RH Reality Check has done a lot of work to answer a series of videos that has received some traction, including even some on the pro-choice side worried about the "tone," in the fight against Planned Parenthood. It probably crossed the line, however, in a recent piece regarding a former biomedical supplier employee who an investigation determined (via online research, not hidden recording devices or such) had certain fetishes and whose views on abortion was somewhat confused. Not a big fan of it.
This got some push-back even from some regular supporters and "there was vociferous internal disagreement even on our staff about the piece." The website thought better of it and took it down. They explained themselves here and as I noted there in a featured comment, thought the reply was fair. And, there was a much longer than usual set of replies, many sanctimonious about the whole thing. It is not always blatant, though it often is, but the tenor of the negative replies this time tends to be those who would oppose the website's overall mission. The sanctimony, in other words, is not neutral and the mitigation given the instigation involved is not likely to be recognized.
The discussion was probably useful in various cases, if only to get things out there. Overall, again, didn't find it useful -- with big photos (not usual in pieces on that blog) of some of the offensive stuff she likes (e..g, involving Hitler) -- to dwell on material from social media accounts of the woman in question. The overall idea is she was supporting limiting the liberty rights of others but opposition to abortion or means of obtaining fetal tissue (the specific purpose of her involvement) is different. It is not akin to Josh Duggar being an adulterer (in general, even the Ashley Madison data dump was problematic, but at least not applied credit and address information, it probably is okay applied to him) while promoting social purity campaigns. The personal material basically is likely to backfire here.
Various choices are going to be made, especially in the heat of a campaign for something really important, and some missteps will likely occur. It's a learning experience. The technique apparently has a name -- "doxxing," the Internet-based practice of researching and broadcasting personally identifiable information about an individual. It amounts to a form of outing, which has been a subject of debate regarding homosexuality and so forth for some time now. Personally, I'm wary to use this technique except for a major public figure and even then it might be iffy. For instance, if an anti-abortion legislator herself had three abortions, some might find this worthy of release (this information might not be "doxxing" but the general concept is at issue here too), but I'm wary. Social media material is less private but also often less relevant. And, if this woman's dating website material is relevant, drawing lines as relevance will be a bit difficult.
One debate I had on the comment thread was with someone who disagreed with a response regarding the nature of the far right movement cited by the apology. The reply focused, though as I noted it is but one thing, on the alleged "shaming" of gays and lesbians. The person refused to agree that this is what happened, leading to a tedious debate over elementary school words (on another blog, the problem was "big" vs. "strong" government). Apparently, saying something is against God's will or even open to eternal damnation is not really "shaming," since shame is just something a person on their own feels. I was confusing cause and effect. Calling Alanis Morissette.
Her citation of anti-cigarette campaigns was particularly telling. Yes, quite "shaming" to promote that doing something is disgusting and not socially appropriate. Shame is not even wrong -- it's a human emotion that serves as a check on our conscience. Just admit to what you are doing, please. Certain people were all "I never!" when it was pointed out that DOMA etc. showed some animus toward gays and lesbians. Or, consider this provision of a law recently discussed in an article more focused on the sticker in question being anti-abortion etc:
A final comment -- kudos to Ellen Page for confronting Ted Cruz, a class one asshole (a not atypical tic there is "isn't it interesting," which is used to allege hypocrisy or the like, often in some b.s. way), something that is difficult to do. I can blithely respond to such people online though even there sometimes find it hard to provide fully clear responses that don't ramble, have typos and avoid being instigated by those with poor arguments often made in sneering tones. Anyway, even those more social than I feel unable to actually confront someone like him in public with such a question. Grant that I wouldn't want to be on the other end of such questioning either, but then not a politician.
This got some push-back even from some regular supporters and "there was vociferous internal disagreement even on our staff about the piece." The website thought better of it and took it down. They explained themselves here and as I noted there in a featured comment, thought the reply was fair. And, there was a much longer than usual set of replies, many sanctimonious about the whole thing. It is not always blatant, though it often is, but the tenor of the negative replies this time tends to be those who would oppose the website's overall mission. The sanctimony, in other words, is not neutral and the mitigation given the instigation involved is not likely to be recognized.
The discussion was probably useful in various cases, if only to get things out there. Overall, again, didn't find it useful -- with big photos (not usual in pieces on that blog) of some of the offensive stuff she likes (e..g, involving Hitler) -- to dwell on material from social media accounts of the woman in question. The overall idea is she was supporting limiting the liberty rights of others but opposition to abortion or means of obtaining fetal tissue (the specific purpose of her involvement) is different. It is not akin to Josh Duggar being an adulterer (in general, even the Ashley Madison data dump was problematic, but at least not applied credit and address information, it probably is okay applied to him) while promoting social purity campaigns. The personal material basically is likely to backfire here.
Various choices are going to be made, especially in the heat of a campaign for something really important, and some missteps will likely occur. It's a learning experience. The technique apparently has a name -- "doxxing," the Internet-based practice of researching and broadcasting personally identifiable information about an individual. It amounts to a form of outing, which has been a subject of debate regarding homosexuality and so forth for some time now. Personally, I'm wary to use this technique except for a major public figure and even then it might be iffy. For instance, if an anti-abortion legislator herself had three abortions, some might find this worthy of release (this information might not be "doxxing" but the general concept is at issue here too), but I'm wary. Social media material is less private but also often less relevant. And, if this woman's dating website material is relevant, drawing lines as relevance will be a bit difficult.
One debate I had on the comment thread was with someone who disagreed with a response regarding the nature of the far right movement cited by the apology. The reply focused, though as I noted it is but one thing, on the alleged "shaming" of gays and lesbians. The person refused to agree that this is what happened, leading to a tedious debate over elementary school words (on another blog, the problem was "big" vs. "strong" government). Apparently, saying something is against God's will or even open to eternal damnation is not really "shaming," since shame is just something a person on their own feels. I was confusing cause and effect. Calling Alanis Morissette.
Her citation of anti-cigarette campaigns was particularly telling. Yes, quite "shaming" to promote that doing something is disgusting and not socially appropriate. Shame is not even wrong -- it's a human emotion that serves as a check on our conscience. Just admit to what you are doing, please. Certain people were all "I never!" when it was pointed out that DOMA etc. showed some animus toward gays and lesbians. Or, consider this provision of a law recently discussed in an article more focused on the sticker in question being anti-abortion etc:
C. No district shall include in its course of study instruction which:The article highlights the usage of a sticker in a high school biological textbook on account of a law to further the state's favoring of childbirth and adoption over "elective" abortion. Abstinence is also promoted. The links to the two laws cited are included. The state really should not single out one side of the often religiously motivated choice to or to not abort. But, this 2011 law, apparently still active (though one hopes there was some update to this second part, especially now that SSM is protected), also has this anti-gay provision. Let's put aside the idea that no form of "homosexual sex" (including between lesbians) is "safe." A law that singles out homosexuality as something that can not be a "positive alternative life-style" is a form of shaming. Objectively, without even going into the sorts of things used to promote that viewpoint. But, some apparently find this hard to understand. It cannot be shaming, shaming is bad, right?
1. Promotes a homosexual life-style.
2. Portrays homosexuality as a positive alternative life-style.
3. Suggests that some methods of sex are safe methods of homosexual sex.
A final comment -- kudos to Ellen Page for confronting Ted Cruz, a class one asshole (a not atypical tic there is "isn't it interesting," which is used to allege hypocrisy or the like, often in some b.s. way), something that is difficult to do. I can blithely respond to such people online though even there sometimes find it hard to provide fully clear responses that don't ramble, have typos and avoid being instigated by those with poor arguments often made in sneering tones. Anyway, even those more social than I feel unable to actually confront someone like him in public with such a question. Grant that I wouldn't want to be on the other end of such questioning either, but then not a politician.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!