Skip to main content

Blogging Code of Conduct... stuff

Everyone seems to be talking about it today.

I made this comment on Ann Althouse's blog where commentators (Oh gross... the spell check wouldn't take "commentors",) seem to be coming down strongly on the side of "Code? I don't need no stinkin' code!"
"There does seem to be blogging community standards, just not on language or insult. Sock puppetry is soundly denounced. Changing posts without making a note of it is soundly denounced.

Interesting that those two things are trivially easy to do on blogs."

Come to think of it... that should have been, "There *do* seem to be blogging..." Humph. Grammar? I don't need no stinking grammar!

Anywho... the fact that sock-puppets and changing posts is easy to do may be *why* there is a general agreement that it's unacceptable.

I'm reminded of reading Westerns where a person's reputation and word, the prohibition on lying or allowing someone to call you a liar unchallenged, are assumed. It was vitally necessary in a situation where people might make a contract verbally with a handshake for good measure.

And I just thought of another similarity... anonymity. Read a Western and what is described is a place where people could and did reinvent themselves, refuse to identify themselves, yet would not lie.

To the extent that genre Western fiction represents something that was real as a concept (I'm sure people *did* lie) it's interesting to see the parallels with this new Wild Wild West. Not very refined are we, with a whole lot of shooting from the hip going on, but to say there isn't standards isn't true.

What's more, the standards that exist are genuine and organic because they have developed as the result of people rubbing against each other.

(And do I really have to say that criminal behavior, death threats or stalking, are wrong? But that's not a voluntary code of conduct, it's against the law.)

Comments

Synova said…
to say there *aren't* standards isn't true...

Uff da.

Low blood sugar, you think?
Ymarsakar said…
I don't notice spelling or grammar unless I have trouble understanding the meaning.

Popular posts from this blog

Some times some people.

 

It's Not Projection

Take the case of "fascism". When you can see clear as day that the person who is accusing you of fascism is a fascist, they aren't projecting. They're talking about something ELSE. Basically, in the case of fascism, the basic set of fascist government controls are the default assumption of reality for a whole lot of people. The government is supposed to control every part of your life. The government is supposed to make you moral and good and reflect "justice". The government is supposed to do this by picking winners from the good people and losers from the bad people. The government is supposed to control the way people do business, how businesses (and farmers) function and what they produce. And people should be made to cooperate with this control because they are part of society and society is dependent on everyone being in compliance. This is simply the Truth. It's how the world works and how the world is supposed to work. The Socialist Nationalism, ...

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...