Final Thoughts on DeafRead Controversy: A Brief Addendum
I finally have some time to attend to business here; that includes responding to the many comments in my last post.
Since I was last here, the furor at and over DeafRead seems to have died down a bit. It’s still on enough people’s minds, though, that I want to add a couple more things.
First, a good friend and I were discussing what’s been happening, and the degrees of responsibility everyone shares, and should assume, in the wake of this incident. My friend showed me an article published last month in Time magazine; the article was quite timely, and I want to share it with you. The level of flames, sophomoric humor, and inane comments are not limited to the deaf blogosphere, as you’ll see after reading “Post Apocalypse.”
This article brought to mind another one I read earlier this month, about film critics and their readers. This Los Angeles Times piece is about the flak that film critic David Edelstein received for his critical comments on “Dark Knight.” As Edelstein notes:
…the Internet has a mob mentality that can overwhelm serious criticism. There is superb writing in blogs and discussion groups … but there are also thousands of semi-literate tirades…
Sound familiar?
So I don’t think what we’re experiencing as a community is all that unique, nor do I think it is “safe” regardless of where you are on the internet– in the blogosphere, or on a newspaper article’s comments section.
That doesn’t mean we can’t change– as I’ve noted in my discussion with one of my frequent commenters [Observer], self-policing can work (see DT’s excellent suggestion, which I noted in my earlier post), but it will take time and shared responsibility.
Keep in mind also that the deaf blogosphere is small, and the number of commenters is even smaller– those that show up to comment are the most motivated of readers, and each will often bring their own strong opinions and voice into the fray.
So how do we maintain order? That leads into the second thing I wanted to mention tonight…
For a beginner’s primer on how to approach the internet and the blogosphere responsibly, I refer you to LaRonda Zupp’s outstanding presentation from the DeafRead Conference in February 2008 (a presentation I hope she takes on the road– it can be applied to lots of things on different levels!), “Why We Blog and Vlog” and “Dealing With Web Harrassment.” There’s a third part, but I can’t seem to find the post right now… Still, the previous two I’ve listed are worth spending some time watching/reading.
I think that’s it for now– my feeling at this point is we need to work on supporting each other, self-policing when necessary, and giving DeafRead a chance to follow through on its revised guidelines and applying them consistently. Until then, it’s back to the usual mix of politics and life beyond deafness here at the Sandbox…
Yup. It is all about perspectives, nothing more.
Thanks for the head nod my way, dear one. I am humbled. No one has asked me to present this information since the DeafRead conference, but it can easily be done. I, too, believe it was valuable. I appreciate the impact it had on you and others.
The reason you cannot find part 3 is because it has not yet been filmed. I will make a point to do that. It got put on the back burner and is on my to do list.
I continue to love the way you write and summarize the deaf v/blogworld experience. I remain a big fan.
~ LaRonda
It’s far from over dude. There’s plenty of ugly bedwetting stains left by the DBC follies on the deaf community’s resting pad. That’s how I see it. The stains are there to stay and people are disgusted and they’re going to be blowing their horns over it for a long time.
Richard
Thanks Richard, for the great example of a commenter droppin it’s penis on the discussion table.
I agree- La Ronda’s presentation at the DeafRead conference was superb! She helped me to understand better the behavior and nature of commenters on the Internet. Many people who have been turned off by many anonymous comments would do well to see her presentation.
Sandman, I’m going to be very curious to see if you let Roehm’s and dog food’s comments stand. (Roehm’s for his tarring people with a huge brush and dog food’s for vulgarity, though his point is valid)
I’ll say this for Roehm. At least we know who this peddler of hate is, and he’s not trying to do his hate-mongering behind a cloak of anonymity.
“penis” is vulgar? For real?
Okay, maybe it’s not strictly vulgar. But it’s crass. I do agree with your underlying premise - Roehm’s comment was counterproductive.
oh.
“… we need to work on supporting each other, self-policing when necessary…”
Sandman, isn’t it ironic that the above statement went right over the heads of Dog Food and Richard Roehm? Although to give Dog Food credit, I have seen him/her mature as a commentor (once s/he decided between the cat food and dog food handles). About a year ago, Dog Food used to offer these inane, pointless comments on Kokonut Pundit, but lately the comments have actually been worth reading. Until now. Dog Food, I hope this was a temporary lapse, all right? As for Roehm, he has never been anything but a troll and a flamer. I have not once read anything of his that was a thoughtful contribution to a discussion. Roehm, I hope you’ll click on the link to LaRonda’s article. Maybe you could learn something.
LaRonda–
Ah! That’s why I couldn’t find it. Do let us know when it’s up, then, because it was a very informative and useful presentation! I can understand that taping/posting it isn’t necessarily the highest priority- we all have lives and other obligations! *smile*
Thank you as always for your praise– coming from you, high praise indeed! I enjoy your writings/musings as well.
Jared, seconded! It should be a mandatory first stop for people who first encounter our online deaf community, in whatever form…
Observer, I’ve obviously left it up… while I agree it was somewhat vulgar, it reflects on Roehm, not on me. The tarring with a brush, as you put it, is so broad it’s ridiculous (if you read the comment, he’s essentially tarring ALL of us– thus it’s not so much offensive or violates any rule, as it is simply silly and ridiculous).
While I agree dog food could have used a better choice of words, this is what I envisioned happening, so I’m happy. “Envision what?” you say? The self-policing aspect. As you and others know, I can’t always monitor comments 24/7; I rely on people like you, dog food, etc. to call out those who are misbehaving. This is what happened. Of course, if I see something blatantly wrong, I’ll pull it (thus far, haven’t had to! *crossing fingers*). I also expect if something totally awful and outrageous is said, *someone* will alert me directly in person, and I can go in immediately as needed.
As far as Roehm, 99.9% of us ignore what he has to say, which is what you and dog food should be doing. “Don’t feed” should be the rule. Besides, as you point out, you must admit he’s been honest about who he is when he comments. That’s quite a bit different from others.
Vulgarity is in the eye of the beholder; while dog food’s response, for some, bordered on the tasteless (as did Roehm’s comment),as you pointed out, it wasn’t really vulgar. Both aren’t worth censoring, removing, deleting, what have you. As I’ve said earlier, I’d rather allow people enough rope to hang themselves.
Anonymous: you’re testing my patience. Please pick a unique pseudonym (as you pointed out, dog food/cat food did the same– why can’t you?), or I might just pick one for you.
Thanks for the information on dog food- I had never seen his/her comments til now (which gives you a clue to how much time I spend online!). People can grow and change over time, which is why I cut a lot of folks a lot of slack. I don’t think there’s an age limit or boundary on gaining maturity.
I agree it *is* ironic, but for some trolls/flamers, ignoring them is the best option. For others, stronger measures may be needed. But in the end, it’ll be up to commenters to help each other stay within acceptable boundaries (as well as blog owners, including myself!).