I spend way too much time on the internet every day, and like a lot of people, I enjoy commenting on articles and reading the comments of others – if you want to capture the zeitgeist, just sit back and watch partisan squabbles playing out; it's incredible what can turn up. So, I thought maybe I should have a weekly roundup of the things that outraged me (or at least made me go huh?) from my online adventures.
This is from a couple of weeks ago, when Go Set a Watchman was first released. The online newspaper review I read was posted within 24 hours of the book's release, and it was so full of grammatical and spelling errors that I thought it should be commented upon; but unfortunately, while I had been enjoying the irony of the reviewer's charge of carelessness in the editing of the book, I think my tone was misunderstood. I said:
And this review might have been a great one in its own right, if it were given the care needed to become one. I can understand the pressure to read and review an "it" book like this as quickly as possible, but the typos are killing me. How many "it's" for "its", "wont" for "won't", "Mocking bird" for "Mockingbird", and "for the post parts" are we to tolerate before dismissing the content of the review as well? Oh the irony that Keller's takeaway from Watchman is that it's a failure of editing!And while that got some likes, someone nearly immediately replied to me:
Her name is Keeler. That could have been a great internet nitpick comment if only it'd had been given the time and attention to become one.Oh my God, yes! I love the further irony of that, and while I could have gone back and edited my own comment, I let it stand and simply replied “Rats” to this. Some others came on and applauded my “vitriol”, but this guy flipped on me:
The review is excellent. Thank you Ms. Keeler for your hard work. This could not have been an easy assignment.
Dearest Ms. Mama Bear,
You are a troll. An awful, vile troll.
You know exactly what the writer was trying to say. Spelling & grammar can be secondary when a reader uses their brain and employs wisdom and compassion. Instead of spewing vitriol over the crossing of Ts (or is it T's? Do PLEASE crucify me).
Try understanding what deadlines do to writers. Try being a human. Just try harder.Like I said, I think my ironic tone was misunderstood (I guess I should have made a winky face in my original comment), and while I wasn't a bit outraged by this response, I was intrigued by it: Was this guy the reviewer's boyfriend maybe? Someone who watched her struggle to speed-read the book and polish up a thoughtful review within an impossible deadline? This is the sort of escalation that fascinates me, and whether or not I was the troll in this situation, I understand the “do not feed” rule and chose not to respond. (But took a certain glee in the other commenter who invited this guy to defenestrate himself – gah, does that make me a troll?)
Also an older post, I've copied out this comment I made in a facebook conversation with my friend Delight because it tells the story of a radio conversation that made me shake my head and I'd like to have a record of it:
OK, this isn't the same thing -- it's about lack of knowledge instead of critical thinking skills, but this was the stupidity I heard on the radio this morning and I'm happy to have a place to share it -- Two DJs are talking about the probe that's approaching Pluto, and the guy says:
“The cool thing is that, even though it was demoted to 'dwarf planet' status, they think Pluto is even bigger than they knew. It might even be 2/3 the size of our moon.”
The girl replies, “Wait – are you saying that Pluto is bigger than the Earth??”
“No,” he says slowly, “the moon isn't bigger than the Earth.”
“Well, I'm just saying I can see it from my back yard.”
“But, I think the moon was a part of the Earth in the beginning,” says he.
“It still is in my mind,” she replies firmly.
“Well, my point was that, on behalf of small people everywhere, if Pluto is a dwarf planet but bigger than they thought, then we should all be getting more respect.”
“And what's with calling it a 'dwarf' planet anyway? Dwarves make me think of Snow White, and Pluto was a dog.”
“Oh my God,” he replies excitedly, “you're right! What were they thinking? You just blew my mind.”Haha, how do these people have a public voice? Okay, for some more recent material: There was a topless rally in Waterloo yesterday (organised by three sisters who were outraged that a cop told them to put shirts on while they were out bicycling). I understand that the “right” to go topless in public was won for Ontario women nearly 20 years ago, but I don't see any topless women walking around because I assume that we, as a society, have decided that that's not the way we actually want to live. I support these women in theory, but don't always follow their logic. One woman commented on a facebook story about the rally:
You can disagree all you want but the law says we can if we want. Don't like it, move to another province. Woman's breasts are not sexual. Its only men who made them that way. No difference between a man and woman's. Even men can lactate. Breasts are for feeding children. They weren't put there for any other reason.And I've heard that argument before, and in my head, my response has always been, “Just because women insist that breasts aren't sexual, does that make it so? If you tell men that breasts are only for feeding babies, will they then say, 'Oh, sorry, you're right, I no longer like looking at them'?” And I scratch my head at the following comment, but do understand that I'm going against the flow on this one:
Yep I am topless in support as a nonsurgical trans women I've always been allowed to go topless and I am here to support my sisters for their right to do the same.So, you're a woman without breasts and you think that you going topless is the exact same thing as a woman with breasts who does the same? OK, I have nothing more to add to that, so here's the facebook update that outraged me the most this week, written by a teacher (who is Dave's cousin's wife):
Just my two cents...there are some things circling FB about parents being ready for summer break to be over...now you know how teachers feel after 10 months with your kids.Isn't that the ugliest comment ever? Parents go stir crazy over the summer because they're with their kids from the moment they wake up in the morning until the wee angels go to bed at night (dealing, in between, with “I'm bored” and “There's nothing to do” and “I need a ride somewhere” and “I hate my brother/sister”). Teachers, on the other hand, are in class for 7 1/2 hours/day, with 1 1/2 hours of that off on breaks, and some portion of the remainder off on “planning time”. And if that's too much time to be around other parents' kids for ten months – which in Ontario is 194 school days/year – then maybe you should be looking for another job. And as an aside – I never once wished for the summer break to be over: I love being around my girls and always felt a bit tragically lonely on the first day of school.
I'm going to like doing this roundup – it feels like it will prevent me from actually typing out something I might regret in response to one of these stupid comments (and yes, I do recognise that the only person more cowardly than a troll who hides behind a keyboard is a troll who hides behind a blog...)
And speaking of zeitgeist, here's a picture of Earl the Grumpy Puppy:
