1. OTP, like the world writ large, is not a level playing field. The same structural forces at work in the world are also at work on OTP. By suggesting that OTP is somehow a “safe” space where all can identify themselves freely, you signal an allegiance to the very type of “structure-blind” ideology that is exactly the source of so much contention on OTP. You know, bigots and model-T Ford colors and all that. Thus, the OTP-utopia (no-place) that you describe and seem to long for is actually far from reflective of the world in which we live. The world in which we live, of which OTP is both microcosm and exemplar, does not treat all voices and identities equally. Ask George Floyd. Ask Breonna Taylor. Ask Xicano.
2. The relationship between authenticity and identity is far more complex than you represent. You have a method that works for you: signing your typed pages “Tag in CA” and commenting under your real name. This method makes you feel real and healthy and authentic. Great. Good for you. Other methods–including complete and shifting anonymity–may work better for others. May help others feel real and healthy and authentic. Great. Good for them. Your denials aside, there is no need to play doctor (or shrink or existential philosopher or priest) and call one method healthier or more authentic than another.
3. You associate identifying yourself with strength of character, and anonymity, by implication, with weakness. I hear in this formulation refrains of the good old white American masculinity: be a man and name yourself! Only cowards hide behind cloaks! This, too, is what the colonists used to say about the ways Native American peoples fought to protect themselves from White genocide and White theft. (This did not stop the colonists, however, from utilizing the same guerilla tactics in their fight against the British.) It is always the privilege of the structurally strong to associate strength with self-identification and weakness with anonymity, and, indeed, it is one of the rhetorical tactics used by the strong against the weak. Be a real man and name yourself!
4. Although you say you never shitpost, here is no accounting for taste. One person’s shitpost is another person’s gold, and one person’s gold another person’s shitpost. To quote the band you seem to associate only with mindless rebellion:
Some of those that work forces
Are the same that burn crosses
Some of those that work forces
Are the same that burn crosses
Some of those that work forces
Are the same that burn crosses
Some of those that work forces
Are the same that burn crosses
Uh!
Very sincerely yours,
Anonymous and Unpersuaded
Loading...
Tag,
While I agree in principle with your philosophy re: anonymous posting, I think I can understand the reluctance of some commenters to disclose their identity. During recent “kerfuffles,” some contributors were labeled by a few people as racists or bigots. After some rancor in the comments section, several of their accusers, both in comments and in subsequent posts, actively encouraged them to write more about their allegedly odious beliefs. In their postings, these writers have very distinct voices and styles, making it easy to notice a marked similarity in their invitations to the would-be troglodytes: an eerie alacrity, almost a “said the spider to the fly” intonation. Given that nothing is truly private or secure on the internet, I wouldn’t necessarily consider it paranoid to cloak one’s identity in today’s political and technological environment.
Loading...
@John Baird
I love that poem, thank you!
Loading...
I have no issue with hiding the name. Sadly, I love the drama, even though I see no reason to.
I also see no reason in drama, even though some might be quite reasonable.
Healing, forgiveness, revenge, equality… just words of temporary beings.
The world keeps turning but we stop at some point.
We fight, we survive, we exist. And then we don’t anymore.
Makes no sense to drama, makes no sense to fight. Unless you enjoy it.
But that’s just me. You are an entire different universe. And that’s a drama in itself, isn’t it?
Loading...
“…I laid my heart open to the benign indifference of the universe. To feel it so like
myself, indeed, so brotherly, made me realize that I’d been happy, and that I was
happy still.”
Refreshing.
Loading...
The full passage may be a tad more illuminating, particularly given all the howls about all the alleged anonymous execration on OTP:
“It was as if that great rush of anger had washed me clean, emptied me of hope, and, gazing up at the dark sky spangled with its signs and stars, for the first time, the first, I laid my heart open to the benign indifference of the universe. To feel it so like myself, indeed, so brotherly, made me realize that I’d been happy, and that I was happy still. For all to be accomplished, for me to feel less lonely, all that remained to hope was that on the day of my execution there should be a huge crowd of spectators and that they should greet me with howls of execration.”
Loading...
Humbert, meet Quilty.
Loading...
Meaning, I assume, the chance encounter between two isomeric anonyms? Each one gazing through the looking glass at his/her bizarro counterpart?
Loading...
Let me count all the ways in which I am right lol. Let me have the last word on every single mention of anything that might be directed at me lol. I was away a few days. All caught up now. Some things haven’t changed, but it’s nice to see someone stirring the pot with thought-provoking satirical (and not so far off base) commentary to help level what this community has already endured from the more prolific writers of (unintentional due to white privileged blinders I am sure) criticisms and/or racist offerings. I shouldn’t like the drama but this time it feels kind of essential.
Loading...
Everybody’s hitting their marks, but what this play needs is a little spontaneity, some departure from a tired script. You are, after all, creative writers, and one would hope that you could conceive of a life beyond the stale ideological prisons of this benighted century.
Sounds very reasonable, Tag in CA!
Still, a few things for your consideration:
1. OTP, like the world writ large, is not a level playing field. The same structural forces at work in the world are also at work on OTP. By suggesting that OTP is somehow a “safe” space where all can identify themselves freely, you signal an allegiance to the very type of “structure-blind” ideology that is exactly the source of so much contention on OTP. You know, bigots and model-T Ford colors and all that. Thus, the OTP-utopia (no-place) that you describe and seem to long for is actually far from reflective of the world in which we live. The world in which we live, of which OTP is both microcosm and exemplar, does not treat all voices and identities equally. Ask George Floyd. Ask Breonna Taylor. Ask Xicano.
2. The relationship between authenticity and identity is far more complex than you represent. You have a method that works for you: signing your typed pages “Tag in CA” and commenting under your real name. This method makes you feel real and healthy and authentic. Great. Good for you. Other methods–including complete and shifting anonymity–may work better for others. May help others feel real and healthy and authentic. Great. Good for them. Your denials aside, there is no need to play doctor (or shrink or existential philosopher or priest) and call one method healthier or more authentic than another.
3. You associate identifying yourself with strength of character, and anonymity, by implication, with weakness. I hear in this formulation refrains of the good old white American masculinity: be a man and name yourself! Only cowards hide behind cloaks! This, too, is what the colonists used to say about the ways Native American peoples fought to protect themselves from White genocide and White theft. (This did not stop the colonists, however, from utilizing the same guerilla tactics in their fight against the British.) It is always the privilege of the structurally strong to associate strength with self-identification and weakness with anonymity, and, indeed, it is one of the rhetorical tactics used by the strong against the weak. Be a real man and name yourself!
4. Although you say you never shitpost, here is no accounting for taste. One person’s shitpost is another person’s gold, and one person’s gold another person’s shitpost. To quote the band you seem to associate only with mindless rebellion:
Some of those that work forces
Are the same that burn crosses
Some of those that work forces
Are the same that burn crosses
Some of those that work forces
Are the same that burn crosses
Some of those that work forces
Are the same that burn crosses
Uh!
Very sincerely yours,
Anonymous and Unpersuaded
Tag,
While I agree in principle with your philosophy re: anonymous posting, I think I can understand the reluctance of some commenters to disclose their identity. During recent “kerfuffles,” some contributors were labeled by a few people as racists or bigots. After some rancor in the comments section, several of their accusers, both in comments and in subsequent posts, actively encouraged them to write more about their allegedly odious beliefs. In their postings, these writers have very distinct voices and styles, making it easy to notice a marked similarity in their invitations to the would-be troglodytes: an eerie alacrity, almost a “said the spider to the fly” intonation. Given that nothing is truly private or secure on the internet, I wouldn’t necessarily consider it paranoid to cloak one’s identity in today’s political and technological environment.
@John Baird
I love that poem, thank you!
I have no issue with hiding the name. Sadly, I love the drama, even though I see no reason to.
I also see no reason in drama, even though some might be quite reasonable.
Healing, forgiveness, revenge, equality… just words of temporary beings.
The world keeps turning but we stop at some point.
We fight, we survive, we exist. And then we don’t anymore.
Makes no sense to drama, makes no sense to fight. Unless you enjoy it.
But that’s just me. You are an entire different universe. And that’s a drama in itself, isn’t it?
“…I laid my heart open to the benign indifference of the universe. To feel it so like
myself, indeed, so brotherly, made me realize that I’d been happy, and that I was
happy still.”
Refreshing.
The full passage may be a tad more illuminating, particularly given all the howls about all the alleged anonymous execration on OTP:
“It was as if that great rush of anger had washed me clean, emptied me of hope, and, gazing up at the dark sky spangled with its signs and stars, for the first time, the first, I laid my heart open to the benign indifference of the universe. To feel it so like myself, indeed, so brotherly, made me realize that I’d been happy, and that I was happy still. For all to be accomplished, for me to feel less lonely, all that remained to hope was that on the day of my execution there should be a huge crowd of spectators and that they should greet me with howls of execration.”
Humbert, meet Quilty.
Meaning, I assume, the chance encounter between two isomeric anonyms? Each one gazing through the looking glass at his/her bizarro counterpart?
Let me count all the ways in which I am right lol. Let me have the last word on every single mention of anything that might be directed at me lol. I was away a few days. All caught up now. Some things haven’t changed, but it’s nice to see someone stirring the pot with thought-provoking satirical (and not so far off base) commentary to help level what this community has already endured from the more prolific writers of (unintentional due to white privileged blinders I am sure) criticisms and/or racist offerings. I shouldn’t like the drama but this time it feels kind of essential.
Everybody’s hitting their marks, but what this play needs is a little spontaneity, some departure from a tired script. You are, after all, creative writers, and one would hope that you could conceive of a life beyond the stale ideological prisons of this benighted century.