Hella Yeah.

[kalibex]

A recent feminist blogsphere trend that I approve of (fancy that) - writers who would otherwise have retreated from any form of public expression ceasing to allow hateful people to Sneer at them in public.

I mean, isn't it in one sense the ultimate freedom? The Haters are aware of the writers' expression of self, as before, and now they can't do a g*ddammned thing about it. Not a g*ddammed thing.

That's power.

Comments

[blinovitch.livejournal.com]

How's this work and what's different about it from past practices?

[kalibex.livejournal.com]

aka 'disabling comments'

Think of... People speaking their minds.

versus

People speaking their minds and then standing still, remaining up on stage. A few audience members throw flowers...but others pelt the speaker with rotten tomatoes. And putrid melon rinds.

And shit.

[blinovitch.livejournal.com]

Ah ha. For some reason, I was only thinking of real world contexts, rather than blogging itself.

This may well be the patriarchy speaking through me, but I have tended to believe that public writing/speaking is meant to be a double-edged sword. You can say what you like, but then, so can't your readers/listeners, even if hateful garbage. Disabling comments seems to short circuit the second half of a discourse. While the person wishing to comment could easily start their own blog to respond, it seems like you miss out on the back and forth debate.

Au contraire, mon frere...

[kalibex.livejournal.com]

As I see it, an equally appropriate blog metaphor is 'public oration' - ie, debate is not automatically implied, or in some cases, sought where blogs are involved.

Re: Au contraire, mon frere...

[gdwessel.livejournal.com]

But even in one-way discourses, say, a newspaper column, Letters to the Editor are still able to be received (if not printed).