Being Amber Rhea

Detritus from my “Stuff to Post” label (with my notes to self, where included):

January 4, 2006

• http://davemerrill.livejournal.com/310920.html
  Maybe reference in post about ATL intown neighbhorhoods, addressing homeless problem, etc… (also idea of “yuppies”?)

February 21, 2006

• AJC women-to-woman porn thing
• UGA Beer class
• For the CSS blog - CSS3 selectors - http://www.evolt.org/article/CSS3_The_new_Frontier/17/60319/ and http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200601/css_3_selectors_explained/

February 26, 2006

• The Top 10 Clues That You Are an Amateur Blogger
  Hmmmm…

March 16, 2006

• Objectification (expand on this in detail)
• Newspaper usage of gay and transgender
• C Loaf transdude story
• Nikki’s rant about contraceptives and “men’s rights” BS
• Gender and blogging - also the implicitly sexist remark on the referring blog about blogging tools being “tricky” - http://a.bunchof.us/2006/03/14/gender-and-blogging/

August 29, 2006

• Interesting comment to blog about

November 27, 2006

• Interesting:
  

  Is it a white liberal American thing this fallacious idea that there are always two equal sides to an argument and that the answer or the truth must lie somewhere in between, thus everybody must have their say in every forum? It certainly seems to be a popular belief on those blogs that give a platform to anti-feminists to air their views.

  YES and I should probably write an essay about it. “Free speech” and “the right to hold an opinion” have been entirely misunderstood in this country, I think. And of course, there are never ONLY two sides, and the ‘truth’ is NOT necessarily in between.

  The right to free speech is NOT the right to speak everywhere, all the time, and the “right to an opinion” does not mean opinions cannot be debated or examined - or ignored.

  Some people seem to be really insecure about their opinions, and yet want them protected: as though they were like body parts they were dissatisfied with, but do not want to be teased about. Of course, one shouldn’t be mean to people about such things, or about experiences they’ve had … but that is a very far cry from deciding or not to engage someone’s opinion, or to disagree with it, or not to give it weight.

  People do NOT understand this, it seems, and I think it is some sort of ideological effect - and control mechanism - “free speech” gets twisted around to mean censorship of free thinking, if I am being clear.

  (Comment by profacero at http://womensspace.wordpress.com/2006/11/24/trolls-and-anti-feminists/)

  [Ed. note: From Heart's blog, aaahhhh!!!]

August 2, 2007

• http://saraspeaking.wordpress.com/2007/07/07/what-kind-of-friend-are-you/
  

  Since the gist of the thread is about whether a statement has to intend to be sexist in order to actually be sexist, we have the following quote:

  Assuming that there were no hard feelings intended from the offender how do you make the offender aware of what he has just said? Who wins when it’s largely a difference of opinion?

  “who wins?” That’s your problem right there. This isn’t about winning or losing. This is about you having said something that offends/hurts someone else, and whether you’re going to continue offending/hurting them by arguing about the offense, or whether you’re going to apologise and attempt to make amends. In short, whether you’re going to be hostile or friendly.

  Frankly, I don’t think you’re a very good friend at all if you’re going to take the former route. Denise has a good analogy:

  Say you’re sitting at a table with several friends. You stretch, and unintentionally hit the person next to you in the face, hard. Is the correct response to berate the person who has been hurt for leaning forward, or is it to apologize and keep greater awareness of your surroundings? Nic’s response has been telling the person who has been hit to stop being so sensistive and continuing on in ignorance. Intent is a part of what matters. Your friend would likely find the anger at being struck easier to let go of once he or she knew it was an accident. BUT that the injury was unintended does not make the injury go away. A failure to apologize and an insisitence that you are in the right when you injure people because you’re not paying attention makes you look like a jackass.

  Exactly. Not meaning to do something doesn’t undo the fact that it has been done. I didn’t mean to overdraft my bank account, but that sure as hell doesn’t change the fact that I’m a couple hundred dollars in the hole. I didn’t mean to hurt my friend’s feelings, but that doesn’t change the fact that she is, in fact, hurt. And I can either argue — oh, oops, I mean “have a difference of opinion” with her as to the state of her feelings and the justification thereof. Or I can be a friend, apologise, and kiss and make up.

Some of these links might not work anymore. I haven’t checked. Now I can clear out that label, though!

Okay, this is just too damn funny. Where to begin…?

I don’t really know what BlogNetNews is or why I’m supposed to care. Anyone can build an aggregator, but the blogosphere relies on community buy-in, and apparently some of my fellow Georgia bloggers think BNN is something worth noticing, or at least something not worth laughing at? I don’t know. I remember hearing about it a few months ago at Grayson’s, then I forgot; then Sara blogged about it yesterday.

– Okay. I feel the need to interject something here, given the profound lack of basic reading and listening ability many people demonstrated during the fallout of the Creative Loafing hunk-of-shit blogosphere article. People who apparently couldn’t see beyond their own shit got all hung up on, “These folks are just JEALOUS that they weren’t INCLUDED!!1!11!OMGhighschool”. This isn’t about me being jealous of not being listed on freakin’ BlogNetNews, ffs. This is just some funny shit… Ren, got an extra “Typical” file? I need to replenish my stock.

(Interjection over.)

So anyway, after I saw Sara’s post yesterday, I overheard Rusty talking about other bloggers (who I don’t read as often) who had written about this apparent Top 10 list. I decided to check out the BlogNetNews site. There was a link to email them your feed if it wasn’t listed. So I sent a two-line email with my blog URL and my feed URL, with the subject line “For BlogNetNews Georgia.”

Here is the email I received in response:

Amber,

I am sure you’ve heard this before: You are trouble. BNN/Georgia is a humble politics and public affairs blog aggregator. Your content isn’t very local or public affairsy. However, I love the blog and your obviously broad blogging involvement. Take a look at www.blognetnews.com/cotillion . I built it for a friend who is a member. I am wondering whether you might have an idea for a group that you belong to. Thoughts?

Best,
Dave Mastio

BlogNetNews.com
We Serve Blogging

Remember to visit our advertisers

Bwahahahaha… what the fuck.

We will come back to the “you’re trouble” remark. Let’s just stick, for now, with the “your content isn’t very local” part. I sent him some examples…

Search my 5+ years of archives (I haven’t been at that URL for long) if you’re so inclined… on the old blog I had a category for “Atlanta”; on the new blog I have an “Atlanta” tag. I publicize local events of interest very frequently. Everything tagged “Atlanta” at my new URL: http://www.beingamberrhea.com/tag/Atlanta

I organized PodCamp Atlanta. I’m the co-founder of the Georgia Podcast Network. Pretty darn local. I give presentations on the value of hyperlocal content. I attend meetings of the Atlanta Press Club (I’m a member), Social Media Club Atlanta, Georgia for Democracy, Georgians for Choice… the list goes on… to help figure out how to best leverage social media at the local level.

But okay. My content isn’t local or “public affairsy.”

Dave replies again…

Let me be a little more clear. The intent of the blognetnews state sites is to cover state and local news and politics. Reading your posts, I didn’t see you covering what I think fits in to waht I am trying to do on those sites. We are building other aggregators — city focused ones where all topics will be in and national ones that will take narrower slices of the blogosphere. You’d fit in both those places.

The last part of my note was a suggestion that you come up with an idea for a national aggregator where you’d fit.

I replied with a short note…

I understood the last part of your note, but I’m not interested in being part of a national aggregator. My main concern/interest is hyperlocal content, which is why Rusty and I started the Georgia Podcast Network. We feel new media has the most potential for influence at the local level.

I also asked him to clarify what he meant by saying that I’m “trouble.” His reply:

Visits to sex clubs are hardly the stuff of a mainstream site.

Now, this is the REALLY hilarious part. I mean, aside from it being just good old-fashioned sex negativity and compartmentalization of sexuality, it’s also just another boring rehashing of - guess what! - the double standard! Oh, yay! I just never get tired of that.

This is highly (grimly) amusing to me, because Rusty’s blog is listed on BlogNetNews. He recently wrote about our visit to the sex club, too. But, as Jenny said in an email, “You’re a woman. You may choose between your sexuality and your intelligence. You may not have both.”

Lest we forget!

Many other questions spring to mind, too, such as: what makes him think I’m trying to produce a “mainstream site” - whatever that even means?

Btw, Dave is fine w/ my blogging these emails because, as he stated, BNN is “big on free speech.” Just not wrt sex clubs, I guess.

I will reserve further commentary because really, these emails speak for themselves. I wouldn’t want to kick a puppy. (Commenters, however, should feel free.)

Ha! Kevin at Slant Truth always manages to be smart and funny, while wielding an incisive no-BS wit that puts most to shame. I love what he says about his comment policy:

[T]he quickest way to get me thinking it’s time to ban you is when you start wagging on about free speech. Or as I said over at Ilyka’s, when someone (who am I kidding, it’s always some dude), starts yapping about how they “just want to have a discussion,” it usually means they want to be able to say stupid shit wherever and whenever they want. It’s a blog for chrissakes. The whole point is discussion. People aren’t getting pissed because you want to have a discussion. People are pissed because you’re being an asshole.

…And “right-wing whiners” isn’t exactly apt, but I can’t think of a snappy description that doesn’t involve at least five adjectives, including references to stunted adolescence… ah, anyway, onto the point:

No fat jokes, no racist/stripper-bashing jokes, no sexist dumb blonde jokes, no misogynist (no, dumbass, “misogynist” is not a -joke-, not an -insult-, that is a -description-. “Dumbass” -is- an insult, yes, genius, very good), transphobic “Mann Coulter” jokes? Butbutbut then -where’s the funny in life?-

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Also: FREE SPEECH FREE SPEECH FREE SPEECH ZOMG HELP HELP I’M BEING OPPRESSED!!!111!!eleven

Quote of the day, from Teresa Nielsen Hayden of Making Light, a blog known for having some of the most civil conversations on the web.

Anonymous nastiness is easy to write, and will always find an appreciative audience. I don’t care. It’s not a manifestation of the free and open discourse of the internet; it’s a thing that destroys that discourse. To be specific, it’s the same old trashmouthed bullying we all know from junior high and high school. Putting it on the net doesn’t cause it to develop any novel complexities or interesting emergent behaviors. It’s just the same old sh*t.

If you have a weblog or live journal, or you administer a website that has comment threads, stand up for yourself and your readers. The jerks are never going to like you, or praise you, or admit that you’re doing the right thing. And if you’re waiting for someone to give you permission to suppress and thereafter ignore malfeasants, you have it right now. If you want, I’ll make up a certificate. Go forth and civilize.

Too tired to write a full post (I went upside down again in pole dancing class tonight!), so I’m just going to quote myself, from comments on the previous thread:

What I’d like to to write about in my next post is the cry of “censorship!!” and “free speech!!” that, predictably, always goes up whenever these assholes are called on their behavior. It amazes me that so many people are, apparently, ignorant of the fact (or, more probably, just don’t care) that ‘free speech’ refers ONLY to government. As in, the government cannot persecute you for expressing your views. Free speech does NOT mean you’re allowed to have verbal diarrhea anywhere, any time, with no consequences whatsoever.

WRT blogs? The ‘delete’ and ‘ban’ commands are there for a reason. I use this analogy often, but it remains accurate: if someone comes over to my house and shits on the living room floor, they will be unceremoniously kicked out, and don’t let the door hit ‘em on the way out. They can stand in the yard screaming their head off, but nobody’s going to believe they’re being persecuted. In fact, the cops will be called and they’ll be escorted away and charged w/ trespassing.

Instead of writing more on that specific topic later, I might leave it at that. Brevity can be a good thing!