If there's something I'm not accepting that you want to say, you can hit that button and immediately acquire a place for yourself to say what you want.
What I'm not accepting in the comments: Things that don't fall within the scope of my post, things that I believe were written in bad faith (that is, with the purpose of harming or degrading this blog), low-effort peevish junk.... I can't complete this subjective list, but to quote the Supreme Court Justice who was my favorite back when I was in law school — I graduated in 1981 — I know it when I see it.
A blog is a triumph of subjectivity and exquisitely limited personal power, and I intend to keep it that way.
पोस्ट्स
४८ टिप्पण्या:
“Low-effort peevish junk” trips me up the most.
In law school, my favorite SCOTUS Justice was Hugo Black. I thought Rehnquist was whack. Scalia and Thomas weren’t on the bench yet.
It’s unfortunate.
My campaign to get Wordle to use ‘okapi’ has fallen flat as well…
Your blog is (literally) the first thing I read every morning as a get to my desk because the combination of eclectic creativity and helpful legal analysis is a great way for me to get the day going and limber up my mind before starting "real work". I may miss the occasional day(s) when you've not put anything up early, but I've been a pretty steady reader since late '04 or early '05 -- for the reasons mentioned above.
Thanks for your persistence in the effort.
Damn straight.
Amen. My policy is pretty much the same.
Love,it and your blog. As my pop used to say, your rights end where my ass starts …….
Ann: Did any of your students clerk for SCOTUS? Creighton Law has had one SCOTUS law clerk. He works in DC and I met him at a Federalist Society screening of the Clarence Thomas film. Great guy! Great film!
Agreed.
"Did any of your students clerk for SCOTUS?"
Yes.
And one is a U.S. Senator.
It's always amazed me how randos can come into a blog's comments and assume they're as worth listening to as the blogger! Years ago a psychologist friend mentioned how so many of her clients felt so "entitled" and I started seeing it everywhere. Their lack of insight into how they're coming across is disheartening.
See the top right corner of every page of this blog? It says "Create blog."
Does it, though?
I think you are pretty darn clear about what you want. Lately you’ve done a little coaching and nudging with a deletion occasionally to illustrate your point. I’m here to read the smart takes.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
"Did any of your students clerk for SCOTUS?"
Yes.
And one is a U.S. Senator.
The part about the US Senator had me wondering.
Then I realized I would rather wonder than know.
1) Because it would be too much work on my part to narrow it down and I would never know if my guess were correct.
2) And more importantly ... I would instantly pigeonhole that individual based on the current political divide in this country. I might claim that I wouldn't but I would.
How much better to think someone, possibly as a result of a previous teacher's influence, may take an interesting position not in keeping with political stereotyping.
Kind of like my response to Senator Sinema. I don't agree with her much on policy positions, but I recognize she does think outside the box. We need Senators who spend less time dunking on people on Twitter and more willing to work together on what they can with those of a different political persuasion.
See the top right corner of every page of this blog? It says "Create blog."
Not on my browser. I'd best be careful. If I lose this outlet for expression, that's it for me.
I don't know that an old guy could know pornography when he sees it. Some of the traditional markers are missing at that age.
Is this blog an "elite destination?"
Bravo!
By the way, I tried my hand at blogging a few times over the years, which is why I so admire what you have done. I couldn't keep it going. Probably spent too much time reading Althouse and then had to get on with my day and making a living.
I still spend too much time reading the Althouse blog, but I consider it a good habit.
Then I realized I would rather wonder than know.
1) Because it would be too much work on my part to narrow it down and I would never know if my guess were correct.
Wiki lists the schools each Senator attended. There's one obvious possibility.
I like feisty Althouse.
Meade should be careful...she might have a 'honey-do' list : )
Paraphrasing Meade from a thread about a decade ago: "There's this lady who has a blog and sometimes she lets you post comments on it."
It’s difficult to create a blog that is without flaw when all of its participants are by definition flawed.
But I can’t fault you for trying.
Much unanimity here. What do the deleted posts say?
Not sure how much effort the use of your power takes these days, but the result looks good: you keep up a steady stream of diverse posts, and commentary is flowing again without too much (public) disruption or flame wars. Works for me if it works for you.
If you're post sucks or you make a retarded point, don't you want feedback? I mean it's not like this is the Sixteen Chapel in the Vatican above all and perfect. You didn't always be a snowflake. Is this another aspic of Stockholm Syndrome from operating a deplorable free range safe space?
I try to keep to the straight and narrow, but with so many interesting posts and mostly intelligent, interesting commenters, it's hard to know where the lines are sometimes.
Every once in a while I send something that doesn't show up; at first I would email Prof to ask about it, but now I just assume it was judged lacking in some way. I figure it would aggravate her and add to her load to ask for clarification, so I just try to enjoy whatever free speech space is allowed.
Like many others, I come here first every day. Not my first activity, not by a long shot, but my first online time. (Right after the bank.)
Ohyeah, I don't get the 'create blog' option either, but that's just a click or two away anyway . . .
But I don't have the energy to blog. Why buy a cow?
The delete option is helpful. Lately, I have sometimes looked at a post and said "I wouldn't want to read this, why should I bother someone else with it."
The justice I most highly regarded from reading his opinions was John Marshall Harlan II. He had been gone for a few years when I entered law school.
The commenters who post the same harsh, angry comments every day are tiresome, like a one-note symphony. I guess that qualifies as low effort, peevish junk.
I did encounter a new word today from these comments: rando.
It's pretty weak to complain about your comment being deleted.
Now hear this. This is an elite blog you are commenting on. Comment accordingly.
https://youtu.be/WI5B7jLWZUc
I wonder if 'rando' is a legal wordle.
And I wouldn't be here if I didn't consider it an elite blog.
Wiki lists the schools each Senator attended. There's one obvious possibility.
As I recall, Ann spent a year teaching at a different university on some type of exchange program since I started reading her blog. I don't recall the name of it but there is more than one possibility.
However, I did take the suggestion and found the result to be interesting. I had thought there were more law school graduates in the Senate than I found. Fewer Ivy League schools than I assumed as well. A number of senators have no advanced degree and, at least one, appears to have no degree at all.
The surprise was the senator who was apparently in the same undergraduate program at the same university at roughly the same time as I. One of the lesser-known members of the Senate but obviously better known than I.
Funny thing about Peevish. People are Peeved. People are peevish. But does anyone peeve?
People never seem to use it as in: peeving; or peeves.
Maybe its too close to Pee.
yeah, that's one problem with the intertubes. You always have freeloaders who want to tell the blogger what to write about. Or they clog up the comment section and use it to express their own boring views.
These characters show up everywhere. No matter how obscure the blog or site, or the subject.
Women seldom handle authority well.
Howard is using the old tactic these characters always use.
"Oh, so you want an echo chamber"
"Oh, so we're all just supposed shout Seig Heil and write what YOU want".
No, you're supposed to write about the Subject, not trash the host, and be interesting.
Levene, D., joining in the opinion of Althouse, A.
"The commenters who post the same harsh, angry comments every day are tiresome, like a one-note symphony. I guess that qualifies as low effort, peevish junk."
Right. Your mind doesn't get stronger and better if you repeat same, same every day.
I publically walked away from this blog after the Covington Catholic Kid incident. I was deeply annoyed by Althouse's apparent attitude about it.
Recently I've crept back. It's just a fact that it's the best blog of its type.
When, that is, comments are running well.
I read elsewhere on this page that Althouse disapproves of Neil Young throwing his weight around in an attempt to channel public discourse. I agree. I love Neil Young, but limiting discourse is counterproductive.
On the same page, Althouse, apparently immune to irony, throws her weight around in an attempt to channel discourse. "Get your own damn blog", she says. Uh, OK.
I abandoned commenting here when Althouse issued the ukase that she would only consider comments emailed to her. The blog instantly became very boring, the only voices being heard those of Althouse sycophants and junkies. I came back when it appeared she had renewed her earlier commitment to freedom of expression. I believe I will now be forced to abandon it again as Althouse cracks the whip.
I have tried very hard here to avoid the insipid back-and-forth engaged in by others. I have tried very hard to only make germane comments. And yet I apparently have recently had comments edited out because they did not precisely follow the subject matter as perceived by Althouse. Well, OK, Althouse, have it your way. Have your little room with the golden sunlight pouring in, surrounded by those who know how to play tea party in the correct manner. Henceforth, I'll be frequenting blogs that are actually stimulating.
The only reason I ever visit this blog is for the comments section. Ann's commentary is almost always insightful enough to incite (incite? inspire? initiate?) interesting commentary.
Re-reading that, I think Ann's commentary is inciteful.
See Ernst Gellner or Zygmunt Bauman on gamekeepers and gardners.
Following an insight of Ernst Gellner, Bauman contrasts the premodern as "wild culture" that needs no conscious care to reproduce, with the modern "garden" culture that requires constant tending and where supervision is needed to rid the place of weeds. So "gardeners" take over from "gamekeepers," believing themselves to be responsible for the cultivation and welfare of all. Surveillance and education accompany the destruction of popular culture and the tending of compliant plants. "Civilizing" appeared to be curiously close in practical meaning to "policing" and "culture" could in some respects be "legislated."
Exactly. My blog is mostly moribund, but when I was blogging, I had a few commenters of the “I noticed you’re not blogging about [insert topic],” with the implied demand that I should. To hell with that. Write about what interests you. If your interests are interesting, the audience will arrive.
People never seem to use it as in: peeving; or peeves.
One of my pet peeves is people wantonly misspelling the simplest of words in the English language in public. (Am not suggesting that there are any such barbarisms in rcocean's posts.)
Good for you, Ms. Althouse!
Blog about what you like and if it's interesting the audience will come. But what if it's the other way around and what you aren't saying and aren't censoring that attracts many people? In other words, what if it's the space that you create that attracts a large audience? That's not to demean the content, but providing a forum is also an achievement.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा