This is my possibly futile attempt to harness some of the emotion that I have felt reading and responding to the original diary of diaries from everybody's newest friend, Erinn1.
I acknowledge that there are competing camps concerning the trollitude of the original diary, and I don't really know or care how it was meant.
I'm more interested in paraphrasing Woody Harrelson in People V Larry Flynt, specifically his statement that "unpopular speech is the only speech worth protecting." More on the flip.
Rather than going for style points, I'll try to keep it simple. As a veteran of the fuckedcompany.com wars, I know all too well the fury of angry idealists. Here are my points:
1) Opportunity cost. (effective) The world is boiling and we're all lobsters. Bush has gutted the Constitution. The Democrats don't seem to have a succinct message to draw stupid voters. Do we really need thousands of comments and multiple diaries to respond to one angry Erinn?
2) What's the deal with the responses? 'I just copied everything you ever wrote and I'm a gonna use it against you cause you disagree with me'? Effective, but so were the Brownshirts. That doesn't jive with my definition of progressive.
3) Okay, they're just joking around. I can sort of buy that. But it sounds like a slippery slope to me. Specifically, the subtle and not so subtle comments that seem to reinforce the Third Wave Theory. Are Kossacks really that predictable?
4) Which leads me to Goldberg and the Two Minutes Hate. I don't like the idea that the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no expectation of privacy in public. I hate the fucking cameras and the fingerprinting and having to show an ID virtually every time one turns around. And even though I don't totally agree with Erinn1's argument or devices towards St Kos, I understand not only her concerns, but her right to have and articulate (however inarticulately) these concerns. But that's part of the social contract. I don't have to like it, but what I don't understand is why ostensible fellow travelers seem compelled to rub the idea of privacy into Erinn1's face. Are these posters just fascists who want universal health care? Are they just young and ignorant? Or are their thoughts so prematurely organized that they don't see the hyprocracy in condemning someone who doesn't follow the proper protocol, and proving the point that I believe Orwell was trying to make all along?
Agree, disagree, ignore, I don't care. I believe in free markets and free speech. Que sera sera.