The Silence of Our Friends

Saturday, June 16, 2007

Gilliard/Gilbert/Jesus' General Flaming

Hello from Connecticut. I arrived here safely over a week ago but as I mentioned previously, I wasn't sure what sort of opportunity I would have to read or post. Not much is the answer, but I have made a few quick checks online and have seen some of the latest flamewar and that many bloggers I like and respect have gone on hiatus or are quitting completely (I hope they change their minds at a later date!)

I want to say a few things about the Steve Gilliard/Brittney flamewar. First, I feel badly for Zuzu. I don't know how many times I or other POC have said that we hate having what feels like purely academic theoretical discussion with white people about race, because for us we are talking about our real experiences, feelings, and lives. Our humanity is under the microscope and being ignored or dismissed or denigrated about it doesn't feel too good to us. Are we being oversensitive, or are those white people insensitive? This is exactly what is happening to Zuzu. It really doesn't matter what Brittney's intentions were when Zuzu feels like she has been kicked in the teeth. Is Zuzu being oversensitive or is BG insensitive? I think BG was insensitive and should have known that when a popular young blogger dies many people would be doing searches for any information about his life and untimely death and come upon that posting. But this is not an evil vs good moment either. I disagree with the blogswarm against BG and don't think that she should have quit her job over this either... a cop shoots a teen in the back because he was running away after shoplifting, the punishment does not fit the crime. The punishment does not fit the crime here either.

I really wish BG had been able to step back and see how painful that post had to be for those mourning Steve Gilliard's death, I really wish she had just taken the short amount of time and effort to change the title of the post and/or add comments to it to express how vile she believed it to be. But I also wish that Jesus General and his supporters would have de-escalated after being told about who BG is and what her intentions were. If I had been online throughout this, initially I would have attributed JG's reaction entirely to grief and disagreed with Ilyka about the sexism, but I came in late and saw what his commenters said and that he did nothing to discourage it. This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that Feministing is unsafe for POC, they do/did little to discourage racist/white supremacist language at their site. (I haven't been there since the blogwar over FFF and resulting friction between WOC and Feministing, so I don't know what they have done to improve comments moderation. They did say they were discussing this and I'd give my eyeteeth to see better relationships between major feminist blogs geared towards white audiences and those of us in the WOC arena.)

People can have more than one reason or motive for the things they do and say. I actually believe JG when he says that he went after BG because she blogs for a ABC affiliate, because he didn't want to send traffic to smantix etc. I also think it was due to grief and...sexism. I concluded this because he either doesn't recognize sexist language amongst his commenters or condones it, it's not a huge leap in logic to think that he might see a woman as an easier target than a man too. As I said when criticizing Feministing, you don't have to ban people or delete posts, I know that JG has a light touch when it comes to moderating, but all he had to do was make a comment indicating that he doesn't agree with what a commenter is saying, doesn't even matter if it is direct or snarky. If he does that, he lets the people on his site know what he thinks of sexism instead of having so many wonder if he agrees with the sentiments. And the weird part to me is this is exactly what he was asking BG to do, to clarify if she agrees with that vile post, why can't JG do the same when a commenter steps over the line with sexist or misogynist language?

I consider Democommie a friend, I have had private email exchanges with him and hope that one day we will meet. If I had been online during this I would have explained to him that calling a woman "kitten" is the same as calling a black man "boy". That's why it's sexist, it dismisses the woman as a child not worth responding to, the same goes for his explanation about putting women up on pedestals and firing with both barrels at men. Native Americans know that when people idealize us as stoic, mystical, and wise it isn't a good thing. Asians know the same about the model minority label. The same goes here. There is a tendency to use the pedestal as a way of keeping people in their place and an unspoken assumption that they can either stay there or in the gutter, no in between, no being a fallible human like yourself.

The posting I found most upsetting personally was at Sadly, No! It reinforced what I have discovered most recently about the liberal/democratic/progressive white blogosphere. The post and so many of the comments are willfully ignorant about sexism and racism. Do these people really not see the racism in what Maha said? And I am not talking about the end where she says that black people are racist (which I strongly disagree with but understand what they mean and see as a distraction to the rest of the problems with the post), the rest of it is condescending and dismissive. I still want to hear a blogger from a major white blog answer my question; If that table had been all men, would they have expected any anger from women bloggers? Or would leaving them out have been just as ok as leaving POC bloggers out? Without identity politics that table would have been all men. It is women bloggers fighting tooth and nail for recognition, respect, and equality that got those women there.

I'm too tired and demoralized to go through the whole 700+ comments thread but will leave you with a couple of them.

Jillian said:
…identity politics is not just a function of being a minority and feeling marginalized, it’s the belief that marginalization gives you a sort of privileged access to the nature of reality. And it is a deeply harmful thing to believe. But how do you attempt to reason with someone who believes their ability to perceive reality is more accurate than yours - which conveniently allows them to dismiss anything you say which they do not like?


Jillian just turned white male privilege on it's head. See it's not white's or men who have privileged access to the nature of reality or dismiss us because their perception of reality is more accurate than ours. We don't know racism when we experience it, we don't know sexism when we experience it. No, just let the white men tell us when racism and sexism are real. They have no vested interest in telling us that the way we got crapped on which is the same as the way we got crapped on before and that other time and the time before that, it's all a coincidence! No racism or sexism involved in the fact that whites and men do these crappy things to us ALL THE TIME!

Random Observer said:
That is my interest here. Not in defending some awful troll speaking ill of the dead. People who loved and respected Mr. Gilliard are not the “stupid, self-righteous morons” I was referring to.


What I found interesting about this quote is that Random Observer's main point is that saying, "It's not about you." is an invalid argument. But that quote is clarifying what he said, and basically saying "it's not about you." This really isn't a difficult concept. In the heat of the moment people make sweeping statements about a majority of a group who angered them. There will be a minority who don't fit the bill, it's not about them. If what you read makes you say, "Hey! I resemble that remark!" then it's probably about you. On the other hand, if you go in saying, "But I don't do that!" then it's not about you and quit identifying with the assholes who do those things.

What Random Observer and the others slamming Zuzu don't get is that Zuzu isn't mistaken or identifying with assholes, she knows that it's not about her, and that is what pisses her off. She wants it to be about her and wants someone to acknowledge her rational pain and disgust. This is what happened between WOC bloggers and the post Jill ran about FFF critics. She ignored us and specifically excluded us and our real concerns, just like Zuzu is being ignored and excluded. Zuzu's complaints deserve attention, but it doesn't fit the framing some are making, so they try to exclude and ignore her valid points. I'm not saying I would completely agree with everything Zuzu says but it tears me up the way she is being treated.

posted by Donna at 12:13 AM |

28 comment(s):

I had been blissfully unaware of that Sadly, No! thread, but just spent time reading the whole thing. I'd actually stopped reading that blog some time ago, because I just really got tired of the regular referencing of The!Great!Sandwich!Debate!. So color me unsurprised that a reply to a post that had nothing to do with T!G!S!D! somehow got turned into something dealing with T!G!S!D!

However, what did surprise me, and it probably shouldn't have, is that a reply to a post by Chris Clarke basically devolved into a thread bashing Ilyka. And bashing her for things she's never said. Look, it's no big surprise that HTML doesn't like Ilyka. I'd guess she's not that fond of him either. However, he started out posting about something I assume he takes seriously and then devolves himself into "Ilyka is teh suck!!"

And RO? Well, he just was going on about how Zuzu was one big hypocrite. And I agree with you about the lack of sympathy for Zuzu, too. But to me the bulk of that thread was undeservedly about Ilyka.

I think one line that Chris had, about how his wife gets really angry when she's slighted by stuff he typically doesn't notice, summed it up. But there's no recognition by the majority of commenters there that when the same thing keeps happening to you (1) maybe there is actually a pattern and (2) it's pretty understandable that it would get you pissed off after enough times.

OK, enough rambling for now.

By Blogger Lesley Plum, at 6/16/2007 4:28 PM  

Yay, welcome back! First, I am glad the move went well and hope you are settling in nicely. And second, thank goodness you got access to a computer and are writing about this!

I too just read through (most of) that Sadly No thread as well, and was appalled - and trying to figure out where to comment about it, lol. I actually had another tab open at Mag's, thinking to comment on one of her threads on the related issue when I decided to do one last check here, first.

Anyway, I agree with you, about the treatment of zuzu by many - they simply were not hearing her at all.

What Random Observer and the others slamming Zuzu don't get is that Zuzu isn't mistaken or identifying with assholes, she knows that it's not about her, and that is what pisses her off. She wants it to be about her and wants someone to acknowledge her rational pain and disgust.

That's exactly it, and I don't think people could quite get that while in the midst of all the foofra.

Another thing tho on that thread that I noticed is the deep, very deep anger at not only zuzu, but also piny and ilyka, for standing up with poc against white progressive racism, and also calling the 'left' out about sexism (and the pat-pats on the head for Amanda for rarely to never doing any such thing, but anyway)... They've apparently broken some unwritten taboo, so attacks on ilyka's former political orientation and piny's transgender status were also mixed in with all the rest of the bellows of the wounded bull walruses.

Also, considering the views of some of those typing there, and the fact that they appear to be anti anti-racists, I imagine that they really don't see the racism in maya's stuff. After all, she was just doing what they would do, putting the poc in their place (at the end of the line) and reinforcing the privileged view that "identity politics" wreck everything for everyone.

I still haven't read JG's post and comments, and might not. People behaved badly on all sides of this, that I can see, and my take is the same as yours - in fact, I could point to the entire post and say "What Donna said" - and probably will... BG could have handled this wayyyy better, and the sexism in the responses at JG's and other places should have been shot down immediately (by the proprietors).

I'm very sorry to see the people quitting blogging over this stuff, and I hope they come back.

But to me the bulk of that thread was undeservedly about Ilyka.

Yes, and that's what's gotten me pretty angry. They are trying to punish her, not only for once being a Republican (although I think if she had meekly towed whatever line they think she should have that that wouldn't have mattered much) but being an ally woc in various conflicts on the left, and against sexism and so on seems to be her unforgivable sin, to some.

(sigh - this is a confused comment cuz I had a lot to say and no organized plan on how to say it ;)

By Blogger Nanette, at 6/16/2007 8:11 PM  

Yet another war...this one I stayed out of. It was hard enough knowing Steve had died--after the long, long illness, and then the inevitable point when his family and Jen pretty much knew he wasn't going to get better, that was heartbreaking--but to see his death get subsumed into yet another "me! me! me!" moment was horrible.

I don't know what this sandwich thing is at Sadly no. I don't care. I don't like those people over there and I don't read them. I don't have feelings one way or the other abuot JG, but I hate the way his commenters acted like idiots whenever Nez said anything.

I guess the point is that I spend almost no time in the white male progressive blogs. Nez and Kai are the only male bloggers I read, actually. Now that Steve has died.

And I feel badly for Zuzu too, while at the same time feeling badly for piny. I just think the whole thing sucks and I wonder what Steve thinks about it all. He's probably not too surprised.

By Blogger Hahni, at 6/16/2007 9:06 PM  

A correction: I do read Kevin regularly, and occasionally Chris Clarke. Don't want to miss our few male allies.

By Blogger Hahni, at 6/16/2007 9:08 PM  

i didnt follow the threads you did. but every point you went over made good sense to me.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/17/2007 2:08 AM  

and mad propz to ilyka. i didn't read the thread, but she's a kickass ally. mucho pasión.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/17/2007 2:11 AM  

I'm not surprised they aimed thier vitriol at Ilyka. She gets it and they don't. She one of the strongest anti-oppression voices on the internet and that just can't be! They are the enlightened liberals and she voted republican once upon a time! I'd be willing to bet that nearly every one of them has sat out elections and been apolitical, or voted republican maybe because "both parties are the same anyway", or were liberal "warriors" until they saw how fucked up Iraq is. Very few people are pure politically and have the foresight to always be right in their political decisions.

It's funny how projection works since they are angry at all the people telling them what to do and how to act, and show that anger by telling them what to do and how to act.

I was also glad that Lauren stepped in and pointed out how a post about a male blogger devolved into one bashing many women. Sure there were a few who said some things defending Amanda but not much. That thread right there disproves HTML's contention that liberals can't be sexist, or is he just saying, "shhhh don't call it out!"

By Blogger Donna, at 6/17/2007 10:45 AM  

Nanette, sometimes I wonder if we share a brain! lol

The thing that gets me is I see so many people I respect and care about being both wrong and right about aspects of this. It makes it so difficult to write about because it isn't black and white but all shades of gray. And I suspect that although I haven't been involved in this one, I have also been both wrong and right in the messes I have been involved in, but was too blind to see it at the time.

I don't completely agree with zuzu but think she deserved to be heard and was glad to see people recognize her pain, like the post at Ilyka's. Unfortunately, I think it was too late for zuzu to accept and I hope she will rethink that.

Normally I would say that Brittney did nothing wrong, but not on this. The subject was far too sensitive and personal to handle in a cavalier manner. Steve Gilliard was loved and respected by many, including me. Remember, we met commenting at his blog? I wish that Brittney had given that a little thought and taken some care in posting to make sure that she was clear in her feelings about that post she referenced.

This makes me think of debates about legality and morality. Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral and vice versa. In the strictest sense, Brittney didn't do anything wrong but write the same way she does every day for a group of regular readers. But the best to handle it, would have been to anticipate the pain smantix's words would cause those in mourning and be very clear with her own words.

By Blogger Donna, at 6/17/2007 11:09 AM  

Kactus, I really can't think what Steve would say about this. On his blog it was never all about him, so I think he would be very uncomfortable with everyone fighting and leaving the blogosphere due to something even tangentally related to him. He'd probably tell us all to knock it off.

By Blogger Donna, at 6/17/2007 11:18 AM  

Nezua, I gotta agree with you about Ilyka. I hope she comes back swinging soon!

By Blogger Donna, at 6/17/2007 11:19 AM  

Donna, I'll write a longer comment later, but I just wanted to say "Welcome back!!" We missed you (not that BfP isn't teh awesome too :P)

I've read many threads on the News Blog where you and Nanette went back and forth with your smart selves lol. Good times, good times . . .

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/17/2007 12:21 PM  

But the best to handle it, would have been to anticipate the pain smantix's words would cause those in mourning and be very clear with her own words.

And shall we also pack Gilliard's friends in bubble wrap, lest they fall over and hurt themselves in a less psychological sense?

She didn't do anything to justify what JG did, nor did she do anything that warranted the total agregate reaction to that post that he created pretty much ex nihilo by declaring that her post, which he misread, was an attack on gilliard, when it was actually an attack on the funeral troll who's actually entirely to blame, but who no one cares about really.

So far the only people who have actually out and out criticised smantix is... basically brittany, in that original post.

Oh and she was harrased into quitting her job because of that.

Woohoo.

Maybe JG and his goons should have realised that actually trying to get her fired or harassing her until she left might lead to quitting like that.

Naaah!

I could really understand this whole thing a lot better if she hadn't quit like that, becuase then it'd be just another act of stupidty on the internet and this sort of wafty "well yes he over-reacted but still.." analysis would make sense because then no real result would have occured after it blew up - as you harm none, who cares and all that jazz.

But she was harrassed into quitting, ffs, that instantly changes it all and makes me really wonder about what sort of person gilliard actually was if his supposed "friends" think that marking his death with the harassment of a woman until she quits is a good or even not-bad thing.

Of course that's not really fair to gilliard anymore than the rest of this crap is, but the point is that some of his freinds need to fucking well get OVER themselves, jesus wept, and stop blaming their stupidity on gilliard.

By Blogger R. Mildred, at 6/17/2007 2:03 PM  

Donna, I tend to think that the dead find us all very funny, in a trivial way. They've left all these earthly concerns behind, and now they get the cosmic joke--that it's all just temporary. And if we wait a bit, we'll all be in on the joke, too.

By Blogger Hahni, at 6/17/2007 2:40 PM  

yep, i felt bad for zuzu and really bad for ilyka. and ABC affiliate notwithstanding: y'know, sometimes, maybe best to just call a shitstain (i.e. the rightwinger who made that horrible post in the first place) a shitstain, y punto.

but yes, the whole thing went out of control precisely because no one on either side (BG/JG) wanted to say "you're right, i screwed up, my apologies," y punto.

anyway. welcome to the East Coast!!

By Blogger belledame222, at 6/17/2007 4:49 PM  

Another thing tho on that thread that I noticed is the deep, very deep anger at not only zuzu, but also piny and ilyka, for standing up with poc against white progressive racism, and also calling the 'left' out about sexism (and the pat-pats on the head for Amanda for rarely to never doing any such thing, but anyway)... They've apparently broken some unwritten taboo, so attacks on ilyka's former political orientation and piny's transgender status were also mixed in with all the rest of the bellows of the wounded bull walruses.

well ya, and the same ol', "you're ruining it for everybody" team TEAAAMMM b.s. that's characterized so much of this crap, esp. from fdl, Kos, Pandagon to some extent, etc. etc. and downward, of course. trickle trickle.

By Blogger belledame222, at 6/17/2007 4:52 PM  

Donna, I tend to think that the dead find us all very funny, in a trivial way. They've left all these earthly concerns behind, and now they get the cosmic joke--that it's all just temporary. And if we wait a bit, we'll all be in on the joke, too.

i sure hope so.

By Blogger belledame222, at 6/17/2007 4:52 PM  

and donna i just want to say, i appreciate the thoughtfulness of your approach. there's a lot of extreme stances out there. and i know we all want to see life and ourselves and our stances as so either/or, so strong, so decided. but (my) life isn't like that. and its easy to get swept up and want to paint caricatures to feel safe about everything, and Right, but there's usually more nuance. and when you can bring that, the entire dialogue becomes more thoughtful, and the accounting more honest. we live in such a collective ADHD/PTSD time period (to be shortcutty on ya). whiplash of the virtual emotional rollercoaster. we so often copy clint bushwood, the soundbytemasta.

you add a good, measured, ponderance. thanks for that.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/17/2007 6:41 PM  

I'm glad you're back, and hope all went well.

There is an odd thing to me about Jesus General. Trying to silence people by intimidation and/or getting them fired, through his letter writing campaigns, is what he does. It is what he has always done. It is a bullying tactic, no matter who it is used against.
Not surprising when they are called on a friendly fire incident, they escalate.

I miss Ilyka, and hope she will reopen her blog.

By Blogger the bewilderness, at 6/17/2007 9:45 PM  

Glad you are back and survived the move, Donna.

I had trouble catching up on this dustup until I found a post at Slant Truth that is a good round up. I'd link, but my ancient computer can't load his page.

For someone who didn't read Gilliard regularly, can you who knew him provide links to posts you admire or tell stories about him?

By Blogger Ravenmn, at 6/18/2007 12:36 AM  

Andrew, besides the post in support of Liza during the Clinton blogger lunch, the one post of Steve's I still reflect on alot is about the transportation strike in NYC. Alot of people were saying things like those subway workers/bus drivers etc have it good. They should be thankful for what they have instead of striking for more. I don't have insurance or a pension etc so why should they?...and our answer to that was, shouldn't you be saying that I don't have decent pay, benefits, etc but we should all be fighting for that. We all deserve it, GO STRIKING WORKERS! Instead of being envious because someone has a little more than you, be angry that it's still not enough, and that they deserve more and so do you.

If you keep an eye out for it, you will find that many times we are fighting over crumbs while the wealthy, powerful, and privileged laugh at us while they hoard the whole cake.

By Blogger Donna, at 6/19/2007 9:55 AM  

RMildred, I am very uncomfortable with the things I am thinking and saying about this. I do get the sense that I am missing something and wrong in some way and I do think it has something to do with what you are saying. At the same time if I am at a restaurant and need a refill on my water I could demand, "Get me more water!" as the waitress is walking by, or I could ask, "Excuse me ma'am, could I get a refill on my water?" It's her job to refill my glass and I have no obligation to think of her feelings one way or the other so why should I be considerate? That is what I am getting at about Brittney posting that. No she doesn't have to bubble wrap those mourning Steve Gilliard, but it really takes so little effort to be kind, considerate, and show some decency towards people who are hurting, why not do it?

By Blogger Donna, at 6/19/2007 10:02 AM  

Oh and I agree with the rest of what you are saying. I do think that what Brittney did was more on par with a social faux pas and they treated it like she murdered Steve with her bare hands.

By Blogger Donna, at 6/19/2007 10:08 AM  

I'm getting too many interruptions now to respond to the rest of the comments. (My husband wants me to pick out a medical plan for when we are in NH now!) I usually get more time for reading and responding at night. So, later!

By Blogger Donna, at 6/19/2007 10:32 AM  

The other thing I found interesting about that thread, upon superficially reading it, is how the original poster LIKES Chris, but the people who don't very quickly stepped into the personal attacks.

And personally, I think those are big problems - both that the tone of the original post(s) often doesn't carry through the comments (I'm on the fence with the open speech/respectful speech divide, personally) and that personal attacks are deemed both appropriate and, often, preferable to actually discussing the issues.

Nezua's gone over the defensive patterns of people who systemic oppressors (as have others, I think), and I kept ticking off one after the other after the other as I read (not to mention the logical fallacies; whoa) but I'm not willing to state that this is exclusive to the people I disagree with. All too often, the people I agree with make these same errors and I'm baffled as how to stem the tide against them.

If I never had to see another inappropriate appeal to emotion again, it would be too soon.

I don't agree with everything Random Observer said, but I do agree that specificity is key. It is easy to go into a blog situation, conflate the original poster and all of the commentators, read their statements in the worst possible light, then castigate and entire category based on the previous three steps. Add in the trolls, and you have a total mess.

My ultimate goal, personally, is to make more people aware of their privilege in such a way that they're motivated toward equality instead of prejudice. I know that part of this needs to be sensitivity toward the suffering of others, but I don't know how to pass that on to anyone else.

The statements about "pet issues" and people who can "see beyond" them are, in particular, distressing.

By Blogger Deoridhe, at 6/19/2007 3:14 PM  

Donna, sometimes I'm pretty sure we do share a brain! We certainly seem to look at many things in the same way, and have the same reactions to them.

I've still not read everything pertaining to all of this mess, and I'm sure I'm missing lots, but I'm afraid I cling to my original opinion that there is definitely blame to go around.

Nothing excuses the misogyny and vitriol of some of those reacting to Brittney's original post, but I do think people need to own both their words and their actions, and that includes Brittney.

She handled the original, non-blown up yet situation very poorly and in an unprofessional manner. Which is, of course, her right to do, even if she is on a professional blog.

That people then, as a reaction to that, went absolutely berserk is not her fault, as they need to also own their words and actions.

I'm very sorry she quit over all this, though it seems to have been more a last straw type of thing than the main catalyst. There were, apparently, other factors involved as well, according to the Nashville newspapers, involving new management and people she worked leaving or getting fired and other stuff which also should be factored in.

Still, again there is no excuse for the awful things said to and about her, in the name of protecting Gilliard and his friends or for any other reason.

It's a familiar pattern, though, with these "blogwars", at least the ones I've observed, and it drives me batty sometimes - original incident handled badly or not handled at all, and then a blowup, at which point it all turns into something else, in addition whatever it was originally about.

xicanopwr has an excellent writeup on this, with many good points, by the way.

By Blogger Nanette, at 6/19/2007 5:07 PM  

Hi, Donna:

Sorry not to make a comment earlier. I just now got to the post, here. I was out of town and busy for the last 5 days.

I appreciate your reasoned post.

I will send an e-mail to you and after you have read it you may post it if you like.

I hope your stay in CT is enjoyable and I hope your house hunt in NH bears fruit, soon.

democommie

By Blogger democommie, at 6/19/2007 10:22 PM  

The trouble is that in the restaurant situation you are actually obligated to treat the staff as people rather than furniture - because that's what they are, and that's somewhat the trouble here - JG's flipping shit in general (which is would almost be acceptable in the "well he's drunk and he's not harming anyone" sort of sense) because of his grief, but he's declaring that she didn't say what she actually said, didn't do what she actually did, and that therefore the offense caused by the person she was specifically mocking is something she should apologise for.

It's like if you went into a restaurant and loudly accused the waiter of hating you and everything you stand for because he brought the food the chef had prepared for you, which you didn't like, and then had all your freinds send threatening emails to the waiter for the next couple of days until the waiter resigned from the restaurant and moved state to get the hell away from you all. But you were acting out of grief and the waiter was the nearest available place you could pump your grief, it is "understandable".

brittany is a person. one who was pretty much hounded out of a job she had blogging because she was a useful punching bag at the same time some of Gilliard's buddies needed someone to hit so they could spread the pain they were feeling around.

Oh and look how that lightning grounded straight into a woman.

huh.

The "but he was in grief" talk sounds all too much like the typical theory of self that is applied to assbags, misogynists and racists when they do something insanely fucked up, but which is then refused to the victims of their violence and anger, it's not comparable in quantity, but it's like how everyone talks about the suffering the Duke Lacrosse experienced after raping the stripper, all the torture of the trial and whatnot.

What about the other person?

JG and all of Gillard's freinds have not actually had ANY harm done to them by Brittany, none whatsoever, even the insult they felt was just another aspect of their pre-existing pain at Gillard's death.

So why is it okay for them to go and fucking harass this woman, just because they're in pain already? How is their hurting Brittany justified or rationalisd by that?

That's the trouble I'm having with this. because I can't see how it is.

By Blogger R. Mildred, at 6/21/2007 1:57 PM  

Since you are a friend of democommie, I would like to pass this message on to him.

Hello democommie, you won't be seeing me at Jesus' General because for some odd reason he has banned my comments.

"Banned by webmaster. Your comments will not be added"

bernarda

I comment at pharyngula, nogodblog, and godisforsuckers, among others.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7/15/2007 4:40 AM  

Post a comment

<< Home