Monday, April 7, 2014

How does James McGrath respond to people threatening others on his blog?

Simple: by writing a post where he questions whether anyone really has the right to comment anonymously when you get right down to it.

On the one hand we have Stuart32 - aka, Skippy - continuing to try and threaten me, talking about all the bad things that could happen if I were to keep writing comments and discussing things online. You know, talking about how my employer may frown on it all, that there may be repercussions. You'd think the fact that I've A) told him outright his information is bad, and B) have not only failed to keep quiet, but have ramped up my comments, would get it through to him that he's fucked up - but apparently Skippy is slow.

But Skippy's not the star here. It's James McGrath.

See, all of this is happening right on James' blog. He has the ability to throw down a ban - to at least so much as give a warning - for someone engaging in the antics that Stuart32 is. I've confronted him directly about this, he damn well knows what's going on.

And what's the response of the "progressive" Christian? To opine about whether or not people really have a right to be anonymous after all. Why, he thinks that the world would be far more... polite, if anonymity were denied to them in all venues.

No doubt, James. No doubt.

Perhaps the best part so far - happened while I was writing this - was James going on to say that he didn't feel the need to intervene with Stuart because... well, I alleged that Stuart had the wrong guy, so that seemed to settle the matter in his mind.

Think about that one for a moment.

James McGrath thinks that if person A threatens person B, reveals what they believe are real life details about them, repeatedly talks about how much they know about B and all the bad things that can happen if the wrong people got this information... well, that's okay if B denies that A has the right person, or the right information. A little like saying that blackmailing someone isn't morally problematic if the blackmailer fucked up and doesn't have actually damning information.

The irony in all of this is that, during my first interaction with him, James kept asking why I was writing anonymously, and I mentioned the sort of repercussions one can experience in today's modern climate for expressing views that ran contrary to what was accepted. Gosh, I wonder why....

No comments: