Comments on: WisCon Troll Attacks: A First-Person Experience

By: Madeleine

Madeleine — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 16:10:16 +0000

Cynthia,
Thank you for writing this piece. You’ve touched on a point I’d thought of: that Rachel M has alienated the people–maybe the only other people–who could understand her. I’ve sat in eating disorder recovery groups since 1990, and I’ve encountered some truly insane thinking, particularly from the bulimics, probably because of the bizarre nutrition they’re getting, but RM takes the prize (and this with contenders who think that if you take food from a store, eat it, and barf it up in the parking lot, you haven’t stolen anything, because you returned it). Compassion? Sure, I feel it, but I feel much more compassion for all the people she’s attacked. No, she is not excused on medical or mental grounds.

So after I’ve wrapped my mind around the idea that someone who pays to attend Wiscon twice, who is an Obama supporter, who is 25 years old and a PhD candidate, nevertheless violates people she doesn’t know (and their children) to post nasty all-encompassing bigotry with all the glee of a middle schooler for a standard middle-school reason: to be popular. And she’s shocked and hurt at the response and very, very sorry that she might suffer consequences. (I apologize to the million of middle schoolers to whom these words do not apply.)

The messages from many of the concern trolls seems to be “How dare fat/trans/disabled/fibro sufferers/polyamorus/mothers/nonAmerican/minority/WOMEN object to anything that skinny white people want to do to them. Don’t they realize they are the legitimate targets of the cool people?”

I’m responding here because I feel we all have to respond in some way, whether we were personally attacked or not. “They came for the Jews” has been resounding in my head, though in Rachel’s case, she came for everybody at once. And every thinking person has to say “No, that is not acceptable. We accept neither your attacks nor your definitions.”

I’ve been trying to figure out my best response, but at least I can make a comment. I’d appreciate suggestions.

I’m truly sorry you experienced this, Cynthia, particularly on the weekend that is the high point of the year for so many of us. I know my second-hand feelings aren’t the same, but for what it’s worth, I stand with you and find that a much better place to be than with Rachel and her nonfriends.

By: Malcolm

Malcolm — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 20:34:21 +0000

@Anonymous:
1) Threats do very little to discourage me.
2) There’s really no substance to your accusation of Google Bombing. To whit:
For the history of that post (1800 page views):
- There were only 9 page views on my meta post for anyone using the term “rachel moss” on Google or other search engines.
- Google is only the 6th ranked source of referrers. Top 3 are: this site, the sass site and direct links/no referrer.
- If you actually search “rachel moss” on Google, none of my posts show up on the first page at all, and the one that shows on the second isn’t the post you seem to be complaining about.

Therefore I conclude that my meta post is just an index of posts about the issue. Its only serious issue right now is that it needs updating to be comprehensive vis a vis posts indexed on Google since the last update on Monday or Tuesday (can’t remember).

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:57:41 +0000

Y’r nvtng rtltn wth yr ggl bmbng f Rchl. f shs xplld xpct mny mr pcs t b pstd. xpct yr wn dcs t b sprd fr nd wd.

Wscn’s 1000 mmbrs r n mtch fr th gns.

By: Malcolm

Malcolm — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:56:10 +0000

Nancy, thank you for the link. I’m waiting a couple more days (both because work and life have become absolutely nutty, timewise and because I want everything to shake out and be complete) to update the meta post, but I’ll roll this in, thank you.

Re: registration on my blog, if you give me more details at malcolm.gin@gmail.com, I’ll be happy to try to help troubleshoot, or I would be happy to simply create an account for you. Sorry you had trouble!

By: Nancy Lebovitz

Nancy Lebovitz — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:52:24 +0000

Malcolm, thanks for putting the list together. I’d have commented at your blog, but I’m having a problem with registration.

http://rm.livejournal.com/1363590.html is one more link about Wison, Moss, and related issues.

By: Debbie

Debbie — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 23:52:08 +0000

Laurie and I decided to “disemvowel” the anonymous comment above because it is both anonymous and inaccurately nasty.

Body Impolitic welcomes any comment on any side of any issue we write about; we reserve the right to disemvowel or delete name-calling, slurs, and other uncivil discourse.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:18:08 +0000

t wldn’t b mch trbl fr gns t frc Wscn t f vry htl nd cs th mngmnt f th cnvntn t mps rprt lk scrt rstrctns t kp t th trlls. Tht’s th lst f wht cld b dn. n n-hlds brrd cnflct wldn’t cnt n th lgl sstm tkng th sd f bnch f drg srs, ftshsts, brdrln pdphls and wrds gnst gd ctzns rprtng llgl ctvts t th cnvntn t th prpr thrts.

Yr “gns” shld thnk bt tht bfr th g flng n lwsts r trng t gt nn frd r xplld frm schl.

By: D.

D. — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:36:54 +0000

Children, in innocence, say whatever comes into their heads. Most of us get trained out of it, one way or another, because that behaviour becomes malicious and unattractive point-and-jeer and reminds too much of our remote primate ancestors’ poo-flinging.

As we age and (it is hoped) attain wisdom, most of us develop compassion and empathy for others. Because physically many things change: abilities, health, one’s metabolism. And those changes happen to us and to people we love as well as to total strangers.

That said: We do live in a culture which encourages certain social infantilisms well past the nominal-adult stage; we do live in an age which mistakes rudeness for honesty; and we do live in a climate in which poo-flinging too often substitutes for discourse.

Let’s change that, OK?

By: Rio

Rio — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 09:16:07 +0000

You know, her fibromyalgia wasn’t labeled “imaginary”. It was labeled “fake”. I think that’s even worse. Perhaps “imaginary” could be stretched to mean psychosomatic, which isn’t true either, but at least less of an accusation.

“Fake” implies an intent to deceive, for some benefit. To call the disease fake is to say that the person is dishonest and selfish. That’s a pretty nasty accusation, and the intention of Ms. Moss in making it is clear: Whether she believes it is fake or not, she obviously says this in order to damage the reputation and/or feelings of the person.

By: Ozma

Ozma — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 05:13:01 +0000

They aren’t bad people because they are disgusted, you are a bad person because you are disgusting.

All Rachel Moss did to you was show you as you are, that is the reason why you and your kind reacted so much to what she said and you have no one to blame for who you are but yourselves.

SASS DOT BUTTES DOT ORG