Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
I don't understand the preceding comments?Anyway, what's the Loraine? Is it an apartment building?
Just a condo building downtown.Thersites: I think you might need to update your browser, from what I've heard.
I'm using the latest version of Firefox, it only happens with your blog, and you average a lot more comments, usually. Just saying. But it could be just me.
If you see more than 5 comments, then it's probably just me. If not, then, well, your post is timestamped at 5:34, and I gave you snark at 9:04 aqnd that's the first post I see. You usually get a lot more comments.Just saying. You can also ask Dave if he just cleared his cache.
thersites- from the tone of your first comment, it might actually be a positive thing that some comments don't show up.I bet some of the candidates listed on the poster in the last picture still get votes in Madison!
I just noticed that, if you squint, the state capital building looks like a miniature golf course model of the nation's capital building. And being the last hole of the course, when you putt your ball into the front door and into the Jim Doyle clown head's mouth, you don't get it back.
Thersites: You should apologize. You are not as up on feminism as you flatter yourself that you are. I don't know your age, but people like you would be reviled by the feminists of 1990. I'm disgusted with you and your co-commenters at Eschaton! I do NOT apologize to you people. YOU should apologize to ME!
The capital is beautiful; it's a little castle on the hill, and all roads lead to it. The juxtaposition between those photos (and the good memories of when I lived in the area) and theresites' obnoxious comments is quite jarring. Way to be a jerk.
Thersites: If you had any decency and respect for women of my generation, you would apologize to me. You wronged me and you continue to wrong me with your insolent attitude toward me. You were disrespectful then and you should simply apologize. Period! You people said all sorts of sexist things. You should feel bad about it and just resolve to do better in the future. Instead you've chosen to turn on me for holding up a mirror to you for you sloppiness, which occurred because you were so sure of you own rectitude. It disgusts me. Your continued self-justification only makes it worse. You should say you are sorry and resolve to do better in the future. I am not interested in the backstory to some person who thinks she now has the right to talk sexist crap. What do you know about me? I was born in 1951. What do you think I have had to put up with in my life? You have chosen the wrong person to make a target of, and YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED. In fact, I think YOU ARE ASHAMED. You should apologize or JUST GO AWAY.
Thersites: Then just go away. I am not interested in talking to you or providing you with a forum. I will systematically delete your posts without reading them from now on. I gave you a chance. I took the trouble to engage with you, and that is the end of it. Slink back to you foolish little outpost of a blog and rant.
Wonderful photos! I just love the new buildings on the Square, and I've spent a lot of time imagining what the great views from inside must look like. They're even better than I'd pictured!
oops, I realized my posting was in the middle of thersites beef with you so thought I should remove it. Probably no point tho, he seems like a dog with a bone.
Those socialist candidates look dreadfully earnest sorts of folks.
Looks like a typical Midwestern shit hole.
I think this new law is a gross overstretch and probably an unconstitutional limit on free speech.But, doesn't Thersites behavior in this comment thread come close to being illegal as described by this new law?(With the deletions it's impossible for me to know, but I think Prof. Althouse's method of stomping on these trolls is better than trying to create a legal framework for prosecuting such nonsense)And is that picture of those socialist candidates meant to be viewed with sarcasm or wistfulness?
Goobersnatcher,I call that bold talk for someone who hasn't enough courage of his convictions to have a blog of his own. My, my, you can come to someone else's blog and talk dirty. What else have you got?
why oh why are the trolls here so tenacious? I guess everybody wants a piece of Althouse! I imagine them "telling her off" here and then sending all their friends over to see their stupid handiwork. It'd be funny if it weren't so lame.
I wish I owned a copy of the Socialist Ticket poster. It looks turn-of-the-century in style.It reminded me of the book, "Stalin over Wisconsin": The Making and Unmaking of Militant Unionism, 1900-1950, by Stephen Meyer. I understood Wisconisn politics a little better in that light. But the poster puts it in a more real context.Kevin Fleming
"goobersnatcher" is the same troll who called a commenter here a "fag" recently. "Fucking bitch" and "fag" - the new vocabulary of the liberated post-modern left! Actually I'm being presumptuous. I don't think this troll is necessarily part of the left (although it might think it is, who knows?); rather I think it's just a garden-variety uninteresting jerk.
Goober Snatcher: Ironically, you made a sexist comment! Why don't you go get Theristes and her friends now to criticize me for calling you a sexist? I'm sure she might be willing to spend months insisting that I misunderstand you and I am outrageously ignorant of your backstory as a victim of sexism. You have added to the pile of evidence that there are lots of liberal/lefties/whatever today who imagine themselves to be feminists but violate the principles of feminism that used to be strongly defended. You think you've insulted me, but you've only unwittingly proved my point. And you are, truly, witless.
Knoxgirl: Maybe one of Thersites problems in me is that she keeps writing about me on her blog, goading me as much as she can, but I never respond, I never take the bait, and I never link. So she's got to come around here to try to get noticed. It's quite pathetic. She links to me a lot and sends me her readers, and I think we can guess which ones they are. The other thing is that I actually struck a nerve. She flatters herself that she and her friends are feminists, and it actually hurt. It should! I meant for it to. I would like to see a more vigorous sort of feminism. I'm surprised that there is no self-disciplining on the left, which used to insist on high standards, after a period before the modern women's movement, when lefties said some of the MOST sexist things. Now, there's a slipping back to the old form. Some day, perhaps, it will be noticed again. Perhaps some feminist of the next generation will study these bloggish texts some day. Thersites should apologize now. It will only look worse later.
I suppose it's like slowing down when you see a car wreck on the side of the road, but I have a perverse desire to peek at thersites' blog and see why she has her skirt over her head (metaphorically speaking) re Ann and sexism. However, her blogger profile seems to be blocked, so I don't know what her blog is. Can someone let me know, or would that be providing her a forum?
Meanwhile, back at the Lorraine,--- It was a fine hotel in its day.The Hotel Lorraine, was also used as state office space before being remodeled into apartments.
Dahlink I love you for giving me Inn-on-the-Park Avenue.Is that St. Raphael's Cathedral?
Please don't link to her blog. I will delete any comment that does. Try using Google or Technorati for your blog research needs.
LarryK: It all goes back to this post of mine where I criticized commenters at Eschaton for their sexist statements. You can get a sense of their outrage from my various updates and the comments over there. Basically, some lefties think their commitment to feminism should be take for granted, thus requiring all sexist slurs to be read as irony. They have a special immunity when they hurl sexist crap at people who they think don't share their politics. Quite despicable. And for months, some folks have not been able to get over the fact that I called them on it.
Thanks Ann. I've been away for a while and missed all the fireworks. I take back my request for any info re thersites.
FYI Ann: Thersites is male.
Interesting. This is the first time I've ever seen a blogger delete someone's comments, and respond to them at length anyway. Frankly, it strikes me as unethical and cowardly. If someone's comments are beneath one's dignity, one should simply delete them and ignore them. If they're worth debating, one should present both sides of the argument.Ms. Althouse can do as she likes on her own blog, of course. But surely I can't be the only person who finds her behavior in this thread troubling.
But surely I can't be the only person who finds her behavior in this thread troubling.You cannot be serious.
Ann - I may be completely confused, but as far as I can tell Thersites et al are not left/liberal at all but the opposite - doesn't neoprogressive/neoliberal actually mean neoconservative? The sites seem to be dismissive of Democrats, for instance, calling the most liberal "losers."
Wow. What this tick and his peers are about on their own turf is more than a little creepy. Is cyber stalking a legitimate term?Before I got all creeped out, I got a good laugh at the irony of misspelling buffoon in his own header.
Somross - different thersites from what i can tell
You delete the comments by thersites and than carry on the "debate" with him? Isn't this like claiming to be fencing with The Invisible Man? And losing? How droll.
Icepick,I'm perfectly serious. Responding at length, repeatedly, to comments you've deleted is unethical, in my view. It's like beating someone up after you've tied his hands. One man's opinion.IMO, Ms. Althouse could've handled things more elegantly by simply deleting Thersites' comment, and posting a brief note explaining that she was unwilling to continue the discussion, and would be deleting his future comments without response.If no one else thinks the course of action she chose here is, at the very least, petty, that's fine. It's just my opinion, although one commenter above - who supports Ms. Althouse - does note that deleting comments make it impossible to know what Ms. Althouse is responding to. Is Thersites calling her a bunch of ugly names? Or is he presenting his side of the "sexism" debate to which Ms. Althouse refers? I see a clear ethical distinction between deleting attacks and deleting defenses...but again, if no one else here does, so be it.
Phila - if you look at Ann's posting last night at 11:23pm, you'll see she gave him fair warning. He ignored it - so, she stood by her word.
Esk,I'm not complaining about Ms. Althouse banning him; that's her right. Nor would I deny that he came into this thread looking for trouble, for better or worse.All I'm saying is that responding at length to comments you've deleted is unethical, in my opinion. No one's obliged to agree with me, but I don't think mine is an inherently unreasonable position.In any case, I'm repeating myself, so I'll leave it there.
Re: the posterJust in case there would ever be a coal mine in Wisconsin?
This post has been removed by the author.- As a progressive blogger, I just thought I'd get it out of the way.
Phila: I deleted T's comments some time after I responded to them. There was something of a conversation at one point, but I got fed up and went back and deleted all the junk T wrote. I didn't delete my own writing though. I agree with those who are saying that T has an unhealthy obsession with me. I have been trying to ignore him, and he frequently writes about me on his blog, taking an outrageous tone and encouraging his readers to express hate for me, which they do in the most hostile terms. I'm more disturbed by this if he's a man. I had thought he was a woman, because of the intensity of his concern about feminism. If he is a guy, treating a woman like this, then it's damned clear that he has NO feeling for the interests of women. His behavior is truly shameful.
FYI Ann: Thersites is male.So Thersites, a guy, sees fit to lecture Ann on how to be an "authentic" woman? You just can't make this stuff up.
" So Thersites, a guy, sees fit to lecture Ann on how to be an "authentic" woman? You just can't make this stuff up. 4:35 PM, January 12, 2006"Not quite, Mr. Clever.He simply pointed out in painstaking detail how dishonest Althouse was being in calling the Eschaton posters "sexist," when they were in fact -making fun of sexism-. The fact that it was women talking about how they belong in the kitchen should have been the first tipoff they weren't exactly slinging "sexist slurs."It's an easy enough to concept to grasp, but if you have a congenital inability to admit error, it's an understandable misrepresentation.
Nim: You're parroting the spin they tried to put on it after the fact. I suggest that people read that comment thread and judge for themselves. Just because something is said with comic inflection does not mean it is not sexist. I've already pointed this out many times in prior threads, and I adamantly stand by my criticisms. If you folks CARED enough about feminism, you'd stop with the lame excuses, look at yourselves, and APOLOGIZE to me. But vanity is more important to these people, so they keep insisting on the lame explanation. The fact is, I pointed them out when they thought they were just speaking among themselves. They looked quite ugly. They were embarrassed and ashamed. And to their additional shame, they chose to try to justify themselves. This reinforced my original point that they don't care about feminism very much. You are adding more reinforcement to it. Pathetic!
Just because something is said with comic inflection does not mean it is not sexist.This is the whole crux of the argument. The commenters claim they were being ironic and mocking sexism, while Prof. Althouse thinks that while they were joking, there was no ironic sentiment; rather, in her view, the jokes were straightforwardly sexist a la Andrew Dice Clay. While it's pretty clear from the comments, in context, whose reading is more plausible, the emotional investment in the original claims is so great at this point that the possibility of rapprochement is foreclosed.
Jerk: You're oversimplifying my position. I have never put it that way. I'm saying people who care strongly about feminism, in the sense that I remember from 15 years ago, would not indulge in that form of humor, especially with a vicious motive to tear down a woman (me, in this case). But you're right that I'm "invested" in my position. I've already spent too much time reading and understanding their position. I've been through it thoroughly. Thersities chose to bring it up in the comments to this post (where it was quite irrelevant). I'm not interested in reopening it and reconsidering their position. They could just say something like "I still think what we did was acceptable, but I understand how offensive Professor Althouse found it, and I'm sorry for that." Instead, Thersities continues to do blog posts raving about me and stirring up commenters to express hate for me. That is an ongoing and new offense. Why are you not critical of him for that? It's outrageous and, I think, independently sexist. Why are you not critical of that?
I'm saying people who care strongly about feminism, in the sense that I remember from 15 years ago, would not indulge in that form of humor, especially with a vicious motive to tear down a woman (me, in this case).Just to be clear, is your position that, even if the statements were not made with sexist intent, they are nonetheless sexist? Or is the 15-year-old feminism you refer to one that does not permit sexist attitudes to be mocked by making over-the-top sexist statements because even mocking them makes the statements more acceptable? Or one that does not permit such statements to be made, whatever the intent, if they are used to criticize statements that were written by a woman? Or something else? I'm just trying to figure out the premises for your conclusion. As it stands, it appears to hinge on somewhat contestable understandings of "feminism" and "that sort of humor" that need further argumentation to justify.They could just say something like "I still think what we did was acceptable, but I understand how offensive Professor Althouse found it, and I'm sorry for that."Just as you could say "I still think they were sexist, but I understand why they think they were not, and that they did not intend for their statements to be perceived that way, and I'm sorry for being so quick to call them sexist." They offended you, and you offended them. If offense is all it takes to merit an apology it seems both sides should apologize. Somehow I doubt either will.Why are you not critical of him for that? It's outrageous and, I think, independently sexist. Why are you not critical of that?Thersites is being immature but I don't see how he's being independently sexist.I'm not trying to beat this horse into the ground. I just think the only interesting thing about this argument is figuring out the different conceptions of feminism and sexism whereby two parties, both of whom claim to be committed to feminism to some extent, can disagree so vehemently about whether particular conduct violated the tenets of feminism.
Jerk: "Just to be clear, is your position that, even if the statements were not made with sexist intent, they are nonetheless sexist?" Yes. You can be sexist by negligence and inattention too. Think of someone using a racist word who doesn't realize it's considered offensive. When it's pointed out, he should apologize and resolve to put more effort into noticing how his words sound to others...."Thersites is being immature but I don't see how he's being independently sexist."Have you checked out his asinine hate-site of a blog and the way he's devoting it to attacking me? A guy devoting himself to trashing a woman on the topic of sexism? Sorry, that is NOT cool. It's stalkerish, which is something people who care about feminism care about. He should be ashamed and you -- if you care about feminism -- should get the message across to him clearly, not defend him.And I'm not going to keep talking about this. I see that you find it intellectually interesting and that's fine, but this is too much about spreading hate about me for me to enjoy it on that level.
JerK " I just think the only interesting thing about this argument is figuring out the different conceptions of feminism and sexism whereby two parties, both of whom claim to be committed to feminism to some extent, can disagree so vehemently about whether particular conduct violated the tenets of feminism."In my view it's simple: they did something wrong that they didn't think they'd be called on. I called them on it and they are trying to excuse their bad behavior. It I hadn't genuinely had a problem with it as sexism, comparable to what I had just seen on LGF (not as bad, though), I would have ignored it, as I ignore all kinds of hateful things that are said about me. I normally don't link to criticism of me even when it is harsh. I really I think the motivations are clearly different here, supporting what I've said about it and casting suspicion on them (because they had the motivation to deny they'd done anything wrong and to claim they really are good feminists).
Ann, as someone who remembers The Loraine from when it was a high-class hotel, and who's proud her grandpa was a member of the local Socialist Party... I think most of the commenters missed the point completely.Though there are aspects that I -DON'T-, there are MANY aspects of Madison that I dearly miss.
Post a Comment