Blogger’s Goodthinkfulness Council

Is now in session.

Though the walls you can just make out their merry song.

Hell, fuck, skank and ass
The intertoobs are fulla sass.
ARPANET’s not for flipping birds
So burka-fy those potty words.

To quote a writing teacher of mine from years gone by: “Every writer eventually writes about writing. But when a writer starts writing about writing regularly, its because he has nothing left to write about.”

(Then again I probably misremembered that quote, or possibly this teacher of mine is entirely fictional.)

And yet here I go again, on the subject of blogging, which is really just writing.

So let’s start with this call for a Blogger Code of Conduct, about which Digby has already written brilliantly,

…
So what's up with this? The blogosphere is admittedly an uncivil place. Nobody disputes that. But it is comprised of a bunch of disparate individuals who are arguing amongst themselves with varying degress of seriousness and talent as part of the national (and international) dialog. There is a corner of it that is despicable and revolting, as the misogyny that set off this latest debate clearly demonstrates. But for inexplicable reasons it's the liberal blogosphere that is being particularly attacked for our alleged incivility by the mainstream media. (I suspect it's the fact that we drop the "F" bomb too much, which is simply shocking in American life)

However, for almost two decades now, talk radio has been spewing vile racist, misogynistic and eliminationst spew --- and their stars have been feted and petted for it among the highest levels of the capital cognoscenti. I don't know for sure why that would be, but I have my suspicions.

and about which Atrios has already weighed in…with a carefully thought-out quadri-syllabic link to Digby.

So what is the subject?

Well you might think it’s an (I’m sure) well-intentioned attempt by affronted and threatened bloggers to establish rules of engagement.

Look’s kinda like this:

The Blogger's Code of Conduct

We celebrate the blogosphere because it embraces frank and open conversation. But frankness does not have to mean lack of civility. We present this Blogger Code of Conduct in hopes that it helps create a culture that encourages both personal expression and constructive conversation. One can disagree without being disagreeable.

[edit] 1. We take responsibility for our own words and reserve the right to restrict comments on our blog that do not conform to basic civility standards.

We are committed to the "Civility Enforced" standard: we strive to post high quality, acceptable content, and we will delete unacceptable comments.

We define unacceptable comments as anything included or linked to that:

* is being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others

* is libelous or knowingly false

* infringes upon any copyright, trademark, trade secret or patent of any third party. (If you quote or excerpt someone's content, it is your responsibility to provide proper attribution to the original author. For a clear definition of proper attribution and fair use, please see The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Legal Guide for Bloggers.)

* violates an obligation of confidentiality

* violates the privacy of others

…

[edit] 2. We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person.

Unless we are trying to protect a confidential source, in which case, we may omit certain private details or otherwise obfuscate the source of the information.

Unless in real life you would face physical intimidation, whereas online you could avoid it.

[edit] 3. If tensions escalate, we will connect privately before we respond publicly.

When we encounter conflicts and misrepresentation in the blogosphere, we make every effort to talk privately and directly to the person(s) involved--or find an intermediary who can do so--before we publish any posts or comments about the issue. Bloggers are encouraged to engage in online mediation of unresolved disputes. Mediate.com will provide mediators.
…

And so forth.

Except that is not what this is about.

This is about words.

As a writer, I own every single word in the English language. Every single fucking one of them; all 300,000. And so do you. So do we all, as well as hundreds of thousands of words in a hundred other languages that we may or may not ever know about.

As human beings, they are part of our collective inheritance.

Words are powerless. Impotent. All the invocatin’ and conjuration and hex-slingin’ in the world will not lay one brink on top of another, or bring back a dead pet, or make her really love you, or make the cancer go away.

In space, no one can hear your quatrains.

And words are powerful. Immensely powerful. They can make people fly planes into buildings, or make one man take a bullet for another. They can crush a child’s spirit, or coax a broken soul down off a ledge.

They can drop you to your knees in prayer, in awe, in fear…or for the finest blowjob of your life.

And so, in that light, consider this predicating assumption from the proposed Code:

"We celebrate the blogosphere because it embraces frank and open conversation."

No, it doesn’t. Or at least it doesn’t necessarily. Mass, interactive and unfetter communications are a delightful emergent property of the technology. From it arises blogs. And a million sites about kittens.

And porn.

And stitch-n-bitch groups.

Cell phones ads.

“Shoot the Terrorist and win an iPod” promotions.

Porn.

Pleas for money. Pleas for love. Pleas to let go and let God. Pleas for better porn.

Movie trailers. “Comedy Central” clips.

And did I mention porn?

The idea of “frank and open conversation” is not the province of ones and zeroes: ones and zeroes are merely the paints and chisels.

“Frank and open conversation” is the province of Art. And, yeah, I Capitalized it. Gotta problem with that?

Blogging is in the end about Words -- those powerful, impotent little framing hammers that cannot drive a single nail into a single plank but can make or unmake a nation -- as Art. And in the world of Art, whether you are aiming for High, Low, Commercial, Political or Other, there are only two questions that obtain: What was the objective of the artist, and how well does he or she deliver on his or her original vision?

Now of course the world if full of language molesters and incompetent artists. Anyone can take a handful of the subjects, predicates, nouns and conjunctions as are found on page 81 of “Huckleberry Finn” and slaughter them. Anyone can take the language of Shakespeare and torture and dumb it into an unreadable mess.

So what?

If I execute my concepts poorly or incompetently then have at me. If I use my paint and canvas to threaten someone’s life, call the cops. But fuck you if you think you can throw a corset and a bustle and a leash on human expression and make it polite and comfortable.

Because what if I want to offend?

What if the world I find around me is sick and bent? And what if it has become so aggressively silent about its lethal dysfunctions, and viciously loud in the defense of its monsters, that nice-nice language bounces off of it like honey bees off of an uparmored Humvee?

And so now examine this second predicate of the Code:

“But frankness does not have to mean lack of civility.”

Really? Since when?

Because unless we have perfectly congruent definitions of “civility” Art will always cause offense. That is the price we pay for it: I can’t have my “Moby Dick” without Chick Tracts and “Ass Fancier” magazine. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

Now I have relatives who will blow their tie rods if I use the word “pissed” in passing. Who will walk out of a movie if it looks like two people who are not good Christians and/or are married are about sleep in the same bed. They are deep into their senior years and are long set in their ways and I would no more let fly with a stray “can you believe that malevolent cocksucker” with them than I would if I were suited up and presenting a serious proposal in front of serious money people.

Or in church.

But fuck you if you think frankness and civility are necessarily compatible, because I’ve already sat through this movie and I know how it goes.

First comes the Grievance, legitimate or otherwise.

Then comes the generalization of the Grievance into a Cause.

Then the concerned people with the soft voices and really nice sweaters, the “Hey buuuuddy, the fantastic Active Listening Skills who know how to cock their heads just so, so you’ll know they’re just full of empathy for everybody.

And who are sadly forced to Start Making Up Rules For Everyone Else To Follow.

Because What About The Fucking Children!!!

Thanks but no thanks.

And why?

Because for over two decades Rush Limbaugh and his whelpings and imitators have been practicing abusive, harassing, threatening and slanderous talk, and no one stopped them.

No amount of polite discourse curbed this behavior.

And why?

Because of his audience. Those who listen to him and believe him and then act on that belief. The Left tried being nice and were mocked for being weak…and the power of the Radical Right grew.

So let’s see how things work when one side of a fight uses their Courtesy Language and the other uses the Flaming Pointed Stick in the Eye approach.

We tried compromise and collegiality, and were mocked as hapless, principle-less appeasers for our efforts...and the power of Radical Right grew.

We were chastised for being the “PC Police”. For trying to delegitimize the hurtful language of bigots and lunatics even while those same bigots and lunatics worked to ban books and marginalize science. And the Radical Right saddled up the Klan without batting an eye and rode them to victory in election after election.

We were mocked as god-hating and un-American for wanting to keep our First Freedom intact and as the Founders of America intended it to be: Church and State kept separate and apart for reasons that honor the noblest aspects of both.

Then they took over the Congress.

Are you noticing the pattern here? Following the box scores that tell the story of what happens when one side wants to play nice and do Trust Falls, while the other side angles hard to find opportunities to gouge out their kidney with a verbal pungi stick?

Because from their new sniper’s nest in Congress, to the surprise of no one, the Radical Right then proceeded to “abuse, harass, stalk, libel and threaten” Bill Clinton, the most conservative-friendly and Centrist Democratic President elected in living memory because he stood in the way of their One Party State.

And then the Radical Right impeached him.

The Radical Right has just finished running two, successful Presidential campaigns based on the most despicable smear offensives in memory. Based on whispering about John McCain’s “black baby” and a penchant for freaking out whenever he sees Asians. Based on the Swiftboat Liars. Based on telling Americans that voting for a Democrat would get their children killed.

And they won, so let’s have a look at how the Bush Administration would score under the Blogger Code, shall we?

They have based an entire Presidency being “libelous, knowingly false, ad-hominem, [and misrepresenting other people]”. They have lost whole cities, lied us into war, gutted the treasury, ruined out reputation and gotten lots and lots of honorable men and women killed.

They have based an entire, illegal domestic spying apparatus on “violat[ing] the privacy of others.”

They have based their attacks on Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame squarely on “violat[ing] an obligation of confidentiality” in the deepest and most traitorous way imaginable.

In other words, kids, “Courtesy Sanctions Don't Work.” And neither does sanctimony. Polite, civil discourse is a wonderful thing, when dealing with elderly relatives, church people, the workplace or just folks who enjoy polite, civil discourse. But I for one have no intention whatsoever of unilaterally disarming my vocabulary when dealing with the rodents who are fucking up my country.

Define “abuse”. Is the phrase “Jerry Falwell is a despicable human being, a bad American and recrucifies Christ every time he opens his lying mouth” abusive?

Is it true?

Define “knowingly false”. I say George Bush is a liar. I say Dick Cheney is a war criminal. I say the Earth is billions of years old and not 6,000. I say Creationism is bunk and Intelligent Design is Creationism in sheep’s clothing. I say a women has every right to choose what happens to and with her body even if she sometimes chooses in a way I might disagree with. And there are millions and millions of Americans who would characterize each of those simple, factual statements as false.

So should I refrain from saying those things, or expand the narrative to include the perfidy and imbecility of those who refute these facts and, in doing so, risk by blogging soul by sinking into ever-deeper Circles of Blogger Conduct Code Hell?

Are political cartoons and caricatures ever anything but “misrepresentations”?

Isn’t this a misrepresentation?


Isn’t this ad-hominem?


Isn’t this “knowingly false”?


Is Left Blogistan “harassing” the WaPo’s ombudsnanny when she says silly and false things and gets herself buried under an avalanche of corrective missives because several of them use one of those words you can’t say on teevee?

Are parables now banned because the are not true?

What about limericks, or did that Man from Nantucket really have a dick so long he could suck it?

Is Atrios “stalking” Joe Klein because he bags on him (or links to people who bag on him) nearly every day?

Threats should be dealt with for what they are. Crimes. And a “Blogger Code of Conduct” that simply codifies an intolerance for criminal behavior and perhaps includes a non-binding “sense of the blogosphere” resolution that it is unfortunate that some people are gonna get their feelings hurt in the rough and tumble would be a fine, if redundant, statement.

But anything beyond that quickly becomes this:

The Artist's Code of Conduct

We celebrate the canvas and typewriter because they embraces frank and open expression. But frankness does not have to mean lack of civility.

We present this Artist’s Code of Conduct in hopes that it helps create a culture that encourages both personal expression and constructive Art.

One can paint/sculpt/act/write/etc without being disagreeable.

We are committed to the "Civility Enforced" standard: we strive for Art of high quality, acceptable content, and we will delete unacceptable Art.

...

And speaking as a citizen, a writer and a free human being, I'll have no part of that.