Thursday, September 4, 2008

It's her party

and she'll cry if she wants to.

Announcement on comments:

Starting tomorrow, comments are going to be policed and deleted. With the election coming on, the signal to noise ratio has gone from about 50/50 to about 10/90. My old commenters miss the civil discussion that used to take place at my old website, and so do I. So with the help of an intern, we're going to start removing comments that don't lead to productive discussion.
I could lay out all sorts of rules, but the rule I'll mainly be using is really fairly simple: if you wouldn't say it to my face, or the face of the commenter you're addressing, don't say it here. Imagine you're at a debate tournament, or a cocktail party. If what you're about to say would get you thrown out of either, can it or I will. And repeat offenders will be banned.
I'd be quite willing to say every single thing I've ever written here to your face, Megan, except that one early post where I got too personal. And no, I wouldn't be shouting. I'm quite capable of being very rude and vulgar without being angry. What you can't comprehend is that when I get angry, I walk away and don't finish a post, because you're not worth it.
In any case, rickm, Nutella, Spencer, Susan, and anyone I'm forgetting, take your inevitable banning with pride, it means Megan doesn't have the means to respond to you directly.
N before anyone says I'm rushing to judge Megan's new policy, let's read a bit more
For the first time, the comments that simply communicate the commenter's deep hatred and/or contempt of me are also going. I am sure I will be accused of stifling debate, of suppressing criticism of me. So be it. A significant fraction of the comments now consists of some variation on "You stupid, ignorant bitch, why aren't you writing what I want you to write?" I am now fully conversant with two facts:
1. Many lefty commenters think that I am a stupid, ignorant bitch.
2. I am not writing things they want to read.
Still not clear on why they're reading the things they don't like to read, but hey, to each his own. Anyway, I don't think there is any further value to be gleaned by repetition of these sentiments. And they destroy the thread when other commenters respond.
As I said in my likely final comment in Megan's threads, we still pay attention because no matter how many times we see a once dear friend's corpse raped*, it offends us.
I also suspect this means Megan has been given marching orders to ramp it up. I suppose, in a way, the fact that Megan is just doing what her bosses tell her to do makes it true that she's not the best target for the criticisms we produce, but Bankrupt David Bradley would be a difficult blog to produce, and soldiers in the trenches can't tell the other side to stop shooting back because they were only following orders. Point is, her passive aggressive, fact eliding, strawbaby abusing ways are only likely to get worse in the months between now and election day, and she wants to pretend people like her for it.

Also, remember her email is mmcardle@theatlantic.com. I'm in no way shape or form suggesting anyone harass her, do not do so, period. But if you want to say something and be sure she 'hears' it, just remember there's a way.

*- Yes, I know technically a corpse can't be raped. Whatevah.

Update:

She deleted my comment saying why we criticize her here within about 4 minutes. How meta, and intellectually dishonest. It's much easier to dismiss someone as a misogynist and hater if you're the only one permitted to speak, which is, of course, the real point behind this new policy. The Atlantic is now beholden to a specific ideology, The Atlantic is dead.

Update the second:

Now it gets good. I sent Megan an email;

interesting you say starting tomorrow

then instantly delete my comment giving a brief explanation of why we criticize you.
just the kind of small dishonesty we've come to know n love from you.
n btw, I went to Vassar, as did my mother before me. it doesn't mean shit to me you're a girl, find another excuse.

(Yes, I know, I shouldn't have said girl. I'm not always perfect on that, feel free to remind me.)

She replies;
You're right, I started early. Sorry you wasted your time writing a comment I banned, but there you are. I am going to have a civil blog. You want to have an uncivil one, and it's great that you have a blog and however many readers are fascinated by your hatred of me.
I know, there's no big laugh line, but I felt I should share.

N for the public record I sent the following reply;

I don't hate you. I don't know you. I just think you're wildly unqualified for the position you hold. If you worked for the WSJ I'd happily ignore your existence. I know you don't care, but now you can't pretend not to know when next you dishonestly dismiss your critics.

8 comments:

Clem said...

She has an intern, now? Oh noes! Intern, listen: Use harpoons and tow-cables. Go for the legs.

Susan of Texas said...

Don't interns do research and gather materials? Megan has no need of those services.

NutellaonToast said...

What was in your comment?

I saved mine but it's lasted a few minutes now:

"I don't really care if you ban worthless comments, but I don't understand why you care to them at all. No matter what criticism is raised her nor how, you distort or ignore it.

Take for example, my asking you to comment on the preemptive arrests of protesters at the RNC. Your response was to talk about events that occurred days later.

Or, as another example, the numerous requests to have you link to a single person attacking Bristol Palin or "smearing" Sarah Palin.

You ignore your critics be they civil or no, so why do you keep taking this high horse? It's not the incivility that appears to bother you, but the disagreement. At least, that's how your actions make it seem.

Many of us only became "trolls" because you ignored attempts to engage our ideas when they were presented without vitriol. We therefore turned to vitriol so that we'd at least get some catharsis out of it.

Face it, Megan, your blogging has deteriorated and you're spiraling further and further into partisan hackdom. That's why the trolls come. The maggots go to the rot, not the other way around."

Susan of Texas said...

She's banning my IP; I left a fawning comment as a test and it disappeared too.

It's actually a bit sad. Americans are supposed to be stronger than this weak sister.

brad said...

Drop her an email, Susan.
She keeps trying to have the last word with me and show how little she cares. It's fun.

NutellaonToast said...

My comments are getting through. See, you guys just need to have tasty handles and then you're set.

clever pseudonym said...

Don't flatter yourself, Megan. I don't hate you at all. I just think you are a terrible, pretentious, ill-informed, arrogant, elitist writer.

I can totally understand if she wanted to delete comments that were just hit-and-run insults. No blogger should have to put up with that. Most of the comments in question, however, don't really appear to be so uncivilized as much as they just point out that she's wrong or has no clue what she's writing about. Let her ban away. It only further proves how shallow and bratty she is.

"I want to have a civilized blog, except when I'm calling someone else stupid or talking down to them like they are four years old or making passive-aggressive swipes at other bloggers and then lying about it later."

bulbul said...

Wait a second, I was under the impression it is NOT her party. The address bar says "theatlantic.com", so shouldn't, you know, The Atlantic and it's editorial board or whatever make the comment policy?