Comments on: Fisking Fellow Bloggers

By: kelley

kelley — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I don’t know, Xrlq – call me a wimp, but I prefer just to stay out of it. I mean, I have been known to get pretty wound up about various blogwars, but I really, really try to just keep my mouth shut about it. Sometimes I fail because I see something (usually in a given blogger’s comments) that makes my blood boil, and I feel I have to “defend” the attacked blogger.

But I’d rather just talk about things that matter than engage in personal attacks against other bloggers. Even if the attack-ee was the attack-er in the first place.

MHO, of course.

By: Geoffrey

Geoffrey — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

ANYONE is fair game.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Fair enough. One of the things that sets blogging apart from Usenet is that you don’t really need to respond to anything – if someone is too big of a jerk you can just ignore him. Technically, that was also true of Usenet in principle, but it never seemed to work that way in practice.

That said, I do think that bloggers who attack other bloggers should lose whatever privileges may otherwise go with the territory of being bloggers. If they won’t play by the rules, why should they benefit from the very rules they flout? I say, when one blogger goes after another, the gloves are off and the original attacker is now fair game, at least on that issue. IOW, Michele had every right to attack Hesiod on the issue he attacked her, me, you, VK, and probably a good majority of other bloggers as well. Michele may not have the right to attack him on unrelated issues, though, e.g., unpaid child support, whatever. Otherwise the blogosphere really could devolve into Usenet, which would not be a good thing.

By: TPB, Esq.

TPB, Esq. — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

To some extent, this non-preemptive attack idea is good, but wouldn’t it be better to consider responding to someone’s arguments or ideas in a non-personal fashion. I.e., use the legal method of dignified rebuttal (which, admittedly, not all lawyers use, but all should).

Debate needn’t be unfriendly, I suppose, is my thought on the issue.

By: barney gumble

barney gumble — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

“Then it dawned on me: a general rule against attacking other bloggers is good, but this protection should only be avalable to those bloggers who abide by it consistently.”

Sounds like an unenforcable rule.

“I don’t generally like to take swipes at other bloggers, but this one is too good/bad to ignore.”

See what I mean?

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

As a general rule, I agree. My notion of a “first strike” policy does not kick in the moment the other guy first crosses some line or says anything that makes you feel remotely slighted. Rather, it applies when the other party has already dragged the debate to the level where there’s really nothing left to debate on the merits. At that point, the only realistic options are either to beat him at his own game, or simply to let the matter drop. [The latter is usually, but not always, the wiser option IMO.]

One of the examples to which I refer involved a blogger who negligiently (or, more likely, deliberately) misrepresented another blogger’s zinger to imply, falsely, that it was racist. The other involved a blogger who routinely smears everyone who disagrees with him as a liar.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I think Kevin’s manners get a little addled by his overly active comments section. He’s got something closer to a usenet over there and I think it bleeds into the primary content.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Sure the rule is unenforceable; all rules of netiquette are. I might point out, though, that in this particular instance my counter-attack could be justified under either the theory I stated at the time, or the more principled one I floated yesterday. IOW, Kevin’s post was both too good/bad to pass up and an unwarranted attack against a fellow blogger (albeit a big boy, Instapundit, who doesn’t exactly need me to defend him).

The question, as I see it, is what to do with future blog entries that are just as dumb and just as otherwise fiskable as Kevin’s was, but which do not contain any personal attacks on bloggers. Should we let Howard Dean, the blogger get away with silly statements we’d never allow from Howard Dean, the political candidate? If so, why?

Geoffrey says everyone’s fair game. He may be right about that. The more I think about it, the harder it gets to justify a rule that gives bloggers, or any other group, special privileges not available to others. At most, I can see a practical reason for hitting journalists harder than fellow bloggers: bloggers shoot back.

By: Molly

Molly — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Why fisk when you can just make fun of the dumbass? Fisking requires evidence, links, and like interest and stuff. Pointing and laughing at the dork without pulling a link or stat is far more fun and allows for more beer and cigar consumption which thus, in turn, helps out our economy.

I, for one, truly put aside my own selfish desire to feel smarter than everyone else because I know I’m just a great big redneck that would rather watch Most Extreme Elimination Challenge than explain Hobbes any day. But hey, that’s me.

You kids have fun with your pocket calculators and share hits of your inhaler. I have some adult beverages to attend to. ;-)

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

At 12:04 p.m.? Isn’t that a bit early for adult beverages on a Monday? Not that there’s anything wrong with that!