Part 6 (2/2)
It's not easy to define what a ”friend” is in any event. There's a joking definition which gets somewhere in the neighborhood: ”a friend is someone who knows the real you and likes you anyway.” I think it might be more accurate to say that that a friend is someone that helps you to be the person you are, and likes you anyway. But even that doesn't get to it completely. I mean, h.e.l.l, I have some friends that sometimes I don't even like very much. That doesn't stop them from being my friend, and sometimes even some of the best of my friends. It's tempting to throw up one's hands and cla.s.sify friends.h.i.+p in the same way Potter Stewart defined p.o.r.nography: Hard to define but you know it when you see it.
Nevertheless, I'll strive for a simple definition. I think at the end of the day, a friend is someone you emotionally want in your life, who wants you emotionally in theirs. Why do you want them in your life, and they in yours, and how much in it for both? That's something for the two of you to work out, and when you can't figure it out, or sometimes you end up wanting different things, that's when the friends.h.i.+p changes or ends. It's also possible that your friends.h.i.+p is not mutually graded: You may feel an intense attachment to a friend who feels less intensely about you, and vice-versa. This can sometimes lead to problems. And finally friends.h.i.+p is two people dealing with each other, and you know how people are. Sometimes no matter how much you want to be friends with someone, or how much other people think you should be friends (or on occasion how much you would like to be friends for the sake of a mutual friend), it just doesn't work. Friends.h.i.+p isn't actually easy. People aren't easy.
But the reward is that you get to have friends. You have the people to whom you may vent, with whom you can laugh, who will support you when you need it and for whom you may be a shelter. People who are, as is often said, the ”family of choice”-those with whom you may stand and face what the world sends your way. People who are a part of you, have helped you become you, and who might be a part of who you are moving forward.
I have been genuinely blessed with friends.h.i.+ps of all sorts and have been thankful for them all, from the most casual friends.h.i.+ps to the ones that have lasted and grown all through my life. For each of these and in their way, I have tried to be a good friend in return, and worry that I haven't been. I can be oddly bad at connection; e-mails slip past me, calls turn into week-long bouts of phone tag, I get wrapped up in my own head and I wander about in otherwise oblivious ways. Even friends who I consider to be best friends I can be out of communication with for months at a time. So I am likewise thankful that when I do once again get in contact, they are gracious to me and still friends. It means a lot to me, more than I can easily express here.
So, my friends: Thank you, each of you and all of you, from the ones I have known all my life to the ones I am just meeting. It's a good life with you in it. I hope your life is better for me being in yours.
Gawker, Reddit, Free Speech and Such Oct
16.
2012.
I've been watching with some interest the drama surrounding Gawker writer Adrian Chen revealing Reddit user/celeb/moderator/troll Violentacrez's real life ident.i.ty (Michael Brutsch), which among other things resulted in Brutsch losing his job, presumably because Brutsch's employer was not 100% comfortable employing someone who spent his days moderating online forums with t.i.tles like ”Chokeab.i.t.c.h” and bragged about the time his 19-year-old stepdaughter performed oral s.e.x on him. It also resulted in Reddit globally banning links from Gawker (since rescinded, although forum moderators (”subredditors”) can choose to block links within their forums-and do), and various bannings due to discussion of the drama.
Wrapped up in all of this are various chest beatings about free speech and whether someone's online anonymity is sacred, even if he is a creep, the culture of Reddit in particular and the Internet in general, and in a larger sense where the rights of one individual-say, a creepy middle-aged dude-begin to impinge on others-say, young women who don't believe that merely being in public is an invitation to be s.e.xually degraded. This is all interesting stuff, to be sure, and naturally I have a few thoughts on these topics. In no particular order: 1. The ”free speech” aspect of this is largely nonsense. Reddit is not a public utility or a public square; it's a privately owned s.p.a.ce on the Internet. From a legal and (United States) const.i.tutional point of view, people who post on Reddit have no ”free speech” privileges; they have what speech privileges Reddit itself chooses to provide them, and to tolerate. Reddit chooses to tolerate creepiness and general obnoxiousness for reasons of its own, in other words, and not because there's a legal or const.i.tutional reason for it.
Personally speaking, when everything is boiled down to the marrow, I think the reason Reddit tolerates the creepy forums has to do with money more than anything else. Reddit allows all those creepy subreddits because its business model is built on members.h.i.+ps and visits, and the dudes who visit these subreddits are almost certainly enthusiastic members and visitors. This is a perfectly valid reason, in the sense of ”valid” meaning ”allowing people to be creepy isn't inherently illegal, and we make money because of it, so we'll let it happen.” But while it makes sense that the folks at Reddit are either actively or pa.s.sively allowing ”we're making money allowing creeps to get their creep on” to be muddled with ”we're standing up for the principles of free speech,” it doesn't mean anyone else needs be confused by this.
If someone bleats to you about any of this being a ”free speech” issue, you can safely mark them as either ignorant or pernicious-probably ignorant, as the understanding of what ”free speech” means in a const.i.tutional sense here in the US is, shall we say, highly constrained in the general population. Additionally and independently, the sort of person who who says ”free speech” when they mean ”I like doing creepy things to other people without their consent and you can't stop me so f.u.c.k you ha ha ha ha” is pretty clearly a mouth-breathing a.s.shole who in the larger moral landscape deserves a bat across the bridge of the nose and probably knows it. Which is why-unsurprisingly-so many of them choose to be anonymous and/or use pseudonyms on Reddit while they get their creep on.
On the subject of anonymity: 2. Anonymity/pseudonymity is not inherently evil or wrong. Astute observers will note that on Whatever I allow both anonymous and pseudonymous postings, because sometimes you want to say something you wouldn't normally say with your name attached and/or because you have personal/business reasons to want not to have a trail of comments lead back to you. Perfectly reasonable and perfectly acceptable, and as I moderate the site pretty attentively, anyone who decides to use the cloak of anonymity to be an a.s.sbag will get their words malleted into oblivion in any event.
It's not anonymity or pseudonymity that's the issue. The issue is people being a.s.sholes while anonymous because they don't believe it's ever going to get back to them. This is a separate issue from anonymity/pseudonymity. Someone who is anonymous shouldn't be a.s.sumed to be an a.s.sbag, any more than someone who uses their real name should be a.s.sumed to be a kind and decent human being. In both cases, it's what they say that should be the guide.
However: 3. If at this point in Internet history you think you're really anonymous/pseudonymous on the Internet, or that you have a right to anonymity/pseudonymity on the Internet, you're kind of stupid. Yes, stupid, and there's no other way to put it. I remember back in 1998 and people with pseudonymous online diaries freaking out because they ranted about a family member or boss online, and then that person found out, and as a result the diarist was fired and/or had very awkward Thanksgivings for several years. And you know what? Even back in 1998, when the Web was still reasonably new, while one could be sympathetic, in the back of the head there was always well, what did you expect? It's not that hard to find things out. Something will give you away sooner or later. Here in 2012, if you're going to make an argument to me that anonymity truly exists on the Web, I'm going to want you to follow up with an explanation of how the Easter Bunny is riding unicorns on Mars with Kurt Cobain.
I find it difficult to believe that Redditors don't understand that anonymity online is merely a facade; indeed it's probably one of the reasons that revealing the ident.i.ty of pseudonymous Redditors is looked on as such a huge betrayal. That said, anyone who goes to Reddit and truly believes that a site-standard ethos of ”don't reveal our members' ident.i.ties” fully protects them from being revealed or allows them to revel in obnoxious and/or creepy behavior without fear of discovery, they're kind of dumb. I won't say that they deserve what they get-maybe they do, maybe they don't-but I will say they shouldn't be terribly surprised.
Now, you might argue that someone has a right to pseudonymity or anonymity online, and depending on your argument, I might even agree with you (hint: such an argument doesn't involve posting s.e.xualized pictures of minors or the unconsenting). But I would also agree with you that it would be cool if the Mars rover beamed back a picture of Kurt and Peter Cottontail jamming on ”Pennyroyal Tea” while their unicorns kept the time on tambourine. Back here in the real world, you should get used to the idea neither is happening soon.
Speaking of the real world: 4. Reddit is not the Internet, the Internet is not Reddit, and in neither place is one obliged to privilege anonymity/pseudonymity. It seems like a lot of the angst emanating from Reddit regarding this event is based on a community standard of not outing anonymous or pseudonymous Reddit users. However, just because something is a community standard does not mean one is obliged to follow it in all ways at all times, and if the ”com-munity standard” is doing real harm or is being used as a s.h.i.+eld to allow people to act badly without consequence, then it's a reasonable question of whether this ”standard” is to be allowed to stand unchallenged.
In any event, an argument that those outside the community are bound to its standards is a tough one to make outside of that community. Am I, John Scalzi, enjoined by Reddit ”community standards” on my own site? Not in the least, and if anyone suggested I was, I would point and laugh at them. Am I when I am on Reddit, signed into my Reddit account (”Scalzi,” which, I would note, is not particularly anonymous/pseudonymous)? Well, I'm enjoined by the actual rules (seeing as I have no right to free speech as understood by the US Const.i.tution while I am there), and generally would try to abide by established local practices. But there are rules and then there are guidelines, and I don't need to believe that the latter has the force of the former.
In the case of Adrian Chen, the Gawker writer who revealed Violentacrez's real-life ident.i.ty, I think he's perfectly justified in doing so. Whether certain denizens of Reddit like it or not, Chen was practicing journalism, and writing a story of a figure of note (and of notoriety) on one of the largest and most influential sites on the Internet. They may believe that Mr. Brutsch should have an expectation not to have his real life ident.i.ty revealed on Gawker, but the question to ask here is ”why?” Why should that be the expectation? How does an expectation of pseudonymity on a Web site logically extend to an expectation of pseudonymity in the real world? How does one who beats his chest for the right of free speech on a Web site (where in fact he has no free speech rights) and to have that right to free speech include the posting of pictures of women who did not consent to have their pictures taken or posted then turn around and criticize Gawker for pursuing an actually and legitimately const.i.tutionally protected exercise of the free press, involving a man who has no legal or ethical presumption of anonymity or pseudonymity in the real world? How do you square one with the other? Well, you can't, or at least I can't; I have no doubt some of the folks at Reddit can guide that particular camel through the eye of the needle.
But they would be wrong. Mr. Brutsch's actions are newsworthy, and it's neither libel nor defamation for Gawker to correctly attribute his actions to him, whether or not he ever expected them to be attached to his real life ident.i.ty. If they don't think so, I heartily encourage them to take up a collection for Mr. Brutsch so he can sue Gawker. I know what the result would be, but I think the path to getting there might be instructive to some Redditors.
Or maybe (and hopefully) they already know they don't have a legal or ethical leg to stand on, which is why they eventually fall back on well, this just isn't done and then ban Gawker links on Reddit. Which, of course, is their right. That is, so long as the people actually running Reddit believe it is.
Gizmodo Agrees: Apple Fans Are Status-Seeking Beta Monkeys Jun
9.
2009.
Thus, its entry today lamenting the fact that with the latest iteration of the Apple product line there is no longer any meaningful technological or design distinction between the expensive, top-level Apple products the hipsters flash about in coffee shops and subways to signal their reproductive fitness, and the plebian-level Apple products common trolls use to sign into Mys.p.a.ce and/or listen to their Nickelback MP3s: A leveling of cla.s.s distinctions in Apple products is going to sting people who valued the affectation of elitism that came with using Apple's top-of-the-line products. Even subtle differences-like the premium paid for the matte black MacBook over the otherwise identical s.h.i.+ny white one, were signals, beamed out to the others in the coffee shop, declaring who was ”da boss.” You know, the guys who wore the white earbuds with pride five years ago...
Maybe Apple is trying to create good design that works for anyone and everyone. I can respect that. Still, the question remains: Does this make rich people look like poor people, or poor people look like rich people? The privileged must know.
Gizmodo is getting its snark on, obviously, but it also hit the nail on the head as to why I, at least, have a mild allergic reaction to the Cult of Apple. It's not that Mac laptops and iPhones aren't nice pieces of equipment; they surely are. It's just that they're also the tiny c.o.ke spoons of the early 21st century-a bit of decla.s.se ostentation flashed by people who think they're signaling one thing when they're in fact signaling something else entirely, and that thing is: I may be an a.s.shole.
To be sure, the guy with an Android phone and a Tos.h.i.+ba laptop may be no less of an a.s.shole. But you're not necessarily going to a.s.sume that from his technology alone. This is why I'm always vaguely annoyed when someone smugs at me that I should get a Mac for my next computer: part of my brain goes, yeah, it's a nice machine, but then I'll be indistinguishable from all those Williamsburg d.i.c.ks. Next will be a canvas manbag and chunky square gla.s.ses, followed shortly by leaping in front of the G train. Thank you, no.
Yes, yes: Not everyone hoisting a MacBook Pro or soon to be flas.h.i.+ng an iPhone 3GS is a vacuous hipster status monkey. But then, not everyone who drove a Trans Am in 1982 was a beefy, mullet-wearing Rush fan, either. Yet when you picture a 1980s Trans Am owner in your mind, is he not today's Tom Sawyer? Does he not get high on you? Well, see.
A General Observation Sep
20.
2009.
The Internet does seem to be full of people whose knowledge of complex concepts appears limited to a dictionary definition.
Some of them seem to be proud of that.
Having Been Poor Apr
1.
2009.
Xwrites: Reading your 'being poor' topic and having been under-monetized at points in my past, I'm wondering how you think that affects/should affect a person's current lifestyle. Could being a packrat be related to that? Habitually looking at the price of everything just another case of OCD? How about being traumatized by the thought of throwing away leftover food?
<script>