Comment Rant—Proceed at Your Own Risk—or Don’t

I’m writing this because of a comment I made on AmmoLand, and posting it there would be disruptive to that thread. I’m not going to link back to it because there’s no point in making posters there feel singled out, and because I want comments this results in, if any, to happen over here in my yard.

I’ll tell you now up front this is freestyle writing, totally self-centered, and many will probably not want to wade through it all and may be bored, so proceed as you wish and drop out when you want. As with everything I do, here and in my internet and magazine columns, I’m doing this for me.

I have a Comment House Rules policy here at WOG posted over in the right sidebar that I pretty much keep:

Keep them on topic. Trying to hijack threads really grinds my gears.  No spam.

I moderate them so I’ll get to them when I can.

No threats against anyone except me. No fights–this is my place and if things get ugly, I treat unruly visitors the same way as I would in my home. Do not feed trolls–I’ll take out the trash.

Try to keep it clean.

I’m the final arbiter. If you don’t like the rules, start your own damn blog.

If anyone thinks that’s censorship, tough.  I make it a practice never to ask of nor impose anything on anyone  I don’t adhere to myself. When it comes to online conduct, I try to speak to people the same way I would in meatspace, mindful of the real-world consequences. And because of that, I’m not tolerant of site visitors, especially anonymous ones, engaging in ad hominem (logical fallacy) attacks and insults. When I invite guests into my virtual home, I expect them to conduct themselves as they would in my real home, and if behavior becomes unruly and obnoxious, I do what I would do in real life, ask them to leave or, if need be, throw them out.

That’s not the case at sites I write for that allow comments, where I don’t control the discussion.  In most cases, I try not to post  comments myself unless I feel some clarification is needed because I’ve already had my say and now it’s the readers’ turn. But sometimes I’m tempted to jump in and understand why someone I admire (but no need to name here) got caught posting under a pseudonym a few years back—people weren’t getting what he wrote, there was important information to promote and a record to correct, and his supporters who should have been weighing in on his behalf and defending/amplifying  his views weren’t.  I grok that frustration.

The other thing that I said “grinds my gears” is when I offer an article that is unique and no one else has it because it’s my exclusive (or if it is a story others are covering offers information and perspectives no one else has presented), and then some comment poster puts in a totally unrelated link to a story appearing on Fox News and everywhere asking “Did you see this?” and the whole conversation I was inviting — about something no one else is talking about — gets derailed and ignored while the story everyone is already talking about everywhere gets all the attention.

I won’t allow that here. Elsewhere, all I can do is slap my forehead.

Related to that is when I present a unique story no one else has, a “good” comment poster amplifies and promotes it, and then a series of the same players who have decided they hate him not only downvote him, but then proceed to insult him, his knowledge, his motives,  his character, and whatever. His “crime” apparently was agreeing that what I am offering is worth understanding and sharing—which is all I’ve ever asked of readers. This happens unprovoked, albeit I understand there are past grievances and disagreements that have nothing to do with the current conversation.

Again, it has the effect of hijacking the invited conversation and devolving into ugliness. It’s also a real de-motivator to see there are a bunch of new comments but when I check them out see they have nothing to do with advancing ideas no one else is talking about that may help move the ball forward. And it’s gotta make the antis real happy to see there’s no danger of that happening because of squabbles uber alles.

It’s especially objectionable when the person being attacked is out there doing real and original 2A advocacy that includes original work, research, reasoned positions, and insights ( I routinely link to his blog from here), only to see some whose contributions to the cause are unstated make insulting him their default.

Disagreeing with reasoned arguments is one thing. But that’s not what I’m seeing happening.

I understand this person I am talking about  sometimes calls out the administration like he sees it, faulting Trump, and Bondi when they act against gun owner interests.  I’ve done that myself and will continue to, and I’ve had readers write to Firearms News canceling their subscriptions and demanding I be fired.

Perhaps the difference is I also acknowledge that more positive steps have happened under the Trump presidency than I’ve seen in a lifetime of presidents, and I vaguely remember Ike. I also acknowledge there is only so much he can do and there are plenty of other priorities that require him to hold off on some things.

My motivation, and I’ve repeated it many times, is to  get the Republicans back on course not just to restore 2A, but to keep them from blowing it and taking fire out of gun owner bellies.  So I’m not going to be so MAGAmerized (sorry) that I’m afraid to say when the emperor has no clothes—that benefits no one.

I also understand what it’s like to be the SNBIer (Shall Not Be Infringed) @$$hole. Longtimers who’ve been with me since the old blog will remember the fights Vanderboegh and I used to get into with the “prags” (self-styled “pragmatists”) over our criticisms of NRA—and it turns out now that many of those folks have disappeared from the internet and our view of what was happening in Fairfax is the one that’s prevailed, with LaPierre out to pasture and gun owner sentiment being they’ll not give any more money until they see proof of real change (which does not appear forthcoming).

I could go on about how Mike and I were disinvited from the NRA Blogger Bash, how projects I was working on were attacked over the years, how I’d receive insults from so-called pro-gunners accusing me of pleasuring myself to Red Dawn and wanting to see me ‘n Mike s “bullet-riddled bodies in a ditch,” etc., etc., so that’s no doubt another reason I felt compelled to write this, because I identify with what I see happening today to a younger activist and remember when it was my turn in that barrel (it still is—I have it on good authority a higher-up at NRA referred to me as “the enemy” for trying to get them to put needed resources into the Winsome Sears race).

Then I look at the stuff I was right about but had to push while being mostly ignored and/or dissed, but this isn’t the place to recount Greatest Hits.

I hope some people who feel this is directed at them have a better understanding of why I think they should knock it  off, but if it makes them want to add me to the hate list, I can take it. If I wanted to be popular this would have been about Bad Bunny.

What a way to end a Friday. Comment if you like. I’ll get to ’em when I can.