If you have "no place to go," come here!

The Terrorists Get a Win

okanogen's picture

Terrorists win a round. Congratulations assholes, it took a while, but you finally shut a woman up on the internet.

What a glorious accomplishment, and all it took was a little "what, who, me? Whatever do you mean?" doxxing dogwhistle. You should be so proud of yourselves, improving the internets like that.

So what now? What great task can you focus on now? Obviously there is the original goal of taking down Shakesville, shutting that woman up, too*. And lucky you, should you accomplish that, and since you are all so "sensitive"**, the blogosphere is a target rich environment. Somebody is always wrong. For example, just look in the mirror.

* Was trying to remember where I had heard this before, then I realized why it was so familiar: "Why won't that stupid bitch quit."
** But not so sensitive to have enough empathy to keep from targeting and harassing vulnerable people who beg you to stop.

SKA_Mardoll_Doxx_crop2.png30.01 KB
No votes yet


goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

Ohferchristsakes, what a fucking quitter.
No, seriously.
If she's depressed and wants to take a break, that's fine. But there's no excuse for her to let trolls run her off the web.
She doesn't represent me and I hope other women don't start feeling like they're victims just because Melissa couldn't tell her critics where to stick it.
Women need to toughen up. The web is the great equalizer where we finally have control.
Other than the mood thing, I don't feel sorry for her.

Submitted by lambert on

.... I don't think we should just say "suck it up."

For example, we would never say that to a person suffering from depression, for example. It's not just unhelpful, it's actively cruel.

In this case, what the assholes are really saying is "Go harass this woman in her home." Dear Lord.

Good thing we can cross that "We're just sharing feelings" off our list.

nycweboy's picture
Submitted by nycweboy on

I'm sorry she feels the need to stop, but basically anyone with a blog that offers personal opinions can tell you that you will run into negative responses that are often not very nice. Blaming those negative voices (which, as your title suggests, is virtually impossible to aim at any specific person) amounts to a vague opposition to disagreement. And, well, sure. But the internet is unlikely to get nicer, more civil, or bring you only visitors who agree with you - or, like Melissa, you can build a cult of personality that systematically silences all dissent. Blogging isn't for everyone; I suspect Ana Mardoll (who I had no idea of until this latest shakes kerfuffle) is just one of those folks whose energy may be more positive focused in other directions. And that's ok, too.

Submitted by lambert on

"Visit Ana Mardoll in her house and harass her." Sick. This is not a matter of civility. It's a matter of stalking. And fueled by hate. Yay! I'd also argue that Okanagen puts the focus exactly where it belongs: On the perps. "I wonder if," forsooth. Okanagen also made the right call in his first post on this topic, obviously.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

Blogging isn't for everyone; I suspect Ana Mardoll (who I had no idea of until this latest shakes kerfuffle) is just one of those folks whose energy may be more positive focused in other directions. And that's ok, too.

Bonus points for "kerfuffle".

Would you appreciate or take well others determining where your energies may be more positively focused?

See, here's the rub: nobody would be apologizing for this shit if it was coming from " the other tribe".

Isn't that sad?

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

The more I read this, the more bullshit I realize it is.

"Cult of personality that systematically stifles all dissent."?

Oh fucking really? You mean they have a blog and moderate comments on their own blog?

"Blaming those "negative voices" amounts to a vague opposition to disagreement?"

Oh fucking really? You mean it is objectionable to be intimidated by people of obvious ill will, who are trying to find out real world information about you and speculating on your mental health and disabilities?

"Feels the need to stop"?

Excellent passive voice, not "intimidated into stopping", it's "feels the need". I clearly remember when you were also under fire and I believe you wanted to quit as a result(?). That was a long time ago. I remember all of us here defending your right to be heard without harassment. My views on that aren't situational. That was wrong then and so is this now.

It's not about " stifling dissent", and portraying it that way is disingenuous. What SKA does is absolutely no different than the creepy hordes at 4chan. They just try to gloss shine it with a spit-thin veneer of "social justice" fauxcern.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

If you don't want catcalls, don't dress that way?

I fail to see any functional difference.

Saying the internet is unlikely to get nicer is exactly not different at all to saying society is not likely to get any nicer. In this instance, we have people using the cover that they have been hurt to use every sleazy internet tactic to harass, stalk, and ultimately silence a blog.

The two comments here so far are basically "boys will be boys."

Sane's picture
Submitted by Sane on

Engage on issues if you don't like the way you are treated don't go back. no absolute right that one must be made welcome on every blog in the universe.
To attack a person's name, reputation and, implicitly, their home and well being, is the act of cowards and bully's.
There is absolutely no reason in the normal course of events ( exception if some one claims to be somewhere that is unlikely i.e."I am posting from Mt. Everest and it is a balmy 84 and since I am here anyone not here who questions this is a liar" even that would be a hint to move on to a more reality based arena rather then waste your time) that a persons address,home, relatives, jobs etc are relevant or any body's business.
To quote Atty. Welch
Have you no shame. At long last have you no shame.

Good Luck and Good Health Ana whomever and where ever you are.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

I just want to throw in with lambert and okanogen. cyber bullying is a serious matter and the only way to keep it to managable proportions is to call perps out.

jinb's picture
Submitted by jinb on

Excellently manipulative use of a hyperbolic headline coupled with an illegible screen grab though.

Terrorists?!?!!! Terror?!?!

Oh. It's about a blog war.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

Hey, live by the hyperbolic sword, get tarred by it.*

"If we do nothing, the terrorists win" is about the oldest, most hackneyed saw currently going on the interwebs. But I'm sure all those poor souls at SKA will be sent into a paralyzing stint of mental trauma based on being compared to meteorologists, (Weather terrorists), etc.. If your reaction to this is any indication. But it is all about the language that I used, and not the facts of what happened, and what SKA is all about, right?

The original facts and question remains, aren't they proud to have shut a woman up on the internet? I mean, after all, she was asking for it, and if she didn't speak her mind, she wouldn't basically be begging to be targeted for ridicule and shutting up, right? For harassment and abuse. She was Wrong On the Internet, and, was using her meat world name, and we can't forget most importantly, is a woman.

* Oh good God, moron prophylactic I suspect is required. Yes, I know this is a mixed metaphor. It's that way on deliberately purpose.

jinb's picture
Submitted by jinb on

The original facts and question remains, aren't they proud to have shut a woman up on the internet? I mean, after all, she was asking for it, and if she didn't speak her mind, she wouldn't basically be begging to be targeted for ridicule and shutting up, right?

Submitted by lambert on

It's a rhetorical question.

jinb's picture
Submitted by jinb on


Mistakenly (then) took it as a claim to directly ascribe intent.

Never mind then.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

All there is there now is happy dance, concern trolling, scoffing that their harassment had the intended effect, mocking of the bitter disappointment of people who enjoyed Ana Mardoll's writing, and on the part of the SKA owner, basically a "mission partially accomplished" banner

nycweboy's picture
Submitted by nycweboy on

I'm not deeply invested on this, and past experience has taught me it's not worth pursuing a long debate where I'm not especially passionate. Still, on further reflection and observation I would add a couple or so points:

- as I said, I've never read Ana mardoll's blog (until yesterday), nor had any idea who she was until I started reading the DTSKA tumblr. Even then, I steered clear of what was clearly a lot of bad feeling. Having read her "I'm sorry" post last night, I feel bad for her, and I certainly wouldn't condone vicious attacks. That said, I get the impression there's a longer story in all of this (bad feelings all around) that would keep me from assigning blame one way or another.

- as I also said, I question the purpose of the post here. "Blogger decides to stop blogging" is a fairly frequent occurrence; I'm not sure I see why this matters more than others. Even if the point is to lament the circumstances under which it happened, I'm not sure of the pint - the people you label "terrorists" are unlikely to change, and there's no real solution to online viciousness, given the open nature of the internet and the freewheeling exchange of ideas and opinions happening all the time. It's not behavior I favor or condone, but I don't see a solution to stopping some or certainly all of it.

- Finally, while I have had no involvement with Ana Mardoll, I have experienced the kind of treatment at Shakesville that others have who contribute to DTSKA. As I wrote in a post there, I understand that people who have not experienced the "moderation" of comments at Shakesville may not understand how unpleasant, demoralizing and arbitrary the experience can be. The wealth of bad feeling engendered by years of that behavior does lead some to be especially negative and vindictive; again something I don't do or endorse. It is Melissa's blog and the approach to moderated discussion is certainly her choice; but the effect if that is demonstrably clear: a small number of commenters remain who essentially do little more than praise and agree with her. And that, apparently, is how she prefers it. Knowing that, I've gone elsewhere for the kind of conversation I find more interesting. Like others, I remain critical of her moderation, and am sympathetic to others who feel badly treated.

quixote's picture
Submitted by quixote on

I went on about this in the previous thread, but just wanted to say I'm with okanogen, lambert, and others here. Harassment is not okay.

I'm not sure what is hard to understand about that concept. It's also different from simply "stop blogging." "Harassed out of a public space" is different from "she decided to stay home."

Interestingly, when men get one tenth the flak women are exposed to on the web, they're either amazed and start to get it or they squeal like piglets at this unprecedented(-to-them) treatment.

Anyway, what I actually wanted to say here was that I'm very familiar with Shakesville's moderation customs. That was the reason I stopped visiting the site much. Not that I was ban-hammered, but there was an increasing sameness to the allowed opinions. And, really, if that bothers anyone, leaving is all you need to do. There is zero excuse to start harassing people there over it, and even less excuse to start stalking people. It is not up to them to toughen up. It is never up to the victims of crimes to stop suffering from them. It is up to the perps to stop committing them.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

Me neither.

After which I don't, you know, condone vicious attacks., or excuse them, or qualify them, or accept them.

I fail to see what intimidating and harassing Ana Mardoll into silencing her on the internet has to do with people being upset how they were comment moderated or treated by commenters and mods at Shakesville. I guess I'm insufficiently sensitive to empathize with that great work.

Submitted by lambert on

The gleeful incitement is apparent -- along with the classic "Oh, we're really not doing that" artful wording. You can spot this shit a mile off if you've seen enough of it.

"Just a place to share hurt feelings" My Sweet Aunt Fanny.