More Political Correctness — 18 Comments

  1. You said it Grandad!

    I’m not even going to read that code of conduct because … well I won’t!

  2. Welcome ICL!

    There’s nothing much to it. Not worth reading really.

    But I am sick of being told how to run my life.

  3. Grandad it is good to see granny looking herself again!

    Hope she keeps you in your place now.

  4. The wave of resentment I have created pleases me …

    I agree with you completely. Tim O’ Reilly, the Noel Edmonds look-a-like who called for this, did so because a blogger named Kathy Sierra received death threats. While noble in intention, that is a matter for the criminal courts, not for the blogging world, in much the same way that prank phone calls are dealt with.

    I agree with you in that I resent being told how to run my blog: you censor swearing, I don’t, the freedom we have to do this simple thing may well be affected by the BCC. This is an extract from a comment I left on O’Reilly’s site:
    … and this will create an Orwellian dystopia whereby comments and posting will not be at the whim of the author, rather, at the hands of some faceless bureaucracy, much like the Ministry of Truth from 1984. You cannot censor the right to free speech, Mr. O’Reilly ….

    This comment was then taken down because it was in ‘contravention of the BCC.’ To use an old Cavan town phrase:

    I swear to God, see you hi!’
    Malicious intent intended.

  5. I am going to make up a little badge kinda’ thing to put up on my blog stating that my blog has failed the BCC.
    How about this Blogging Code Conduct —-
    Act right or I’ll ignore you!!!

    I’m with you in that the rules as stated are good but the idea that I am required to follow them because someone, somewhere says so, is wrong.
    My self regulation works much better and doesn’t intrude on others.

  6. Dario,

    I think you have just proved how stupid their idea is. They can now remove comments because they “contravene” the BCC [i.e. they don’t like the comment]. You are spot on about 1984.

    However, I don’t see what they can really do.

    Unless they can persuade the free blog-hosting sites to tag along [which I doubt], then what exactly do they propose to do about it? My blog has its own server. They can’t touch that under any circumstances.

    If anyone ever wrote to me and said I contravened the BCC, they would get a reply that would contravene not only every rule in the BCC but quite a few others as well.

    This has to be a voluntary thing. I shall ignore it. As you say, I don’t swear that much on my site [unless I am really frustrated by something]. That is a self imposed thing. I decided it, and I follow it. People are free to swear in my comments if they wish, but there are certain thing I don’t allow such as people getting into a slagging match.

    Thanks for your inspiration!!

  7. Good on ya, Brianf. We’ll all have to have a little competition to see who can come up with the best badge to stick on a blog!!!

    “I am proud to have failed the BCC”

    “This blog self-regulates and will self-destruct in 15 seconds”……

  8. There is an insidious agenda at work. The Net is the ultimate in anarchic structures and the Blog is the high point of freedom of speech – some people just can’t cope with such a disorderly world.

    I get p’d off that as a Christian I don’t have the same rights as other religious groups – they can say pretty much what they like, and some of the fundamentalist Islamic stuff is pretty extreme, with impunity. Should I say one word in response or suggest that Saudi society probably isn’t the height of civilised living, then the authorities come down on my head.

    The problem is that liberalism contains within it the seeds of its own destruction.

  9. I love to read Grandad in full flight. I tune in hoping that there will be a fierce rant going on.

    We’ve had our skirmish over the law and wearing seatbelts and it would be boring to repeat that.

    But, what’s the harm in someone trying to bring in a code of conduct? What’s the hard in someone making their name in the effort to civilize bloggers? By getting upset about it, you add to their publicity, you swell their sense of fighting the good fight against evil ways.

    Let the bloggers’ code of conduct live. It won’t prevent you broadcasting your point of view. It give some people something to cluster around. It enables some people to feel a sense of shared values, to be part of an “us” versus a “them” (the ones who have not signed the code).

    The USA seems to have a thriving community of people who believe they are “saved”. This is surely another such community – the saved bloggers.

    I’m glad they exist because they give me another social group to study. They have added to the diversity of bloggers. In my mind they are the “holier than thou” bloggers. Harmlessly gathering their wits.

  10. Ah, Omani! Where would I be without you?

    Just when I’m having a quiet stroll down the lane of anarchy, you come jumping out of the hedge and snap at my heels like a demented terrier.

    I have a good mind to delete your comment under Rule 1, Clause 1 of the Blogger’s Code of Conduct, but I won’t because I believe in free speech, and I don’t believe in the BCC. So there. Consider yourself saved by my ignoring the very thing you are trying to promote.

    Seriously though – are you kidding when you say “. It enables some people to feel a sense of shared values, to be part of an “usâ€? versus a “themâ€? ? I hope so. Are you promoting a two tier blogging world? What a ghastly thought!

    The main thrust of my post is that I hate the smugness of people who ‘know what is best for me’. I know what’s best for me. If I fall on my own sword, then I have removed my own stupidity from the world. Darwin rules, and all that.

    Nor am I advertising the BCC. There are enough bloggers out there flaming it, that my humble effort will have little effect.

    So help me out here Omani – do I abide by the BCC and delete all your future comments, or do I carry on my own form of anarchy so that you can “tune in hoping that there will be a fierce rant going on”?

    The choice is yours.


  11. Ah now come on Grandad… Be fair. I’m not advocating a Code of Practice. Far from it. If I’m advocating anything it’s wry amusement towards the advocates of such a code.

    I don’t really think there is any harm in what they are doing. They are broadcasting their point of view and hoping to lead a consensus. Some people feel a need to become a leader, to find some followers, to divide the world into those who subscribe and those who don’t.

    I knew you wouldn’t delete my comment. Or I should say, I felt sure you wouldn’t.

    Also, nothing I say will make the slightest difference to what you will do. You strike me as your own man. I’ll have to take you like that because there is nothing else on offer.
    But I can’t think of you as an anarchist. To me you’re a libertarian (not a librarian).

  12. Sorry Omani – I meant to reply, and got distracted. Old age again!

    Libertarian. I love it! That is me.

    I agree in this case that people are free to set up a code of conduct. People can set up what they like. As long as they don’t tell me to abide by it. They can ask, and I might well oblige. But tell me, and I will rebel.

    Ask me not to smoke in a pub, and I will very happily oblige. Tell me not to smoke in a pub and I will hit the roof.

    My rant is with the Nanny State and people telling me what’s good for me. I know what’s good for me [and what’s bad]. You are right. I believe in Liberty and the freedom of choice.

    As I have said before, laws should be there to protect others from me [and vice versa] and not to protect me from myself. I know you’ll say the smoking yoke doesn’t come under this [you’re right, I suppose], but plenty of others do.

  13. You guys are nuts. The bcc isn’t intended for censorship or regimentation of the blogosphere, it’s intended to give blog owners a moral leg to stand on when the say, “I’m deleting/removing/disemvovelling your comment because it’s abusive/trollish/etc.” There’s no push to enact the bcc on every blog. And I would submit that Head Rambles already follows the bcc. Comments here are generally civil without vicious flaming. That is the whole essence of the bcc. Golden Rule and all that.

  14. BTW. This is somewhat disassociated from the topic at hand, but I thought I would point out that having an image of a woman flipping you the bird, but censoring f*ck and b*st*rds is somewhat contradictory. Obscenity has a place in rhetoric. Use it! (I happened to have posted about this just the other day)

  15. LOL.

    Good point!

    It’s an old post now so I’ll leave it there. The reason I do the asterisk thingy is a bit like people talking about the F word – everyone knows what they are saying without actually saying it.

    Frankly I think some blogs rely too much on swearing, and I tend to use it if the context requires it, or if I’m really worked up about something. Which is often.

    Re – “You guys are nuts” – yes. I wouldn’t be blogging otherwise.

    Re – “And I would submit that Head Rambles already follows the bcc” – do you think everyone should copy and paste my Disclaimer? Thanks BTW. I’ll take that as a compliment.

    I did have a bit of flaming once. Two people started flaming each other, so I deleted both of them. They then started flaming me. You can’t win!!

Hosted by Curratech Blog Hosting