Comments

1. Barry Knister says

   July 17, 2015 at 8:42 am

   Porter–
   You are talking mostly about writers and publishing people “in the news,” with name recognition, etc. For such folks, you would seem to be right in saying that “non-engagement is our best weapon.”
   I’m not sure there’s anything else that can or needs to be done. Every time someone who publishes scurrilous comments gets a response, that person is–maddeningly–being legitimized. George Lakoff and other neuropsychologists/linguists have written about this. Regardless of how mad-hatter a comment or opinion may be, every reference to it reinforces the legitimacy of the message. By being ignored, I’d think many of the bomb throwers would come off looking pretty funny.
   Besides, it’s just possible that some high-profile people have a tendency to take themselves a bit too seriously. They are too important not to defend themselves, etc. But in dealing with those who are rude and/or nuts, that’s a bad idea, don’t you agree?

   • Porter Anderson says

     July 17, 2015 at 10:32 am

     Hi, Barry,

     Thanks for your comment. It’s not actually just the “public figure” class being treated to aggressive behavior. Many times, unsuspecting folks in very modest proximity to a community or issue will be targeted and a lot of those people will be less prepared to handle it than the public figures.

     Thanks again!
     -p.

     On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

     • Barry Knister says

       July 18, 2015 at 9:13 am

       Porter–
       I think it was Seneca who said that revenge (in this instance, counterattacking online abuse) is a sign of weakness. It means you’ve been moved/angered by your enemy, and thereby you treat him as your equal. I happen to like that.

       • Porter Anderson says

         July 20, 2015 at 7:46 am

         Indeed, Barry, if for any reason you feel forced to return fire in the public arena — as you can see me feeling forced to do later in these comments, by Nate Hoffelder (@thdigitalreader) — one of the most important things to do is to explain to all watching why it is that you are stopping and turning to respond. Otherwise, it’s quite true, you can appear to have treated an assailant as an equal.
         Thanks again,
         -p.

         On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

2. Amanda says

   July 17, 2015 at 9:07 am

   Amen amen amen Porter. In addition to “starving it out” I think it is helpful to remember that a new type of media has blossomed in the last 5 years–paid or compensated comments and reviews. And that’s not to say I begrudge those who are paid or compensated for legitimate, honest comments and reviews–on the contrary, I appreciate the in depth ones that can state their opinion intelligently. And I myself am paid to review newly published books for a major media outlet. But then there are the trolls. What is frightening is when people are paid to comment on politically charged news articles. It makes one realize that online rabble rousers and those who pay them may have a larger plan than just stating their opinion. Long story short, online hatred is a cheap weed, so we should definitely starve it out. And nourish havens like WU where clear eyed discourse thrives.

   • Porter Anderson says

     July 17, 2015 at 9:26 pm

     Hi, Amanda,

     A very cogent comment, and thanks for it.

     Yes, paid comment is, in a way, a whole added layer of problem in this area and I’m unsure, myself, where it leads us. It is axiomatic that there will be pundits-for-hire whose comments will make easy money because they know how to write inflammatory responses to things and bring emotional issues to an explosive level — all of which can attract traffic and advertisers for those who hire such people.

     At some point, it will be necessary, in all likelihood, to form some sort of boycotts of sites using these tactics. Not looking forward to that stage a bit, frankly, we’ll let it come in its own tawdry time.

     In the very old days (I remember them personally at the ends of hard weeks like this one, lol), town criers were paid to “cry” what you wanted them to.

     The social media were always prey to these strategies.

     What a revoltingly consistent species we are, huh? :)

     Thanks again,
     -p.

     On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

3. taylorgraceauthor says

   July 17, 2015 at 9:13 am

   Great post, Porter. I think not engaging is the best way to deal with those who really aren’t interested in an honest conversation to begin with. Hard to do, once our emotions are engaged, but I’d say it’s the only way to preserve some serenity.

   • Porter Anderson says

     July 17, 2015 at 10:51 pm

     Thanks so much, Taylor.

     You’re right that serenity becomes something one has to enforce, even police. This is a hard concept to grasp for some of us.

     It seems counter-intuitive to think that you may have to apply a type of social force in order to maintain a type of social ease, doesn’t it?

     I’m with you, though. And I and many others are going to have to step up our games in terms of applying this social force and making sure that the stranded bullies know they are being stranded. Systemwide awareness is part of what’s needed here. That’s up to us.

     Cheers,
     -p.

     On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

4. Alicia Butcher Ehrhardt says

   July 17, 2015 at 9:19 am

   Good topic – everything is magnified by the speed of ‘discourse’ possible now.

   First of all, Hugh Howey is a sweetheart who has done a lot of things he did not need to do for the writing community – cheerfully and with generosity.

   I don’t engage in these flame wars – not my nature – but I’m wondering how much the anonymity online is adding extra fuel.

   Companies demand proof (okay, just money) that you are who you say you are when you purchase something, but many comments are made without the commenter being responsible for his or her words to their community. You can literally say anything you want to say.

   I remember a site a popular actor opened up to chat with his fans – within less than three weeks it was all garbage.

   The answer? Dunno. But on my blog (tiny following), it has been enough to moderate comments, and not let someone comment regularly unless their first comment was approved. I keep a careful watch after that, too.

   The internet giveth freedom and instant communication, and the internet taketh away civil discourse. We’re trying to adjust as a world, and we’re not there yet.

   But I’m scared. I’m about to publish in the world bigger than just my little blog, and I’m scared. I also have my manners on their best behavior. I hope that’s enough.

   • Porter Anderson says

     July 17, 2015 at 9:44 pm

     Right on several important points here, Alicia, thank you.

     Yes, the issue of anonymity online is a vexing one. Many right-headed people want to support a right o anonymity because this should be something we can offer each other. At the same time, as you perceive, anonymity makes it possible for people to operate without accountability online and they can be some of the most incendiary devils we encounter.

     Also right that we’re trying to adjust and simply haven’t made it. Over time, I believe that we will come to realize that we have tried too hard (human nature, not deliberate mistake) to turn the cyberworld into something reflective of real life. That’s to be expected, it’s logical. When you arrive in a new land, you try to set up familiar patterns of behavior so you’re not lost and confused. But in the process of hoping to replicate familiarity, we have missed crucial differences in how we perform and behave. As in the village square metaphor I’m using here today. It’s a bit ham-handed but not far from the problem. We conceive of an online space as something akin to that public park in the center of town. What we don’t realize is how much easier it is to hurt careers and people and companies and concepts because what we have tried to see as a town square is, in fact, a universally connected network of intensely sensitive, exquisitely tuned channels of communication. Our every whisper in the online edition of that town square can be amplified into thunder heard on another side of the world. We mistake this because it’s still alien to us. In effect, the old village square IRL with my madman screaming at the buildings? — looks quaint and manageable.

     And yes, your fear is understandable and, not to deepen it, correct.

     Being scared is not a bad position as long as you’re not paralyzed online by it. You must operate and as fully as your smart fears will allow. But never put those fears completely to rest. Too much trust gets you thrown under a bus, as happened to me once just this week online. Too much sense of fellow-feeling is normally a mirage, beware it, as unpleasant a warning as that is.

     The real key, I find is a patience that seems antithetical to this fast world of instantaneous transmission: if you think you have met a trustworthy person, who in life could be a real friend, go as slowly as you can stand. Make that relationship play out and prove itself over months, not days or weeks.

     Long-term dependability is hard to come by online. Watch how fast many people will disappear, even nice ones. The online personalities I have come to know as my genuine friends and colleagues have been with me in one form or another online for a very long time. Go slowly and prepare to walk way whenever something untoward is at hand. You’ll be fine.

     -p.

     On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

5. Jo Eberhardt says

   July 17, 2015 at 10:04 am

   Why? I don’t know. Maybe because so many people feel trapped in lives they don’t want, with dreams left unfulfilled, debts piling up, and no way to release the ever-building anguish at their self-created (or externally-forced) circumstances in real life without bringing terrible consequences crashing down on their vulnerable and barely-treading-water heads, but on the internet… oh, on the internet, my friend, there are no consequences, and doesn’t it just release a whole passel of endorphins to tear someone down from their high horse in front of a whole crowd of willing spectators?

   Great article, Porter. I hadn’t heard about the Hugh Howey debacle, but I’ve been following the Reddit situation. And as for #AskELJames… Wow.

   I first came across it when I saw a Buzzfeed (or similar) article on the “hilarious” tweets the author received. As I scrolled through them, I felt more and more sick to the stomach. It was the most grotesque display of aggression, bullying, and mob mentality I’ve seen in a long time. I’ve several times commented that I wonder how Ms James feels about all the negative press her writing gets — she is, after all, a real person, with real feelings, and, I would wager, a real internet connection. Regardless of whether or not I like her work, it sickens me to see the personal attacks arrayed against her, often followed by the comment: “it doesn’t matter, she’s laughing her way to the bank”.

   I though Chuck Wendig’s article in response was beautiful done. I’ve had a great deal of respect for him for a long, long time, but that took it to a whole new level. And so his “I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have said anything” quasi-retraction left me feeling hollow. It’s a sad, sad day when an innocent bystander who steps up to help someone being publically abused is, in turn, abused and vilified.

   Back to where I started. Why this behaviour? The four-year-old in me wants to answer: Because, left to their own devices, most people are poopy-heads.

   • Porter Anderson says

     July 17, 2015 at 10:29 pm

     You bring up one of the most intriguing elements of this, Jo — among many good points here.

     Is it the case, we have to wonder, that people are newly left with dreams unfulfilled and no way to release the ever-building anguish, as you put it so well? Or has that bad experience always been here but only with the advent of online revelation we’re seeing it now? This very important question reminds me of what I think happens with many medical discoveries. You notice, for example, that so many parents seem to feel that they have detected forms of autism in their children…we never used to suspect such a thing on so wide a basis in the past. Only when we had a name for it and could start amplifying its tendencies and symptoms could we start thinking it had arrived in so many families. And we have to wonder if such experiences of frustrated ambition as you mention are real? — or are they the reflected failures of a world suddenly cheek-by-jowl with its seemingly “successful” celebrities online?

     I ran into this a couple of nights ago when an incredibly famous actor dropped a line to me on Twitter and I realized how amazingly close we are now to what once were such distant icons. Sounds great at first blush. Sounds maddening two minutes later when you realize how much you might not have and how much that nearby starlet has got. These are new proximities for haves and have-nots. And in publishing, the problem translates (I was talking about this with a client over lunch) in the self-published who feel they cannot admit that the were rejected over and over and over. They must, they feel, act as if selfpub was the goal all along. It was and is, for some, of course. But I think they’re in the minority more frequently than we might guess.

     Yes, with Hugh it was quite striking what he was going through. Rarely had that man been subjected to the raging hostility he got full in the face when he suddenly appeared not to be on the side of quick-and-dirty short-form production at Select. He’d never been in favor of such rubbish, of course, but had been interpreted by a great many work-around artists as such. Their awakening was rude and so was their response.

     I’m similarly hit by what E.L. James has encountered. I’m not afraid to say that I don’t like her work and I like even less her publisher’s elevation of it without even proper editing. I consider the real story of Grey to be the worst realities of corporate-driven traditional publishing. And I’ll be writing next week about the remarkable difference we suddenly see when the “big book” is by a literary author like Harper Lee, even as problematic as “Watchman” is in her career and on our shelves. But I couldn’t agree more — as antithetical as the stumble up the stairs by James may be, the beating she took online was inexcusable. I hope she never writes another word, frankly, we need not another syllable from her. But I also hope she never experiences a second of such an assault again.

     And the Wendig incident! I was in touch with Chuck behind the scenes (plying my little DM-them effort) to see if I could first be sure he was OK and then find out more. He can barely speak about it. “Not ideal,” he told me. Someone got to him very badly and for what I think was the wrong reason. As I say, we’re not privy to the whole story and I respect his need and right to keep it to himself. But on the public front, this was not right. To my mind, your interpretation of the vilified would-be Samaritan is right.

     I’m ready for us to start staring down the shitheads, frankly. We’ve had enough.

     Thanks for this again, great input.

     -p.

     ADDENDUM: i, Jo, per your note about 4 year olds and “poopy-heads,” lol, a quick added reply I’m realizing I need to make in several instances of comments that have referred to children’s outburts in our discussion. Don’t feel alone, you’re one of many making this comparison. I just want to put into place a warning about that.

     I think that comparing the kind of hostility I’m talking about to the temper tantrums of children is dangerous. This is not a childlike anger we’re discussing, but is normally a targeted, knowing, purposeful attack, a very adult action, if you will. Please don’t feel bad, I think that the image of the upset child comes easily to mind for many of us. But I think we need to stop using it in this context. This is worse than what most children do, and I’d like us not to unwittingly let someone off the hook with such imagery. I’m going to go back and repeat this graf in a few places in comments so if you see it elsewhere you’re not alone — and you’re not losing your mind!

     Thanks again!

     On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

     • Gabrielle Garbin says

       July 18, 2015 at 7:07 am

       Hi Porter

       Sadly, writers (and readers) trashing each other is not new. The Huffington Post has an article called Way Harsh: Famous Authors Who Hated Each Other’s Writing, that underscores the clashing of egos in the literary field overtime.

       Technogy paves the way for individuals to spew torrents of criticism and to be downright rude without taking a breath. It’s all ego driven claptrap in my opinion. An example of such criticism directed toward one of the most commercially successful authors of our time:

       Harold Bloom on J.K. Rowling (2000)

       “How to read ‘Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone’? Why, very quickly, to begin with, and perhaps also to make an end. Why read it? Presumably, if you cannot be persuaded to read anything better, Rowling will have to do.”

       Though I couldn’t get past the first paragraph of the first page of the first book in the E.L. James’ series of novels, there are a great many others who could. Trashing her publicly is unacceptable. An honest review of her book that is both respectful and factual is another matter, but to publicly humiliate and excoriate the woman for her success smacks of jealousy, and I think her success is the real issue.

       James has proven that one needs to be neither a good writer nor have a well-edited book to be commercially successful. Of course that is going to piss off writers who have worked hard and have seen a fraction of her success, but that is no excuse for behaving like a troll. It’s also more than a little hypocritical. Many of the people slinging mud would gladly compromise themselves if they stood to make a lot of money. To suggest anything else is just disingenuous.

       Hugh Howey has paid his dues. If he is forced to leave public forums, he should take heart. it is more likely a measure of his success, and the jealousy that this always attracts from the narcissistic members of a group, rather than the pseudo-noble smokescreen of reasons created by detractors to support and excuse their (tantrums?) behavior.

       We should simply put them in the corner and let them think about what they’re doing. When they’re ready to come out and engage in a civil way, then and only then should they be given the gift of our attention.

       Go Hugh Howey (insert fist pump)!

       • Porter Anderson says

         July 18, 2015 at 10:12 am

         Hello, Gabrielle, and thanks for this.

         I agree with you right down the line.

         I ask only the question — almost rhetorical, of course: Does the fact that trashing each other in literary (and near-literary) circles is not new mean that we can sit by without objecting, particularly in media which ARE relatively new and make it so much easier than it has been in the past?

         Don’t worry, I don’t think for a minute that your answer is, “Yes, Porter, we should just sit by and not object.” LOL

         I’m just stating the obvious here to (a) agree with you and to (b) perform the necessary act, I suppose, of explaining why we must — I believe — object to something that seems as obviously insupportable as online hostility.

         One of our respondents here is noting that the angry do at times have good points to make. That goes without saying.

         You, in fact, provide us with the right answer to that right point:

         “When they’re ready to come out and engage in a civil way, then and only then should they be given the gift of our attention.”

         It is not the rightness of a good point that we want to silence. It is the anger and its effects of embarrassment, potential reputational damage, pain, and offensiveness that we must object to and starve out.

         Thanks agian!
         -p.

         On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

         • Gabrielle Garbin says

           July 18, 2015 at 10:40 am

           Agreed. As one would deal with a raging child who can’t find the appropriate language to express what is really bothering him (her), we do have to redirect and insist on civil, respectful disagreement. I do believe that some who engage in openly vicious, openly hostile behavior are narcissists and cannot be reasoned with, otherwise, why would they engage in such reprehensible behavior? Collectively we can move forward by doing what you are doing: moving the conversation in an honest direction that insists on respect for all regardless of talent or business models. (Have to say that this is all a bit surreal for me–that we even have to go “there.”) Thanks for the post. It’s an eye opener.

           • Porter Anderson says

             July 18, 2015 at 11:34 am

             Hi, Gabrielle, a quick added reply I’m realizing I need to make in several instances of comments that have referred to children’s outburts in our discussion. Don’t feel alone, you’re one of many making this comparison. I just want to put into place a warning about that. Thanks again! -p.

             May I just posit with you one qualm — and this is not just something I need to say to you but would like to say to several respondents here: I think that comparing the kind of hostility I’m talking about to the temper tantrums of children is dangerous. This is not a childlike anger we’re discussing, but is normally a targeted, knowing, purposeful attack, a very adult action, if you will. Please don’t feel bad, I think that the image of the upset child comes easily to mind for many. But I think we need to stop using it in this context. This is worse than what most children do, and I’d like us not to unwittingly let someone off the hook with such imagery. I’m going to go back and repeat this graf in a few places in comments so if you see it elsewhere you’re not alone — and you’re not losing your mind!

             • Gabrielle Garbin says

               July 18, 2015 at 11:46 am

               You’re right. I suppose it’s an effort to make sense of toxicity in the last place I ever expected to find it. Kudos to you for increasing our awareness as a community.

     • Barry Knister says

       July 18, 2015 at 9:33 am

       Porter–forgive me for piping up yet again, but one sentence in your response to Jo should be repeated: “These are new proximities for haves and have-nots.”
       Surely this new reality explains a great deal of the abuse you’re writing about. And for reasons too involved to go into here, I suspect the act of devoting time and energy to writing something that doesn’t succeed in the marketplace often leads to a special kind of frustration and bitterness. It would I think be much more intense than is true of the average wannabe dreamer, the person who has no athletic or showbiz talent, and moons over tabloid stories of the rich and famous.
       Thanks for treating seriously what deserves such attention.

       • Porter Anderson says

         July 18, 2015 at 10:26 am

         Not at all, Barry, always good to have you.

         And yes. I have to believe that one of the things we have failed at times to understand — and a reason for some of the vituperative energy in the self-publishing camp, in particular — is the acute pain and loneliness of relative failure in the marketplace.

         When independent authors speak of being rejected by agents and editors in the traditional side of the industry, there is frequently a gathering of support and fellow-feeling for them, and this is good on a human level, of course. What I fear is often missing is the quiet voice asking — in private, not in a way that would embarrass — “but was your submission good enough? Is it possible that your book and/or your query really weren’t what they should or could have been?”

         We are not good at researching the weaker moments of our natures and the shortcomings of our efforts. And because we can’t support those important inquiries in ways that are helpful and constructive, we can inadvertently leave those who feel (and maybe are) rejected on an outer ring of communal activity and professional engagement.

         In many cases, as I think you are understanding, then, the angry attacks may be coming from those marginalized by their unhappy experiences. This doe not mean we can allow them the ugliness of their attacks. But that proximity of haves and have-nots — in terms of reception, if nothing else — I believe must be taken into account here if we’re ever able to understand why there’s so much anger crashing around this space.

         Thanks again,
         -p.

         On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

6. Carol Buchanan says

   July 17, 2015 at 10:41 am

   Porter, here’s my short answer: Yup. Time and life are too short to participate in tempests in teacups. Or over the internet.
   The anger Hugh Howey received from one that you quoted, however, points to a terrible truth about publishing: We take the risk of putting heart, soul, mind, and life into our writing, only to to find it’s not very good.

   • Porter Anderson says

     July 17, 2015 at 12:43 pm

     Quite right, Carol, and multiply that comment to Hugh by many — I’d say approaching 100 out of many agreements, to be fair, and you realize that the scale of disappointment is quite big.
     Thanks for reading and commenting! Good to see you at #FutureChat, too!
     -p.

     On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

     • Carol Buchanan says

       July 17, 2015 at 2:12 pm

       Thank you, too, Porter. And thanks for moderating #FutureChat in such a civil way. .

       On another tack, I wonder why people flay Mr. Howey or any other author for a reasonably considered business decision.

       C

       • Porter Anderson says

         July 17, 2015 at 10:49 pm

         Hi again, Carol,

         I’m afraid that success has a role here. Most writers look at Howey and see someone whose new 50-foot catamaran is longer than theirs. And they resent it. It’s an ugly element of human nature exacerbated by a cultural drive toward material opulence. Arrives online as a lot of the unforgivable hostility we’re talking about here today.

         Disturbing, isn’t it? But important for us to stop and see consciously so we can take steps to get these bitter, hostile people out of our online (and offline) lives.

         Thanks again,
         -p.

         On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

7. Laverne McGee says

   July 17, 2015 at 10:44 am

   People misbehave online because it’s easy. All a person has to do is create a sockpuppet and then go flame others to their heart’s content. I started out writing fan fiction. It was fun and enjoyable and I used it to hone my skills. Sure, there were the trolls, but they were insecure writers who rallied their families, friends and fans to attack other writers they didn’t like. I myself experienced such an attack for six straight weeks, 24/7. I learned a lesson from that, it just wasn’t the lesson the trolls expected me to learn. Zero tolerance, and I don’t engage.

   When I was younger my temper could best be described as ‘volcanic.’ I’ve mellowed a lot now. But I’ve gotten into trouble just by saying “we can agree to disagree.” I naively thought that mainstream would be more civilized. Boy, was I wrong. Seems that everyone out here is on a hair trigger, and if you dare disagree with them out comes the profanity and the labels (‘right wing nut job, libtard, homophobe’) The walls go up and the claws come out.

   I think part of the problem is that the admins and owners of these websites have the ability to block trolls, especially the persistent ones, but they don’t have the will. As I said, I posted regularly on a popular fan fiction website. There was a troll on there who regularly flamed writers. Her style is very distinctive, very illiterate and very profane. She would fill up writers’ mailboxes with 20 to 30 flames a day for weeks at a time. She threatened to kill writers and their families. I used to joke that they needed to up her meds at the mental institution. I know several writers who stopped writing because of her. Constantly complaining about her and sending copies of her emails to the site support staff did no good at all, so a group of us got together and contacted the owner of the website. At the same time we contacted law enforcement, who in turn contacted the owner. We made our problem the owner’s problem. We also knew that the IP address she used could be blocked, and it didn’t matter if she did it one time or 20. A decent IT department can do that easily, but the problem is, will they?

   Long story short? The site blocked her. She came back raving on a different device: “You can’t block me. I win! I always win! I’m coming to kill you!” Blocked her again when she used another device. She came back. Blocked again. Apparently at one point she ran out of devices and she stopped. Problem solved that time. She still pops up once or twice a year on other websites, but it’s clear that being blocked like that has toned her down considerably. That is a lot of work just to deter one troll. I admit I don’t have a solution, other than to starve them out. Nobody likes being ignored, but sometimes that’s impossible.

   I confess I really can’t bring out the violins for EL James. I once witnessed her go nuclear on a fan online who simply said “I read your first book and I didn’t like it.” That was all. James went off on that person and so did her attack dogs, her fans.That brought back memories for me. All bad ones.

   • Felipe Adan Lerma says

     July 17, 2015 at 1:38 pm

     It is very sad, and seems totally unnecessary, that someone can threaten another person’s life, and be allowed to continue, much less get away with it. Very very sad, esp knowing these people could be charged and arrested. But a recent article, via the Guardian?, explained that some sites probably wouldn’t be able to continue to exist, ie continue making huge money, is they did try to stop the hate. Therefore, there’s no will because it’s not in their monetary interest. Whew!

     • Porter Anderson says

       July 18, 2015 at 10:56 am

       Hi, Felipe,

       Indeed, at the point that angry comment online rises to threat of any kind — let alone bodily harm — I believe that a line has been crossed and that society’s expectation of shutting it down is understandable. Personally, I will support threat of no kind, none. I maintain that zero tolerance for threat is the only legitimate stance. I speak only for myself in this, but I do believe that many others agree. Put in less declamatory terms, if you can’t argue a point in a debate without threatening someone in some way, you need to remove yourself from the fray and reconsider what you’re doing. Those who would threaten, however, are normally beyond such reconsideration. They are animated by something other than debate and are, unfortunately, likely unhinged.

       And parsing these issues at such extreme ranges creates many difficult layers of consideration under concepts of free speech, ironically. It has to be handled with great care, as I think Steve Huffman is doing at Reddit. He finds himself returning to a product he developed with a good deal of “free speech” concept attached to it, only to find that unspeakable bigotry is thriving under such protection, some of it all too happy to motivate threat and more. What’s more, in commercial terms, he must try to understand how legitimate advertising can be brought to support a context that may include hate as part of its brand promise. I believe that his early commentary indicates he is seeing things clearly and announcing that hate cannot be a condoned element of the offering. I wish him well and I’m sure we’re all watching, ready to support his best efforts.

       These are levels of hostility online, however, that generally go much farther than what I’m talking about in my essay and comments here. It doesn’t mean that you’re not right to raise them, but that my own primary concern is for how much we are willing to tolerate in online exchange — particularly in my home base of publishing — of a verbally assaultive and abrasive nature. I think we have let that sort of exchange, in the books world, go too far.

       Certain publishing-related organizations have unintentionally become platforms for people who are inspired by hostile needs of their own, masquerading as care for writers, condemnation of bad commercial practice, or other elements of the bookish world. Members of such organizations are reading these comments and my essay. I invite them to consider distancing themselves from those errant, seething members. Non-engagement is the first step in cleaning up our acts.

       I think it’s time.

       Thanks again,
       -p.

       On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

8. Jane Friedman says

   July 17, 2015 at 11:07 am

   Porter, your piece brings to mind Paul Ford’s excellent essay, “Why Wasn’t I Consulted?” A different angle on the matter, but gets at the root/motivation of people’s attitudes online. http://www.ftrain.com/wwic.html

   • Porter Anderson says

     July 17, 2015 at 12:41 pm

     What a wonderful reference, Jane, I can’t wait to look at Ford, thank you — right after a client lunch, this is super, much appreciated!
     -p.

     On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

   • Porter Anderson says

     July 18, 2015 at 10:41 am

     Thoroughly enjoying Paul Ford’s (@FTrain) essay here, thanks again, Jane.

     I have to believe that “Why Wasn’t I Consulted?” is a direct hit on the matter. How many times could that be the first line of a barrage of angry, self-aggrandizing rubbish to which we’re all treated?

     My guy in the middle of the village square might open up his tirade at the buildings with “Why Wasn’t I Consulted?”

     The concept gets at the selfishness, first and foremost, of so much of what passes for “passionate debate” online. How many times are these assaults a form of showing-off? Inevitably that “winning” thing I talk about is the goal. In Paul’s terms, “You see? I was right. I should have been consulted.”

     Thanks again for this, such an apt reference, I’m still getting more from it…

     -p.

     On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

9. Vaughn Roycroft says

   July 17, 2015 at 11:21 am

   Hey Porter – An important topic, thanks for bringing it front and center. My experience with the James brouhaha. I clicked on a meme about it, and was appalled at how mean-spirited it had gotten. It’s frightening to see just how quickly a mob can be brought to such a blood-frenzy.

   I’ve been going through a fun book the past few days: Dictionary of Idioms and Their Origins, by Linda and Roger Flavell. A few examples spring to mind. Did you know that “having an ax to grind” was from a parable written by Benjamin Franklin. I don’t have the book in front of me, but paraphrasing from memory, the story is about a man who brings his freshly sharpened ax back to the miller to huffily complain that the two faces of the ax were not as shiny and bright as the honed edge. The miller agrees to “fix” the ax, but only if the man will turn the crank on the millstone. After some time and effort spent on one side, the face was still pitted and marred, so the man, have expended his bluster in cranking, saw the futility of it and stormed off with his non-shiny ax, unsatisfied but with an education in the futility of his demanding nature.

   The other one that might apply is “to fly off the handle,” which of course refers to an ax head that comes off the handle. Not only is such an event rage-inducing, but dangerous! It’s born of the ax being an unwieldy tool.

   So I guess the moral of the combined two, having an ax to grind is futile by definition, so don’t be an unwieldy tool.

   I agree with your solution, and will begin operation tool freeze-out post haste. Thanks for the appeal to our better nature, and for rallying the decent townsfolk to common cause.

   • Porter Anderson says

     July 17, 2015 at 12:47 pm

     Well, sir, I’ll be lifting a Campari to you this evening, and with thanks for your generosity and this great note.

     Love Operation Tool Freeze-Out LOL.

     Fantastic ax-phrase background, too, had no idea about the Franklin connection, actually.

     And yes, the wider spread a freeze-out becomes, the better the effect. Over time, we have to take back our village square, as it were … I’ll be opening a fine Camparino right by the fountain. :)

     Cin-cin e grazie!
     -p.

     On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

   • Mike Swift says

     July 18, 2015 at 7:50 am

     A little Brasso and voilà! Shiny ax faces; problem solved. I ought to send that into Poor Richard’s Almanac and get them up-to-speed. #AskMLSwift

     • Porter Anderson says

       July 18, 2015 at 11:23 am

       Brasso. My God, Mike, I hadn’t thought of Brasso for many, many years. What have I been thinking? I need more brass — and Brasso! — in the house.
       -p.

       On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

10. Erin Bartels says

    July 17, 2015 at 11:27 am

    In Chuck’s case, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. People call for those with privilege (and I guess white males are brimming with the stuff) to stand up for those who have less, and then they are excoriated for stepping into situations that they “have no business” commenting on because they haven’t experienced the oppression/persecution/etc. I thought Chuck did a good thing calling for civility and calling people out for being complete…is there there a polite word for it? And there is nothing that angry people hate more than someone pointing out to the world just how much like 13-year-olds they are acting.

    • Porter Anderson says

      July 18, 2015 at 11:32 am

      Very well said, Erin,

      And as a white male, myself, I really appreciate your point regarding that particular instance with Chuck Wendig. I know that many people who contacted me said how much they regretted his “second post” in which he climbed down from his initial stance against the treatment of E.L. James (while making it clear, as many of us had, that he was not at all fond of her work and some of its implications).

      It’s especially tough when anyone — white males or otherwise — cannot be seen for their own efforts in taking the high road. In the case of the Wendig incident, we actually lose a good voice saying the right thing, when some in the community decide to drive him away as being not fit, in their terms. to voice an intelligent vote for tolerance and respectful debate. As I was saying in my essay, it’s not necessary to demonize someone you disagree with. And yet, Wendig was demonized and made so uncomfortable that he felt he had to leave the field.

      His detractors actually lost one of their best friends at that point. How they can think that this was an intelligent response to his efforts is impossible to know.

      May I just posit with you one qualm — and this is not just something I need to say to you but would like to say to several respondents here: I think that comparing the kind of hostility I’m talking about to the temper tantrums of children is dangerous. This is not a childlike anger we’re discussing, but is normally a targeted, knowing, purposeful attack, a very adult action, if you will. Please don’t feel bad, I think that the image of the upset child comes easily to mind for many. But I think we need to stop using it in this context. This is worse than what most children do, and I’d like us not to unwittingly let someone off the hook with such imagery. I’m going to go back and repeat this graf in a few places in comments so if you see it elsewhere you’re not alone — and you’re not losing your mind! :)

      Thanks again!
      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

11. Donald Maass says

    July 17, 2015 at 11:50 am

    Porter-

    “The question our sociologists need to study is not why people feel free to be so boorish online but why they’re so angry in the first place.”

    Wise comment. We live in a global age when it is not enough to have a belief about what to think and how to live. In our age many want others to think and live as they do. Flame out. Off with their heads. The Red Queen rules.

    Freedom means not only the freedom to believe and act as you wish but the maturity to allow others their own beliefs and life choices.

    The first step in conflict resolution, seems to me, is to grow up, count to ten, and remember that what others think does not endanger your own freedom.

    • Felipe Adan Lerma says

      July 17, 2015 at 1:43 pm

      “…remember that what others think does not endanger your own freedom.” –

      Sadly not always true…but otherwise, great points, thanks Donald.

      • Marc Whipple says

        July 18, 2015 at 11:52 am

        No, *always* true. Only what others *do* can endanger your own freedom. In the words of a great fictional philosopher, “Contrary to what most of your species seems to believe, talking is not acting.”

        • Felipe Adan Lerma says

          July 18, 2015 at 11:23 pm

          True, an important distinction. I shoulda said, when others act on what they think or say or compel others into action.

    • Porter Anderson says

      July 18, 2015 at 2:55 pm

      Don!

      I’d have gotten back to you more quickly but that Campari you were kind enough to buy me had me blissfully under the table — I mean re-reading Tolstoy, of course — and I’ve been slowly working my way through your and everyone’s fine, fine comments here carefully so as not to haul off and yell at any buildings by mistake, LOL. (These are the times when you remember those strange events in town squares in your youth…never mind, lol.)

      And seriously, you’re actually putting your finger — as you always do so well — on one of my favorite elements of this whole topic. “Favorite” as in most fascinating, not necessarily a happy thing as it plays out.

      The US of A was founded on dissent. Dissent! We are a nation the very bottom floor of which is all about the right to disagree. Our foremothers and their overbearing husbands put this thing together because there was a dire need back in the Old Country of free speech and disagreement with the Crown.

      And how have we in such a comparatively short time historically, arrived so fearfully unwilling to entertain a contrary idea? This is what’s behind my complaint about folks who demonize those with whom they disagree and feel they must “win” every discussion…which in their minds inevitably means they change everyone else’s mind or run them off.

      This cannot be what we want.

      I’m not always pleased when I can’t get someone to agree with my point of view, of course. That’s human nature. But it doesn’t mean that person is “bad.” And I’d never think of demeaning and biting that person in social media because he or she hadn’t come around to my way of thinking. These folks, on the other hand, do this. If you don’t agree with their position on something, you’re set up as a “wrong” and “bad” and “hated” person, an enemy. You are then, in their minds, it seems, fair game for sniping, sniggering, nasty asides (on Twitter there are times when I have no idea what someone is talking about in slagging someone else)…it’s remarkable, really.

      We hate disagreement. We make people who don’t claim to share our views into ogres.

      You’re saying it beautifully, more so than I am:

      “Freedom means not only the freedom to believe and act as you wish but the maturity to allow others their own beliefs and life choices.”

      That’s just it.

      The corollary I came to in the church as a minister’s son (and was always supported by my father the minister in this, but not by his own parishioners) is that if you are — or in that case a faith is — unable to entertain opposing ideas and thoughts, then you are actually not sure of your own rightness. The most rigid Christians I met in that Protestant milieu were the ones terrified of being asked to entertain an idea from another faith. Which showed me how weak their own beliefs really were.

      The people who are most easily enraged, I find, seem to have only a hair-trigger ability to align themselves with one rather hard-line idea. Variation, nuance, let alone contradiction or alternative thought, may have no room whatever in such a person’s thinking. Thus anyone who gets into close range with even a mildly tangential or different take becomes suspect…the sniping begins, the churlish comments, the rude broadsides… it can make for a miserable experience. And I don’t think we can afford to allow these people to own our shared cyberspace. I think we have to start responding and clearly shutting them out, even saying that’s what we’re doing when necessary.

      I’ll offer just one careful qualifier (maybe too careful) that I’ve begun going back and adding to my answers to a few other great folks here who — as you do (only vaguely, when you say “grow up”) make a kind of comparison to childish tantrums in regards to this topic.

      I get what you mean by “grow up,” of course, and it’s absolutely valid that we’re talking about the better sense of maturity. But I’m concerned that we not compare the sort of behavior we’re talking about here too closely to childhood outbursts. In a couple of others’ comments, I think it became too inadvertently easy to say, “just like a child.” The attacks I’m seeing are not really very childlike at all, but are dangerously adult assaults made by grown-ups whom I don’t (I speak only for myself) want to excuse as “acting like children.”

      If these folks are only 10 years old, then let them tell me so. Otherwise, I’m hoping not to make any concessions by referring to their behavior as childish.

      I think this is worse and I want no cover left for these folks.

      By stranding them, I hope we can expose them as the mean-spirited people they are, support them in getting some help for their anger, sure, but (I’m remembering the old Mothers Against Drunk Driving commercials, marvelous) “first get them off the road” of our shared experience online. They’ve hurt enough people. Me and many others. Enough.

      Thanks again, Don, always the rich comment and cin-cin from barside here. :)

      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

12. writerchick says

    July 17, 2015 at 11:53 am

    Hi Porter,
    First of all, bravo. Excellent illustration of the problem.

    And it isn’t just high profile folks who get flamed, trolled, stalked and are made targets of this type of vitriol. I’ve experienced it myself and it’s scary stuff. And it definitely does more than ruin your day. I’ve seen people go off line completely because of this type of treatment.

    I think our ‘community’ by and large is composed of good people. However, there is a small percentage who thrive on hatred, anger and cruelty. The problem is that this small percentage also seems to have the magical ability to whip up otherwise rational people into a frenzy – by using common buttons that get everyone’s Irish up – unfairness, arrogance, us vs them, the rich – common buttons that everyone has and are easily pushed if done in the right tone and approach. And I believe it’s the hive mentality that takes it from one lone complaining, annoying voice to symphonic group scream.

    As an earlier comment mentioned, people have serious frustrations in their lives – debt, failure, trouble in personal and work lives, etc – so when someone offers them an opportunity to vent – to have a target to blame for all their problems it is practically irresistible. And so goes social discourse.

    By and large, I do think the solution is non-engagement, no matter how tempting it is to try to explain or smooth things over, it’s best to let trolls spin themselves into a frenzy than to try to talk sense to them. And better moderation and strict no trolling policies on public forums that were enforced could go a long way to helping at least slow it down. Will it happen? Hard to say. But if each of us commits to ‘just saying no’ perhaps it would help.

    As an aside: I had a friend who was being stalked and hassled by a troll for months. No matter what she did, the woman found her. I suggested whenever the troll made a comment on her blog that she go in and edit it into a glowing comment filled with praise and admiration. She tried it. After about a week of my friend ‘editing’ the troll’s comments, the troll finally just disappeared. Not suggesting that this is a full proof method, but in her case it seemed to work.

    Thanks for taking stand.

    Annie

    • Porter Anderson says

      July 18, 2015 at 5:50 pm

      Hi, Annie,

      Thanks for your thoughtful comment. The idea of editing the trolls’ comments to appear to be positive instead of negative is pretty funny. I’m afraid I could never sign onto it, myself, because it’s a form of falsifying the material, but what an amusing idea – not unlike how film studios (and, um, publishers) will extract a FEW! GLOWING! WORDS! about a new work to make it appear that a positive review has been published, not a negative one, lol.

      You’re right about the pack mentality, although I see a lot of instances in which that doesn’t seem to be the rule — the hive doesn’t always take up the chant. Normally the lone screamer will be shamed into silence by this, another reason that non-engagement is important.

      It may be necessary on occasion, though, for us to SAY we are initiating non-engagement with someone. We might have to answer a barrage of tweets, for example with the single tweet: “Because you choose to bombard me with unfounded and hostile comments, I’m now muting you and will no longer hear or see your tweets.” The purpose of such a message would be to make sure an assailant (I think this term is closer to the truth than “troll”) understands that action has been taken and that she or he is no longer having any effect. All of this, though, is up to the person and the situation of the moment. I can hardly want to create a dependable list of actions for an endlessly fluid type of experience — we must assess each event as it occurs and make our best calls as we go.

      We won’t always get it right, but not trying to do something is not acceptable.

      Thanks again,
      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

13. Tom Bentley says

    July 17, 2015 at 1:55 pm

    Porter, ugh, even reading your post gave me that “Oh, the humanity!” sinking feeling. I cringe when I start to read comments on even the most innocuous articles online: the vitriol, the rage, the scattershot hostility. And it amazes to think that there’s an actual person behind the blowtorch, someone who undoubtedly has feelings too, though such postings offer little evidence. And offer little in the way of anything, really: no contribution, no reasoning, not a shred of awareness of the commonweal.

    Yes, unless there’s some kind of legal issue at stake, where the threats have to be looked at seriously, it’s better to practice the “Move along, nothing to see here” non-engagement policy. You can’t win (and there’s no prize regardless) in striking back.

    (Also, people who froth when they type have poor punctuation, and it’s painful to look at.)

    • Porter Anderson says

      July 18, 2015 at 5:59 pm

      Agree, Tom, the typos alone are enough to send you screaming out into the night.

      Seriously, as I’m saying to Annie above, I do think there may be one more step involved, in that we might need to have a ready, short note handy as we “sign off” from some screaming personalities along the lines of:

      “Whatever may be your intentions in writing these comments [or tweets, etc.], I find the hostility of your tone unacceptable. I am, therefore, ignoring you from here forward [on Twitter, muting or blocking] and am no longer aware of your mean-spirited messages.”

      Words to that effect.

      In short, in exchanging notes here with so many people who have experienced something of what I’m talking about, I’m not sure that non-engagement shouldn’t be announced. I think the assailants we choose to disengage from need to know that this has happened. And I think we deserve the satisfaction of telling them so.

      What do you think?
      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

      • Tom Bentley says

        July 19, 2015 at 6:15 pm

        Porter, yes, “engaged non-engagement”—that is calculatedly better than simply dropping out because of the futility of wrangling with a maniac.

        That suggestion from a few folks here (and your example-statement summary) that the bile-tossers need to be told “Hey, your stomach acid shouldn’t be shared, toodle-loo” makes sense to me. Tells it straight, and you don’t have to launder your clothes after.

14. Pat Griffith says

    July 17, 2015 at 2:33 pm

    So glad someone is thinking about these things. As a society, and a species, we need to rethink how we treat each other, virtually or otherwise.

    • Porter Anderson says

      July 18, 2015 at 6:02 pm

      Thank you, Pat,

      Good to have your input on this, and all the best as you navigate the online space with us.

      Cheers,
      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

15. bethhavey says

    July 17, 2015 at 2:35 pm

    Not engaging is the way to go. It is frightening for a new writer who wants attention and book-love, but every word I write on Twitter and every thing I might post on FB is done with care. In this world of trolls and competition–it’s best to be careful and to fall back on the rules of polite interchange. As one of the commenters wrote, better to count to ten than to hit your keyboard. Thanks again, Porter. Always interesting and thought provoking.

    • Porter Anderson says

      July 18, 2015 at 6:07 pm

      Thanks, Beth,

      Very right about the care that needs taking and “the rules of polite interchange” (which seem to have been lost at some point, for many).

      Where is Emily Post when we need her? :)

      Cheers,
      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

16. Vijaya says

    July 17, 2015 at 2:55 pm

    Porter, the short answer is that all this electronic connectivity is actually disconnecting us from our humanity. Would we speak the same way in a crowded room? Or if our mothers were listening? No, I think not.

    The solution? Disengage. At least for a while. I did this when my kids were toddlers and screaming with rage, and I still have to do this when they are rude. Once tempers are cooler we can all interact with respect, even if we disagree.

    Life is too short to worry about someone being wrong on the interwebs. If nobody interacts with the bullies, they’ll get the message. One can hope.

    • Porter Anderson says

      July 18, 2015 at 9:13 pm

      Hi,Vijaya,

      As always I appreciate your responding, thank you.

      I’m not, actually, finding that “all this electronic connectivity is actually disconnecting us from our humanity,” as you say you are — although I fully respect your position on this and and I think I understand how it is you come to feel this way. (After all, my village square metaphor is the same as your question about the crowded room or among listening mothers — I think we all get that there’s a misguided sense of no accountability online that’s harder to fool ourselves with in real life.)

      But the reason that I disagree with you about a disconnection with our humanity is that I think some of the loudest, most obstreperous people we encounter online ARE exhibiting humanity, just in forms that we have to make clear are inappropriate and unacceptable. I think that cruelty and crass, callous criticism comes easily to many people. And while your and my upbringings and temperaments may not support such behavior, we can’t afford not to admit that this behavior exists. It’s in our faces. And I’m looking for ways to get it out of our faces but without making the mistake of thinking for a minute that it’s in some way not part of humanity.

      Non-engagement is no magic bullet. I think it’s only a start. And, as I’m writing in comments, I’m coming to believe that it also has to be practiced with a statement — I think we have to tell a bully that we’re cutting him or her off, not just vanish, or the message may not get across.

      Thanks again for our monthly visit with each other, all the best,
      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

17. augustina29 says

    July 17, 2015 at 3:58 pm

    So, are we supposed to stand up to bullies or shun them?

    • Porter Anderson says

      July 18, 2015 at 9:15 pm

      Hi, Augustina,

      Thanks for being here. I’d actually like your input on this.

      Shall we stand up to bullies or shun them? What’s your sense of this?

      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

18. piperemcdermot says

    July 17, 2015 at 5:50 pm

    Thanks for tackling this topic, Porter – because if we are online and interacting, sooner or later we either become witness to the bullying and trolling, or on the receiving end to one degree or another. We do need to have a re-think about how we tackle the issue.

    I admire Chuck for stepping up and in on the EL James twitter thread – I was watching the whole fiasco go down. I also think his retreat was probably wise, since he’d made his points and anything further would only feed the flames. I did notice that once he had spoken up, there was a definite drop-off in numbers of the band-wagon snarky posts. I hope that means some folks stepped back and reconsidered how “funny” it really was.

    But, I also ask the same question as @Augustina29 above – what do we do? Stand up and say no, or completely ignore? As one of the small fry, I probably can’t expect a bigger fish to step in on my behalf if I’m under attack, mostly because big fish will have never heard of me or my problems.

    The general consensus is ignore it, don’t feed the trolls – and I tend to agree with that. But I’ve also seen cases where small-fry have been so badly harassed and attacked, they retreat from the online world altogether, with no chance to repair the considerable damage that a concerted attack can do to their work, and their confidence to put themselves out there to promote it.

    I sometimes wonder if ignoring works as well as we would hope – trolls and bullies are remarkably perrsistent, and feed of one another’s unpleasantness. Complete retreat and silence by those who object to them tends to leave them staking claim to the playing fields, and congratulating one another on the victory.

    I don’t know what the answer is – but hopefully discussions like this will help us figure it out!

    • Porter Anderson says

      July 18, 2015 at 11:24 pm

      Hi, Piper,

      Mindful of your concerns about the efficacy of non-engagement, I’d suggest you then engage, if that seems to you the better path.

      I disagree with you on that. But I also have found myself thinking — and writing in some of these comments — that at the point of disengagement, if might be a good idea to make a statement of what you’re doing, along the lines of:

      “To be clear, I’m now blocking you now on Twitter, so that none of your insults will reach me. I want you to know that I am refusing to engage with you.”

      In some cases this might even have the effect of taking away some of a given bully’s ability to claim a victory, since that’s something you bring up. But I think it may be even more important to divest yourself of an idea of victory as important. If you disengage to end an irritant’s assaults on your time and space, you shouldn’t worry about whether that person thinks that she or he has scored some kind of victory. While it may be difficult, I think you want to focus on getting on with your life and clear your mind of whatever the vulgarian you’ve left behind might be thinking or feeling.

      Lastly, I’d like to suggest that this idea of “small-fry” vs. “bigger fish” and how they might fare in the tank is not helping you.

      Your experience is yours. And walking around telling yourself that you’re “small-fry” in some way (what does that even mean?) has nothing to do with this. You’re a human being. You have a perfect right to every courtesy and scrap of respect that anyone else has, small or big or fried or baked.

      I hope I don’t sound unkind. But if you think of yourself as “small” in some way, you’re going to act small, react small, be small. I’ll bet you’re pretty much averaged size when you step into that village square, right? That’s all I need to know. You’re a person, and you weigh in, as far as I’m concerned, with all the rights and privileges of the next person. You deserve to move without being hassled online, as in real life. (They are one in the same, by the way, real life and online. Shhhh.)

      Just get on with it the best you can, Piper, and forget this “small-fry” stuff. You’re trying to live a life here. That’s enough to handle.

      Cheers, and thanks!
      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

19. Maryann Miller (@maryannwrites) says

    July 17, 2015 at 6:58 pm

    Great point made here, and I especially liked, “It’s possible to disagree with someone without demonizing her or him.” I have been shouting that in my own Town Square – my blog, The Blood-Red Pencil blog, and on social media – for years. I have also left groups, and forums, and other Internet gathering places when people could not behave with civility or professionalism. I cringe when I run across the hateful rhetoric and wonder if people never stop to think about the impact of their behavior.

    • Porter Anderson says

      July 18, 2015 at 11:31 pm

      Hi, Maryann,

      Yes, the point about demonizing someone who disagrees with us seems to have a lot of resonance for many here. I’m baffled by it, myself. As I was saying to Don Maass, we’re a nation founded on disagreement. And yet we hate disagreement. You hear dewy-eyed honeymooners saying, “And we agree on everything.” No. 1, you know they’ll learn that this is not true, and, No. 2, why would they want it to be? When did agreeing with each other become the token of goodness?

      Keep saying it on your blog and elsewhere. You’re not wrong, you’re right.

      And thanks for the input!
      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

20. Gibson Morales says

    July 17, 2015 at 7:12 pm

    Hi Mr. Anderson,

    Good article. The proper response to online trolls/jerks, I’ve found, is this: “You W0T m8? 1v1 me IRL” Just kidding. On a more serious note, I feel like American society has become really polarized and emotional in the last 10 years. Our sensibilities as a country definitely fluctuate and now may be our period of “dumbing down” so to speak.

    I don’t think it’s random. There are a few factors I’d consider: The impact of 9/11, Sarah Palin legitimizing the value of rote emotional responses, the 2008 Recession, the OWS movement, the ongoing War in Afghanistan. How these and other factors have changed us is a much bigger discussion, but, suffice to say, I feel this growth of cyber-hate is indicative of a social change in general.

    I was watching a Lewis Black special from 2006 the other day. At the end of it, he joked about how we need to become as crazy as our enemy (Al-Qaeda and terrorists in general). I feel like that’s exactly what we’ve done. At least to a degree. We’ve become extremists. You’re either “libtard” or a “teabagger.” A movie is either epic or it sucks. You either worship a celebrity or you scream vitriol at them on social media. We’ve got social justice warriors on one side, Donald Trump on the other. My perception at least.

    Also…I think one of the biggest struggles for a business/entrepreneur (including writers, singers, filmmakers, etc) is discoverability. In this world where millions upon millions all want the same money and fame you do, crazy can be the thing that helps you stand out. Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus, Floyd Mayweather Jr, Sarah Palin, Charlie Sheen, Kim Kardashian, Bill Maher, Donald Trump,-all have benefited in the last few years from acting provocative and “trollish” behavior. And unfortunately, this mentality trickles down. The masses adopt it.

    • Jo Eberhardt says

      July 18, 2015 at 12:20 am

      The only difficulty with your explanation here, is that it confines the negativity and rage to Americans. And while I understand that it can often seem like the internet is the domain of America, these issues — of rage, trolling, online bullying, and the like — are not confined to Americans, by Americans.

      I’m an Australian, and we have neither Libtards nor Teabaggers in this country. (We do have extreme left and right wingers, but they have different names.) We didn’t suffer 9/11, Sarah Palin, etc etc etc. But the anger and hositlity is still as prevalent amongst online Australians.

      While it may sound a little “chicken and egg”, I actually think the extreme polarisation and extremification of people — both IRL and online — is another symptom of the same underlying issue.

      • Porter Anderson says

        July 19, 2015 at 10:19 am

        Agree, Jo,

        Hardly an American-only problem. I travel a great deal, as you know, and I do see this far afield of US shores. (The two words I can say to my Australian friends are “Pauline” and “Hansen,” and I can be assured of all kinds of strong feelings quite quickly, lol. Let’s just say that Writer Unboxed’s new series on diversity would NOT play well with Ms. Hansen’s world view, lol.)

        “Extremification of people” is an interesting term. To some degree, I think the Web does breed and reward extremists. Something about online culture loves an extreme, a hard line, a black-and-white view of things, doesn’t it? Intolerance is the logical result.

        Thanks again,
        -p.

        On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

    • Porter Anderson says

      July 19, 2015 at 10:04 am

      Gibson, thanks for your thoughts here, many of which make good sense in the context of a complex issue.

      I think that what has developed with the arrival of digital media is a sense that everybody — with the Sarah Palins of the world becoming odd, upstart examples — can be “somebody.” This, I think, is part of what you’re getting at in your comment. The many movements of popular culture, politics, warfare, and business you’re referencing, all seem to feed into a consciousness of public persona. I may have just coined something I can use: “a consciousness of public persona.”

      By that, I mean that there are people who leverage issues online strictly because they are able to stand on those issues as pedestals. As the digital dynamic rolled through (and then over) the news media, what we discovered was that seemingly everybody thought that he or she should be a star. We’d thought it was just our interns who inevitably arrived at our TV networks wanting to be news anchors. Instead, it turned out to be everybody. Everybody. Everybody wanted (at that time) to be on TV. Now on YouTube and in other forums that give them visibility and exposure.

      The drive to exposure, then, Warhol’s 15 minutes of fame, is not new, but the sheer power of digital networking to delivery that exposure is simply irresistible to a great many people. This, I think, breeds an obsessive, relentless quality in many people who might seem on the surface to be fighting, perhaps, a useful social battle, crusading for a good cause, as we say, when in fact they’re pumping up themselves and becoming increasingly caustic in the process. Eventually, these folks — who were driven by self-promotion, remember, even subconsciously — can arrive as some of the most hate-filled actors on the cyberstage because they are protecting turf and face time and online real estate at all costs. They must be right. So you must be wrong.

      I’m seeing that now in the case of a person whose interest in a cause has warped into a destructive and fully counter-productive loose-cannon scenario of incredible time-wasting rudeness.

      Thanks again for your input, all the best,
      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

21. Lara Schiffbauer says

    July 18, 2015 at 12:10 am

    Hi, Porter! Personally, I don’t think it’s just an online issue (being boorish and bullying, I mean.) I was appalled to hear that an entire stadium of people booed Khloe and Kourtney Kardashian (I think it was) when they were at some event and the camera panned in on them, not because I particularly like them, but because it was crowd bullying in public. What gave the crowd the right to behave so horribly mean to two people. And it was such a scary example of group think. Most of those people wouldn’t ever dream of doing such a thing at their offices or schools.

    I attended a workshop once by a woman who has autism. She brought up how people with autism are bullied and how we have a culture of bullying. She noted that the media, with the worst-dressed lists and the gossip columns and the nasty comments, lead the way for public bullying. I’d never thought about it before, but she’s absolutely right. The way the media treats celebrities can be downright hostile. That kind of thinking seems to have carried over to the internet. Everyone feels they have the right to say whatever they want.

    The genesis of this attitude probably stems from many sources, but the bottom line is that some people have stopped trying to be kind, and even (I learned in the last year) set up opportunities to fight with others online or troll people they don’t like. It’s a scary place on the internet anymore. For most of us the negative interactions are relatively safe, but there are people out there who receive death threats and public exposure and harrassment–all because someone wants to have power and control over them and their thoughts. And bullying is always about power and control.

    Once I had a blog post picked up by the Passive Guy and he posted a selection of it on his blog. In the comments there were some people who attacked me personally, totally skewing the point of the post. It really seemed that one person in particular wanted me to fight with him. I didn’t, of course, and it all died down and went away. So, I think you’re right that we have to ignore them until they go away, but I also can’t think of any other recourse. It makes me angry that we-the victims of such people-are being silenced by the bullies.

    • thedigitalreader says

      July 18, 2015 at 9:14 am

      The Passive Voice blog is a good example of why I say that we should not completely cut off the angry/trolls.

      Yes, the comment section often resembles DailyKos and/or Fox News, but there are also times that the commenters are informative, intelligent, and worth the effort.

      • Porter Anderson says

        July 19, 2015 at 1:14 pm

        Certainly, Nate,

        I find that a great many useful perspectives can be found in commentary at The Passive Voice, I agree with you. I didn’t mention Passive Voice in my column but as you have brought it into the discussion, I’m happy to agree with you that there are things there to be learned about how people are thinking on various issues.

        I’m sorry that Passive Voice is so regularly tied to the idea of anger in debate that you (logically) brought it forward in this discussion. You’re right to mention it in that context but I regret that there seems to be such a reputation there for angry, hostile exchange.

        The most useful comments I find at Passive Voice there are usually from David Vandagriff, Passive Guy, himself. And if you read his notes consistently, you notice that he (a) is rarely operating at a level of anger, and (b) never, in my memory, comes close to attacking another person who might strongly disagree with him.

        Vandagriff lands his points with efficient, wise, well-written clarity focused on the issues, doesn’t he? And all the commenters there are not anger-driven or assaultive, of course.

        What I’d like to stress here is that if a respondent to an issue — anywhere, no longer talking about Passive Voice — is angry about an issue, that’s one thing. It’s when the anger is turned on other people that the problem arises. And for too many folks, being angry means being angry at some one, not at some thing. They can’t separate issues from people. They attack people.

        The moment that one of our angry souls believes that she or he has the right to get into a tweet and condemn, embarrass, tease, taunt, upbraid, run down, deride, insult, ridicule, slander or otherwise make uncomfortable someone else because that person disagrees? — that is when the angry person has graduated to bully and that is when i will forcibly disengage.

        -p.

        On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

    • Porter Anderson says

      July 19, 2015 at 10:14 am

      Hi, Lara.

      Yes, of course, much harsh and crass behavior is occurring offline as well as on. In most cases (captive situations like kids at school with bullies), the effect on the daily physical plane is different, though, in that you can leave the room, leave the situation, physically avoid or physically challenge the problem (as in hostile workplace cases mounted in corporate settings).

      The online space is more difficult to control, in that while there are such separations of “spaces” as blogs, Twitter accounts, Facebook pages, and so on, the actual network is, perforce, all connected and thus hostility can move “through walls” and follow you. It can seem closer, too, and can pierce a lot of surrounding noise by direct address.

      I don’t advocate that we be quiet. I’m suggesting that we stop sharing our conversations about issues with the assailants who want to control what we say and think and do about them with their own opinions and comments. Quite the opposite of silencing ourselves, I say we keep discussing things exactly as we want to but shut them out of those conversations.

      For example: Mute them on Twitter. Then they can see you discussing an issue they’d like to scream at everyone about, but you will hear or see nothing of their screaming. They are rendered mute. And their points moot. Which is, in the end, the most frustrating thing you can do to them.

      For the most part, I’m not referring here to random bullies who simply love to hurt people but to actual members of the publishing community who simply become too fixated on their own idea of rightness — the Joan of Arc problem — to be able to share in civil debate the issues and others opinions about them of the day. We have such people. Some we know. Others we know but they operate behind pseudonyms (a direct form of cowardice) and we have no obligation whatsoever to listen or respond to them.

      Thanks so much for your input!
      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

22. jeffo says

    July 18, 2015 at 8:11 am

    Anonymity. Instant gratification. Mob mentality. All of these, I think, are part of the reason for the things we see happening. Yet there are also plenty of people engaging in this behavior who use their real names and identities online. I think a big part of it is just a desire to be heard, to get a reaction, to feel like you matter in some way, even if it’s negative.

    • Porter Anderson says

      July 19, 2015 at 1:40 pm

      JEFFO, you are right on the money.

      A marvelous essay Jane Friedman pointed me to calls it the “Why Wasn’t I Consulted?” syndrome. I’m going to have a piece on it at Thought Catalog, ping me at my site’s contact form porteranderson.com/contact — and I’ll get you a link when it’s out, splendid stuff from Paul Ford.

      Thanks, man, all the best,
      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

23. thedigitalreader says

    July 18, 2015 at 8:32 am

    Given that there are many people you won’t engage with at all, Porter, this comes across as self-serving It reads like you are justifying your non-engagement by attaching the label to all those people, no matter what they say or how they say it.

    As for me, i find angry people to be the most invested, and oftentimes the most interesting. Drawing them out can be informative.

    • Porter Anderson says

      July 19, 2015 at 1:07 pm

      Hello again, Nate.

      In this, your second comment on this article here at Writer Unboxed, you are asking me why I rarely respond to you.

      For the benefit of our WU readers who may not be aware of this, there is a little history here — I normally do not respond to Nate Hoffelder’s tweets to me and about me.

      Nate, since you have brought this to us, and in the tone you’ve employed, I will explain exactly why.

      First, I will tell you that you are incorrect: There are not “many people” with whom I “won’t engage…at all.” There are exactly three at present. Only three. This is not “many.” You could not know there are only three, of course. You have guessed. You have speculated, just as you speculate in your blog posts on issues in the publishing industry. And, as happens a lot, you have guessed incorrectly. And in guessing incorrectly and in public, you have made it appear that I am engaged in non-engagement on some big scale, haven’t you? You are implying something about me in public that is not true, Nate. This is precisely the kind of behavior I am not interested in supporting. And it is the kind of thing that usually prompts me to avoid engaging with you.

      Quite a neat object lesson you’ve given us here. And yes, you are one of the three people to whose communications I normally do not respond. But the “at all” element of your phrasing is incorrect, too.

      You might recall a recent exchange when you tweeted to me a typo that I’d just gotten off in a tweet. I think I used the ampersand instead of the percent symbol. I did respond to you, didn’t I? I fixed and reissued the incorrect tweet. And I thanked you, didn’t I, Nate? I would rather you had asked if you could DM me about it or use my contact page at my site to drop me a note about it rather than flagging it in public, that was unnecessary. But nevertheless, we had a cordial exchange. And earlier this year, you responded positively to my moderation of a panel in the IDPF conference for which I served as Program Director at BEA. I thanked you.

      I bring up these two moments as contrast. When I have felt that you were on friendly terms, Nate, I’ve responded in kind. We’ve spoken at many events.

      The way you have toned your comment today reflects our other would-be interactions. I normally get messages from you in open session on Twitter that generally say — I must paraphrase here because I’m not going to waste my time digging them up — “you’ve screwed up something in that article” or “you should have done more research” or “Anderson is all wrong on that issue.” Generally, this is the gist, isn’t it, Nate?

      At times, you chide me in open session for not responding to you.

      How, then, do you expect me to cheerfully engage with you? Why would I, Nate? Why would anyone?

      Contrary to your note’s assertion above, I’m not ignoring you. I’m consciously choosing not to respond to you because you are coming to me in a tone that I experience and classify as confrontational. I’ve chosen that term carefully and I believe it is accurate to my experience of you online. Confrontational. I won’t be engaging with you in something I feel is aimed at me as confrontational or embarrassing, however much that might surprise you.

      I see you treat many people to this shaming dynamic of yours, I’m hardly alone. They and I have every right to decide what we enjoy and what we’ll respond to.

      I will close by making a couple of points here about the public nature of my comments to you in this response today:

      (1) As I’ve already referenced, I’d rather not be here in public telling you that your approaches to me are confrontational and off-putting. But you have brought this to the public table, yourself, and so I have answered in kind rather than let your rude comment stand unanswered among my respected colleagues here at Writer Unboxed. Not to put too fine a point on it, they, rather than you, deserved this explanation.

      (2) Even if you contact me privately, Nate, I and everyone in the world have every right to decide not to answer you. None of us owes each other the guarantee of a response of any kind.

      Lastly, Nate, I wish you well. I dislike the unpleasantness reflected in your comment here but that unpleasantness is not of my making.

      I have not come to you in the tone with which you have come to me.

      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

      • Tom Pope says

        July 19, 2015 at 2:37 pm

        Porter,

        Amen. The time you have taken to be clear in the above comment models the decency needed for a safe world. When I grow up I plan to follow your course. Thank you. (Now to see if I can make the Campari vendor thing shoot you what you are due.)

        • Porter Anderson says

          July 19, 2015 at 3:37 pm

          Well, thanks, Tom, that means a lot coming from a compassion tracker like you, and I do appreciate it AND the Campari you’ve very successfully put across — I’ll lift it to you at happy hour. Cheers, cin-cin, and thanks again.
          -p.

          On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

    • Therese Walsh says

      July 19, 2015 at 1:38 pm

      This is the sort of thing someone might write to bait another person into a bigger argument, and I would ask you not to do that in this forum. You’re welcome to participate here, but please understand the line. This is directly from our Disclosures page:

      [I]f a comment seems to exist only to rib (or barb) a contributor, it will be deleted. We welcome your thoughtful and constructive comments, and hope you’ll become a valued voice within the WU community.

      Thank you for respecting the guidelines here.

      • thedigitalreader says

        July 19, 2015 at 11:36 pm

        That’s a good rule to have, and I can see what you mean about how this comment sounds.

        This comment also violates one of my rules, which is to never leave a blog comment on less than 4 hours of sleep or before my second cup of coffee. That rule usually keeps me from forgetting that I don’t have to win, much less engage in, every discussion I encounter on the internet. (I call this the Duty Calls rule, after the XKCD comic).

        ;-)

24. Topaz says

    July 18, 2015 at 10:44 am

    Insightful post, Porter. Anonymity and a hive mentality are a powerful and devastating mix – and that’s nowhere better exemplified than in these senseless Internet mobs. I believe it takes a certain kind of emotional maturity to be willing to express one’s opinions in a respectful way in private rather than uninformed public shaming – but it’s the age of a universally accessible internet, and that is both a charm and, in this case, a curse.

    I suppose the only thing we can do is to open up a discussion about it and check ourselves before posting anything. The world is soaked in so much darkness already; why would we want to add anything to it but light?

    • Porter Anderson says

      July 19, 2015 at 6:45 pm

      Thanks, Topaz.

      Interestingly, I have experienced far less of the anonymous or crowd/mob effect than people who were perfectly willing to put their name to it and act as lone, hostile agents. Usually they ride in on some sort of crusade for improvement in one area of the publishing world or another and quickly bash everyone in sight who doesn’t agree with them. Their anger only grows as they meet with resistance or disagreement, of course.

      Thanks again,

      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

25. Mike Swift says

    July 18, 2015 at 11:31 am

    Porter,

    Excellent and timely article. For me, it not only addressed our online interactions on a professional level — as was the case with James, who instigated discussion as a business/marketing move — but on a personal level, as was experienced by Wendig (albeit, he’s in the business), who interceded as a participant, by personal choice, when (as Cathy Yardley so fittingly expressed) it “wasn’t his duck.” He did it to bring some civility to the discussion, and kudos to him! I can understand the wrath he must have incurred (I didn’t bear witness) for him to have withdrawn.

    I find myself facing this microbattle on a daily basis on social media, asking, “If I engage in this, will it hurt my career?” As you may or may not have guessed, I’ve never been a wallflower, however, even though I’ve always been a little outspoken, if I disagree, it’s with civility. Or so I think.

    Case in point: I’ve friended a few old friends/acquaintances from my high school days whom I haven’t seen since graduation. I unfollowed one (but remained “friends,” and actually, it’s been more than one) because I disagreed with the plethora of political propaganda he posted — captions and headlines without merit or even a grain of truth. Biting my tongue was hard — so hard, one time, I didn’t. I asked, “Do you know the circumstances behind this photo?” He didn’t, a little back-and-forth ensued, at which we “agreed to disagree.” Ugh. That’s when I unfollowed him.

    I felt I was watching (as you so eloquently put it) him “stand in the virtual marketplace and shout his displeasure…without first checking to see if his objections were warranted, damaging reputations, defaming colleagues, smearing people and efforts that deserve no such treatment.” In other words, participating in downright slander (or libel, since it was in virtual print).

    Days later, I posted a meme about spreading hate: that the problem wasn’t with the targets of hate rhetoric, but with the anger in your hearts (and, of course, the laziness in doing any research beyond the end of your nose, but I didn’t say that).

    It wasn’t directed at him, for I’d seen thousands of memes similar to his, but he took it personally and jumped in the conversation and, by the end of it, called me all kinds of unkind names. I thought I kept a level head and wouldn’t change my stance, which was viewed as arrogant. Oh, well.

    I bring him up because he is a prime example of the Chihuahua barking at the German shepherd on the other side of the fence — not that I’m the German shepherd, but there is safety behind the keyboard. I remember him well, and “friended” him in high school much the same as on social media (i.e., as much as possible, seeing as though we weren’t in the same classes). He was poor, picked-on, meek and vulnerable. I felt for him, which is why I was so surprised about his views toward the same kind of people he once was.

    I think the ability to jump in these discussions with the safety of the fence allows a lot of the senseless snarling from folks who’ve never had a voice, and now that they do, don’t know how to maturely “agree to disagree.” They bark at the rain for getting them wet. They let emotion overrule intellect. In my conversation with him, I saw the little boy emerge and get flustered and I didn’t like that I’d put him in that state, so I withdrew from the discussion.

    As a writer, I want to use my voice constructively and be the change I want to see. I do want to see changes in compassion, so if I feel like I’m losing a bit of mine when engaging in debate, I turn my attentions elsewhere. I understand withdrawing because, for me, the point is not to win the argument, but the heart.

    Thanks again. Enjoy the Campari.

    • Porter Anderson says

      July 19, 2015 at 7:07 pm

      Consider the Campari much enjoyed, Mike.

      And to your good thoughts here, I’d add just one thing that I’m coming to as I answer people here. I think it may be important to be sure someone whose firing range you’re leaving knows you’re leaving, and why.

      I’m thinking of a message along the lines of:

      “Your use of your Twitter handle for a nonstop display of your hatred for people who don’t agree with you is not OK with me. I’m blocking you now.”

      Something along those lines is all it takes, but particularly if landed in public — in whatever arena this boor has chosen to impose his or her noise — the message is not only made clear to her or him but to those around that negative energy. Others may be prompted to do the same and may at least get the message that (a) it’s OK to withdraw and (b) they’re not crazy — the assailant really is a problem.

      Thanks again!
      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

26. Jane Steen says

    July 18, 2015 at 12:54 pm

    Let me add another factor that contributes to online anger–the ability to post your retort immediately. I tend to stay away from online spats, but I’ve noticed that I’ve messed up the most when I don’t take enough time to consider my response.

    I spent the last couple of days dealing with a non-writing situation where I had the biggest financial stake of anyone. Fingers were pointed in all directions, tweets were sent, and one of my personal buttons–the “do you know who I am?” of the very minor celebrity–was pushed. I sat on my hands for over two hours before I tackled that one. Fortunately, the second biggest stakeholder did the same, and everything calmed down. The tweets–which no-one had responded to–were removed by the original poster, and the situation has gone away.

    If we could remove the immediacy, we might remove a great deal of the anger. I appreciate blogs that moderate comments for that reason.

    • Porter Anderson says

      July 19, 2015 at 7:49 pm

      Great point, Jane, it’s way too easy for someone to fire off a retort without thinking, waiting, calming down. I try to do the same thing you’re talking about in waiting (and did, even on a couple of my responses here — you can guess which ones, I’m sure).

      It’s often very telling to see tweets disappear, isn’t it? In your example, this sounds like a positive development. in others, it can be uses as a new form of passive-aggression. “Tweet? What tweet? I didn’t mention you in an inflammatory tweet, no, can you find that tweet?”

      I’m stunned at how much time so many people seem to be willing to put into argument, heated exchanges, “gotcha” trades. At times you’d think the Net was used only by furious invalids with no TVs.

      Moderated blogs do start to look good, especially as some publications close their comments completely rather than have to cope with loudmouthed self-important people day in and day out.

      I think cutting people off will get easier as we go along. We’re all going to have to adjust, as we did at one point to the idea that, yes, you do have to lock your car.

      As with so many things in the digital dynamic, this one has taken us by nasty surprise, hasn’t it? Who knew so many of them out there were seething?

      Thanks again, Jane,
      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

27. Diana Stevan says

    July 18, 2015 at 12:55 pm

    Porter, thank you for writing about this form of online bullying. When I told my husband about your article, he said that the people who attack online are like the motorists in their cars, who feel they can say and do anything because their cage of metal protects them somehow. As well, they can speed away, never having to take responsibility for their immature behavior. They are cowards who might think twice if they had to do it face to face.

    As a former family therapist, your recommendation to not respond is excellent. The bullies and venom throwers can’t fight if you don’t fight with them.

    When I sense someone on Twitter has that tendency, I mute them. Life is too short and too complicated as it is to give these people a forum. I’d rather be writing my stories.

    • Porter Anderson says

      July 19, 2015 at 8:12 pm

      Thanks for the excellent comment, Diana, and I’m glad that you’re finding the mute function on Twitter useful — it’s particularly nice because the person giving you trouble doesn’t have to know that she or he has been muted.

      I’ve wished for just such a capacity in “real life,” too, lol.

      I think your husband is right about this odd sense of “safety” and no accountability online. It’s inaccurate, obviously and also remarkably short-sighted, considering how long online life has been growing and evolving. There seems to be an endless supply of newcomers to the field who somehow arrive without any idea of how things work and make all the same mistakes over and over.

      At some point, we need no longer stick around for the mistake-making. I’ve had it, and I think a lot of others have, too.

      Thanks again!
      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

28. bmorrison9 says

    July 18, 2015 at 2:54 pm

    Excellent article, Porter. And the comments expand on what you’ve said. I’ve long been concerned about this issue. Although I’m no longer sure that this is true, I used to think these kinds of attacks were primarily directed at women; I know of at least one female columnist whose paper discontinued the comment feature because they were filled with horrible descriptions of sexual atrocities the commenter wanted to inflict on the columnist.

    I think this level of hatred goes beyond what’s described in the so-interesting article Jane Friedman posted.

    When my memoir of being on welfare was published, I braced myself for trolls since the idea of women receiving public assistance seems to make some people go beserk. I followed the policy of ignoring such comments, but what I found was that in every case other people jumped in to defend me or to post so many other comments that the hateful ones were drowned out.

    Yet I wonder if we collectively can ignore these angry attack dogs into silence. It’s worth a try. I don’t know what else we can do, except change websites so that no one is anonymous (e.g., requiring digital signature certificates). That would start a whole different firestorm, wouldn’t it?

    • Porter Anderson says

      July 19, 2015 at 8:27 pm

      Hi, Barbara,

      And thanks for the Campari, too, deeply appreciated!

      I definitely get what you’re saying here, and yes some of the worst excesses of online negativity go far beyond what Paul Ford is writing about in his article or what I’m addressing, really.

      At every level of this problem, though I think it’s important not to expect to change the behavior of the worst offenders. I believe that a widespread disengagement with them could have quite an effect, certainly, but what’s important for all our heads and comfort is not letting the hotheads get to us, giving them no traction.

      They want us to be upset, they’re goading us. This is the confrontational tone I mention in my comment above to Nate Hoffelder, it’s what i don’t appreciate and won’t respond to when it’s the way he approaches me and others. http://bit.ly/1Oq16wY

      Our goal must be not to worry about whether we can “ignore these angry dogs into silence” but to do what you’re doing — mute them, block them, render them voiceless. It won’t matter anymore what they’re caterwauling about. We won’t be hearing them or caring.

      Thanks so much again!
      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

29. Victoria Noe says

    July 18, 2015 at 6:19 pm

    Wonderful article, Porter, though you must know you’re preaching to the choir.

    No one’s trolled me about my writing, which I guess means no one feels that passionate about it, lol. But I’ve been attacked pretty viciously online for my beliefs on subjects in the news. In fact, after the shootings in Charleston, I had to block and report several people – who I didn’t know – whose threats were pretty unnerving.

    Of course we should be able to have civil discourse. Of course everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. But as my dear old father used to say, “The rights of your fist end with my nose.”

    • Porter Anderson says

      July 19, 2015 at 8:33 pm

      Thanks, Viki,

      And choir though it may be (not all — http://bit.ly/1Oq16wY ), we certainly have had a long anthem of it this weekend here in comments. :)

      I think that political fury carries special potency online, I see this all the time and, yes, it can be frightenting. The intimidation techniques there are ironically normally used most readily by those who espouse “freedom” in every other line and claim to be on the side of the Constitution. They’re frauds and they know it and their cowardice is what makes them big scary boors online who probably look like Wally Cox on a Monday if you ran into them in the grocery store.

      As the great New Yorker cartoon had it, “Online, nobody knows you’re a dog.”

      Yes, your father’s saying is another iteration of “Your rights end where mine begin.” These are great sayings that many forget very fast when they’re het up about things.

      I find it most inexcusable in publishing, where everybody really does know better and hiding behind one “good cause” or another is used as an excuse for belligerence and assault. I’m not buying it anymore. Time we all stood up for our town square.

      Thanks much!
      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

30. Tom Pope says

    July 18, 2015 at 8:39 pm

    Ahh, Porter,

    The world seems like a more fetching place after each dose of your sanity and insight. (And I got through that without honoring your patience or generosity.)

    • Porter Anderson says

      July 19, 2015 at 8:34 pm

      Ha, Tom, thanks for the kind words and again for the Campari…which greatly helps with the patience and generosity bit. :)

      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

31. Jan O'Hara says

    July 19, 2015 at 5:03 pm

    The EL James hashtag on Twitter began, as so many of these things do, with a humorous, smart, satiric ribbing. Then it attracted a different category of people: the disaffected, the jealous, the angry, and the people who thrive on drama–what I refer to as the professionally-outraged. (Like moving from an affectionate wrestle with a friend to the hateful, passive-aggressive uncle who won’t let up tickling you, “just for fun”, mind, until he has you crying.)

    It’s such a bewildering world, though, with contradictory pressures. We should be educated about most large issues facing the world, correct? That’s a belief I personally ascribe to. I also believe that silence implies consent, and that it’s my responsibility to stand up for victims. But where does one draw the line in involvement? If we’re to have a public stance on *everything*, when do we have time to be with our families, friends, non-pixelated community? When can an introvert escape?

    My son, who is wise beyond his years, tells me that his generation simply ignores online bullying. They understand it’s cheap and simple criticism. By not validating it or giving it the gift of their energy or time, they don’t waste effort on defensiveness. (Reminds me of the Byron Katie quote about defense being the first act of war.)

    I think that’s where we’re headed, eventually. I think we’re still figuring out the online norms and eventually we’ll understand that we are each only one tweet away from being ground zero in a Twitter-storm. As the victims multiply and enter our private worlds, perhaps we’ll have a visceral understanding of the cost, treat each other with more compassion, create the virtual version of a social safety net.

    I liken it to the evolution of conversations about sexual assault. First we shamed the victims, silenced the conversation, and forced victims to retreat from public. Now we’re having deep, thoughtful conversations about consent and toxic cultures. On Twitter! Do those chats devolve into overly-heated, personal attacks? Sure. But twenty years ago, when I was dealing with date-rape victims in my practice, all these discussions were absent or repressed.

    In another 10 years, it’ll be fascinating to see if we’ve matured or regressed. Thanks, Porter.

    • Porter Anderson says

      July 20, 2015 at 1:57 pm

      Hey, Jan,

      Good thoughts. Many questions, you bet.

      But in the simple concept of “forcible disengagement” or “engaged disengagement,” as I’m calling it, I don’t think that stepping away from hostile personalities should mean that you can’t continue to involve yourself fully with issues you think are important. You continue to engage in an issue of interest to you, but you block and otherwise cut off people who have confused their fervor for the issue with anger at people (or who are just otherwise mean as snakes), and you thus are able to carry on by giving yourself permission to shut down the assaultive people.

      As you say, in another 10 years. :)

      Thanks!
      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

32. aealbert23 says

    July 20, 2015 at 8:14 am

    This is a very important issue today. Personally, I think the issue isn’t what is being said or even how it’s said. I believe in the freedom of speech; even if I hate it. The issue is the consequences. As you said, reputations are smeared and often times destroyed.

    I’ve seen many people’s lives ruined for doing something I bet the writer has done themselves at some point. It seems that ‘being right’ makes people believe that others are worthy of punishment. It’s bullying pure and simple. And this isn’t happening in the classroom. But amongst adults.

    • Porter Anderson says

      July 20, 2015 at 1:28 pm

      Thanks much,

      And glad you mentioned the adult aspect. Some of our commenters have likened these assaults to upset children’s behavior, and I think that’s a mistake. These are not tantrums but cases in which, as you say, a sense of moral rectitude or crusading rightness goes to someone’s head so badly that trashing other people seems permissable. And it’s not.

      The more we say this — and forcibly disengage (by which I mean telling our assailants that we are stranding them as we block them — the better we’ll get at putting this across.

      Thanks again,
      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

33. shelley says

    July 20, 2015 at 12:52 pm

    I think you may be conflating angry commentary with trollish behavior. The two are not mutually inclusive.

    Anger can be expressed as passion, as a sharp edged knife that cuts through rhetoric and hyperbole.

    An angry response that is also thoughtful and intelligent, passionate without losing coherence, can provide amazing insight.

    And trolls aren’t always angry. Many times, trolls speak in reasonable tones, but say the most awful stuff. They spread misinformation and misunderstanding. Of all things, misinformation has to be one of the worst things to appear in commentary.

    • Porter Anderson says

      July 20, 2015 at 1:23 pm

      Hi, Shelley, thanks for your input.

      No, I’m not talking about trolls and trollish behavior, and I’m not conflating things.

      I’m referring primarily to known members of the publishing community, in fact, most of whom aren’t using pseudonyms. Their anger, while perhaps appropriate to an issue, is not appropriate when aimed at people.

      You can see me saying some of this, in fact, in my response to blogger Nate Hoffelder (@ThDigitalReader) here http://bit.ly/1VlDC0B

      Here’s what I wrote there:

      What I’d like to stress here is that if a respondent to an issue…is angry about an issue, that’s one thing. It’s when the anger is turned on other people that the problem arises. And for too many folks, being angry means being angry at some one, not at some thing. They can’t separate issues from people. They attack people.

      The moment that one of our angry souls believes that she or he has the right to get into a tweet and condemn, embarrass, tease, taunt, upbraid, run down, deride, insult, ridicule, slander or otherwise make uncomfortable someone else because that person disagrees? — that is when the angry person has graduated to bully and that is when i will forcibly disengage.

      Thanks again,
      -p.

      On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson

34. Steven E. Belanger says

    July 24, 2015 at 12:27 am

    People have always been angry. In the workplace. Online. Everywhere.

    Now they can be angry anonymously, and without consequence.

    That’s all many people live for. Anger, jealousy and bitterness.

    Some time ago, I read an article about how someone had hacked into Jennifer Lawrence’s cloud and stolen some nude pictures of her and posted them online. Lawrence correctly said this was a sexual crime. I dared to read the comments below the article because I felt this one time people would be on her side. She’s famous, but well-liked and likeable. She’s hip and funny and young and who doesn’t like her? Well, at least the first 100 commenters, apparently. I gave up on online people after that. I don’t know why I was surprised, but I still am.

35. Porter Anderson says

    July 24, 2015 at 12:52 am

    Hi, Steve,

    Thanks for your comment.

    While I understand what you’re talking about, I’m actually not referring to anonymity here. I’m talking about publishing community members who cannot separate the issue from the person and attack people as if they are the problem and as if they have the right to behave as unconscionable vulgarians to each other. I find this as baffling as you might.

    As an example, please see the comment from blogger Nate Hoffelder (@TheDigitalReader) and my response here on this comment string. Nate is one of the three people I categorically don’t answer unless the man comes to me in a friendly, collegial way. Most of the time he comes to me in a confrontational, rude way and does not seem to think there is anything wrong with this. There is everything wrong with it. Here is his latest affront and my response: http://bit.ly/1Oq16wY Notice we’re not talking about someone who even exhibits the grace of a pseudonym. Nate Hoffelder is willing to treat people this way as if they owe him something. I call that a wrongly placed sense of entitlement, and because he has (as usual) taken me on in public, I am responding to him in open session.

    I know what you’re taking about and I join you in bemoaning it.

    But I’m actually talking to something far closer to hand and far more brazen in our own industry.

    I’ll be publishing a piece at Thought Catalog on another instance of this involving critics of Authors United on Friday (25 July) if you’d like to look for it. You can find my stories there at this spot: http://thoughtcatalog.com/porter-anderson/

    Let me propose to you this as a key point developing here: The problem is not that we disagree about the issues. The problem is that too many of our colleagues transfer their displeasure with differences of opinion to anger at people. The issues are one thing. People are quite another. And none of us has any obligation whatever to put up with this constant effort to hurt and embarrass and harass people who don’t see things the way these bullies do. I hope you’ll join me in defying these people.

    Thanks again, good to have you and I appreciate your input.

    -p.

    On Twitter: @Porter_Anderson