Alex is friendly and polite. You can be too.
Please keep the comments clean. We all have negative things to say sometimes, but we're all adults, and we know there are nice was to say negative things. I have been told by some restaurants that they really like to post their menus here, but they are a bit leery of doing so recently because the comments have taken a nastier turn in recent months. I like to spread information and I think we all like to get it. It would be great if the minority that are causing this problem could exercise a little maturity and restraint and not ruin it for us all. I'd prefer not to force people to register, or to have their comments moderated, but I will do both if the situation does not improve. In short, think before you post. Chances are if someone is reading this blog they either live around here, work around here, play around here, or are considering do at least one of those three things. Basically, we're all here together so let's not view the detachment afforded by a computer screen and keyboard as a license to act like jerks.
37 comments:
hear hear!
tru dat!
your comments are testimony to why residents and the business-community respect this blog...
Ken
Is this the same mutha fucka who stole my daffodils?
Joe Englert said:
Elise, I don't know how far you should go in editing comments.
1) Ban any statements that would be slander or libel: i.e., "He is a child molester, felon," etc.
2) I think it is a mistake to muffle criticism of the restaurants....I think we are all big boys and girls in the business. Sure, it sucks to hear that someone had a shitty time at your restaurant, but that's the ropes. There is equal opportunity for people that like your place to chime in. Is it cheap that people pile-on on the web? Sure. But that's the nature of the beast. Hopefully, your fans will outweigh them in any response.
3) The race/class/socio-economic discussions are mean, nasty drag-em out affairs.......They are ugly and wonderful all at the same time. Isn't any sort of dialogue, venting, strutting, posturing; healthy in alot of ways?
Where else do you get to hear these sorts of debates? Usually, no one is dead right or wrong. Let people fight anonymously, too. It is hard for most people to speak in public about their inner fears and opinions. Why stifle any sort of expression?
I think this blog is a great way for neighbors black, white, gay, whatever to weigh in. (Mostly) let em fight it out.........it might be nerve-racking for some, but for others it is simply a learning experience...........
Joe Englert,
I criticism is useful, and discussion is good. I'm just asking people to be respectful of each other when they criticize and discuss. I very rarely actually pull comments. Comment moderation is time consuming and a pain for me and everyone else. It's a very extreme step, and one I never want to have to take. But I have heard from too many people that they no longer comment for fear of being personally attacked. I think some of the more aggressive responses are stifling open discussion.
Anon 10:54..be nice
I don't get it, Elise. If someone is willing to put out a potentially douchebag comment, then shouldn't they be the focal point of criticisms? I understand about the hostility, but if it weren't for stronger opinions of some people on this blog, like hillman, tom, and george, or even poo poo sometimes, I don't think I would want to read this blog as often as I do. I for one enjoy viewing opposing comments on opinions. It's what makes the internet great, interacting with folks you normally wouldn't.
Well, let's see... I stopped reading DCist a long time ago due to the idiocy in the comments section. To see some of the same posters move on over here and continue the same idiocy is not all that great. I won't name names out of respect for people I shouldn't really respect but will.
To see neighbors acting about as un-neighborly as you can get is not all that great, either. Debating every last minutia of some new business, especially by apparently omniscient, wise masters of business who, for some reason, do not own any of said businesses is wonderful, only if by wonderful you mean "pointless," "annoying" and "occasionally enraging."
Point is, these people are most often better left ignored.
Thanks again to Elise for being level-headed and providing this great source of information.
--Claudio on Linden Court
8th and el,
go ahead and criticize. I agree, that kind of stuff does happen. People should be called on it. I just don't want to see discussions turn into over the top angry rants.
There are a lot of topics that people are averse to discussing in company such as religion, race, abortion, capital punishment and interracial dating as they are considered taboo topics at social gatherings. It's nice to have a forum that allows one to discuss these so-called taboo topics in the context of the neighborhood.
I agree that comments get a little out of hand at times but overall I think this is a great place for people to say want to say in regards to our community.
It's the internet-I guess I don't understand people's fear of being attacked. Say what you want to say-what will happen to you?
The anonymity, if chosen, of this space allows people to voice concerns that may not be able or willing to do otherwise.
In regards to meanie posters..ignore them!
lol! neo, i must have missed the interracial dating thread on ft. when exactly was that??
Agree totally with Joe Englert's comment.
Just curious though Joe, is it considered slanderous or libel to attack an Anonymous or a Pseudonym post? And what if the slander-er is an Anonymous Pseudonym? Seems difficult to even police this to me.
Joe Englert said:
Excellent comment. Yes, go ahead and attack anybody with a psuedonym or face moniker.
Do not say, "Joe Englert eats at TGIF, Bennigans or Ruby Tuesday". I will sue.
I am spiritually with Inked. I would like things to be sweeter. But, as I have said, some of the arguments and counter arguments are fascinating. To see how differently Robby and Hillman view the world and D.C. is fascinating. Neither of them is right or wrong. And I see it no more mean-spirited or libel-laced as a panel discussion on Chris Matthews. I would love to have a beer in the middle of the two of them and let them continue their debate.
I agree. Be nicer. But please, don't stop fighting.......
so the comments surrounding the roadblocks on this site and others (brightestyoungthings) have dabbled in ignorance and offensiveness, and while at first i had the reaction of "man i'd really enjoy a decent dialogue that didn't involve these assholes" i think in hindsight it's good to realize that people still think in those terms (and probably always will)
so my vote is for keeping comments open, with a reminder to other posters that there's no law that says you have to dignify utter garbage with a response
But then Joe, how could you sue someone named "Robby" who may or may not be a real racist or even the REAL Anonymous for that matter? I mean what if "Hillman" said, "Joe Englert eats PooPoo", can you still sue? After all, that's still better than saying you eat at Applebees. Oh no! Does this mean Applebees can sue?
- Anonymous (the REAL one)
Yeah neo, I don't get the whole inter-racial dating taboo issue either. Please explain. And I never thought about it in the same way you don't discuss religion and politics in mixed company or at social gatherings where you don't already know everyone.
Where are you from ? Seriously
Joe Englert said:
I think it is patently offensive not to have an opinion--but once somebody has an opinion, he or she can offend a whole cross-section of people just by owning it.
I live in monolithic Northwest where you must have the same opinion as everybody else: liberal-kneejerkism. If you don't tow the party line, watch out, you will be censored.
How refreshing to hear the people of Northeast speak and let it all hang out: it's okay to question a little, to push the bounderies a little, to doubt a little. It is called dissent and exploration.
Former close neighbor of the Rivershack said:
Well stated, Joe. Refreshing and humble on all points. No wonder you're a Saints fan. There's no way that could be considered libel, could it?. Who dat!
How do you feel about "I'm glad the business burned down"? Or even "I think (the owners) probably burned the business down intentionally for the insurance money"? We've had those two comments on here, spoken to the folks from Jimmy's Tire as they posted here after the fire (!), and try as I might, I can't fathom how either can be seen as a positive contribution (in fact, one is borderline libelous).
There's a big difference between "I think you're wrong about that, because of reasons X, Y and Z" and "You're a stupid __(fill in epithet of your choice here)__ for even thinking such a thing." I strongly support the former, even when I'm the one being criticized (in fact, especially so). The latter, OTOH, typically makes me give up on this blog for a while, no matter who the target is. It adds nothing good, and a whole lot that's bad.
Other than encouraging people to be more human, I don't know what the answer is. I hate moderation. But I also don't like the tone of discourse becoming such that the discourse has no use except to help some people vent anger and convince other people not to bother participating.
I love reading this blog and agree with others that people should continue to post. I don’t agree, however, with posts meant to denigrate individuals. Deferring opinions is what makes this blog so interesting and fun. Though I admit that when you're the topic of discussion, as I was a few weeks ago during the ANC 6C05 special election, it’s not fun anymore. Some discretion would be nice. Anyway, I suppose you just have to take things with a grain of salt.
I think everyone should be made to register a google profile. That way (unless they really want to make multiple profiles) it'll be plain if one person is making over-the-line comments again and again. That profile can then be locked out.
are you serious with the surprise that discussing inter-racial dating in mixed company is taboo???? where are you from is a better question? In an enviroment where one feels safe one may say something off-handed regarding the topic of inter-racial marriage or dating. Ex. Does Harold Ford seriously think black people will vote for him with a young blonde girl on his arm now (his new wife). But I doubt that topic would come up or be phrased in that way in mixed company. Now if that is a surprise to someone you clearly aren't around people of diverse races who are "keeping it real" with you. We may live in a progressive enviroment but some things are still taboo. I don't think the original poster was saying he/she read this on FT or saw this topic on FT. I think he/she was simply giving examples of taboo topics.
Joe Englert said "Do not say, "Joe Englert eats at TGIF, Bennigans or Ruby Tuesday". I will sue."
ROFLOL.
Joe - me too, man, me too.
PS - I love mini golf. Keep the good stuff comin!
I know the answer....
HEADLINE: "FROZEN TROPICS" BECOMES "FROZEN TOPICS" AS INKED WILL NO LONGER POST CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES THAT ELICIT MEAN RESPONSES!
Wow! I read the whole thread and I can't believe most missed Inks' point, at least I ass@u&me is her point. Keep the debate, no matter how taboo or irreverent, about the debate-topic and not about the individual debater. Once you cross that line, the debate is over in my opinion.
No hitting people over the head with your shoes!
k-dawg
it's 2008 and we're in washington, dc. i don't see how interracial dating is taboo in this time and in this place. am i missing something??
Good point k-dawg, but what if the topic of debate IS about a public individual or even an online pseudonym? I mean is that really capable of being "controlled" - other than monitoring or registering users, which I think would kill the blog of open, honest, and yes, sometimes hurtfull dialog.
I mean is there really any harm in saying:
Annwarr is lazy. OR
Gibson Berns' is running a ghetto club with his Club XIII. OR
I get my crack at the Black & Red. OR "Robby" (whoever that is) thinks Marion Barry should be Obama's running mate. OR I saw Joe Englert at the Olive Garden last week!
I mean it seems like readers take this stuff with a grain of salt, believe some of it leave some of it. And every now and then someone gets defensive about what what said about them, their race, or their business and they come on here and defend themselves - and again, we decide what we want to believe. I think its the free excange of comments (both good and bad)thats what makes this blog so interesting.
Anon 8:05. Was correct. I wasn't referring to any previous thread on FT about interracial dating. Forget about it being a taboo topic in social company, take the example of the self proclaimed liberal industry that hollywood is. Have they even once shown Denzel Washington, Will Smith or any other African American actor romantically involved with a white actress (unless it's a movie about interracial dating such as Jungle fever by Spike Lee) in a mainstream blockbuster? None. Think of Pelican brief, Bone collector. While they would go out of their way to romantically pair a white actor with a white actress even if he happens to be gay!! If they ever did so, the movies will a complete flop in much of the nation in a fear that it may lead to an acceptance of interracial relationships as a norm. Because people are still queasy about any hint of interracial mixing. All is good where as work, living, schooling, equal opportunity is concerned, but keep away from our women is the general message.
NEO is exactly right. Will Smith said in an interview on Oprah that he was paired with Eva Mendes in Hitched because when people see two blk. people in a romantic comedy they automatically decide "oh that's a black movie" and will not go. Black people will go but when making big budget movie you need everyone to go. And if they paired him with a white woman many people would not go and see it..black or white.
Also people are less apt to say in mixed company...I am really glad Barack Obama is married to a black woman because he would NOT have he support of the black community if he werent....BUT I promise that is what so many African American people are saying about him. I can promise you if Barack Obama was married to a white woman, the blk community would have voted for Hillary in much higher numbers. YES...race does still matter in this country. It matters when a place like XII opened and all the racial comments were flying about people's fear of young black men fighting etc. It matters when Chris Matthews asks "If white people in mid America will vote for a black man" and it matters when dating. There are definately a lot of people out there who have strong opinions and it places inter-racial dating into the category of "taboo" Because a lot of people will not give their HONEST opinion in mixed company.
I believe I once read an interview with Denzel Washington where he said he didn't kiss his white co-star (or refused to be paired w/ a white woman in a romantic movie...can't remember which) because he was mindful of how his black female fans would react to that.
The previous two comments are examples of "good" comments in my mind, even though they're about a controversial topic. The dividing line is the personal attacks that show up in a lot of comments.
Definately...we dicussed a few topics and gave some examples w/o attacking H is for Happy for his opinion that inter-racial dating may not be taboo. I think people know when they are being mean and nasty. It did not require NEO or myself to call H is for Happy any ugly or rude names while just sharing some thoughts. Let's keep it that way!
i can personally attest to the fact that h is for happy is a low-down lazy, ghetto, crack selling, Marion Barry apologist who loves eating at olive garden, but i'm glad you guys chose not to point those things out about me.... er uh, i mean him.
So ...
Has anyone noticed the majority of the profanity-loving pro-free speechers go by the name anonymous?
Sigh.
Why not counter a point with a point (showing you can actually think) rather than make false accusations or toss out provocative statements to deliberately cause an emotional response? Those tactics remove any shred of your credibility, you know.
Opinionated people are the best. The U.S. doesn't have enough opinionated people. Don't you want your opinion to show you've thought about something? Who are you trying to impress? What's your point? Are you trying to get a debate going? Do you want to attract more people to the blog? (you could use more people, btw)
Who are you trying to attract? Emotional Reactionaries? What's the point of that? Okay, you get them interested, you have your little tiff ... then what? You want to argue in the ether? Is that your point?
Why not attract opinionated people with actual opinions? Be clever. You can do it.
I agree with many: The FT blog has been fairly reactionary lately and it gets derivative (that means all those 'db' references lose their sting, btw). Yes, it's been boring. Now they're escalting with swearwords and off-topic provocation. Huh. Neat.
Free speech is free speech. We can say anything we want. We all appreciate free speech. But I honestly don't know how anyone believes free speech means they can deliberatly show off feigned ignorance. You're just undermining yourself. But, go ahead. Be my guest.
Wouldn't the best response to things we don't like here be to not respond at all? I mean that's what the offensive composer wants is for others to respond. We give them exactly what they want when we do. If you don't like what someone says then move on, and eventually so will they.
My philosophy is “how would it make me feel.” So, turnabout is fair play. Let’s offer a proposal to the "other side": associates of businesses get together, anonymously, and post comments about us customers. They could say “did you see those highlights and that fat stomach sklerching out of that tube top - - and that was just the husband.” Or, “that shrew of a wife, her ear hair and those urchins of children.” Or, "he was in X place, with his wife, but then we saw him in Y place across town, making out with some kid." Or, "my friend works for her, and was shocked when I said her boss was loud-mouthed and wasted." No, you'd never do that, so it's not true - but it's truth when on a blog. Explain it to your partner or friend, they'll understand. We’d all read it, and with a good description, we'd know exactly who they were talking about. They could track us by description, just like they do movie stars on websites -- but in this case, they wouldn’t be distant personalities, but our neighbors. Or me, or you. And our boss could learn about us, just like their bosses know when we comment about them. Freedom of speech. And if you wound up on this site, you wouldn’t know who trashed you, because it’s untraceable. Remember what folks said about so-called "gel-haired guy?" Let’s experience what he felt. I bet its enriching. It'll keep us on the up-and-up, just like we know it did him. And none of us would be in an uproar, with excuses and protests, because we are strong supporters of freedom of speech and open debate.
And to think Big Brother was going to be that authoritarian society that controlled information. Surprise - - it’s the exact opposite. It’s now in a democratic, free-information society. Big Brother is the unaccountable, anonymous, diffuse, untraceable masses. Funny, it never existed before the Internet - - careless, uncivil, flippant comments that influenced people to reach wrong conclusions. Oh wait -- I guess it did exist before the internet. You can’t get your coworkers to keep you in the loop about important stuff - - but if its gossip and innuendo, the wildfire efficiency of your being informed is stunning. And you thought you escaped it by leaving high school and moving here - - your unfairly-earned reputation now lost in the mists of time. Think again. Big Brother is indeed watching you, and he is us.
sadly I don't read DCist either for the same reason as Claudio, and I am happy that I don't have as many writers on my blog as does Inked, otherwise I might get irked. The only comments I ever delete are spam. I am finally learning to ignore the negative comments about me here, and just not responding.
(As the moderator of a couple of neighborhood lists--I will pass this duty off as I don't live in the H Street neighborhood anymore--I only add comments to an entry, or don't send an entry when it contains multiple errors of fact .)
Re the Jimmy's Tire thing, I know that people have suggested to me similar things when any place burns down, and I know that such has certainly happened in the past (I have a blog entry called "arson as a redevelopment strategem") but I guess you just have to deal with people and the way they think, and take it as an opportunity to get a different perspective.
I am all for quality criticism and I don't believe that "you have to offer solutions in order to be empowered to offer criticism" but I do wish people who are not involved but so quick to judge and write mean things would get off their asses and contribute not only to the dialogue but to fundamental improvements in the material conditions that enervate them so
Post a Comment