anti-prose. random matter.
to blacklist or not to blacklist...
Published on April 12, 2004 By crimson In Blogging
When you are on Joeuser a lot, you begin to follow other people's train of thought, whether you really want to or not.



It's hard to ignore certain bloggers, because sometimes they respond to blogs that are of interest to you as well. There's only so much you can do... you can scroll as quickly as possible if you don't want to read their stuff, or avoid topics of discussion that you're sure they're interested as well. This poses a problem: it's like avoiding a store because one person who is mildly interested in shopping there, might want to make a purchase. Do you give up shopping altogether at this particular store, and others like it, even though you enjoy it without that possible customer?



More than likely, the answer is no. You suck it up, take your time to browse and turn the other way if you happen to see them in a nearby isle. You don't want to be around that shopper, so you use your right to avoid them.



But, here's another issue that is difficult for me to address: the blacklisting of a fellow blogger. In a way, in every way, blacklisting is censorship. And everyone knows that censorship is uncool. It's not allowing a person the freedom of speech. To give an opinion, and to have a say on issues regarding politics, relationships, etc,. There's something wrong with someone who wants to weild this power. Or is there?


I'd be happy to allow anyone with a dissenting opinion give the opportunity to present reasons why they feel this way. Done with maturity, honesty, and respect, it would be hard to want to use the blacklisting option available at Joeuser. It's only when things get ugly, when people start to direct their personal viewpoints against someone else, where I start to consider the option. There's a difference between being passionate about an issue and being a bully. When you can recognize a blogger's words responding to someone else's blog and you feel the need to apologize for his behavior, then you know there's a problem.

Now, there are people who can just blow up. Maybe they are having an off-day, and their arguements look weak, due to the emotional context that they are writing from. Fine. I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. The only person they are hurting in this instance is themselves. They can present their opinion as authoratatively as they want... people will make up their own minds about it: rarely do they convince anyone of their position. But again, this is different from people who harrass while making their statements. Who make personal digs at others who dare to dissent.

It's a difficult decision to blacklist someone. I didn't reach this conclusion lightly. There are a few people at Joeuser who I don't enjoy reading, but not enough to not allow them the chance at response. I have finally taken the final step though, and while I don't like doing it, I don't regret it either. And the fact is, I've yet to encounter this person on my own blog. Maybe on some of my friends' blogs, but that's all.

But that's enough. For me, anyway.




Comments
on Apr 13, 2004
Look at it this way Nic, would you associate yourself and spend time with someone who drives you nuts in "real life"? Probably not. Since you don't have as much influence over who you mingle with in online communities such as this, blacklisting someone is, in my eyes, a perfectly acceptable alternative. Accepting or tolerating a differring point of view is one thing, having to put up with inane comments from certain individuals on what is *your* space is another. You have a right to banish such people from your blog, just like you wouldn't open the door for them in the real world. It's your party and if they're not on the list, they should get lost.
on Apr 13, 2004
Mack, you took the words right out of my mouth. If I thought that this person would have buggered off had I asked them to I'd just have done that instead. However, I didn't feel that they would.

I think it germane to point out that I didn't take away this person's ablility to blog here, I just limited their ability to affect ME on MY blog.
on Apr 13, 2004
I agree with all points made. The person who is harassing or childish, having only insults for replies, is not missed when blacklisted. they never had anything contributory [contributive?]to say anyhoo.

My only issue with it is in the political and opinion influencing realm, where the effort is to influence an opinion of another individual. When one makes a false or mis-leading statement, uses tactics that are designed to mis-represent, or cast the facts in an insincere manner, I think others - whose rights or privileges can and are affected by the influence - should have a right to respond.

I did not know for some time that our posts are also sent to another 100% political page and our names listed and postitions represented by people other than ourselves. When I saw it I was shocked, though not outraged - amazed the words were going to other forums and being read by a larger audience.

Then I began to see that some who post are blacklisting any dissent from the opinion they express, without regard to what or how they replied. Totally lucid and valid points of view were being censored for the fault of dis agreeing - and because of that opposing lucidity. It creates a false image to others that the person is only agreed with and so must have a valid point of view. This is use of blacklisting for deceit, and a 'foisting', if you will. To me it is illegitimate, shows moral cowardice, and is as bogus as the point of view they know could not stand the test of the 'public' forum they mis-represent that they use.

It has been my argument from day one that if you want to throw mud pies, you are going to risk getting dirty. It is part of the game in the debate and pudit forums. To say you want to debate and not allow for it, is as anti-thetical and hypocritical to the meaning of the word as it sounds.

Luckily, I have received general respect and courtesy for what are certainly adverse views to some. It is a mark of our 'civility' and sense of fair play. I hold my blog site up to the light of day and maintain a sense of pride in knowing that I can withstand the adverse and sometimes, even the public refutation of my views. In the end it does not hurt me or anyone else to be refuted. It makes me a greater person, able to understand my own and anothers' point of view better. In our growth is our societys' growth. Long ago I learned from another once unpopular writer, who also wrestled with censorship, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire

Blog ON.
on Apr 13, 2004
I just limited their ability to affect ME on MY blog.


That's how I feel about it. What happens on other people's blogs is not my business; I have every opportunity to walk away from it. On my own blog though, I don't even want to be bothered with someone whom I find offensive. And, I don't want anyone who reads my blog to be offended by someone else's hateful comments. Simple. End of story.
Thanks for your comments, everyone.