So every now and then we get some semi-hard core trolls around here who decide to make annoying and stupid posts on every post they come across starting on the front page and going backwards. Or sometimes they start out in one particular conversation and radiate out as we get wind that they’re really nothing more that bored assholes with nothing better to do. Usually I can shut these people down by banning them, but every now and then one gets it in their heads that the conversation isn’t over, that they have more to say and, damnit, we WILL listen!
The last time this happened I banned a guy, watched him hit the moderation wall 4 times, then say something like “Huh, I guess you really can ban me. Oh well, I’ll try again on Monday.” to which I thought “Oh no you fucking won’t.” That particular douchebag was not only posting from work, but used his work address in the email field. So I called up his company, explained to them what was going on, and asked if they could ban him from further trolling while he was at work, at least.
That’s right, I called up someone’s job and emailed their HR office comments from ABW.
Some might say that I went a bit too far. After all, I could have endangered that man’s job and he might have gotten really pissed at me. Well, you know what, I am fucking tired of you entitled assholes that think it’s your goddamned right to abuse me and my guests without any thought that we might be real people with real feelings in a real world. So I brought the Internet to YOUR house and you’d better believe I’ll do it again. Because I am tired of this shit.
If you want to argue and disagree with me, fine. But if you take it to the next level and I decide to ban you, go the fuck away. I mean it. I’m not joking and that really isn’t the time to test me by making up a new name or using a different email or finding a way to mask or change your IP. And yes, Michael, I’m talking about you now. I banned you. I emailed to say that I banned you. You told me that this was fine with you and you were going away. Now I still see your ass all over my blog.
And just like that other asshole, you don’t have the sense that God gave jellyfish. I know your full name, Michael. I apparently also know your wife’s name. A simple Google search also tells me that you might have a daughter. I may even know where you work down there in Texas. Comcast now knows about your actions on this blog. We’ll see if they have anything to say about that. And if you continue to post your hateful screeds here, I will take the information I found on Google and find who I can possibly talk to that will make you leave us alone.
I will not let trollish asshole douchebags run my blog into the ground. I will not let you 1940 throwbacks chase me off the Internet. If it means getting personal with you, I will get personal. That goes for anyone.
I’ll say this again: I have no problem with disagreement and debate. Civil discourse, even between people who don’t see eye to eye, is always welcome. But if I choose to ban you, you need to just get over it and go away. I don’t want to spend my day on the phone with various HR departments determining whether you are, in fact, the person who has been on my blog. But I will if your abuse rises to the level of harassment.
Michael, you are harassing us. Take your toys. Go home.
ETA: Pursuant to an email from Michael, I’d just like to clarify something. At no point did I ever threaten to release Michael’s name or the names of his family members on this blog or anywhere publicly. Michael seems to think I was making a veiled threat of doing so. I thought I was pretty clear concerning the nature of who I might reveal any information to, i.e. his ISP or his HR department. Not only would I not put his last name, workplace, or kid’s name up in a public place, I would certainly never do so here. I’m just not an asshole like that.
Online trolls are in it for one thing- to anger people, and therefore feel powerful by being able to anger so many people so rapidly. Why would anyone ever want to give them that satisfaction?
Then why do they stay when they’re ignored?
Abuse =/= Anger. Trolls are seeking the former, and not the latter — which is why remaining silent gives them satisfaction.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve never seen a bully stop bullying because the abused attempts to ignore the attacks. The only way you stop a bully is by beating him at his own game.
Sorry for the lack of block quotes in my previous comment; I forget how they work at Wordpress.
Not Michael: “I’m no stranger to heated debate, but the attacks here are so personal, and based so purely off the simple fact that I am a man, I honestly don’t think any constructive discussion could be held. C’est la vie. Trolls come in all forms.”
If the attacks here are so personal — and based purely on identity — then why haven’t I been attacked? I’m not a frequent commenter, but I am white.
No worries about the lack of blockquotes, I’m not sure what markup Wordpress uses for them, either. I’ll just use bold (strong tag).
M: “The only way you stop a bully is by beating him at his own game.”
I practice Zen, and have attempted to explain my views on passive resistance numerous times. However, I’m pretty positive it is simply personal principle: I am not a Christian, but there is a lot to be said about turning the other cheek. While it may not produce visible victory, I believe the victory in taking the high road goes much deeper than, say, calling up some loser’s office to complain about his immaturity. It just depends what sort of closure you seek, so I think it’s purely personal preference. Agree to disagree, as they say.
M: “If the attacks here are so personal — and based purely on identity — then why haven’t I been attacked? I’m not a frequent commenter, but I am white.”
I do not know what prompted R. Mildred to lash out so hurtfully, particularly unprovoked, so I cannot speak as to why I was made to feel guilty/ignorant due to the color of my skin or gender, and you were not. In any case, it is still difficult for me to read her comments.
Sincerely,
Not Michael
(I find it amusing to call myself “Not Michael” so I think I’ll stick to the name.)
Not Michael: While it may not produce visible victory, I believe the victory in taking the high road goes much deeper than, say, calling up some loser’s office to complain about his immaturity.
So victory is silent, invisible martyrdom?
Not Michael: I do not know what prompted R. Mildred to lash out so hurtfully, particularly unprovoked
Except that you did provoke it. Your insensitivity to others and refusal to listen led you to break pretty much every rule in the “How to Suppress Discussions of Racism” post.
Yes, I know this is about sexism. But I’ve noticed that it also applies really well to converstions about sexism, especially the “it also happens to men!” b.s.
M: So victory is silent, invisible martyrdom?
I’m not sure if Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr, or Jesus himself would have agreed with your choice of words, but it could be expressed as such, yes.
M: Except that you did provoke it. Your insensitivity to others and refusal to listen led you to break pretty much every rule in the “How to Suppress Discussions of Racism” post.
I was simply stating that I had never spoken with R. Mildred before, and therefore felt that I was under an unprovoked, personal attack. I don’t think I suppressed the discussion, and it was certainly not my intent to do so. I was trying to inform these people that their assumptions about me (that they admittedly formed just by guessing my gender) were incorrect. I did this in the pursuit of expressing my opinions clearly, and having them being understood correctly.
he phrased his viewpoint without being insulting
Hmm.
So you’re not a member of a school of thought that holds that a good way to tell if you’ve insulted people is by looking out to see if people are getting a teensy itty bit angry and insulted at the way you’re saying things?
acausal logic: No longer just for time travellers
Not Michael: I’m not sure if Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr, or Jesus himself would have agreed with your choice of words, but it could be expressed as such, yes
Refusing to confront a social problem =/= Using pacifism to confront the social problem. You’re asking her to do the former — if only because there is no way to do the latter online.
Not Michael: I was simply stating that I had never spoken with R. Mildred before, and therefore felt that I was under an unprovoked, personal attack.
Except that your contribution to the community constituted an attack on the community — and by extension, everyone in it.
Not Michael: I don’t think I suppressed the discussion, and it was certainly not my intent to do so.
ttp://coffeeandink.livejournal.com/607897.html
You started by attacking ABW personally. Further you did so directly and indirectly. You did so directly by saying “I think you crossed the line.” By making statements such as “don’t get personal,” you also implicitly attacked her by implying that ABW is simply being histrionic.
You then attacked a strawman when you made unwarranted inferences from ABW’s post about harassment. This strawman naturally led you to step #5, by arguing that ABW is just as sexist and racist as she believes American society to be.
Finally, you also attempted to deflect attention away from the specific issue at hand — her harassment — by arguing that it happens to men as well, and specifically you.
Wow.
I’ve enjoyed your blog, ABW. It’s a nice diversion from the real world. Thanks for your graciousness in allowing me to visit and to post.
Ciao
“a good way to tell if you’ve insulted people is by looking out to see if people are getting a teensy itty bit angry”
Mildred, I think this is true sometimes, but not always. After all, lots of huffy white men come here getting angry at ABW. But she hasn’t insulted them. Just said things they don’t like. :)
In all honesty? I think Not Michael’s posts have pushed the bounds of civility. But I think your response escalated the attack much more. Comments like “whiney ass titty baby dance” and “NO BODY CAAAAAARES” are just name-calling. The fact is, I agree with you about Not Michael’s argument — I think he’s dead wrong and should be directed to the required reading section. I do not agree with his posts AT ALL.
But I don’t see how shouting insults at him helps. If he were truly just trolling, fine. But, to me at least, his comments haven’t crossed that line yet. You can tell him that you find his argument ignorant and presumptuous and still be civil about it. I think that also makes your side look a lot better, you know?
And since I went there anyway… Not Michael, I find your argument to be ignorant and presumptuous. :P
In all seriousness though, I’ll try and explain… You stated, “the idea that it *only* happens to women is just plain ignorant.”
ABW never stated that harassment *only* happens to women. You’re leaping to conclusions there. She said, “If you’re male, you’ve probably never been harassed before.” And statistically she’s right. Of course males face harassment too; but in degree and frequency when compared to women? Huh, it’s no comparison. Your accusation completely twisted what she said. She never claimed, “men don’t get harassed.”
She was wrong in her guess about whether you’d personally been harassed or not, but she did qualify it with “probably.” I think here it’s just fine to point out that her assumptions were wrong.
But then you swore a few times, accused her of being anti-male and ignorant, of attacking you, and so forth. Where did you get the anti-male from? I read ABW’s post closely and it’s firm but polite. Even if you feel her assumptions are wrong, your response was very angry and aggressive (”Don’t you assume SHIT about me… your anti-male sentiments” etc). I think if you truly want to foster discussion (and spare yourself personal insults from others), you have to keep attacks out of your posts.
This is where I started doubting Not Michael’s open-mindedness:
Also, calling the trolls “entitled assholes” just reveals that it isn’t actually the trolling that bothers you so much to call their offices, but it’s their viewpoint. If somebody were blog-spamming you, they wouldn’t be “entitled assholes,” they would be spammers, and you’d probably delete the comments, ban the IP, call it a day.
The “entitlement” was not in their having a different view but in their feeling entitled to spout that view in a space where it has proven unwelcome and they’ve been asked to stop. How this was not obvious to him, I can’t imagine. ;)
And for the record, I do consider spammers entitlement assholes. They feel entitled to waste my paid bandwidth and precious time on a meaningless exercise that gets them big bucks from uninformed clients.
Ico, I realize that I was very in my second post. In my head, I felt that my opinions had been attacked on a personal level that I felt was unwarranted. In reality, I think I just needed a cigarette. I’m not proud of how I reacted. Hopefully it is distinguishable which statements were my opinions and which were the liberal editorializing that losing your temper can cause. I do think, however, that your analysis of that post was a little one-sided, and I still do not think that I was 100% in the wrong with ABW being 100% in the right. I believe unfair assumptions were being formed on all sides in this situation.
Mea culpa for my part in it.
The mysterious “very” was meant to be “very rude” in the first sentence of my previous post.
Whoa. ABW and I have both been busy, so I missed some of this. Apologies, everyone, or I’d've disemvoweled Lucy as soon has her crap splattered the comments page. At this point I’m not sure it’s necessary, but what the heck: Lucy, I’m banning you. Buh-bye.
Not Michael,
Two points. First, what we’re talking about here is not mere trolling. Trolls indeed go away when you ignore them. To repeat my last email, Michael and people like him escalate — they don’t go away, they get worse. They bring friends. And unlike trolls, who just want attention, there’s an uglier purpose to what folks like Michael do. They want to shut down anti-oppression sites like this one, and they generally won’t stop until they’ve succeeded. So please don’t invoke MLK and Gandhi or other nonviolent activists in this, because I don’t think you understand what they did. It was nonviolent action, but it was still active, intensive resistance. Civil rights protesters did not ignore the actions taken against them. They braced themselves against the fire hoses. They covered their necks when the dogs came. When I volunteered to work at the Million Man March in college, the older folks there were very careful to instruct us younger folks in the fine art of protecting ourselves, just in case there was unpleasantness — if you’re attacked, curl into a ball so they’ll be less likely to hit or kick your midsection. Protect your head and neck area. If they seem intent on killing you, do what you have to do to survive.
What you’re suggesting is nonaction — the equivalent of standing there with your head bent back while a dog is going for your throat. There’s a big difference between passive resistance and suicidal stupidity.
On other matters, I’m pretty much in agreement with M. There was no sexism or racism in ABW’s comments to you, though there were some stock, cliched responses to imaginary sexism and racism in yours (and in your insistence on playing the injured party when really, we’re talking about people attacking ABW). I would strongly suggest you hit the “Required Reading” section if you’re planning to post more. At the bare minimum, please try to remember: the moment your responses start to veer into “but what about me? Let’s talk about me” territory, you’re going to annoy people. The nature of patriarchial, white-dominated society is that most of it is about you, if you’re a white male. This blog is one of the precious few places where the rest of us get the spotlight, so don’t be surprised when people react badly if you try to hog the stage here too.
That said — R. Mildred, your response to Not Michael went over the line. Accusing him of being a pedophile? Come on, now.
nojojo, points well taken, particularly as to the fact that I mentioned myself- I didn’t think personal evidence would have spurred such a reaction, and was confused as to why it did, but now I understand that part. And it makes sense- a second mea culpa is deserved.
I’ve already read the Required Reading, and have been reading this blog for a few months, along with a few other blogs of similar nature. I don’t think I’m “unfit to comment” and hopefully all would agree.
However, I was surprised by your equating passive resistance to suicidal stupidity. I fully understand why that sort of mindset is not for everybody, but I would hope that it wouldn’t be dismissed as suicidal stupidity. I think the Quit India movement was one of the most powerful events of the 20th century, one of the greatest turning points in the history of the human psyche.
To be nitpicky–
since when did Boo Radley leave notes in the backyard? Must have been some version of the book that I’ve never read.
since when did Boo Radley leave notes in the backyard? Must have been some version of the book that I’ve never read.
If memory serves, Boo Radley left notes in the knothole of an oak tree. He is the first person that comes to mind when I think about my notes, because Boo Radley scared the bejeezus out of me the first time I read that, just because it way too familiar an idea.
I was trying to express the fear with a familiar situation that would be recognizable, not really delve into the precise plot of To Kill A Mockingbird. The guy leaving me notes would usually put them on the ladder of a treehouse in the backyard. It was also an oak tree — damn you, Boo Radley!
Anyways, this is all off-topic, but I guess I’m just as nitpicky as judochick sometimes.
Not Michael: However, I was surprised by your equating passive resistance to suicidal stupidity.
She’s not: you are.
M- She’s not: you are.
I said what I believed passive resistance was. She said she viewed it differently, and explained. She then said, quote, “What you’re suggesting is nonaction — the equivalent of standing there with your head bent back while a dog is going for your throat. There’s a big difference between passive resistance and suicidal stupidity.”
I disagreed with her on this point, and still feel that my definition of passive resistance was correct. When she said there was a big difference between passive resistance and suicidal stupidity, there was the obvious implication that she believed my initial definition of passive resistance was suicidal stupidity in her eyes.
We’re using two definitions for the same phrase, so understandably it can be a little hard to follow! I’m not sure what your intent was in your four-word response, but I’m trying to stay positive about it.
Not Michael: When she said there was a big difference between passive resistance and suicidal stupidity, there was the obvious implication that she believed my initial definition of passive resistance was suicidal stupidity in her eyes.
It goes back to an earlier point I made that you didn’t respond to: “Refusing to confront a social problem =/= Using pacifism to confront the social problem. You’re asking her to do the former — if only because there is no way to do the latter online.” (emphasis added.)
M: It goes back to an earlier point I made that you didn’t respond to: “Refusing to confront a social problem =/= Using pacifism to confront the social problem. You’re asking her to do the former — if only because there is no way to do the latter online.” (emphasis added.)
Sorry I wasn’t able to address it initially. I am not asking her to refuse to confront a social problem. I think she is addressing numerous serious social problems with her blog every time that somebody visits this site. The only people who are asking her to stop confronting the issues are the trolls who harass her.
Here is the crux of the issue: I just don’t think that initiating arguments with a troll is actually helping the social problems- I think that is is actually rewarding the troll for his bad behavior in the form of ABW’s fury, which seems to be his primary objective here. Online, you cannot be a pacifist; you can participate or you can abstain. By not participating in the troll’s antagonisms, you’re letting the troll know that he isn’t worth even participating with: which is the strongest blow you can land when your only weapons are words and attention.
As a disclaimer, I already stated a few posts above that this issue is one that I know is purely personal opinion. I did not always think this way about conflict- my views are very much shaped by practicing Zen over the last few years.
I don’t think it’s something one could actually convince another of, I think it’s simply which direction your moral compass points. I do not think my view is “right” and yours is “wrong” - I simply think they are two very different approaches to the nature of conflict and justice.
Sincerely,
Alex
Not Michael: By not participating in the troll’s antagonisms, you’re letting the troll know that he isn’t worth even participating with: which is the strongest blow you can land when your only weapons are words and attention.
Except that trolls don’t always go away when you ignore them. It’s why they’re the bane of every blogger working on racial and gender issues.
my views are very much shaped by practicing Zen over the last few years.
Keep working on it: your words reveal a deeply confrontational nature (e.g., “Don’t get personal. It cheapens the entire site”).
M: Except that trolls don’t always go away when you ignore them. It’s why they’re the bane of every blogger working on racial and gender issues.
No, they don’t always go away initially. From what I have always seen online most trolls go away after a few days of banning IPs and deleting their posts, but the longer you actively argue with them, the longer they tend to stay. They come to empower their own fragile egos by harassing others. By ignoring them, their ego is returned to its usual frail state, and they slink off with their tails between their legs.
This is not all-encompassing by any means, but from my experience, this is the typical trolling pattern that I’ve witnessed.
M: Keep working on it: your words reveal a deeply confrontational nature
I always hope to better myself… various anger issues were what led me to originally discover Zen. I think I’m making progress, but I’m the first to admit that I still have a plethora of problems to work through. Hopefully the discussions here will help, not hinder.
Not Michael,
Here is the crux of the issue: I just don’t think that initiating arguments with a troll is actually helping the social problems-
Wait, wait, wait. ABW does not go to these people’s blogs and make anti-racism speeches. They come here and start shit. So please remember — she’s not “initiating arguments” by any means.
The thing you need to remember is that this blog does not operate in a vacuum. Look at the links along the right side sometime. ABW is part of a vast and growing network of anti-sexism, anti-racism, anti-other-oppression blog sites, and she’s only the latest in a long line of textual crusaders. There have been many others since the internet was popularized. Quite a few of the pioneering sites have died — enough that we’ve learned a few things about the tactics of racists on the ‘net. For example,
a) Racists are not ordinary trollers, any more than stalkers are ordinary annoyances. Racists aren’t just out to have some fun by pissing people off; harassment is not an end in itself for them. They’re trying to disempower others, using harassment as a weapon. This distinction is important, because it gives them great incentive to persist long past the time when a troll would’ve gotten bored and moved on.
b) Like harassment, persistence is also a racist weapon. Racists do not go away. When they realize they have free reign, they usually take encouragement from the silence. There are never as many of them as they want you to believe, but to make up for their small numbers, they never shut the fuck up.
c) Racists act out of fear. They fear the loss of their power; some fear the loss of their “racial purity”, some just fear change. Regardless, frightened people are irrational people, and irrational people are dangerous. Would you ignore an irrational person who was coming after you over and over again, and getting worse each time? I don’t care how Zen you are; that’s not smart.
d) All this has the side-effect of silencing the non-racists, who get tired/frightened by the ugliness.
And of course, d) is what kills blogs.
On a side note….
Flag on the overuse of the word “disemvowel”. First of all, it’s not a word that exists in the English language.
I think the word you’re meaning to use is “disembowel”, which means to strip or remove the substance of.
Once the first poster used it incorrectly, several others parroted it again and again, ad nauseum, as if it was the word of the day. Please check your dictionaries, and also find another synonym so you don’t keep overusing the same word! Damn!
Um, since they’re using “disemvowel” to describe the action being taken against trolls in which all the vowels are removed from their posts, I’d say it’s a rather appropriate use of the word.
Isn’t it interesting how we can easily spot the folks that haven’t bothered checking the “Required Reading” or “The Rules”?
Just Listen, please just read, specifically the above-mentioned two pages (see tabs at the top of this site). Disemvoweling — i.e., removing the vowels from a post, so that it’s still readable for those who feel like bothering to puzzle it out, but doesn’t annoy anyone else — is what ABW does to casual trolls. Persistent trolls get banned, but usually we let the more harmless ones stick around awhile to amuse us.
ABW was not out of line at all contacting the Trolls workplace. Anyone that works for a company bigger than a phone booth has to know that ISP’s are easily traced and, I know beyond doubt, the fastest way to get fired is to send or receive inappropriate content on the company line.
We are banned from all blogs and opinion sites automatically to keep us out of trouble. Her identification of this employee to the employer probably saved a lawsuit. If I was the employer, ABW would be getting a gift basket at least and Michael would be fired on a number of principles.
ABW - I had the same thing happen. I was on a board on a major news site and about 10 of us were having a great discussion about race and prejudice, everyone was really being honest and respectful at the same time.
Until the troll. Jeff. He would post all day from 9-5 vile racist rants, everyone blew it off but it was annoying and extremely racist.
I got to thinking…..I googled his screen name. The dumbass uses the same one for everything. I found him on dating sites, his works company site, his kids names, work history and current employer.
So, I signed in the next morn under a fake name and stated I was a Black Female. Jeff immediately started a sexist, racial rant. I asked him, “would you say this if I posted your name, employer, picture and address?”
He dared me in a racist rant.
The next post was:
Picture of him from dating site
Full name
Name and Address of Employer
(Who soon found out all he did all day was type the N word on their dime)
You could hear him crap his pants from across the country.
He first tried to say he was kidding. Then I made him write an apology to all , and to write a 10 page essay on racism. Then I told him that Chris Hansen was going to do a Dateline NBC story on him and other internet racists called “To Catch a Racist”.
He didn’t even think to delete all his posts until a week later. Too long.
Do I feel bad he got fired? Not at all. A person that warped and STUPID to post from work is a HUGE liability for any company. They got off cheap and avoided an inevitable lawsuit at some point. If someone did what he did at my employer, fired isn’t the right word.
Now - My name is Mike, and I’m from Texas, but Im not “Michael” (except to my parents). No kids or wife either……
.
Sorry I was away for so long, guys. I got a little annoyed at the Internet and had to step back. But Nora handled things well in my absence and I must thank her profusely once again.
One of the things we learn as children is that actions have consequences. the fewer consequences a child is subjected to in their early years, the more they get the impression that they can do whatever they want. Same works for adults. If a person spends their day being a racist troll and nothing comes of it, they learn that being a racist troll has no consequences and continue doing so. For minor trolls, the mere act of banning them is consequence enough. They go “Oh, no one likes it when I do that. Ah well, I’ll go away.” Hopefully they go away to be a better person, but my instinct says they go away to be a racist troll somewhere else. If so, my hope is that others will ban them and, finally, the consequences will mount up and either change that behavior or drive them into a small hole where they have no one to talk to but other racist assholes.
The bigger the entitlement, the harsher consequences must be. The guy who replied to my banning him with “I’ll just keep trying to harass her until I get to do it again” was obviously in need of harsher consequences. because he believed it was his right to continue being an asshole on my blog. Well, it wasn’t. This is why I took things to another level. not because I enjoy calling people’s workplaces and informing on them, but because otherwise, they won’t get the message that what they are doing is not okay. Consequences are important.
Sometimes the mere threat of consequences is enough to make people realize where they are in the wrong. or, at least, get them to back off. Michael sent me a note very soon after this post went up to say that he would not darken our doorstep again. He tried his own version of consequences by implying that I had threatened to expose his name and daughter’s name and address publicly (which I did not). He wanted me to take this post down. Maybe he was afraid his employers would see it. He was definitely afraid of me going to his HR department, that was clear.
In the end, I didn’t have to do any such thing. I just had to let him know that I meant business. Hopefully this post will serve as a similar deterrent to others. Now that they know the consequences, they won’t be so quick to think “I can just keep on doing what I’m doing.” That’s the problem with Internet trolling. people think they can do it without any consequences. I’m here to say: you can’t.
Not Michael, this may offend your Zen sensibilities and I’m sorry for that. But it’s not as if I’ve actually physically hurt someone here. Also, even MLK and Ghandi brought consequences. they didn’t just stand around and yell that they wanted equal rights or a free India. they *did* something about it. that something was not war, that something was not physically fighting, but that something was NOT just turning the other cheek. It was refusing to meet violence with violence but instead with protecting one’s self and showing the futility of violence.
I could respond to trolls by just being nasty back at them and that would be the equivalent of meeting violence with violence. Instead, I show them the consequences of their actions. for MLK, it was to bring hundreds or thousands of people to the government’s workplace and to show them that injustice would NOT be met with silence and would NOT be patiently endured. That they were prepared to take action 9though that action would not have been violent). I’m doing the same (though not comparing myself to MLK or anything). Harassment will NOT be met with silence. I won’t come to your house and beat you up or anything, but I will use the resources available to me.
ABW,
I cant believe there is any discussion of the ethics or Karma or your actions. You acted professionally, probably gave too many warnings and then Michael forced to notify his employer. It appears he might have kept his job but I do not see how.
If you post racist garbage while at work, you will be found out, either by a mod, co-worker or the IT guy. The consequence is determined by one person, the scribe of the inappropriate content. Knowing that you will be found out and exposed should act as a deterrent to any other Trolls.
Even though you were mad, the was nothing nasty about your course of action.
You own the URL and buy the bandwidth. Its your house. You can ask someone to leave for any reason or no reason, just like you can in your house. It is not censorship, or a violation of the constitution.
I can’t believe that there are people still arguing about this. I mean, I can, because there are a lot of entitlement jerks on the internet who think that it should be their right to say whatever they want, wherever they want, and however they want, but, um, dude.
Why is it so hard to get that a woman has a right to protect herself from harassment by any means necessary?
Seriously, folks, this is a pretty fundamental concept here. And cyberstalking — which is what Micheal was starting to do — is a crime. It’s not a very well documented or talked about crime, but it is a crime nonetheless. If contacting HR hadn’t gotten him to stop, then ABW could have gone to the cops and she would have been right, legally and morally, to do so. Because no one should have to deal with harassment. Full stop.
I’m new to your blog but in reading this I applaud completely what ABW did. Kudos!
You are awesome. This is one of the best posts I’ve ever seen, and you did A LOT to increase my inner peace around the subject of racist trolls. Ahem.
Here from tekanji’s link - just adding another voice to the chorus of those who recognize that your actions have been totally reasonable and necessary. You attempted to disengage with the troll by banning him, but since he proved that this wasn’t enough to get him to stop harassing you, you took the next step.
I don’t see why some people have such trouble understanding this. If, as people are insisting, words are so harmless and we should ignore the words of trolls like Michael - well, then, why is it such a big deal that ABW shows those “harmless” words to Michael’s employer?
I applaud your response! Based on what I’ve read over the past few months, any lesser reaction on your part would have negated what you have been teaching us all along. What I’ve learned from your blog is that it is NOT ok to make it a practice to let insults verbal or written be waged against you…sometimes you have to bide your time before you strike back, but strike back you must! I’ve lived my life in two phases: phase one from birth to college, where I was quiet and demure, allowing folks to say whatever they wanted whenever they wanted…I was not happy, because it invited more insults. The latter part of my life has been me being true to myself, which sometimes means letting loose, leaving some folks licking their wounds - but Oh Well! What gives people the idea that they can say and do whatever they want to black women without ANY repercussions? When we sit back and take it - WE DO! The bullshit must stop…NOW!
Many people believe that the computer shelters them from any backlash that may occur when making statements about things they read on the internet.
I too hate douchebags(a word I use frequently) who self important and pretensious enough to stop at nothing to let you know how important they are.
I’m gonna give you a little air time on the Angry Zone.
Thanks for standing up for your rights.
Also, thanks for the information about how to handle douchebag trolls in the future. I’ll definitely look into it.
Thanks a lot.
ABW: You are the woman. Poor Kathy Sierra needs to come and take some lessons.
THAT is how you handle Inflammatory Entitlement on the Internetz Disease. Because if you don’t fight back the trolls will escalate. And nowhere in the “progressive” blogosphere will you be taken seriously until post-death-threat-realized.
Yeah. Martyrdom is so fashionable.
Of course, it’s good that you already titled your blog b/c since you were victorious, if you hadn’t already been known as ABW, you certainly would be now. :D
It just gives me a nice warm glow deep down inside to have a lovely example of how you don’t have to suffer to survive.
I’m gonna get my t-shirts now. Y’all carry on.
Ww! Y ppl rll r thck. Dd y vr stp t thnk tht myb (r mst lkl) th trll pt SMN LS’s ml ddrss n th Ml fld? Thr s n vrfctn f th ml n yr cmmnts systm. Bscll, y clld p cmpn t cmpln bt n ml ddrss f n f thr mplys tht y sw n th ntrnt, s tht y cld mk yrslf fl gd bt ‘cnfrntng rcsm’, vn thgh y hd N vdnc tht th mply ctll pstd th cmmnt. Stpd s s stpd ds. h, nd yr rgnl cmmnts bt Mchl rd lk vld thrt. Y’r nt wth ngr mngmnt sss. rcmmnd tht y dl wth t bfr smn slps rstrnng rdr n y.
Hr’s nthr sggstn… f y dn’t wnt n ld prsn t pst t yr brd, mk pstng B NVTTN NL. thrws y’r jst whngng, s y’v pt p pblc mssg brd, bt nl wnt ppl wh pst t t t gr wth y. ll f ths slf rghts ndgntn tht y hv bt ‘yr’ mssg brd, nd ‘gttng prsnl’ wth ppl mks y lk ptt nd bsrd (f t lks lk dck, nd wlks lk dck, nd qcks lk dck…). f y dn’t lk smn, dn’t lt thm pst.
If you don’t like someone, don’t let them post.
THAT’S WHAT SHE DID, DUMBASS! Michael was banned once, and the asshole came back. She doesn’t have to let him spew his garbage all over her blog. Why?Because IT’S HER BLOG! No one is entitled to post a damn thing. Not you or even me. In fact, if she wanted to dump every last comment, she would have every right to because IT’S HER BLOG!!!
I assume someone’s going to mark Captain Reality as a troll, right?
Because the idea that a company can’t determine whether said employee actually sent those emails or not is just stupid. I don’t know of any company that lacks the ability to trace every keystroke typed on one of its computers. And without being able to independently verify it, there’s no way they’d fire the guy, so no worries there. Idiot.
“I assume someone’s going to mark Captain Reality as a troll, right?”
Tht’s wht y lt d t nyn wh dsgrs wth y. nj yr ch chmbr. Lsrs.
[note from ABW: yes, he's been marked]
Ah, he makes so much more sense now! :D
[...] while one poster (quite possibly another troll who’s been escalating) accuses her of stepping over the line, the rest are trying to explain to him how that being white and male is a ticket to almost anywhere [...]
[...] the Angry Black Woman posts about an experience she had with a troll who, when banned, continued to harass her. The post itself is worth a read, [...]