The following is a follow up on BZ’s earlier posts regarding Anonymity, Credibility, Behavior Change and other issues. BZ had posted several guest blogs here, and received useful comments from guests and other bloggers. Here, BZ summarizes and responds.

I am in the position of grading BZ for this work. His grade will be based on how many comments he gets, so please help him out!1

– – – – – – – – – – – –

Over the course of a couple weeks I had the opportunity to have some commentary posted on this blog, with the goal that people would respond to the statement, sometimes answering questions asked, sometime contributing to the topic from their own viewpoint. This post is my take on what I thought were the most important messages conveyed by the responses to each of my posts.

My first post was Anonymity & Credibility

ResearchBlogging.orgBates, Anthis, & Smith write in their 2008 article Advancing Science through Conversations: Bridging the Gap between Blogs and the Academy “Because many science bloggers are practicing scientists or experts in their field, they can provide a unique educational bridge between academia and the public and distill important experimental findings into an accessible, interactive format.” (Bates, 2008). Blogging clearly plays an important role in our information intake – but what did the responses to my post about information presented by anonymous sources have to say? By far, I think the biggest take home message from the responses gathered is that we as readers tend to use our own judgment to determine what sources we feel are more reliable than others, and that trust plays the largest role in this personal judgment call.

“Personal judgment is a filter for credibility and reliability at all times, I believe. Different newspapers, TV networks, commentaries, websites, blogs, etc., are more or less reliable depending on the experiences or knowledge I bring to them. I don’t think you can forego all your background when analyzing information. When reading blogs, I look at the blogger’s information. Even if the name remains anonymous, I look for credentials that give the blog credibility, comments on the blog written by people who seem to know what they are talking about, the number of hits the blog has. For others, these may not be sources of credibility.” -Raul

“Like people, some blogs are more reliable than others. When reporting information from anonymous sources, journalists frequently give some indication about quality you can expect, e.g.: ‘a usually reliable source,’ ‘an anonymous source high up in the current administration,’ “a senior administration official who refuses to be identified as the vide president,” ‘a complete idiot off the street who says he is a plumber but is not licensed as such,’ and so forth. And so reports on what ‘the blogs’ are doing might also contain some clues about how accurate those blogs are expected to be. I have my own litmus test for reliability” – Virgil

My second post was Anonymity & Behavior Change

I was a bit disappointed to find that the majority of posters on Greg Laden’s blog are apparently good natured folks that wouldn’t dream of misrepresenting themselves or behaving (acting?) any differently online than in person. Most research I’ve read in this area suggests otherwise from most users of the Internet, leading me to believe that the readers here are obviously unique.

Stephanie Zvan runs a blog that attempts to outline some of the tactics used by individuals who maliciously try to cause problems and otherwise behavior poorly in a virtual community in her 2008 post How to Hijack a Thread. Some of the key steps include:

  • Lay your groundwork. Watch the group interaction. Make yourself known to the community. Engage on a topic or two. Piss a few people off so they’ll react to you reliably later.
  • Build a fire. Say something known to be controversial. Be sure to compliment community members–in the most backhanded way possible.
  • Make yourself the injured party. Re characterize any objections to your statements as referenda on your character. Loudly protest your ignorance of even the concept of a dog whistle. Of course you didn’t say that. Abuse yourself sarcastically in strong terms to show how misunderstood you are.

Virtual communities allow for someone to plan their attract with some forethought. It would be interesting to interview a wide variety of individuals to find out if they behave that way in real world situations, or if the internet allows them to behave in a way that is different from face to face community interaction. What studies are available on this topic say that yes, we as humans are more prone to behaving differently online than in person.
Stephen Doheny-Farina, author of The Wired Neighborhood, describes an incident where a fellow MediaMoo user told him that his interests “sucked” and then logged off of the system. Farina was a bit shocked (despite earlier mentioning that he felt more casual and free interacting online) by this behavior, not recalling ever being told that he or his interests sucked to his face at a professional conference. Then it dawned on Farina – this person did not tell him that he sucked to his face; he was far more removed than that. It may also lead to extremes such as in the case studies done by Sherry Turkle as described in her book Life on the Screen where people explore different identities by pretending they are a different person than they are in real life.

My third post was Subjective Management of Forums/Blogs

It would seem that again, the reader values personal judgment. In this instance, reading a forum, blog, or other information source must be done over some length of time so that moderation may be witnessed first hand, and from this a personal “fairness” meter comes into play, informing the reader of whether the actions taken were justified or not.

“Institutions may wish to implement more formal vetting mechanisms, however, such as periodic review by institutional moderators or peer review by official committees of blog-literate individuals, established scientists, and bloggers. Institutions might use one of a variety of mechanisms to confer a visible token of this review–such as a “blog badge”–in order to both reward quality bloggers and help readers identify trusted blogs.” (Bates, 2008). This stamp of approval concept is an interesting one – rather than invest your time into multiple blogs to determine if they are of quality, you defer to a system that you can trust.

Tang commented on this topic: “I used to regularly read a news site called Indymedia that was supposed to be a forum for independent amateur journalists from around the world to share newsworthy articles and multimedia over the internet, a few years before anyone had heard of the word “blogging”. Since the site was founded on the values of free speech, the management decided to make the site a completely open forum with no limits on posting articles or comments. The site quickly went over to whoever could shout the loudest, spam the most articles, and spend the most time always getting in the last word in the forums. Meanwhile, quality information and debate dried up as anyone with a brain stopped contributing. That made me a firm believer in the benevolent dictator model.” Tang goes on to describe a different model: “Slashdot took a different approach and introduced the system of having moderators from the user base rank comments as valuable or worthless, and hiding the least valuable contents from the average user. It works well on a site with a large user base like Slashdot (and as a side benefit it relieves the admin of having to manage the comments) but smaller sites can get overrun by a large enough set of ideologically like-minded activists.” Later Tang points out a major issue with this method of moderation: “User based moderation a la Slashdot tends to lead to groupthink. Try arguing that Windows is a decent product or that the RIAA has a legal right to sue song warezers. You won’t get far with anyone. There’s also an interesting pattern about how people rate. No matter the high ideals and nuanced design that went into a ratings system, the bulk of users will only rate posts as I Agree (+max) and I Disagree (-max).”

Stephanie Zvan blogged on this topic, in her 2009 blog entitled Looking Like a Noob, writing: “It’s always a little strange when I’m out in the blogosphere and run into someone who really ought to know better but persists in acting like the n00biest of n00bs. Someone who still doesn’t understand that you don’t get to have things both ways. For example: If you use a theory to support argument, and someone goes to the trouble of finding a critique of the theory, you don’t get to say, ‘Nah, I don’t want to read it right now. I don’t really want to talk about the theory.'” Zvan continues: “Okay, the usual caveat about rules applies. The blogosphere is a freewheeling, anarchic place. Subject to the whims of the blog administrator, you can do any of these things. You do have choices–but they have consequences.”

Using our own personal judgment plays a role again in this topic: if a “dictator” method is employed, do we find the actions of the dictator acceptable? Or are they abusing their power? In a hive-mind method, do we follow the pack, or resist it, only to be frustrated by the overwhelming backlash of comments/moderation not allowing other viewpoints to breathe? These are questions we must answer for ourselves when determining what the blog’s information can be consumed as (we may still read a blog that has moderation we disagree with, and take that knowledge into mind – the information available there may be very one sided).

My final post was Subjective Filtering of Internet Content

In this case, everyone seemed to be on the same page. It was generally felt that our personal rights are squashed when governments or organizations tell us what is acceptable to read. Most posters also had personal experience displaying how filtering was hindering productivity.

“As someone who frequently contributes to the English Wikipedia I was involved in the recent filtering attempt by British ISPs. The filtering was at best ineffective if one knew about it but had the serious problem of massively reducing functionality of Wikipedia for British users while it was active” – Joshua Zelinksky

“Early on in browsers, some bluenose decided that “beaver” was obscene. Among those unfairly impacted were:
1. Beaver County, Oklahoma, and its county seat, Beaver
2. Beaver County, Oklahoma, and its county seat, Beaver
3. Beaver County, Pennsylvania, with its county seat, Beaver, the city of Beaver Falls, and the borough of Big Beaver
4. Beaver County, Utah, with its county seat, Beaver
5. Beaver State Park in Oklahoma
6. Little Beaver State Park in West Virginia
7. Beaver College in Pennsylvania, which changed its name to Arcadia University
8. Beaver Stadium at the University Park Campus of Penn State University” – CRM-114

“I work in a school. Obviously we need internet filters for the student server. But the teacher server also had a filter. This prevented teachers from having access to You Tube videos. Many teachers were annoyed that they couldn’t use some very neat You Tube videos to support what they were teaching. Recently, the administration and IT Team decided to allow access and provided teachers with instruction on how to use You Tube professionally. For example, they explained teachers shouldn’t search You Tube while displaying results to students because often you’ll see things you didn’t intend.” -Serena

What I learned from this exercise is that personal judgment plays a large role in determining the credibility of information posted. This was true of situations were the information was presented anonymously, or in situations were subjective filtering of content took place.

I also learned that most everyone agrees that some filtering is needed in various non-private situations (such as the workplace or school) but also acknowledge that the systems in place are faulty and cumbersome.

I’d like to thank everyone who responded and Greg for sharing his spot on the web with me. I hope that these comments were stimulating in some way, and that they were both though provoking and enjoyable to read.

Is it acceptable that we expose ourselves to such a mass amount of information, only having our own personal judgment (or what we perceive to be our own judgment – we may just be following the pack in some cases as Tang pointed out in his comments) as a filter?

What could be done to improve information filtering? Most of us agree on some basics of what should and should not be acceptable in the workplace or for children, but how do we address this issue more fully?

Works Cited

Batts, S., Anthis, N., & Smith, T. (2008). Advancing Science through Conversations: Bridging the Gap between Blogs and the Academy PLoS Biology, 6 (9) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060240

Doheny-Farnia, Stephen. (1996). The Wired Neighborhood. Connecticut: Yale

Turkle, Sherry. (1995). Life on the Screen. New York: Touchstone.

Zvan, Stephanie (2008). How to Hijack a Thread. Available: Accessed January 15th, 2009.

Zvan, Stephanie (2009). Looking Like a N00b. Available: Accessed January 15th, 2009.

1Only kidding about the grades being based on comment count.


  1. #1 Jason Thibeault
    April 29, 2009

    The only thing I could add to this is that one could fill a sociology thesis on 4chan alone. Still scarred from the last time I ended up there via Slashdot, and even braved it once more when Fox brayed about it. I shudder to even invoke its dread name, lest its anonymous legions overrun this place.

  2. #2 sailor
    April 29, 2009

    I am afraid I missed all your posts originally, must have been off wifi or out of time.

    Is it acceptable that we expose ourselves to such a mass amount of information, only having our own personal judgment (or what we perceive to be our own judgment – we may just be following the pack in some cases as Tang pointed out in his comments) as a filter?

    Absolutely! All through life you have to make your own judgments about people, advertising, information and more. There is nothing sacred in taditional forms of communications. Books that distort the truth are common (I think some anti-vaxer bimbo just wrote one). Figuring out what is reliable or true is part of the fun, research and life.

    What could be done to improve information filtering?
    Most of us agree on some basics of what should and should not be acceptable in the workplace
    WTF If I was paying someone to work for me, and found they were using my time to mess around on the internet for their personal amusement I would fire them quick

    or for children, but how do we address this issue more fully?
    Children need some parental guidance, best to join the kid when he is on the internet enough times he knows what you expect.

  3. #3 Stephanie Z
    April 29, 2009

    Er, eep.

    Nice summary of the discussions, but forgive me if I find the experience just a little weird. Although why it should be more weird than being linked to, I’m not sure.

  4. #4 the real pseudonym
    April 29, 2009

    “the readers here are obviously unique.”
    I second that, but only because all of the crdit goes to Greg. He is a pillar of tolerance, and wise to the wit and witlessness of others. Unlike many of his peers he can give sh!t as well as take it, and in a distinct branching of the blog tree, he has created a censorship free niche where everyone is welcome.

    But as for Steph Z/s assertions here in regards to “malicious” anonymity where she “attempts to outline some of the tactics used by individuals who maliciously try to cause problems and otherwise behavior poorly in a virtual community” I would suggest you look deeper into the issue, because a ton of these so-called redirects are actually caused by in-group dominance over comments and commenting that disagrees with their collective but unwritten social contract of behavior–like GW says torture ain’t torture, so too do bloggers who insult, harass, flame, or otherwise pre-emptively violate or mis-categorize the opinions of others claim a right to censorship, and victimhood.

    I would even guess that the statistics are nearly the same–for every 700 or so folks accused of being ‘malicious’ and baseless, there are actually lik, um…( thinking….Khaled S…and…Abu whateverhisnamewas) like two actually malicious blog commenters, with the rest having some form of valid input.

    For instance, in a world where capitalist “freedom” is based almost exclusively on the deaths of males in war,and the incarceration of lower income males based on criminal charges that are almost exclusively directed at men, we seldom see this fact called “misandry”, whereas the slightest peep about a female soldier whose boob gets groped gets a zillion commenters yakking about “misogyny”

    Now imagine a blog where one adresses that base imbalance; imagine how easily any statement to the contrary of their prevailing “men bad, women blameless because the patriarchy blah blah blah..” attitude would be called a “malicious” post, rather than attempts at constructive dialogue. Don’t believe me? Try it yourself.

    Total Google hits for ” misogynist” 772,000; hits for “misandrist”? 20,600…where’s my little fiddle?

    In othwer words, blogs often serve as little more than a re-affirmation of status quo, and in-group violence directed at out-of-the-box thinking.Same with Palestinians not having a right on these same blogs to the word “anti-semitic” when describing Israeli co-option and rights violations–even though they are ‘semites’ too.

  5. #5 Stephanie Z
    April 29, 2009

    PseudDude, where am I talking about anonymity? For that matter, where have you seen me champion group norms over, well, anything? I’m all for disruption to a purpose (which may be why I recognize the tactics, you know).

  6. #6 Jason Thibeault
    April 29, 2009

    Self-proclaimed victimhood despite arguing for a social group that wields the majority of the power today, and argumentum ad googlum to boot. Sigh. And so the wheel turns.

  7. #7 the real pseudonym
    April 29, 2009

    Steph: don’t take it personal–and I DO know, LOVE and respect your stance “I’m all for disruption to a purpose”.
    I was merely calling on BZ to look harder at the causes of claims of “malicious” posts by purportedly anonymous posters–not pointing a finger at you ( and sorry if you felt singled out).

    I was calling for him to question the assertions he quoted as “yours” without proper context.

    When censors like the homeschoolers, religious nuts, the right wing blog, Michelle Bachmann,AND PZ, PalMD, feminfisters, and Isis et al declare that commentary ( commentary that they virtually request by having a public posted blog) is inflamatory, it skews the discourse so far to the right that there are calls for internet tracking( homeschoolers and Isis) , and IP blocking ( homeschoolers, isis, Ed Brayton, PZ et al. It also leaves a false impression that honestly intended commentary is in fact intentionally inflammatory–and that is something ALL of them practice, the flaming straw man of “some troll on my blog” ::delete::block::censor:: resign to dungeon said commentary.

  8. #8 the real pseudonym
    April 29, 2009

    Jason: um…was that a comment or some santorum leaking out of your keyboard?

    “a social group that wields the majority of the power today”
    just to school you pal: Obama is elected, and da gays are gettin on that marriage gravy train, and one out of three of the Forbes top earners is a Messican….

    Not to mention that Barbara Bush cuckolded and schooled not only George Sr., but also George Jr…when will you girls stop blaming patriarchy for oppression and point the finger at the hidden matriarchy? Those women who put the “tools of power” away in the top drawer and CREATE them instead?

    Oh, and the only social group in this conversation are the people you see above.Did you miss that? The commentary is about blog posts…sputum ad hominem, and you…

  9. #9 resimler
    April 30, 2009

    These are the books that I gave to my grandchildren to get them to read, and read they now do.
    Woo Hoo!

  10. #10 Alison Johnson
    April 30, 2009

    Advancing Science Through Conversations.

    Yesterday I gave a short presentation to some Library colleagues on the use of blogs and other technologies to liaise with users remotely. As part of that presentation I highlighed a couple of examples to show how researchers are using blogs for general knowledge and I included a link to Research Blogging.

    This morning I link to Research Blogging to find ‘From Anonymity to Subjectivity in the Blogosphere: Post Game Analysis by BZ’ posted here

    This links brilliantly to my current research interests: ‘role of conversation in education’ both from

    A) the developing conversation appearing on the blog via post/comments/review and round up/further comments……
    B) Behaviour/credibility/expertise/authority within online conversations and virtual communities
    C) Advancing science through conversation

    It also provides me with some useful information to add into the online course I have just developed for my MSc Elearning Module: ‘Course Design for Effective Learning’ and I have picked up some very useful references to follow up further.

    I would add one further reference to this, again only recently found, ‘The Open Laboratory: the Best Science Writing on Bloggs 2008’ edited by Jennifer Rohn and recently reviewed by New Scientist. For more information see this blog post:

    Supporting my research interest, I run a blog called dialogic doodles: and have crossed refered to your posts here from it – so many thanks for this.

    I would agree that a dissertation would do justice to such a topic, which could be viewed from many different angles, for example I have a post there which talks about anonymous discussion but from a slightly different perspective – would love to carry the conversation on there…….

    Additional Reference:

    Rohn, Jennifer (Ed). (2009). The Open Laboratory: the Best Science Writing on Bloggs 2008.

  11. #11 Jason Thibeault
    April 30, 2009

    Pseudonymous: wow. Santorum dribbling from my keyboard. I think you proved the point of anonymity leading people to be more vicious than they would be in person. Unless you regularly accuse people of either a) being a closet Republican despite evidence to the contrary, or b) having anal lube and fecal matter on their keyboards, out there in meatspace as well.

    The social group with the majority of the power I was talking about, is men, regarding your comments about misandry. Just like you won’t find much complaining from whites about racism against them (save for the KKK and neo-nazis and other pleasant groups like that), you won’t find much complaint from males regarding how misandrous the practice of sending lower-income recruits to war is — because though the ranks are made mostly of men, and lower-income (thus many blacks), the fact that your army is one of recruits suggests that people have to enlist, and women are not enlisting at the same rate due to ingrained social stigmas, gender roles, etc.

    And you really are going way off track on a comment about blog posts. And you’re dragging me off track too.

  12. #12 Stacy
    April 30, 2009

    BZ – Ummm… Is this a typo?

    “Virtual communities allow for someone to plan their attract with some forethought.”

    I know that “proof reading” is probably not what you were looking for here but I don’t know how Dr. Laden grades a paper. 🙂

  13. #13 BZ
    April 30, 2009

    Sailor – Surly you must feel that there is a difference between generations that grew up without an internet though, do you not? The ease of anyone who wants to saying whatever they want to on a semi-permanent venue simply did not exist for the masses prior to the mid 90’s.

    It’s defining how things have changed for the average person, and to what level (both that grew up without the internet and those who do not know life without it) that seems so hard to put a finger on.

    Jason Thibeault – I was wondering if you could talk more about what your comments were aimed at. Something in my post? Or in the comments? (this in regards to your first post).

    In regards to your second post, you made a good point with your first sentence, but then appear guilty of the same actions yourself with the fecal matter comments and such.

    Resimler – I’m assuming your grandkids must be around pre-school age if they are learning to read… surly Dr. Seuss would be more entertaining Dr. Turkle? =)

    Stacy – That would be a typo. My most sincere apologies, I hope it wasn’t too off-putting.

  14. #14 jb
    April 30, 2009

    As an essentially old school bookman type who has only a limited virtual existence, I find the discussion both reassuring and fascinating. Reassuring in the sense that the general rhetorical rules of appreciating discourse rationally apply: logic, coherence of argument, civility, and expertise/authority. Even the power of pathos (and its dangers), the pathetic appeal, remains clear. What’s fascinating, again for someone who’s most comfortable with a printed page in his lap, is that the electronic medium changes how these basic rules and expectations get negotiated to the discourse community’s satisfaction. There are new powers and new dangers, new spins, on some very old social dynamics. We’ve had millenia to work out–and by no means perfectly–the dynamics of in-person, spoken discourse; a couple of millenia to work out the dynamics of written discourse; and a couple hundred years to work out the dynamics of mass published written discourse and academic discourse. Even these modes are still fraught with possibilities of going very much awry–but we pretty much know them, are accustomed to them, and manage them, perhaps almost unconsciously. New media represent both new powers and new dangers, to which we as natural creatures are inclined to attend more closely. Even reluctant book people will have to attend to these new ways and communities, and wrestle with these problems.

  15. #15 Jason Thibeault
    April 30, 2009

    BZ: if you really must see the horrors of /b/ yourself, go to and click on the Random board. I’m not making it clicky, because it’s sort of like invoking Cthulhu. The entire forum is populated by “anons” being as trollish as humanly possible, full of porn, misogyny, racism, gore, and all manners of perversion and evil. It also seems to be a breeding ground for internet memes — a number of the more popular ones have apparently originated from there. I’ve always been interested in memes and how they spread, so it was only a matter of time before I stumbled upon it.

    As for the “santorum” stuff, well, I’m not really guilty of anything, just defining what “santorum” means in popular usage. That second sentence of the second post is actually the definition on Urban Dictionary, both definitions in fact:

    This is easily the single most depraved comment I have ever written. I’m sorry Greg.

  16. #16 Jason Thibeault
    April 30, 2009

    BZ, sorry, incomplete response: As for the first comment’s aim, I just meant if you wanted good examples of anonymity turning people into examples of the Greater Internet F***wad Theory ( ), that’s the best place to find it. Not that the analysis of the conversations that you used really needs any more examples of anonymity breeding enmity, honestly those threads stand on their own. I just could not think of any honest critique of your analysis and wanted to say something to “run up your post grade”*.

    *see Mr. Laden’s asterisk

  17. #17 Stacy
    April 30, 2009

    ” I just could not think of any honest critique of your analysis and wanted to say something to “run up your post grade”*.

    Me Too! 🙂

  18. #18 sailor
    April 30, 2009

    “Sailor – Surly you must feel that there is a difference between generations that grew up without an internet though, do you not? The ease of anyone who wants to saying whatever they want to on a semi-permanent venue simply did not exist for the masses prior to the mid 90’s.”

    The internet is an immensely powerful medium, and is unquestionably changing society. I grew up way before computers, and was bowled over by the Howard Dean campaign – It came close to a complete revolution of politics, though this had to wait for Obama to be fulfilled. Obama is probably the first US president the world has had not beholden to a bunch of special interests, owing to the internet.

    What the internet does is allow for communication and networking across a vast population. If I think back, I don’t remember the world without phones (though I do remember the infamous “party lines” where you shared a phone line and if you picked up the phone when someone from the other household was on it you could hear their conversation). However, I imagine phones must have created as big a jump in networking in their time as the internet has today.

    I love the democracy of the internet, there is very little control, it is, in a way, anarchy, order evolves it is not imposed, which is why I do not like the idea of regulation. The anonymity is not bad – it makes ideas get evaluated for what they are worth, not by whom they are said. And that is fine when you have only anonymous people. But when some people are real and some anonymous, you could get real people being unfairly defamed by anonymous people using lies. If it comes to breaking the law, then I think the individual’s anonymity may, in some cases, be justifiably blown.

  19. #19 the real meme
    April 30, 2009

    Thiebault: wow to you too. “dragging me off track…” what blamelessness you exhibit after your own dismissive, non-discourse promoting comments. You exemplify the trend of the faux-left (those middle class white guilt laden white and white minded academic types that have zero experience in the reality they purport to be the reality of others, as in ‘blacks, minorities, wiminz, etc), while robotically dismissing the lived experiences of lower income males–many of whom are “white” as you put it.

    In other words, your comment is the poster child for that exact unaccountability I was baiting for.

    As for the arguments you put forward–after the fact of predictably claiming some victimhood, its all tired, restated, violent society enforcing shit, starting with your apparent inability to imagine a world where we do not teach the double standard of “its ok to hit boys,” who of course, grow up to then fit into your status quo paradigms.

    How many of the soldiers wgho are “recruits” were trained up in a culture of violence perpetrated on them by women? All of them. Why? because our culture and the soldiers it produces has a double standard of violence: G-d MOTHER and Country is a reductionist metaphor for breeder mentality, and those breeders are the ones who a) were raised in war making matrililocal food supply taking society for the first 18 years of their lives b)reduced to willing offenders ‘for the social good’ by enforced gender violence( the same one you and others tirelessly regurgitate) directed primarily at male children by mothers and their others in childhood–so that they become willing servants of violence and war.

    and WTF? More sad restatement of 1980’s era fauxminist excuse making with a little paternalizing and presumptive black pandering thrown in tio boot: “though the ranks are made mostly of men, and lower-income (thus many blacks), the fact that your army is one of recruits suggests that people have to enlist, and women are not enlisting at the same rate due to ingrained social stigmas, gender roles, etc.”

    You are touching the tip of the iceberg however, when you note that social stigmas and gender roles are part of the fcucked up dynamic that presses males into military service, as well as creates a society based in war-making and violence. Either way,in the and you uphold the double standard of negatuing male life, while excusing female behavior of encouraging males to be “real men” and fight for them, instead of themselves; I am sure evolution and the cuckoldry instinct loves you for it to…

    Santorum? Sure, your type is the new right fellah. But the comment was tit for tat on your googlum ad nauseum coment–and here I thought the use of ad nauseum was prohibited by smart bloggers, but no, you proved me wrong Jason. AND you laid the first dismissive and insulting ad hominem style comment into the thread. Gotcha: you ARE EXACTLY what I was talking about up there in reference to .

    “being as trollish as humanly possible, full of porn, misogyny, racism, gore, and all manners of perversion and evil.”
    How judgemental. Did it ever occur to you that some of the crap that appears on other blogs like feminfisters, et al appears to be a sort of girl porn? An overindulgence in conversation, dismissive and abusive thoughts and actions publicized against men and so forth? Or does your buble only contain your own gaseous thoughts? You seem to have quite the religious intonation in your assertions, especially when you waffle and pander as in your apology for ‘bad thoughts’…