Self Expression or "Civility?" Which Do You Favor?

Some self-righteous dipshit who thinks he's hot fucking shit because he has an occasional column in the Incredible Shrinking Newspaper©™ (Sports & Business today remain @ 6 pp. each, no "Guide" this Thursday, or ever again) is all a-twitter because anonymous commenters are "coarsening" & "discouraging" "healthy civic discussion."

By midafternoon Wednesday, the washingtonpost.com forum had been flooded with nearly 1,400 messages. A few ventured toward rational discussion of Obama and his overseas travels, but the forum also overflowed with ignorance, profanity, impertinence and racism. It was just one message board attached to a single story. But it provided unfortunate proof that, despite its power to inform and connect people across cultures and time zones, the Internet all too often discourages, or coarsens, a healthy civic discussion. It's hard to say from the few minutes I could stomach of the online forum which of the anonymous contributors deserved the award for Most Offensive. It might have been Daman1, who described Obama as a backer of Kwanzaa and called the annual celebration of African heritage "a made-up holiday to celebrate the first time Dr. J dunked from the foul line." Or perhaps the top offender might have been Dianne72, who complained about "the 'whitey' rants of Michelle Shaniqua Obama. Doesn't she realize that it was whitey's affirmative action policies that got her where she is today?" Those gentle souls, with their concocted and racially charged stereotypes, had company from a platoon of other name-callers, including soonipi6, who railed over "the most corrupt, most insidious, most fascist, most criminal collection of Republicans I have witnessed in my 63 years as an American."

We certainly wonder what's wrong w/ soonipi6's statement. Name-calling, or simple fact? Just Another Blog's™ editorial staff has only been suffering in this world of shit & pain into which it never asked to be born for a mere 54 yrs. (sadly, as an American all that time) & it's never seen a collection of Republicans (or Democrats) more corrupt, insidious, fascist, or criminal than the current collection; this includes the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 41 & Clinton admins., all of whom combined cannot equal the sheer perfidy of Bush 43's cabal. Tell us, Mr. Rainey, how is a perhaps subjective, but certainly close to any objective truth, analysis of this crop of Republicans in any way comparable to the juvenile racism of the two others you quoted? Another effort by the mainstream old media to be balanced, objective & "fair?" That's why your pathetic fucking newspaper is disappearing around you, dimbulb. If your selections reflect the majority of the coarse discourse, it seems as if the right wingers are cretinous, racist idiots, & the leftists are angry but righteous. Why not just a little note to that effect, rather than dragging the left into what is essentially a rightist phenomenon? You stupid bastard. (Did we already call him that?) And Rainey, you obnoxious, fuckfaced, prissy, oversensitive moron, when the body politic is suffering under the "most corrupt, most insidious, most fascist, most criminal collection of Republicans I have witnessed in my 63 years as an American," it's probably an excellent idea to be as anonymous as possible, considering that Bush's Gestapo can & does listen to & read everything said or typed over the 'phones & interwebs, the "laws" notwithstanding. Of course, thanks to the miracles of technology, it can all be traced back to the coarseners anyway, but not before their entire lives (credit ratings, book, weapon & other purchases, health records, you name it) have been laid out for the FBI or worse to use against them. Why shouldn't we attempt to be as anonymous as possible until we've been traced back to our bunkers? Mr. Civil Discourse continues:

"The people who post on these sites have become accustomed to behaving like beasts because they can, because no one is really monitoring them," said Keen, whose polemic on the dangers of the Internet, "The Cult of the Amateur," is due in paperback next month. "It's creating this civic vulgarity that we don't need." Webmasters could begin to fix the problem and heighten the level of discussion by requiring folks who want to share their views to also agree to publication of their real names. If you're not willing to put your name beside that lovely screed, maybe it really isn't fully fit for human consumption.

Here's another clue for you, old media crapbrain: Unless webmasters take down the names & numbers of those wish to express themselves, & have the would-be commenters completely investigated before allowing them to type, a requirement to use "real names" is easily defeated by fabricating a "real" sounding name: John Smith, Mary Jones, or any other name selected from the 'phone book or any other source. "James Rainey," for example. How'd you like some of this profane, ignorant, racist impertinence (Is "impertinence" like being "uppity?") posted over your name, Rainey. Fuck you, the horse you rode in on, & your stinking, lousy column, bee-atch!! Yours for coarse, anonymous, vulgarity, impertinence & hate, we remain, as B/4, Malignant "Chas." Bouffant