…and this is a 
Kos screwed up
Category: Stupidity • Weblogs
Posted on: April 13, 2007 9:53 AM, by PZ Myers
Everyone's talking about Kos, so in one sense he's done something smart, and he's going to rake in some more ad dollars over all this attention — but in another Kos has blown it, big time. He has dismissed the death threats against Kathy Sierra as a) same old story that he sees all the time, b) nothing to worry about, and c) reason to suggest that the victim ought to give up blogging, which, of course, is music to the ears of the "psycho losers" who carry out that kind of attempted intimidation. Is Kos really so tone-deaf that he doesn't realize he has just sided with people who threatened to slit Sierra's throat and rape her corpse?
I was one of a small crowd, including Bitch, Ph.D. and Norwegianity, who are well-disposed towards Kos and met him on his book tour in Minneapolis. I was at YearlyKos last year and am planning to go this year. We aren't right-wing knee-jerk Kos haters, but the people who tend to side with the Kossacks on a lot of issues. And we're all not just dismayed, but strongly pissed off at Kos for that dumb comment.
This is not the time to act snotty and superior towards the target of online hate; I know that we get inured to the petty, vicious stupidity of some of the worst of the web (yes, I get death threats too, and some of them are nastily explicit), but what the kind of ugliness directed at Sierra ought to do is wake us up out of that take-it-for-granted attitude and get us motivated to shine more light on the cockroaches. It is not appropriate to encourage the roaches by acting as if the problem is Kathy Sierra's too-fragile hide — it isn't. We all ought to be outraged when some no-name faux-macho cretin writes to us and tells us to shut up or he'll shoot us in the head. There is the problem, the eliminationist assholes who thrive under the encouragement of AM talk radio, admire the posturing bullies like Limbaugh and Coulter and Savage, and think homicidal sexual fantasies are manly.
Kos had his chance to express his contempt for such tactics, and instead all he could do was trivialize them and state his contempt for their victim.
Comments
I saw that too, and was quite upset. I believe the incident with kathy went well beyond a simple asshole saying I hope you die. There were many frequent, specific, and disgusting threats (with photoshopped pictures of her) that I think definately crossed the line into illegal territory.
The other problem was that these threats were allowed to exist on other blogging sites with no repercussions. I imagine that any commenter here who made death threats would at the least find their account banned and the comment deleted (and maybe their IP address reported to the police, if the threat was serious enough, which in Kathy's case they seemed to be).
So yes, bloggin invites assholes, but this was way beyond what anyone should have to deal with. Shame on Kos.
Posted by: Robert | April 13, 2007 10:04 AM
So, why are you still planning to align yourself with this person who is (in your own estimation) a cretin? There are places other than YearlyKos to meet and discuss with liberals. In fact, if liberals have any sense, there will be ONLY places other than YearlyKos to meet and discuss with liberals, after this his umpteenth expression of sheer hatred for women.
Posted by: Dennis | April 13, 2007 10:05 AM
And yet, Sierra has taken Kos' advice (at least temporarily), not yours. Is she wrong?
Posted by: Philboid Studge | April 13, 2007 10:08 AM
FWIW, Markos spent his early childhood years in El Salvador, before he and his family left there in 1980 due to the ongoing civil war. IIRC, he did see the results of death squads there a time or two. I think this experience certainly affected his feelings about the U.S. "mercenaries" who were killed in Falluja, and it also probably affects his feelings about threats in general. I'm not trying to explain away anything here, I just think this is something to be aware of when making judgments about his not being very sympathetic towards Sierra's experience.
Posted by: David Wilford | April 13, 2007 10:12 AM
Philboid,
PZ shouldn't even answer that question, because it's not his call. It's Sierra's life, it's her call. She has to decide whether her life of blogging and conference appearances is with the harassment and risk of rape and murder (I will trust her assessment of the degree of that risk.)
The only thing the "blogging community" should be concerned with is support and reasonable steps to protect Sierra and others from assholes in the future.
Please step away from the victim-blaming ray.
Posted by: Dennis | April 13, 2007 10:13 AM
Just because she has decided to take a break from bloggin doesn't mean that Kos was right. Essentially these online cretins have successfully intimidated her into a break. Ideologically it may have been wrong, but thats easy to say when you are weighing blogging versus your life.
The argument isn't whether she should be taking a break (because the right answer is it shouldn't be relevant, because the intimidation should never have been allowed.)
We should all be in arms over this kind of scumbaggery, and while the blogging code of conduct is kind of useless, that doesn't excuse what happened or place any of the blame on the victim!
Posted by: Robert | April 13, 2007 10:15 AM
David Wilford,
... So? Some of us grew up in countries where rape is just a particularly violent way of proposing marriage. That doesn't mean that we should excuse those people if they make an ass out of themselves spewing about how rape victims ought to get the fuck over it.
Posted by: Dennis | April 13, 2007 10:18 AM
Also, the excuse that "I've been through worse. so what you are going through shouldn't be considered" holds exactly zero weight for me. I'm sorry your life sucked/sucks but that doesn't give you a pass to write off other peoples victimhood.
Posted by: Robert | April 13, 2007 10:18 AM
[KOS] has just sided with people who threatened to slit Sierra's throat and rape her corpse
KOS did nothing of the kind, but then again I see your tag is "in stupidity." Is this some kind of joke?
.
Posted by: Grand Moff Texan | April 13, 2007 10:23 AM
Markos is a sexist asshole. I'm a former front pager whom he dumped precisely because I'm female. He's pulled this kind of sexist shit before.
Posted by: Melanie | April 13, 2007 10:27 AM
I've spent time with kos as well and found him to be a nice guy. When I read what he wrote about Sierra I had to double-check to make sure it was him. I never would have expected that.
And some of the comments were of the the "grow up, bitch" variety as well.
All in all it was an ugly thiing to write.
.
Posted by: spork_incident | April 13, 2007 10:28 AM
I agree that Kos made a dumb mistake in tying the Sierra case to his very legitimate point about the blogger code, and trivialized it in the process Still, the over reaction to this is ridiculous. People who regard themselves as progressives want to shun Kos, because it always helps your cause to make it an exclusive club with purity tests. One commentater accused Kos of ignoring "electornic rape". Seriously.
Posted by: pablo | April 13, 2007 10:31 AM
I get it. It's AM talk radio's fault! It's also the fault of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Michael Savage!
I'm sure you won't have a problem posting transcripts detailing this "encouragement".
Posted by: Mike | April 13, 2007 10:32 AM
What bugs me the most is Kos' suggestion that Kathy Sierra didn't even really get death threats:
Because Kos totally knows the content of Kathy Sierra's emails.
Posted by: Dr. Free-Ride | April 13, 2007 10:37 AM
I always thought that hate and anger were just sort of background noise, that there are just always some idiots out there... but at the risk of bringing up the Imus thing again, I have heard that the Rutgers women are now getting death threats because of Imus' firing.
That really underscores who at least some of his fans are, and how he helped feed a culture of misogyny and racism. You have people discussing the Imus thing and screechingly bringing up the Duke case, full of racism and sexist language, putting it across as an attack by women and minorities on the oppressed white male.
It occurs to me that there's an entire generation that has been weaned on hatred and anger, shock jocks in their own minds, and its going to be a long painful process to educate these people (if we ever even get into a position to do that.)
Posted by: craig | April 13, 2007 10:38 AM
I can't speak for PZ, but I certainly don't want to "shun Kos" over this. Kos said something *really* stupid. He should apologize, and move on. People make mistakes. And I've always hated "gotcha" politics where someone can ruin their career by saying something stupid. Kos should just apologize.
It's too bad Kos said what he did, because he made a valid point that a blogger code of ethics won't work. The people who will adhere to it more than likely already do. The asshats more than likely won't.
But we can say as a group that we will give a *verbal* beatdown to anyone who makes threats. I guarantee that if someone made death threats against (for example) an IDiot on my blog, they'd have their comments deleted, even if I happen to think that IDiot is a dumbass. No one needs to be tossing death threats around, jokingly or otherwise.
Posted by: factician | April 13, 2007 10:40 AM
Yeah, let's see how Kos reacts to what was obviously a stupid post on his part. A retraction would allow him to keep my respect.
Posted by: Ric | April 13, 2007 10:49 AM
... "it always helps your cause to make it an exclusive club with purity tests."
pablo,
It's not that he can't be in the club, it's just that he's demonstrated, more than once, now, that he is not the sort of person progressives ought to be looking to for guidance and leadership. A political blogger sets him/herself up for that, and everyone defending him right now might as well be fawning over Dear Leader.
You know what would be great, and make this kind of okay? If he would come out and say "It's been brought to my attention that I've been an asshole. Sorry about that. I really shouldn't make unsupported/unsupportable factual and moral claims and use them to pooh-pooh the experience of a fellow blogger."
Every person speaking up on his behalf makes this apology less likely, emboldens his misogyny, and poisons the progressive movement.
Posted by: Dennis | April 13, 2007 11:01 AM
If he makes an apology and a retraction he could regain my respect. People do say stupid things baout positions that they didn't know enough about (hmmm, creationism....) but if they can recognize it and be sorry for it then I can get past it.
Posted by: Robert | April 13, 2007 11:01 AM
I am for free epression on blogs - no code of conduct - but also for denunciation of any expression that goes over the line, like Imus's "nappy-headed hos" and people making threats of violence.
If someone is being intimidated, we ought to stick up for that person, not tell them to relax or not to worry.
What are we trying to achieve? A better society?
Accepting the shit that is being spewed relentlessly at Liberals isn't going to get us there.
A "seen it all - just live with it" attitude is the very opposite of what we need today.
Maybe Kos needs to take a vacation.
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 13, 2007 11:03 AM
Sorry for kinda siding with stupid here, but I haven't managed to grasp what's so special about this case, why it matters, and why it's not just an one time occurrence.
10 years ago, I was involved in a very lame Usenet argument, and an asshole called my employer. Embarrassing, but he was an ocean away. I can understand how this is upsetting, but I still don't understand what's so unusual. Shit happens, jerks happen.
Posted by: NM | April 13, 2007 11:08 AM
I've written on this here and
here.
Sierra's a Java programmer. She doesn't even write about politically polarizing issues, fer cryin' out loud. But some cowardly dweebs start spewing misogynistic crap & the poor woman's now scared out of her skull.
Grrrr....
I sent her an email offering to escort her if she gets offers to speak in the S.F Bay Area.
Because it takes a specific kind of cowardly bully to harass women, the kind that folds up quickly when a man walks into the picture.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | April 13, 2007 11:17 AM
NM: Kathy Sierra is the victim of multiple death threats, complete with photoshopped pictures of her being suffocated with women's underwear along with tag lines like: "I can't wait to slit your throat and cum down your bloody gob."
The people who are upset (myself included) are the ones who think that we shouldn't just handwave this away and say she should just put up with it, but should instead stand up and fight this kind of sick misogyny.
If we just ignore it, and allow it to let Bloggers like Kathy decide to give up blogging rather than face the intimidation we are giving implicit support to those who would use these kinds of tactics to silence through fear those they don't agree with, or see as less than human.
Posted by: Robert | April 13, 2007 11:18 AM
NM,
This wasn't garden variety rudeness. This guy not only threatened rather graphic violence to her (and her corpse), he also posted her personal information online (address and social security number). This was serious enough that the cops took the threat credibly.
*Any* time someone threatens violence, whether it be at you or at someone you don't like, we as bloggers should speak with one voice and condemn such idiocy. I think Bitch Ph.D. says it best:
The best way to make that clear isn't to tell victims, publicly, that "if they can't handle it" they should quit blogging. Nope. Instead, those of us who provide readers with opportunities to respond--in blog comments, or on online forums, or in chat groups--need to make sure we come down hard on assholes who use those opportunities to hassle, harass, or threaten people (including us). For god's sake, don't make excuses for them by pretending that they're some kind of force of nature, like an earthquake, that we can't do anything about. Because we can, if we shut them down when they show up.
Posted by: factician | April 13, 2007 11:21 AM
Sorry for kinda siding with stupid here, but I haven't managed to grasp what's so special about this case, why it matters, and why it's not just an one time occurrence.
You mean other than the fact that people who don't like Kathy Sierra's opinions set up a website called "Mean Kids" that was filled with posts about how stupid she is, which is where a steady stream of threats towards her began that were serious enough for her to bring them to the police?
Yes, a public figure canceling appearances because someone is stalking her, threatening to harm her and her family, and posting her personal information on the web is exactly like someone calling your employer once 10 years ago.
Posted by: Mnemosyne | April 13, 2007 11:23 AM
The rush to shun kos- and the purity merit badge that comes with it, is just silly. I didn't see him singling Kathy out for her gender. In fact, all he did was point out the realities of operating in a medium where invisibility seems to embolden hateful, prejudiced cowards into opening those mouths that the real world- and a smack in the face, would normally keep shut. He was wrong to imply that the threats might be nonexistent but not wrong to see them as the empty posturings of idiots with internet access. In his words;
"Email makes it easy for stupid people to send stupid emails to public figures. If they can't handle a little heat in their email inbox, then really, they should try another line of work. Because no "blogger code of conduct" will scare away psycho losers with access to email."
I mean, sure, call in the police for any explicit threats but I think "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" applies here. There is simply no gender issue here at all.
Posted by: raindogzilla | April 13, 2007 11:25 AM
I'm not sure what to think of this. Yes death threats are evil and pathetic means of trying to get people to shut up. I don't know Kos's motivations for his post, but I would say I do agree with him on the point that a death threat is a terribly easy thing to conjure up and send from a random email address that takes mere minutes to set up. They're the kind of angry scribblings of small people, 99 out of 100 times without the means or will to carry out the act. They're also hard to prove they came from a specific person, and even if you can (via IP trails), you won't get much out of law enforcement toward holding the sender up to scrutiny and responsibility. Further, many of these things can be sent from public computers, and it would nigh on impossible, even after uncovering the IP trail, to find out who actually sent the offending email.
Now, I agree with Ms. Sierra and others who say we shouldn't have to put up with it, and that online discourse needs to be civil. No argument from me at all, and in even a semi-perfect world, that would be great. But the technology of the internet makes it extraordinarily easy to send these things and cover it up decently well that pursuing the hundreds of such emails that are sent would mean creating and empowering (if the American people want this sort of thing) another enforcement arm of the government to hunt down, investigate and try the senders of these emails. I'm guessing such a thing is highly unlikely to ever get off the ground, or become a huge legislative movement, until a couple hundred million people in this country start receiving death threats on a regular basis.
Maybe Kos is sexist, maybe not. I do not know his blogging or personal history much beyond what he did to set up DailyKos, his military service, and small details on his life. If this is a pattern of his with regard to female bloggers, then I would be concerned that he should be speaking for liberal bloggers, while not staying true to liberal values of equality.
For me it comes down to the fact that like vandals tagging bridges, construction projects and retaining walls throughout the cities of America, senders of death threats via email have the ability to operate largely undetected within an otherwise lawful system. The goal of taking them down and refusing their evil ways on a large scale is a problem that is at the present technically insurmountable, and few will want to waste their time trying to find these people. The best recourse is to acknowledge that they can happen to anyone, and to show support for the recipient against the violence. Solidarity is comfort in itself. If Kos is to be shunned for anything, it's for his perceived lack of solidarity with Ms. Sierra in this predicament.
I'm sorry she felt threatened and had to cancel her work because of this, but people should be aware these death threats will not stop generally. Show support for the victim of these speech-stultifying methods, and hold strong. As Ghandi said (amidst the same sort of threats and violence): "We must be the change we wish to see." Thankfully, it appears Ms. Sierra and her supporters are heading in that direction.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | April 13, 2007 11:34 AM
Re: Craig #15
Well said, and I think it's only fair and reasonable to include gangstah cultchah as being part of the problem. As Shaun Powell wrote in Newsday, "Tell me: Where did an old white guy like Imus learn the word "ho"? Was that always part of his vocabulary? Or did he borrow it from Jay-Z and Dave Chappelle and Snoop Dogg?"
As for Kos, well...
Kathy Sierra has the right to shut herself down in the interest of protecting herself and her family from physical harm and emotional distress. She has a right to speak out about lines that should not be crossed, and to call for support from those who agree. Those who suggest otherwise, like Kos, will be challenged.
And if Sierra and her supporters call for measures that compromise the right to freedom of expression, then they will be challenged. Until then, I side with Sierra on this issue, and believe Kos is in error. Do I condemn Kos as a human being for this error? No, not any more than I condemn Don Imus for his stupid, regressive attempts at humor. I condemn their statements and points of view in these specific cases. (And AFAIK, neither Kos nor Imus has stalked or terrorized anyone, online or off.) Most humans are too complex to define by a single instance of behavior, and these two are no exception.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 13, 2007 11:37 AM
I didn't see him singling Kathy out for her gender.
I don't see why that's necessary to conclude sexism.
There is simply no gender issue here at all.
I wonder if you're just being deliberately obtuse. I doubt that Kathy would have had her head photoshopped into hardcore pornography, or had her address posted on the internet, or received emails about decapitating her and raping her, if she were a man.
It's always been the response of patriarchy to dismiss the concerns of women as "overreactions," or as "their own fault." That's why what Kos did was sexist - it's just more of the "oh, women - if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen! And then get back into the kitchen and make me a damn sandwich."
Posted by: Chet | April 13, 2007 11:39 AM
Sorry for kinda siding with stupid here, but I haven't managed to grasp what's so special about this case...
Why does it have to be a special case!!?
It's people doing really lousy things and we should never just accept such behavior as par for the course. It's terrible!
Desensitization is not the answer. Don't become like them.
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 13, 2007 11:41 AM
Grand Moff Texan: The "Mean Kids" engaged in a campaign of terror to get Kathy Sierra to Know Her Damn Place. They get away with this because, on the one hand, overprivileged guys like Kos can wave it away with admonitions to get a thicker skin, and since most death threats aren't serious, she should just grow a pair and shut up about it. On the other hand, the point of the threats is to instill fear into women, and I assure you that Kathy Sierra knew that. Here's some further reading on instilling fear in women, if you're interested.
Dennis: Couldn't have said it better myself. Too bad Kos couldn't squeeze out an apology if you paid him.
Posted by: grendelkhan | April 13, 2007 11:44 AM
They're the kind of angry scribblings of small people, 99 out of 100 times without the means or will to carry out the act.
Perhaps, but if she received (say) 200 such threats, isn't she justified in having reasonable concerns for her safety? By your logic aren't there at least 2 people, now, with the means and the will to do her serious bodily harm?
People who have just been armed with her home address, by the way.
No, of course not. It's just so much easier to dismiss the concerns of a woman as "overreacting." I mean it's not like anybody ever hunted down a stranger on the internet to rape and murder them, right? Oh, wait. And, of course, I'm sure that if that happened (God forbid), people like Kos would line up to make sure Kathy Sierra got the lion's share of blame for not taking the threats sufficiently seriously.
I guess there really is nothing that could happen to a woman that's so bad people won't find a way to blame her for it.
Posted by: Chet | April 13, 2007 11:44 AM
There is simply no gender issue here at all.
It's a huge gender issue, because it's being reported that female bloggers get between 6 and 25 times the number of death/rape/mutilation threats that male bloggers do. Not to mention that violence against women, particularly rape, is societally much more common and treated more as business as usual.
Posted by: Carlie | April 13, 2007 11:57 AM
All the idiots here crying about this as a 'purity test' need to get a fucking clue. This isn't about shutting him down because he doesn't toe the line; this is about pointed and deserved criticism (and if you don't think "Crazy Bitches wouldn't get non-existent death threats if they'd shut their smart mouths" is worth criticizing, well, you're beyond help). It's okay to disagree with the heavyweights, guys.
Sticking up for Markos seems to be the more idolatrous position here, buckos.
I like DailyKos much better now that it's a group blog, though. Regardless of how much of a sexist tool Markos can be, DailyKos has grown far beyond its creator.
Posted by: stogoe | April 13, 2007 11:58 AM
It seems like a sad situation for Ms. Sierra... anyone can end up on the bad end of a psycho. It sucks that the situation exists in the first place.
Markos should have kept his damn mouth shut if he couldn't say something supportive of a person's suffering at the hands of a campaign of abuse. I've read all the comments I can, and while I don't hear the tone of sexism (without claiming it doesn't exist), I do hear someone telling a victim it's their fault. And that's not acceptable. I hope we hear an apology.
Do we have any info about police action on this case? It seems to have crossed the line significantly into activities that the law should step in and stop.
Posted by: garth | April 13, 2007 12:01 PM
The pictures have been taken down, and it's really hard to evaluate the "threats" without seeing them. :-(
Does anyone have a link? I couldn't find them anywhere.
Posted by: Chris Bell | April 13, 2007 12:07 PM
Wow. Death/rape threats over... Java and software design philosophy?
That's... just... umm...
Okay. I don't even know what the hell that is.
I mean, apart from one incredible reinforcement to the notion that there are a lotta seriously screwy guys in high tech*.
Here's hoping someone the end of this is someone getting a little time in jail to think about how they might have handled their disagreement more civilly.
(*I'm in high tech. I believe this gives me license to say this.)
Posted by: AJ Milne | April 13, 2007 12:09 PM
Okay. I don't even know what the hell that is.
Patriarchy is what that is. It's the violent reaction of a certain type of man to a woman achieving status in a field they think of as "theirs." Hence, the use of threats to intimidate the woman into withdrawing from participation.
As she did. (I'm not saying she was wrong to do so - that's her decision - but these animals left her precious little choice.)
Posted by: Chet | April 13, 2007 12:15 PM
The eliminationist element in cyberspace is extremely creepy and we cannot assume that all of its threats are empty. David Neiwert at Orcinus has documented in exhaustive (and sometimes exhausting) detail how vile such people are and the dangers they pose to a free society. We need to be prepared to condemn their ravings whenever they burst into view. I don't know why Markos is blind to the significance of this issue, but perhaps he is being educated right now. It's a strange lapse in someone whose political sensibilities are usually right on target.
Posted by: Zeno | April 13, 2007 12:20 PM
"Tell me: Where did an old white guy like Imus learn the word "ho"?
I also heard the word "ho". It took me a long time time finally decipher that particular bit of vernacular, but when I did I said to myself: "I really don't see this word becoming a part of my vacabulary" It was that simple.
Posted by: Mooser | April 13, 2007 12:25 PM
Ted Rall, who writes far more inflammatory things than Kathy Sierra has received many death threats. His response has always been prompt and unequivocal: he posts the threat, the email, and the name and address of the person making the threat (as much as he can investigate himself), reports the incident to the local police, and then informs all readers that that is what he will EVERY TIME.
Now I'm not blaming Sierra here. She is terrorized, she feels fear and she's publicized that. But she (and we) also have to publicize the names and contacts of all of those cowardly psycho fucks who made the threats. If you really want to support Kathy Sierra, start using your search engines and your tech knowledge, track these fuckers down and PUBLICICZE THEM.
The point is, you shouldn't be talking about Sierra, you should be talking about her harassers, using names, domains, websites, emails, and other contact information so that these trash-talking scum get overwhelmed by messages from the Sierra-supporting blogosphere that their words and actions are unacceptable, that they are being observed, that they are being noted, and will be held legally responsible what they say and do.
Don't sit there moaning and stabbing each other in the front Kos may be a sexist jerk in some ways, but he is an important and valuable member of the liberal-opposed-to-the-current-psycho-fuck-admiinistration team, and pillorying him for a dismissive and unhelpful response to the Sierra situation while not giving the harrassers the same amount of pointed criticism (in that you point readers to where and how these harrassers can be faced down) doesn't help Kathy Sierra OR address the larger issue.
Get your priorities straight.
Posted by: Hairhead | April 13, 2007 12:26 PM
Thanks, everyone, for clearing the Kathy Sierra thing up for me. At first I couldn't understand why she was singled out for attention and why everyone was making a brouhaha out of it... I mean, even I get over-the-top intimidation threats from people who don't appreciate my outspoken atheism in chat... but it is clear from your posts that it was more than "trash talking" and crossed the line into serious invasion and harassment.
Posted by: speedwell | April 13, 2007 12:32 PM
This whole line, and a great deal of the comments here, make me sick. One of the problems is that it seems to me that a great number of people here are treating Ms. Sierra like some sort of stereotypical hysterical female who can't take the heat she's generated. It's NOT like that, and to look at it like that is just plain sexist.
One of the things people seem to assume is that this is all just talk... you know, like the kind of talk Dr Slepian got, no doubt, just before he was gunned down by a right wing religious nut job sniper. The fact is that there ARE loonies out there, and they CAN and DO on occasion take action.
The other thing that disgusts me is that we're willing to hang others for idiocy (like Ismus) but people are standing by Kos. Kos needs to get his head on straight before he DESERVES any support.
As far as tying this all to a bloggers code of ethics, we can all trivialize lower read blogs and point to the Kathy Sierra thing as a unique case, but it isn't. There ARE little blogs where people get hurt (physically, emotionally, financially) over words... I personally know of two situations (one that eventually involved an order of protection) relating to blogs.
I don't see how a code of ethics can be enforced, but I do think that harassment and stalking via the internet should be a federal offence, and that death threats should be treated as felonies. Not enough is done and not enough seriousness is taken in these cases... cases where it's more than a case of words, but where there is a real threat to a blogger.
Finally, I have a great deal of sympathy for Ms Sierra, although no one has threatened to slit my throat and rape my corpse, I did have a stalker on Yahoo!360 while I was listed on interesting pages who continuously made remarks about my young daughters, and repeatedly and rather publicly asked where he could find them. From experience, I know that Yahoo! and other blog hosts don't do a heck of a lot about that, and police don't bother to look into things that don't have an immediate and obviously identifiable source. Things have to become quite serious (and quite risky) before people take action.
PZ, I'm disappointed (for what it's worth) that you would disagree but still support Kos.
Posted by: Dorid | April 13, 2007 12:32 PM
I think the reason all of this elicits so much reaction is because the whole overhyped o'reilly "blogger code of conduct" push is idiotic in the extreme. It saps me of any patience for the rest of the topic.
Posted by: Brian | April 13, 2007 12:40 PM
I am willing to bet it was just some misguided teenager. But on the other hand, that's pretty sick and certainly crosses the line of what should be legal (in my mind). I can't tell if Kos is wrong or right here, but one thing is clear to me, shutting down the blog was not the right choice. This is a good case for maintaining anonymity or requiring log-in to post.
Posted by: Scholar | April 13, 2007 12:55 PM
I haven't read DailyKos for a long time because the recurring sexism. It isn't just the matter of direct sexism from Markos himself - of which this incident is hardly the first - but also that hateful, bilious sexism is always permitted and NEVER criticized or shut down in any way in the comments threads (even though other kinds of comments have been treated as out of line and beyond the pale). If someone takes any sort of stand against trolling in general, but completely ignores sexist trolling in particular... Do you think perhaps that might be an indication of something? Just perhaps?
Posted by: G | April 13, 2007 1:08 PM
What bugs me the most is Kos' suggestion that Kathy Sierra didn't even really get death threats
Sorry Dr. Free-Ride. He suggested nothing of the kind. Read it again. He was making the perfectly valid point that many people get kinda "chicken little" and think they've received a death threat when they really haven't. Kos was talking about how you pretty much have to expect to receive nutty emails when you're a prominent Internet personality.
Posted by: Paul D. | April 13, 2007 1:08 PM
Gender question aside. (Only momentarily, though.)
Kos essentially said: Toughen up or get out. 'Get out' is not a progressive value.
From this point of view, if you're not tough, you're weak.
Contempt for the weak is a well-established authoritarian value.
Who do the authoritarians come for first? The groups they've worked out on throughout history. Women always near the top of the list.
When a progressive sees this ancient power relationship taking shape, it's not hard to choose a side. And if it is hard, keep quiet and try to learn.
Treating threats as categorically imaginary sounds like someone failing as a middle-school guidance counselor.
He also falls into the fallacy that blogging is inherently political, and whatever you do someone will hate you. Yet the topic at hand is UI design. Not everything is 'to the barricades!'
I think Kos is a fine election geek, but he is not up to the job of Dean of the Blogosphere.
Posted by: James M | April 13, 2007 1:11 PM
He was making the perfectly valid point that many people get kinda "chicken little" and think they've received a death threat when they really haven't.
...in the specific context of Kathy Sierra. Explain to me precisely how that's not a clear implication that she "made the whole thing up", or that she's "taking it too seriously", or both. Naive, much?
Kos was talking about how you pretty much have to expect to receive nutty emails when you're a prominent Internet personality.
Why?
Posted by: Chet | April 13, 2007 1:21 PM
Yes, because women being able to write without having their head photoshopped into a noose and people telling her they want to "cut off her head" and "cum [sic] down [your] bloody gob" is just not an important priority.
Them women, always wanting not to be at the muzzle end of a gun! Silly girls, all.
Bullshit. Look, I'd sick to death of people who haven't been threatened saying what people who have been threatened should do. I don't know what I'd do if someone posted the stuff about me that they did about Sierra, and neither do you. All in all, I can't blame her for wanting to ensure her continued survival. This isn't her fault--it's the terrorizers' fault.
And Kos was flat-out, 100% wrong, and he should say so. And if he can't, then we know that whatever his worth, he's written off over half of the Democratic party. And Democrats should bear that in mind.
Posted by: Jeff Fecke | April 13, 2007 1:23 PM
Funny.
I sent this thread to my wife, an ardent feminist who reads DailyKos regularly.
She's flabbergasted. She wonders if we're all talking about the same site. Kos? Sexist? She thinks not.
Posted by: Paul D | April 13, 2007 1:27 PM
I don't get why the blogger code of ethics could in anyway be a stupid idea (as mentioned in comment #44 for example). A voluntary way to take collective action to discourage insane and violent behavior -- now tell me what's bad about that?
Posted by: Trinifar | April 13, 2007 1:42 PM
@Chet
Because, as PZ can attest, there's nuts everywhere!
Posted by: Paul D | April 13, 2007 1:42 PM
@Jeff Fecke
Look, I'd sick to death of people who haven't been threatened saying what people who have been threatened should do.
Markos Moulitsas is arguably the most experienced progressive blogger out there. He HAS been threatened, many times, with far more vile and violent retribution from nuts of all stripes.
I personally think he's earned the right to give out a little advice and try to help a fellow blogger once in a while. It is entirely up to Ms. Sierra whether to take that advice or not.
Furthermore, just as my own personal opinion, the Democrats that have been "written off" by Kos are pretty much just spineless, Republican-Lite losers who wouldn't know a progressive value if it bit them on the ass.
Meh.
Posted by: Paul D | April 13, 2007 1:49 PM
Paul,
Your wife is just plain wrong and I have personally been on the receiving side of Kos sexism.
I've also received death threats and sexual harrassment on the job for most of my life. Yeah, I pretty much so take it seriously when someone calls me on the phone, knows my address and tells me he's going to bring his dobermans over to tear me apart.
Posted by: Melanie | April 13, 2007 1:49 PM
I don't get why the blogger code of ethics could in anyway be a stupid idea (as mentioned in comment #44 for example). A voluntary way to take collective action to discourage insane and violent behavior -- now tell me what's bad about that?
There's nothing stopping you or anyone else from taking action right now and collectively discouraging threatening behavior. In fact, I think this discussion is part of exactly that.
The problem with a "blogger code of ethics" is that you're going to empower a chosen few to make decisions about the sort of speech the rest of us are told will be acceptable. Profanity would be one of the first things to go, followed by an edict forbidding anyone from taking the Lord's name in vain. That's a far more dangerous thing than the danger of some making violent threats online, which is something the law already covers anyway.
Posted by: David Wilford | April 13, 2007 1:52 PM
Paul: how is blaming the victim for not being tough enough to just ignore good advice, or any kind of help?
Dismissing her threats as irrelevant, or something you should just put up with in no way helps anyone, or improves the discussion of anything. People say hurtful and hateful things (more so on the internet), but that means that those of us who would work towards equality and basic respect for people as people need to stand against this kind of thing, not wave it away as inevitable.
And just because Kos has arguably been through worse in no way empowers him to decide that other people need to just suffer through their threats.
Sure, sometimes the best course of action is to ignore them, but when they go to far (as the easily have in this case) then they need to be called out and we need to stand against them.
Posted by: Robert | April 13, 2007 1:58 PM
Perhaps Markos should have gotten his priorities straight and thought a little more before speaking. He, too, could have suggested the Ted Rall method of dealing with harassers. And why be a sexist in "some ways," why not at all? If he is so "valuable" as you say (I don't think so, imo), then his opinion should carry weight and a degree of responsibilty. He's made himself very public, and now people are saying, "Hey, don't be that way."
I hope he's listening. He is not immune to criticism, nor is anyone here or at Daily KOS.
Posted by: Observer | April 13, 2007 2:01 PM
Yup, Kos is insensitive to the issues. Here he is in June 2005, complaining about complaints about an ad that is demeaning to women. It's just not important to him.
Seems to me he's got more than a little bit of Mike S. Adams in him:
So over the weekend, certain segments of the community have erupted in anger over the TBS ad for their reality show, the Real Gilligan's Island. Apparently, having two women throw pies at each other, wrestle each other in a sexy, lesbianic manner, then having water splashed on their ample, fake bosoms is degrading to women. Or something like that.
Whatever. Feel free to be offended. I find such humorless, knee-jerk reactions, to be tedious at best, sanctimonious and arrogant at worst. I don't care for such sanctimony from Joe Lieberman, I don't care for it from anyone else. Some people find such content offensive. Some people find it arousing. Some people find it funny. To each his or her own.
But I am not Lieberman. I won't sit there and judge pop culture and act as gatekeeper to what I think is "appropriate", and what isn't.
And I certainly won't let the sanctimonious women's studies set play that role on this site. Feel free to be offended. Feel free to claim that I'm somehow abandoning "progressive principles" by running the ad. It's a free country. Feel free to storm off in a huff. Other deserving bloggers could use the patronage.
Me, I'll focus on the important shit.
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2005/06/06/kos-gets-real/
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 13, 2007 2:10 PM
I personally think he's earned the right to give out a little advice and try to help a fellow blogger once in a while. It is entirely up to Ms. Sierra whether to take that advice or not.
This is advice:
This is not:
Do you see the difference?
Posted by: Jeff Fecke | April 13, 2007 2:11 PM
Based on his past behavior, I will make two forecasts:
(a) Markos will not apologize.
(b) Markos will continue to do this sort of thing until people like PZ are driven away from supporting him.
I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.
Posted by: llewelly | April 13, 2007 2:21 PM
Kos is insensitive but his point is valid. I have had one anonimous death threat and it was definitely disconcerting. But what can one do about it? Prosecute? But who can investigate that stuff? Bottom line is if you can't take the heat, then stay out of the kitchen.
Posted by: syvanen | April 13, 2007 2:27 PM
David Wilford wrote:
Fuck that.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 13, 2007 2:32 PM
I did not hear about this before the fuss about Kathy Sierra cancelling speaking engagements, but I did see some of the (real) pictures. I agree that we can't sit back on our fat asses and tell someone else that they should ignore death threats or inciters to hatred who post the home address of their intended victim. And "you'd bet it's an empty threat"--but would you bet your life?
This came at a particularly disturbing time considering that in February that the Minister for Social Welfare in Punjab was murdered at a public speaking engagement... For not appearing veiled head to foot. Details here and here. It might not cross your mind, but I suspect it crossed Ms. Sierra's. And if you think it can't happen here, remember the evil idiots who think that killing the receptionist at an abortion clinic is a praiseworthy act.
I would definitely vote for publishing as much information as possible about the identity and whereabouts of those who threatened.
Posted by: Monado | April 13, 2007 2:33 PM
The threats against Kathy Sierra were so heinous that there was a convergence of views on the matter between Michelle Malkin and Majikthise.
This is the left wing version of Kos' 2004 "screw them" remark about the American contractors killed in Fallujah, which mobilized the conservative blogosphere. But now he's angered his own base.
Kos thinks he's a guru and kingmaker, scolding politicians with the stature of Barack Obama via his electronic pulpit. This time, his arrogance has bitten him on the ass.
Posted by: Colugo | April 13, 2007 2:44 PM
Furthermore, just as my own personal opinion, the Democrats that have been "written off" by Kos are pretty much just spineless, Republican-Lite losers who wouldn't know a progressive value if it bit them on the ass.
I may have misinterpreted, but I think Jeff meant the half of the Democrats that are women. Hopefully that's not what you also meant.
Posted by: Carlie | April 13, 2007 2:49 PM
Llewelly, apparently in CalGeorge's example #59 he did apologize for going too far regarding the online ad discussed. I too am very against censorship, but it was his approach that turned people off. As a blogger said:
"Nonetheless, I didn't feel the urge to boycott or take it down or anything, because I jsut am more uneasy about stripping down offensive images rather than examining them. Kos didn't want to do either and I'm irritated."
Like the issue about the patron at the autoshop, I resent someone telling me that I'm being an athiest sheep because I choose not to make a big deal over a Christian radio station, mainly because I've been fighting and clawing my way about atheism nearly my whole life, often at a cost; the person approached it all wrong. The same attitude goes for Markos's approach to liberals - it's groupthink no matter how you slice it. He sounds like what he despises - if you don't agree with ME, you are the same as Dobson, you are not progressive or liberal enough, and dismiss others' complaints about the ad being on the site. He didn't have to agree, but they deserved a better explanation as his fellow liberals than what he doled out to them.
That's why I'm not registered with a party. Ugh.
Posted by: Observer | April 13, 2007 2:50 PM
Because, as PZ can attest, there's nuts everywhere!
And so the proper response is to normalize violence against women?
I still don't understand, I guess.
Posted by: Chet | April 13, 2007 2:54 PM
Bottom line is if you can't take the heat, then stay out of the kitchen.
And then get back in it and make him his sandwich. A man is waiting here, dammit!
Posted by: Chet | April 13, 2007 2:56 PM
Our tax dollars go to the FBI, that is what they're for. Death threats coupled with nasty pictures and address posting are serious enough to warrant investigation. If you can't take the heat? I dunno...my father's profession gets death threats all the time and they're investigated or else people would be difficult to hire. I'd take the Ted Rall route and then hire some 15-year old hackers to do all sorts of nasty stuff to the perpetrator.
Posted by: Observer | April 13, 2007 2:57 PM
I better add: Not nasty as in violent. I was joking...sort of. ;-)
Posted by: Observer | April 13, 2007 2:58 PM
I think Jeff meant the half of the Democrats that are women.
Correct. I assume he misinterpereted; certainly I don't think it's the "spineless, Republican-lite losers" who are up in arms about this. Well, not unless Amanda Marcotte's changed parties while I wasn't looking.
Posted by: Jeff Fecke | April 13, 2007 3:06 PM
the comment above, "American contractors". You mean "mercenaries". They are the second biggest army in Iraq. I too say "screw them".
Posted by: bernarda | April 13, 2007 3:12 PM