Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Long Distance Dedication

Look IMG, this is your balog, and we get it, you really, really love MBA. But...there's a proper time and place for tent pitching, ok?


  1. Guys. GUYS! Hey, there's more than enough of me to be considered "a round".

  2. So I wrote to "Wolfabeast" at Jezebel about this comment from Sgt. Hammerclaw


    I said:

    "Come on... that comment by Sgt. Hammerclaw was the tiniest bit funny, no?"

    The response:

    "The joke at the expense of economically-deprived women and girls who are literally bought and sold for the purposes of sex? I'm not rolling in the aisles, no."


    1. They have zero sense of irony. Zero. Mild humor trolling over there is like dropping a line of chum into shark infested waters. They can't help themselves.

    2. I honestly didn't think that my joke was that offensive. I am not surprised it was moved, and if I had more time yesterday, I might have tried to put up more of a fight.

      I sent Wolfabeast a message just now, but I don't think any good will come from it.

      I just looked through Wolfabeast's comment history. Somebody reported me.

      I wasn't talking about the underground sex trade, I was talking about the mail order bride industry. However, these are the same people who took one of Raysism's analogies and twisted it in such a way that they claimed he was equating them to tennis balls.

    3. The response I received from Wolfabeast:

      "Mail-order brides" are generally women and girls from developing countries troubled with unemployment and malnutrition, and particularly countries where unmarried women face social stigma and limited rights. Many of these women are also put under great pressure to marry in order to facilitate the immigration of family members. Agencies make profits by selling these women as sexual partners and domestic labourers to comparatively wealthy Western men. It's exploitation of the vulnerable, pure and simple. And on top of all that, mail-order brides are especially at risk of domestic violence due to unfamiliarity with local law and language. Wit is welcomed and encouraged at Jezebel. That even goes for dark humour, when it's done right. You know what isn't funny? Making the victim the butt of the joke. I would appreciate it if you would bear that in mind when commenting here. Thank you.

      I'd like to use this opportunity to remind everybody what, exactly, this is all about. In an article titled, "Ten Very Good Reasons You Aren’t Married Yet," I commented with:

      11. Nobody from a first world country has ordered you yet.
      11a. You need better head shots.

      This is insane.

    4. The Amazing SneijdermanJune 6, 2012 at 11:02 AM

      You know what else is insane? Literate, humorless tennis balls. We. Are. Fucked.

    5. Wolfabeast absolutely hates me. Below is the reason I'm currently sitting out a 7 day suspension there, and the "reporting" thread where they all delighted in my suspension.



    6. I don't know how you do it, Raysism. This was my first foray into Jezebel, and will probably be my last as well.

      Those people are fucking insane.

    7. Now you're just résumé-padding in preparation for a job whose description I don't even want to contemplate.

    8. If done right, it can be a lot of fun. This is because, as we all know, women love nothing more than to watch other women fail. So the usual routine is that I sucker a couple of them into debating me on something, where they have no idea how bad I’m about to give it to them (because they think we’re a bunch of jocks, not attorneys and scientists and the like), and then once they start to look bad, the other women jump in and defend me or praise me.

      Even when I got suspended, I received a couple of PMs supporting me.

    9. I Like Cheap BeerJune 6, 2012 at 12:56 PM

      I'd be lying if I said I was surprised at their reaction. Wait, that's not true. I am surprised that you did not get banned. I got banned, on my old Gawker media account, from Jezebel for a far less offensive comment.

      My rules on commenting on Jezebel and Gawker:
      1) Be funny.
      2) If the funny is also offensive, do not apologize.
      3) Read all replies.
      4) Respond to zero replies, regardless of what they say.

      Jezzie and Gawker commenters are the fucking yippy dogs that bark at the mailman. After he drops the mail in the box and walks away, that little shit of a dog thinks he chased away the mailman, even though that's not the case.

      What I'm saying is that Jezzie and Gawker commenters are the fucking Chihuahuas of the internet: Pointless.

    10. Serious question for you, Ray: what's the point? I guess you're having fun baiting them, but isn't that just being a troll? I get pissed off at trolls who come around Deadspin; if I were a jezzie I'd resent someone coming over who is deliberately crapping on the accepted commenting structure(I'd probably have way more epic body odor too, but that's besides the point).

      They have their own culture, and while I find 99% of their culture and attitudes to be ridiculous, I don't begrudge them space to converse/comment/slut shame themselves as they see fit.

      It also does nothing to dissuade their notion that we are nothing but a bunch of dumb jocks, which just leads to snap over-reactions to any non-jezzie commenter, even one who is trying to make a serious point.

      One man's opinion.

    11. +1, Echo.

      Wouldn't the truest measure of a man be his ability to actually make them laugh? Don't say it can't be done, and that they're just humorless she-beasts. That's a cop out, we all know that we've seen other members of the DS commentariat go over there and do just that, and that's pretty respectable.

    12. I thought the truest measure of a man was the opening of a Pepsi bottle.

    13. I sometimes refer to it as "baiting" or "trolling", but that's probably the wrong term – and I’m definitely not crapping in their comments. My opinions are just as serious as theirs, just righter.

      Usually what I do is pick a post where I earnestly and strongly believe that Jez is taking a completely insane position (usually obesity/fitness or how men view women), and then I phrase my opinion in the form of an ironic joke. So my comment is not a crappy troll job, which is why (other than this last go-round), I’ve never been warned or officially reprimanded. Then the Jezzies think I’m just a jokey jock, so they come at me like I’m an idiot, which is when the fun begins.

      There are so many posts there where this is fun. Like today, where Lindy referred to the “obesity problem” in quotes, as if this country may or may not have a problem with obesity.

      (That’s one of their big themes: there’s nothing wrong with being obese, and you are just as attractive and healthy when you’re obese, etc. And then everyone in the comments will actually admit that they enjoyed that post because they themselves are extremely obese. Also, they don’t want to exercise, and they don’t want men looking at them, ever.)

      Anyway, it gives me something to do during lunch when DS is a little cold.

    14. I should add that going over to Jez and being funny is not really any more a part of their culture than serious commentary is a part of ours. If you go over to Jez to crack one-liners, you're in the wrong place.

      Also, you do not want to see what makes them laugh. Not surprisingly, it's the kind of stuff that makes Jim or Jane laugh at the office water cooler. Anything more interesting than that is ignored or completely taken the wrong way.

    15. Eh, that's not how I see it.

      As you note, "being funny is not really any more a part of their culture than serious commentary is a part of ours". I have no issue with you or anyone challenging their views on any particular issue (and your example of obesity is spot on). Doing it with a joke seems designed to get your objection across, but in the most shit-stirring way possible. That's why I think it's trolling. Not because of the underlying sentiment, but because of the flippant manner in which you do it, which runs completely counter to their commenting culture.

      Put another way: if you're doing it to challenge their (rigid, often hypocritical) viewpoint, that's one thing. It you're doing it primarily for laughs, that's trolling.

      And I had my mailman proofread this, so now it's two men's opinion.

    16. Also, the alliteration in the last sentence of my first paragraph kicks fucking ass.

    17. I think we're probably agreeing more than disagreeing. You said it best: I'm shit-stirring. But I'm shit-stirring to challenge their viewpoints, on a site where shit-stirring is permitted. I'm certainly not doing it for laughs, because none of you is over there (for the most part), and none of them will ever laugh at me.

      Also agree on the awesome alliteration.

    18. Like Echo, I don't see what the point is. The internet is swimming with sites that spout stuff you won't agree with, applauded by people whose blind-spots and biases seem painfully transparent to you. I doubt you take it upon yourself to correct all of them.

      If a Jezzie came over to Deadspin and started regularly copping snarky, contrarian stances in response to Deadspin articles, and then getting in smirky little spats with our commenters, it would annoy the hell out of me, and rightly so, and I'd hope - if not outright ask - for our moderators to kick the shit out of her.

      If the goal is to get a point across humorously, that can be done in a way that isn't antagonistic toward their commenting culture. As rumspringa guy said above: they can be made to laugh. I think this stuff is a poor representation of our commentariat; frankly, however it's intended, it comes off kind of imperial and bully-like.

      Just my opinion.

    19. I doubt any of this has a point. I'm just a pretend person making comments with other pretend people. I think the main point is that it gives me something to do during conference calls. And I like writing.

      And while I certainly agree that copping a snarky, contrarian stance on DS would annoy the hell out of us, the reality is that this kind of commenting is very common and accepted on Jez. If I were to remove names and avatars, you probably wouldn't be able to pick out mine. So I disagree that any of this is antagonistic to their commenting culture. In fact, there are a couple of moderators over there who love me.

      The reality is that they get mad at me not because I make jokes or come from DS, but because I would dare say that a fat woman is less attractive by reason of her being fat, that men have genes that cause us to look at women, etc. You know, the kind of shit that we all know and accept.

      Sadly, as much as this entertains me on Jez, it is not going to entertain me when this hits DS under PowWow -- and it will hit us. As soon as one of us makes a biting remark, there are going to be 30 replies from people who have no sense of humor and no wit.

      And finally, I don't want any of this to sound defensive or like I don't understand where you all are coming from. I appreciate your take on all of this, and I certainly have re-written some of my comments there to be a little less caustic.

      Just don’t get me started on iO9.

    20. I don't subscribe to the cultural relativism that it would require to have the same kind of respect for the community and conversation at Jezebel as I do for Deadspin's. Having real discussion with them, poking them a little, and/or outright trolling them is a-ok with me. Fuck them and the bow-legged horse they rode in on.

    21. I don't think it's "cultural relativism" at all - any more than it's "cultural relativism" to say that because I wouldn't like it if someone barged into my home and started eating out of the refrigerator, I probably shouldn't do the same to my neighbors, no matter how undeserving I think they may be of the delectable foods contained in their kitchen.

      They have their website. It has its norms. There's no reason not to leave it alone, if what it does is annoy you.

      (Also, just to place this debate about the differing cultures in a clearer context: I happen to agree - to varying extents - with many of Jezebel's staked-out positions on things like sexuality, obesity, and sexism. So if the basis for the defense of trolling is that it's justified by the rightness of the troll's viewpoint, that fat dyke won't fly, as they say.)

    22. I'm totally with Sharting and Echo here, though I don't have a ton of love for their jezzstresses. It's their sandbox, you want in, you play by their rules or get the fuck out. It's the same shit we've all got our panties in a bunch over with the end of approvals and such. If you want to troll, go post racial slurs under YouTube videos about kittens or something.

    23. @Sharting

      What? Which culture is breaking & entering/theft representative of? I get that you're saying "Do unto others...", etc. but in this case, I'd LOVE Jezebel commenters to come over to Deadspin and make witty, incisive (if antagonistic) commentary. What's wrong with a voice of opposition? The issue is, you think Ray is trolling....


      Trolling isn't content-relative. Trolling is racist, ignorant, over-long, aggressive, personal, etc. It doesn't depend on the delicate sensibilities of the audience. If you go to some Christian forum and say "I disagree, philosophically, with your world view," is that trolling?

    24. Just to clarify, other than one comment (which even I admit was too much of a gut shot), I have never been warned, suspended, moved or anything like that. So if "playing by the rules" is what is required, I've certainly done that. At least half of my comments there are just straight non-joke comments, so it's not like I'm the Hot Pockets guy or anything.

    25. @BH that depends. Are we on a political forum where people are using Christianity to support viewpoints that you disagree with and seeking a dialogue? Or are you just interjecting yourself into a pleasant conversation that doesn't involve you to piss on their punch bowl? Because what you're describing sure sounds like trolling to me.

    26. @IMG

      Huh. I don't know, man. To me, trolling is about intent and not venue. Ray is (mostly, I guess - I haven't read all his stuff) making a rational point he believes in and does it in a humorous way. He happens to do that in a beehive of over-sensitive lunatics, but why does that make him the bad guy? If you head into forums.christians.com saying "Satan rules, God drools", that's a troll. If you're looking to engage somebody in a public forum, I don't see the big deal.

    27. Gotta tell you, I don't think of it as trolling, and if it is, I don't think it's hurting anyone.

      Here's the deal, as far as I see it: I can't get worked up one way or another about the "commenting culture" at places like Jezebel or Gawker. Deadspin's "commenting culture" is worth protecting because upholding it and participating in it requires a degree of sophistication and difficulty that frankly can't be found elsewhere and is tenuous to maintain and fragile as all hell. Jezebel? Gawker? It's not even right to say they have a "commenting culture", unless what you're really saying is "they do everything that is done on washingtonpost.com and msnbc.com plus a laughably diminished version of what is done on Deadspin, plus everything else that sucks and is bad". They make jokes on Jezebel! Bad ones! The difference between what they do and what Raysism does is he disagrees with their larger points and his jokes are better. It so happens that they preach to a choir around there, so their often-snotty jokes and sarcasm is aimed at a cardboard cut-out of the most boring stereotypes imaginable, whereas Raysism, by disagreeing, is aiming his snark at an active audience. But that doesn't make it trolling - are you telling me there's no room in the Jezebel commentariat for people who don't agree with the mob? That's crazy talk. He's funnier and sharper than they are and he happens to disagree. If they don't like it, to hell with them. That's THEIR problem, not his problem.

      If he's doing it for his own amusement, well, so are they. So am I, when I comment on Deadspin. That's why people comment. That doesn't make it trolling, that makes it commenting on a website. And I don't see him going overboard and getting suspended as anything different than a marginal commenter going overboard and getting suspended on Deadspin - it happens, but it doesn't make the person's contributions into a moral offense.

    28. Well obviously I disagree. From what I've seen, and the attitude in which he's discussed it here (today and in the past), Ray enjoys/is proud of doing it primarily because he enjoys getting them upset. To me, that's trolling - maybe that's the wrong word, but I can't think of another. Sorry Ray, you're a great DS commenter and a nice guy, but that's just the way I see it, obviously you disagree.

      But I also take issue with your (Vuv's) point about their "culture" of commenting. It seems like you (and BH, to an extent) are saying that even if you are trolling jezzies, fuck them, it's ok, because they suck.

      To me, that's messed up. I may think they are pompous asses, but they clearly don't. It's not like they are some KKK white power blog posting stuff we can all agree is stupid/hateful/trash. Obviously the comments over there, in their current format, have a lot of real value to those commenters - that is their commenting culture, and whetehr or not we like it is besides the point. Saying it's ok to dump all over them because you don't share those values is not right. I may be reading too much into your comment Vuvs, but that's the impression I got.

      Ray's jokes are better, sure - but making jokes isn't what they do over there. As I said before, if you want to take an alternate opinion and argue it, go for it, here, at Jezebel, wherever. But don't cloak it in jokes (which isn't what they do), then come around saying how great it is you got them all riled up.

      Anyway, my point isn't to defend how they operate over there - I think we all agree on how awful they are - only that they don't deserved to be screwed with (and I do think Ray is screwing with them) for no good reason.

      I can't believe I'm still defending Jezebel.

      /vagina joke

    29. @Bronzehammer 1:54 pm


      -Christian Forum users

    30. @Echo

      Yeah this is what I'm saying - I think we can say fuck them, they suck. They do suck. I think it's possible to make an objective value statement about the comment quality at the two sites. Deadspin may not have the most useful or valuable comments on the internet, but it has some of the funniest and most original. That's just better than Jezebel comments, and I'm sure some of them are very nice people, but disrupting their ecosystem is no big deal, irrespective of how much they like it. It's like defacing a fake Picasso. It's ugly and fake, no big loss.

      And sure, it's not a KKK blog, which is obviously execrable and worthy of our disdain. But look, we just made a value judgment about a (possibly not real) commenting community. We can do the same thing with Jezebel. I think it's fair to say their community is not worth preserving, but you don't - that's okay. You're nicer than I am, or at least more accepting. But the important point is that Ray's just not trolling. He's being provocative, maybe tongue-in-cheek sometimes, but the stuff he says is only inflammatory because of how desperately the commenters at Jezebel are wanting to be offended. I don't think the onus is on him to make concessions on his viewpoint based on their prickliness.


      You don't speak for all the members of Christian Forum unless you're the Mod, Admin, and Holy Lurker.

    31. Well, I submitted a good comment that would've made everyone see eye-to-eye, ended world hunger and maybe even got Raysism laid, but it didn't show up so you'll just have to trust me on that.

    32. Sorry, neither Marv nor CJ seem to have figured out how to check the spam filter.

      Just email me if you run into this issue where your comments don't show up. If you've been deleted, you'll see the "your comment has been removed" thing. If you don't show up at all, you're just spam to us.

      Oh, you don't have my email? That's unfortunate.

    33. No big deal - you don't have mine either. And if anyone tells you it's holdmetinydncr@hotmail.com, I want you to know that's my mother's account and we only share it because gmail keeps rejecting my applications.

    34. I'm not so much saying "fuck them, they suck" as I'm saying . . . well, the difference between that and what I am saying is pretty fucking small, I'll grant you that. But most of what I'm saying is that their "commenting culture" is flimsy and difficult to identify and is perhaps only a transparent shield that allows them to expel or otherwise quarantine those with whom they disagree. On Deadspin, the only way in is to be funny. Over there, what is it? Agreement? Ultimately, that's it. Because the thing is, they do make jokes over there - every day, all the time. Not as elegantly or as well as the best Deadspin commenters, but still, they're there, all over the place. Again I say, their issue with Raysism isn't that he's disrespecting their culture by making jokes, it's that he's disrespecting their culture by not agreeing with the things they say. And to me, that's indefensible bullshit, a position of entrenchment that needs to be challenged.

      I hear what you're saying about Raysism's motivations. If he's taking specific joy in upsetting people, that's not an especially sexy way to be. I totally agree. But I don't think that has anything to do with observing their commenting culture. If he went over there and agreed with everything in a post in the funniest one-liner imaginable, I doubt we'd be having this discussion, first of all, but most importantly, there's no fucking way they'd suspend him. It's not the jokes that bother them, and hence, the lack of jokes is not what defines their culture. Their culture is one of outward hostility towards the shifting targets of poorly-formed stereotypes and the cyclical reinforcement of a never-ending series of mostly unchallenged ideas. Whether you agree with those ideas or not, it's hard to make the case that people shouldn't be allowed to disagree in the same tone and language with which they'd obviously be allowed to agree.

      That said, I respect your "live and let live" position on this. The world would absolutely be a happier place if we didn't go around taking perverse pleasure in pissing people off and upsetting their shit. Without question, there's a healthier, more productive way of disagreeing with the Jezebellians, even if I happen to think this one is allowable.

    35. Mr. Hammer,

      You seem to not be taking this anonymous commenting business quite seriously enough. If what the Jezzies do there doesn't matter, then maybe what we do here doesn't matter.

      And, if the elite cliques over there can't overwhelm dissident voices with some combination of self-righteous monologues and condescending dismissiveness, then perhaps we can't either.

      And, no one wants to live in a world like that. So, please stop throwing rocks - we just had the glass walls cleaned up nice and purty.

  3. So I had the unfortunate chance to become acquainted with Barstool Sports Boston today, which leads me to the question: are they the biggest group of scummy racist anti-Semitic commenters on earth, or just the most annoying?

  4. Is Swiss Tate too offensive to approve? I think its actually pretty damn funny.