Okay, it was more than momentary, but by my more typical individualist standards, it was undoubtedly a lapse of reason. My joining the Life, Liberty, and Property community, I mean. Turns out the group admin is all for life, liberty, and property as long as no one's feelings are hurt [see update, below]. Don't know how many of the group members think similarly, but I don't. I'm not going to air the dirty laundry here, because I really don't have a dog in this fight (and besides, quick Googling will likely bring it all up anyway). I will make a couple of observations, though.
First, if a person is going to dish something out publicly -- and a web site is a public venue, unless it's all tucked behind some kind of restricted-access fence -- he ought to be able to take it in kind. As one of the libfemme minority, I've more than a little experience in this sort of thing. Second, if an individual visits a site and gets offended by content there, why on earth would one keep going back? So that it will feel better when you finally stop? As I've said in an essay somewhat related to the topic, "You chose to browse my site, and the responsibility for your discomfort lies with you." Last, rubbing someone's nose in a sensitive spot is one way to exercise one's freedom of speech, but it can be a tasteless, immature way to do so. Those who engage in this sort of behavior lose some credibility with me, as they probably do with anyone who prefers a more mature level of discourse than that frequently encountered in spats between young siblings.
So, I'm outta there. I will be putting up links to individual blogs from the LLP community -- which is what I should've done in the first place. That will have to wait for a while, though, as I've several things to do this morning before I go off for the first of what is likely to be many sessions with the medical monopolists.
Last, I hope the forthcoming Webby Wanderings will atone for my bit of herd-thinking here.
Update: Eric has clarified in the comments that the member was shown the door due to rudeness. Now that's something I can understand ... regrettable, still, but if someone wants to be his own worst enemy, it's his choice. I may or may not agree with Eric's actions, and the reasons behind them, but he's the admin of the LLP group and gets all the glory and praise for that fun job, along with the headaches. .... What, there's no glory and praise? :O ;) Now back to work with me! (I made a misnake; the medical fun begins tomorrow.)
Update 7/14: Having taken the time to look more closely into some things that contributed to this situation, I now see that Eric was right to do what he did. I apologize for any harm that might have come to his or the LLP group's reputation by my hasty, ill-informed action.
A Momentary Lapse of Reason
Sunni says:
Eric, thanks for clarifying your reasons for the action. I'll edit the entry to reflect this new information.
Jacqueline says:
It's not possible to avoid the harassment by avoiding reading the blog if the harasser is also sending crude Trackbacks to your blog, or linking to you so that the content around the link shows up in your Technorati profile too.
There's a big difference between being generally offensive, and singling out another member of the community for personal harassment.
Sunni says:
Hi, Jacqueline. As I'm not endowed with Trackback capability, I don't understand how they work, so my apologies if a lack of information led me to understate what transpired.
That said, I'm not interested in hosting a "he said, she said" exchange here. I will say that I like what I know of you, for a variety of reasons (including some you'll likely never learn). Even so, I think both of you showed yourselves poorly in this episode. Some men seem congenitally unable to understand that many women are faster to cross the thin line separating joking or banter and offensive commentary. I've experienced my fair share of that (both in realspace and on the 'net). Fortunately, my scales are fairly thick, so I could just deal with most of it. I also learned not to give openings in areas where I didn't want to deal with it.
Just my perspective, and fully worth what you've paid for it ... and that'll be the end of my commentary on the episode. I'll be adding you to my blogroll once I get some more work done, and hope you find my site worthy of a reciprocal link.
Jacqueline says:
Trackback posts a portion of the post on your site, and in TypePad it is also emailed to you.
Lucy Stern says:
Sunni, I think that talking about sex on a political blog is a bit out of order. I would also call it harassment in this case. Too bad. I had just found your website.
Eric says:
Well, don't let the fact that Sunni is not part of LLP anymore stop you Lucy. She's still a great read, she's still on my personal blogroll. Keep right on reading her. And anyone else who strikes your fancy, for that matter. None of this is about censorship, authoritarianism, etc. It is quite simple. I choose who I associate with, and who I don't. And I chose not to associate with someone. I didn't ask that someone to change what they were saying, remove it, censor it, etc.
As a talk radio host I really enjoy listening to says, "you have a right to say what you want, you don't have a right to be heard".
Sunni says:
Hi Lucy, and thanks for dropping in. While I do comment on politics from time to time, this isn't a political blog. It's a personal blog for myself and all the conspirators, and with the exception -- clearly understood before anyone becomes a conspirator -- of supporting statist ideas, the field of engagement is wide open.
Jacqueline says:
Sunni, I think she was talking about the blog of the person removed from the community, not you.
The problem is also not sex posts in general, but sex posts propositioning me, about me, etc. after I told him to stop it. He also has a history of doing this to other female bloggers.
This is not a "he said / she said" situation with different claims about what happened -- all these posts are publicly available for anyone to see and decide for themselves. Eric looked at them and apparently decided that he didn't want a person who would harass someone like that in his community.
Eric says:
Eric says:
Sunni, you didn't do anything to hurt us as a community. I appreciate you being outspoken and standing up for your beliefs. You have helped, I think, to crystallize the debate around the appropriate question, which is whether freedom of association is appropriate for those who oppose collectivist action.
Eric says:
Just to clarify this, and then I have no intention of continuing to discuss this topic. I did not remove anyone from the Life, Liberty and Property community because someone's feelings were hurt. If the only issue was that one member had hurt feelings or was offended I would have told them to suck it up and drive on.
The member in question behaved in a fashion that I don't find appropriate or ethical and I have no desire to be associated with someone that I find to be rude or unethical.
As far as being offended, no has a "right to not be offended". Being offended is part and parcel of living in a free society. The best solution when you are offended is to ignore the person you find offensive.