Green Room - Week 25 - Day 6

[clauderainsrm.livejournal.com]

I woke up this morning to see portions of the internet going crazy that Hannibal Buress had "called out Bill Cosby about being a rapist". http://jezebel.com/comedian-hannibal-buress-called-out-bill-cosbys-rape-hi-1648597247

The reaction I've seen so far has been a mixture of praising Buress for his courage to saying that Buress is some desperate young comedian trying to make a name for himself.

To the latter - Hannibal Buress has had a really successful career for quite some time now. He's definitely "up there" in the stand-up world.
He really doesn't need to "make a name for himself".

With the former - it's a bit he's been performing for awhile now. It's less of him "making a statement", and more of him telling jokes - http://www.phillymag.com/ticket/2014/10/17/hannibal-buress-bill-cosby-rapist/#ZfGw7D5EsvUTRQ5l.01 has the full video clip of it.

It's not like this is some sudden revelation that he is shining a light into. People have known about Bill Cosby and these allegations for decades. It's not just a couple cases either, where you can say "Well, maybe his fame attracted people making all kinds of allegations against him" (which *does* happen to folks in the spotlight). There are quite a few of them, from the '70s and as recently as 2004.

I do think though that it says something interesting about how much society has changed, and the internet click-bait culture that someone can go to a show, take one thing that someone says in it, do a write up about it, and watch the story go viral. It doesn't even have to be about anything *new*... as long as it hasn't been in the headlines recently.

***

In other news, I made a reference to the Keene, NH Pumpkin riots yesterday, but since no one seemed to know what I was talking about - here's a link: http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-new-hampshire-pumpkin-riots-20141019-story.html and http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/21/living/keene-pumpkinfest-riot-ferguson/index.html?eref=edition talks about the differences between Kenne and Ferguson and while I think they kind of miss the point, at times, of what people are talking about, they do manage to (about halfway down) discuss how important perceptions are in "general public reaction" to these things.

***

Oh yeah, there is apparently a poll out there as well: http://therealljidol.livejournal.com/795700.html

It's a little something we do.

Also - the deadline for LAST CHANCE IDOL is tonight: http://therealljidol.livejournal.com/794726.html


And yes, I know that LJ is doing some weird thing with the poll. I am looking into it. If you click on the name of the poll, you can view is as "normal". The votes are being counted, it just looks weird.

Comments

[whipchick.livejournal.com]

The internet is also going nuts with author Kathleen Hale's essay on stalking a reviewer. I wrote for notodette's blog today on how heckling is not a review.

http://www.parentwin.com/2014/10/how-to-handle-mean-baseless-reviews.html

[kehlen-crow.livejournal.com]

You're first!

[whipchick.livejournal.com]

Whee!!!

[clauderainsrm.livejournal.com]

People *have* gotten it into the heads that you should be allowed to heckle without consequences.

Especially online.

[kickthehobbit.livejournal.com]

...without consequences, say, like, without being stalked and harassed by the one you heckled?

[clauderainsrm.livejournal.com]

People *can* find you.

I definitely know that one.

It can be both good in the sense of people being responsible for what they are putting out there and very bad when it comes to the folks out there who aren't stable.

[kickthehobbit.livejournal.com]

Sure, regardless of whether or not you "heckle" someone.

But I think it's disingenuous to state that being harassed and stalked after leaving a two-word review on someone's book on GoodReads is one of the "consequences" of heckling or of being online—it's not. It's abusive and it's not normal, and to go "well, people can find you online, they may or may not be sane!" is kind of problematic. Sure—people can find you. People can 'doxx' you. But you shouldn't expect to be stalked if you leave a bad review for someone's novel, and in no universe should that be something that is acknowledged to happen regularly enough that it's something that you should expect as a possible "consequence".

I get what you're saying, sure. I've been stalked online and off, and I know that aside from never leaving my house and not using the internet, that's the 'risk' I run. What I object to is the idea that it's something that you should expect—that this is a normal consequence to leaving a bad review instead of the work of someone who is very clearly unhinged. (See also: the piece she wrote for the Guardian.)

[dmousey.livejournal.com]

As one who was stalked, knew who her stalker was-an ex boyfriend- and where he worked -across the street-yeah it was dumb, but I didn't know he was 'off kilter' until 9mos. into the relationship

Who then moved to a whole other state, with her children, to get away, because then the onus would be on the STALKER and NOT on the stalkee to prove the accusation true.

Why? Because I could not get a restraining order until AFTER her had hurt me physically, although he had already poured paint on the windshield of my car, put detergent in the gas tank and slashed tires. Uhm...NO

Being stalked should never, ever, become something we should expect.

Whether or not it's the result of naivete or bad choices.

[clauderainsrm.livejournal.com]

Absolutely not, and if I gave you the impression that's what I was saying, I sincere apologize.

I was aiming my comment at the idea that people are responsible for what they say online - and those things can, and often do, come back into your real life.

The "open and honest communications" where people are telling their truths - unfortunately those have been known to cause harm to the people telling them when they get out... and that's the kind of thing there needs to be more protection against.

The people who use that same shield to spew nastiness... those are the ones that I'm thinking of when I advocate the idea of there being "consequences". As I said in my much longer comment, as tempting as it is - confronting them in real life rarely ends up being anything valuable. *shrugs* So maybe it's not much of a consequence after all...

[dmousey.livejournal.com]

No problem, I was looking at more from the perspective that we shouldn't accept stalking as a norm or be so desensitized to it. Just it seems sexual assault is becoming a societal norm. I feel the two are hand in hand as both are violations of body and spirit.

By saying the victim was naive and blaming them (victims), it then gives leverage to the perpetrators of the stalking.

You are right in saying there does need to be consequences. You are also right in saying that the chances of getting any of your dignity back by legal or other means are slim.

[clauderainsrm.livejournal.com]

I think we were just looking at different kinds of victims, in different positions.

You were going with the real life situations where someone was coming after the victim, and I was looking at more of the cyber bully angle with the one being harassed is taking back the power and coming back at them.

As someone who has been on the receiving end of a few death threats (where they had the means to get to me, and knew my address) I can relate to the emotional violation that happens when you are in that position.

[clauderainsrm.livejournal.com]

The situation reminds me a lot of an episode of Louie.

Louis CK plays himself, a stand-up comedian. (Most people probably know this, but I figure it's more than just you reading this, since it's not an email. :D)

He has some guy messing with him on Twitter - just one insult after another - until he loses it, and tracks the guy down to meet him face to face to give him a piece of his mind.

Suffice to say, it doesn't end well and Louie just ends up feeling completely embarrassed and humiliated for letting it get to that point, and it just feeds the troll even more, giving him (and his friends) more ammunition.

The "don't read the reviews" advice is always good, and pretty much never followed.

Because you can get it into your head "I need to confront these people and find out WHY they said what they did!" Especially when, like in that case, it's a troll.

There's a certain satisfaction in taking the power away from the internet bully. The person just trashing on you and your reputation for the sake of a LOL.

Actually confronting them and making them account for their actions.

Much like on Louie, it's one of those ideas that work better in theory than it does in practice.

I've seen some authors go off on idiots (and yes, they did tend to be idiots, in the cases I've personally seen) online. Sometimes they just absolutely destroy them... other times there is just not getting through to some people. But *all* the time, it just ends up making them look bad, and petty. Even if people might want to do the same thing.

Like Louie learned - actually going out and doing it - tracking them down and going to meet them in person, that way leads to crazy town, and just makes you look bad, when it's person who is actually harassing you who is in the wrong.

Turning the tables might sound fun. But it rarely is...

but the threat of exposing those people for what they really are, and showing them there are real life consequences to the bile they are putting out there (Not people saying "I didn't like it", people are going to have opinions about stuff, but the actual trolls), I get why it's tempting.

[clauderainsrm.livejournal.com]

In terms of *actual* heckling, there is definitely a current school of thought who thinks that they should be allowed to yell whatever they want/try to talk over a stand-up without anything being said back at them.

(or who get insulted about the content of that response)

[whipchick.livejournal.com]

It makes me sympathize with Tosh :)

[clauderainsrm.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't go *that* far. ;)

Still don't think he's that funny in general and the #1 rule of "what can you joke about" is: Make sure it's funny.

That said, he does have some really funny people who were in his corner on that one, so maybe I missed some context.

[whipchick.livejournal.com]

Stalking is never OK.

What I have a problem with is the now-common sentiment of "Well I'm a REVIEWER so I can say anything I want with NO CONSEQUENCES because it's my OPINION."

They accept ARC's. They accept press releases. They claim to want to be voices in the literary community. But they don't seem to feel any responsibility for saying, "Stalking is wrong, but that person yelling epithets in the Goodreads comments is not a 'reviewer,' she's a mean girl trying to bring down an author whose work she didn't like, and claiming it's a 'review' does not allow her to put her fingers in her ears and la-la-la after posting it."

Either a reader with an opinion is a private voice and can say anything they like to their personal circle, or they're a public voice who wants to be listened to, and has some responsibility for writing something coherent and relevant.

Stalking is extreme. Hale shouldn't have done it. But it's a stupid, reckless action that drew attention to a larger issue, that writers--especially YA--are told "you have to engage with the community of readers! Social media!" and then told "but if anyone says anything bad, just ignore it." So basically, "go sit in that cafeteria, and if the mean girls put mashed potatoes in your hair, just smile nice and go talk to someone else."

I'm probably a little intense about this because I've made the (possibly bad) choice to be heavily involved in the discussion on Twitter and through various blogs, and I'm finding the level of "I can trashtalk if I want and you shouldn't be able to say or do anything about it" to be breathtakingly entitled.

[kickthehobbit.livejournal.com]

Mm. I haven't really seen that to be a common argument, and I've been following the whole "reviews are a problem on Goodreads" since 2012, if not earlier.

I think it's worth noting two things:

1). The review that was given ("fuck this") was after a lot of discussion about the book—reading back through it, it's pretty understandable why someone would choose not to finish it and would leave a review saying, "fuck this".

2). There has been a lot of discussion over the last two years if not longer over what constitutes a "review" versus an attack on the author. It's interesting that the #HaleNo conversation is happening now, at the same time that the Requires Hate debacle is happening—it's two different sides to the same story. (If you're not familiar with Requires Hate—A). I envy you, and B). It's worth reading up on.)

Stalking is not only "extreme"; it's illegal. What Hale did was beyond the pale. It wasn't about standing up and putting an end to "bullying"—it was instead about obsession and making a power play.

I see a lot of argument that it's about putting an end to bullying and drawing attention to "bad" reviewer behavior, that she had to do something extreme (and write about it for the Guardian!) in order to get people to sit up and go, "Wait, this is a problem."

At the end of the day, though, it comes down to a few things:

-There are always going to be people that don't like what you write. You are always going to get reviews that come down to, essentially, 'fuck this'. It's all part of the system and it exists on every level, not just in traditional publishing/reviewing. (Shit, I got an article back a few days ago with the editor of the journal I'd submitted it to saying, "Of course it's another paper about [subject] from [professor who is considered the founder of the field]." That was the literal "we decline to publish your work" I got.)

-The vast majority of people who are receiving ARC are people that are known to leave thorough, detailed reviews of books. They are receiving ARCs because they are known to be good reviewers, and their word is given weight because of that. To compare them to the people who leave casual reviews on Good Reads is comparing apples to oranges—sure, they're both fruit and they're both vaguely spherical, but that's where the similarities end.

-I'm aware of what YA authors are told to do to cultivate their online presence. I'm also aware of how awfully a handful of readers and authors fail at it. It's the nature of social media on the internet. You're going to get shit no matter what you do—there will always be one-star reviews; there will always be someone saying "fuck this" in response to your work—it's unfortunately the 'consequence' to putting yourself up for public review. You don't have to sit quiet while people "put mashed potatoes in your hair"—if someone is stalking or harassing you through social media (as Hale claimed that Harris was doing, though there seems to be no evidence of that), you report them to the appropriate venue and you block them. You take action through appropriate channels in appropriate ways. You don't have to put up with "bullying", but let's not conflate leaving bad reviews with being a bully. One's a "fuck this" review indicating that they didn't like your book; the other is a pattern of harassing and antagonizing a specific target repeatedly. TO indicate that leaving a bad review is somehow bullying, or that reviewers are "entitled" because they leave bad reviews is beyond the pale.

[whipchick.livejournal.com]

I've had my fair share of bad reviews (and hecklers) and I've been the editor of an academic journal, so I'm also familiar with the peer review process. I don't have a problem with negative reviews - they hurt me, but it's someone's opinion and they can publish it in whatever venue gives them a hearing.

You make excellent points, and I just want to clarify one thing - I'm not saying that it's entitled to leave a negative review. I'm saying it's entitled to think one is then free from remembering that there's a human being on the other end of the review, and to assume that one is justifiably immune from reactions.

The feeling of safety behind the keyboard leads a lot of people to be much nastier than they would if they had to paint the sign and hold it up on the side of the road. I don't think anyone *should* punch the guy holding a bloody fetus doll on my way to the doctor...but I sure hope the other people with posters think twice before showing up the next day.

[medleymisty.livejournal.com]

This is the way I like to think of it:

People say that if you don't want to be harassed and stalked and bullied, you shouldn't post anything in public online - or, presumably, publish anything in public, like a book or an article.

Does that mean that I should also stay inside my house my whole life if I don't want to be harassed and beaten up on the street? Never communicate with anyone else if I don't want to be abused?

It's a very narcissistic viewpoint to have, I think, that just because a person comes into your field of view you are allowed to do whatever you want to them and they can't defend themselves. That is definitely an entitled viewpoint, and it's terrifying. It shows an utter disregard for other people, for society, for anything other than one's own sense of pleasure from hurting other people.

[clauderainsrm.livejournal.com]

No, I wasn't familiar with Requires Hate... but now that I am, I find myself falling down that rabbit hole.

Um... thanks?

[ryl.livejournal.com]

People seem to think that anything they do online is consequence-free. If only.

[kehlen-crow.livejournal.com]

I am buried elbow-deep in the mind-numbingly boring preliminary stage of data processing (when you repeat the same operations again and again, because no, they are just about not automatic enough to make the computer do it). *grumble*

Hope everyone else is doing something more interesting.


Oh, yeah. There are customized seasonal icons over at dhamphir's journal. Go ask for some before the offer closes.

[roina-arwen.livejournal.com]

I've had an "ARGH" morning. I was asked to please go find a case file that was closed, and given the case number. We file the cases by the last 3 digits, by year closed.

Let me just say that being given a number of XXX866 is NOT the same as XXX886. *sigh*

The worst part was that if I had been given the correct number in the first place, I would have seen that the closed file was ON MY CART, right behind my desk, and NOT in the file room after all.

Double-check your work people, that's all I'm saying.

[swirlsofblue.livejournal.com]

Ouch, I sympathise.

Faulty filing too. Sure it's filed alphabetically by surname, but when people have the same surname it doesn't occur to some that they need to then look at the first name, as long as it's 'somewhere in there' under the surname. It's like, have they seen how many people have this surname.

Worked a double and now have to write a LCI entry. Why do I do this to myself.

[beeker121.livejournal.com]

I am back from a weekend away with friends that was entirely awesome, even if it involved really not enough sleep.

I had an idea to write with this week, but there was a reason I had been saving my bye. I figure there's still a chance these topics will come around again (there are still three left for everyone) so I'm holding on to it. Off to begin my reading now.

[clauderainsrm.livejournal.com]

What browser are you using and are you seeing the large red blobs over/instead of the usual red lines in the poll?

Or does everything look completely normal to you?


(So far, I've found that Internet Explorer doesn't seem to be having a problem. Pretty sure AOL and WebTV would be OK too. :D)

[kickthehobbit.livejournal.com]

I've checked it in both Firefox and Chrome, and both look funny unless I go to the "view results" tab.

[clauderainsrm.livejournal.com]

So far I have: Chrome, Firefox and IPhone = wonky

Internet Explorer = OK.

[gratefuladdict.livejournal.com]

Safari on my iPhone was fine, but when I opened it on the iPhone from my Gmail app, it was wonky.

[kickthehobbit.livejournal.com]

FYI, Gary, this seems to be on livejournal's end. I went back to look at an old poll (which were always fine!) and ran into the same error.

[clauderainsrm.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I noticed the same thing.

Thanks for checking! I put in a service issue complaint. We will see what they do about it.

[dmousey.livejournal.com]

Been having the same problem and am using my kindle fire... laptop fried a looong while ago. :)

[bleodswean.livejournal.com]

It's red blocks on Chrome.

It is perfect on Silk...however, you can see poll results on Silk before you vote.

[ryl.livejournal.com]

It looks fine in Firefox.

[kehlen-crow.livejournal.com]

Wow, I'd thought it was my computer's glitch. Yes, the same problem in Chrome and in Chrome for Android.

Which only proves my point: one shouldn't obsessively check the results, it does no good :-)