual reactionary BS where some call Brittney a right-winger or right-wing mouthpiece and some even have HER having written Smantix’s post;

    2.

  168. Whoops – hit submit too soon.

    2. Someone from JG’s who actually took the time to read and educate themselves a little says no, Brittney’s not a right-winger, blah, blah, blah.

    3. Further down in the comments, someone makes another insult at “right-wing Brittney” again.

    And so on and so forth. Bleh.

  169. becoming the target of the latest “progressive” mob torch parade,

    So you don’t like progressive mob torch parades Chris? But you post at Pandagon?

    And you post at Faultline and here to dump all over Jesus General as you jump into yet another mob torch parade. Just this time you find yourself marching with a different group of people than usual, as we have one group of progressives marching against another group.

    I guess in this case what you are saying is that tonight’s battle is the battle of the Progressive Liberals versus the Feminist Single Interests, and you are aligning yourself with the Feminist Single Interests, because JG, Jane, and Maha are all Patriarchal Sexist Fucktards.

    I find it interesting that it is progressive mob torch parades you are unhappy with, but apparently you think mob torch parades in general are the way to go. And you wonder why I call you an authoritarian.

    Anyway Chris, enjoy the march, enjoy the parade. Break a leg.

  170. You’re a very boring troll, anon. You really ought to consider misrepesenting people’s arguments slightly more subtly: people might start to believe you then.

  171. Asshole A doesn’t like Asshole B, who is now dead. Dumbass Blogger C points it out, pissing off Asshole B’s friends and admirers. Those who respected Asshole B start throwing bricks at Dumbass Blogger C for pointing a flashlight at Asshole A.

    Now Asshole B is dead and probably wasn’t a total asshole, unlike Asshole A. Dumbass C probably isn’t a total dumbass, and in any event doesn’t deserve the bricks thrown at her by those who under normal circumstances would be her friends. In a few days everyone will figure this out and sheepishly apologize to Dumbass C, while grumbling and looking daggers at Asshole A. At this point Asshole A will look to those on the right for protection from the gathering mob. We’ll turn our backs on him while contributing food and drink to the wake of Asshole B. We might not have liked Mr. B, but he was still one of us (American) and deserved respect. Plus we’ll stop referring to him as A*hole and call him Steve G., who crossed over too soon. Unlike Six Meat Buffet.

    A fellow who spoke his mind is gone, and it’s a loss.

  172. Been watching this all day.

    People are upset, and are insulting each other. Each insult reinforces the caricature that the other side defensively lashes out against. Those avoiding insults get held responsible for the insults of their “side”.

    It seems like there are plenty of apologies to go around, if they wouldn’t be seen as a betrayal of the hurt people we care for, if there was no fear one’s own injuries would be made invisible by generosity.

    Any ideology (regardless of goals) that is so unforgiving is ultimately oppressive.

    Or as my grandma said, “Don’t be ugly”

    Please don’t be ugly. You’re better than ugly.

  173. oh my fucking god.

    You know? A good guy’s dead, too young. A reactionary shitstain made fun of him. And in response…you know, i -was- going to say something specific, but frankly–y’all look like the aftermath of the fucking Donner Party.

    never mind. never never mind.

  174. Clearly the General, fan as I may be, fucked up. He should have understood the whole deal before writing his post.

    But is that MYSOGYNY? Is it mysogyny whenever a man does anything objectionable toward a women, ipso facto? Of course not – that’s silly. If Brittany were a man, I think the General would have written the exact same post – and I’ve seen not one shred of evidence to indicate that Brittany’s gender played a role. The ONLY evidence I’ve seen cited is the gender of the parties invlolved, which brings us back to the absurd argument that anytime a man does something wrong in dealing with a women it’s mysogyny.

    If there is OTHER such evidence that I’m missing here, please point it out!

  175. You mean this has all been resolved in a manner that makes my post moot …or…that’s yesterday’s news.

  176. Hey, it’s Slartibartfast! Shouldn’t you be hanging out with your non-misogynist friends at protein wisdom, making some hi-larious jokes about cockslapping Amanda Marcotte?

  177. Pingback: Ilyka Damen

  178. “Hey, it’s Slartibartfast! Shouldn’t you be hanging out with your non-misogynist friends at protein wisdom, making some hi-larious jokes about cockslapping Amanda Marcotte?”

    I’m a mysogynist for questioning the accusation of mysogyny. OK, got it – you’ve got this sort of a Salem, MA circa late 1600s type thing going on. Nice work!

  179. Damn, I am so sad I was born a woman, because it would be so useful to my life understand sexism. Lucy for us, though, men, the world’s leading experts in forms of oppression they’lll never experience arev always on hand to explain/lecture us on what it is and what it isn’t and what silly little eye batting fools we are for thinking we can undersand our own experiences. Thanks, guys! As much as we regret lacking white male wisdom, your willingness to share your vast cadre of experience and knowledge is a lifesaver, Just keep ever vigilent, because out there are poor ignorant girlies deluded enough to think they’re capable of conceptualizing their experiences without your permission–JG, help them with your introspective gift!

  180. Steve, you are brave to stand up under the weight of your oppression. Not everyone will understand the parallels between someone making a snarky comment at you on a blog and say, being accused of witchcraft and being hanged or having heavy stones placed on top of your body, but you’re not just anyone! Don’t you want to compare yourself to a slave or Holocaust survivor as well? Thanks for the lesson, if not in “witchcraft” then in “hysteria.”

  181. Well, Kenn, I guess alot of what I said went over your head.

    I was not saying that I was somehow persecuted or oppresed or otherwise. Instead of answering my ernestly asked question re: what made the General’s conduct mysogynistic (“If there is OTHER such evidence that I’m missing here, please point it out!”), all I got was a snarky answer and the accusation that I was a mysogynist. That was the basis of the analogy (that those who question become the accused) – not the persecution part. I’d like to say that I can see where you got confused, but that would be a lie.

    And now YOU”RE accusing of being sexist (with alot of ad hom argument and straw man nonsense that I never voiced) – and for what? Asking for clarification on why the General’s actions were mysogynistic? That’s sexist ipso facto? Why can’t ANYONE explain that to me?

  182. Pingback: wescomer.com » Blog Archive » Stuff Went Down

  183. Pingback: What a shame | Fabulously Jinxed

  184. Pingback: » Blog Insanity - By ¡Para Justicia y Libertad!

  185. Pingback: » To The Fallen Bloggers - By ¡Para Justicia y Libertad!

  186. Pingback: The Bee Hive » Blog Archive » And a cry of “oh crap” is heard throughout the Nashville blogging community…

  187. Pingback: Volunteer Voters » The Great Campfield Photoshop Caper

  188. Pingback: Six Meat Buffet » Blog Archive » Compare and Contrast: Liberal Rorschach Edition

Comments are closed.