Child of Mog; Extraordinary Comments

13 comments on “Child of Mog; Extraordinary Comments”

1. I think Child of Mog is now my favorite of the various options now.

   I agree that experimenting with the live production site is generally bad practice, but totally appropriate for what we are doing. I’m still playing with the Commentariat stuff and will get back with my opinions once they are fully formed.

   Reply

   • I agree, but it’s a problem or points to one – or to the same old problem, latest chapter in continuing series.

     CoM is funny, aesthetically somewhat pleasing as these things go, is only slightly esoteric and in a way that makes a point about the nature of internet-anonymous discourse, is respectful of site and internet/blogging history, and is also the product of a collective creative process. Yet for all of those reasons, it stands out. It stands out so much that it really would make more sense as a new site branding image, or basis for one, than as simply a default avatar. It seems too good for the site as is, and I’m not feeling any confidence in the development process at the moment.

     The “default avatar” either is or overlaps with “the site’s own avatar.” So, precisely what makes CoM right is what makes it wrong, or to the extent it’s right it’s wrong.

     In other words, I strongly doubt that we’d be able to reach a consensus on re-branding, either in the community or from the OT editors. Typical would be a long hard struggle to produce a consensus that does not produce the agreed-upon cooperative action. As for site content in general, of late – posts, conversation, editorial decisions – I’m more and more finding myself in “less said, the better” situations.

     BTW, since I take it you are or were something of a Magritte fan: The Magritte print I had up on my wall when I was a teenager was of one of his Empire of Lights paintings:

     

     Reply

2. I see, MacLeod–because I pointed out that the newly skinned “Mystery Man”, [ed. – NO YOU DO NOT GET TO USE THAT WORD, IN THAT WAY, MacKenzie: It’s a “fighting word.”] was nevertheless just another variant on the theme of “subhuman degenerate”–perhaps one of those Peruvian savages who wear similarly old-fashioned hats–you decided to stick an apple on his face in order to confuse any attempt at characterizing his race or ethnicity. [ed. – I’m leaving the rest of the comment, however, so we can admire the evidence of how silly you make yourself seem when you give into your bigot’s reflexes.]

   And you think *I’m* immature?

   I’m tempted to mount a scathing criticism of your recent conduct on this blog–instead I’ll offer up a more modest one, but first I’ll criticize myself. I freely admit that most of my comments here–including this one–have been frivolous and I regret that. I intend to remedy that defect in future.

   By way of attempting a modest criticism of you, I won’t point out that–after a four or five month hiatus, where you wrote precisely fuck-all for this site–we’ve now been subjected to two posts in a row about the “avatar” and your efforts to re-design him by placing a hat atop his head, changing his skin tone, and now replacing his face with an apple.

   Instead, permit me to point out that, since you instituted the “Docket” feature some six-odd months ago, not one–not one–of those projected pieces has made it to the blog’s front page.

   If we’re subjected to a third goofy post about your latest re-design of the avatar, I think I’ll just weep over what might have been–what might have been the destiny of one CK MacLeod, “a thoughtful and promising [old] writer”.

   Reply

   • Sorry, CK–my previous comment went immediately into moderation, so I assumed you had me on permanent moderation and thus I spoke rather more freely than I might have otherwise, on the assumption that my comment would certainly be “moderated into the void”.

     It seems a bit unfair for you to criticize my “bigot’s reflexes”–or my use of the “fighting word” “nigger” (no, it isn’t a “fighting word”, it’s just the standard English word for a black African–it isn’t up to present-day liberal progressives, SWPLs and Social Justice Warriors to re-determine our language, Newspeak style)–when in the previous post you explicitly stated that one of your purposes in re-designing the avatar was to annoy me, “a confessed racist”.

     I don’t particularly care about my comments being deleted, but I do care about words or sentences being excised–and I do wish you wouldn’t insert your editorializations. That strikes me as unjust simpliciter. Please print my comments in toto and free of emendation or not at all–surely you can pay me that much of a courtesy, sir.

     In any event, it would seem that my comment struck a nerve with you–no doubt for reasons that have nothing at all to do with my contempt for the liberal progressive anti-racism ideology–so I do hope you’ll heed my words.

     Reply

     • I’ll do with your comments as I see fit, and if you don’t like how I treat them, don’t make them – or sue me. When you use terms widely understood, even by small children, to be unacceptable, they will be edited away. I don’t like having to do it. It wastes my time. I don’t like having to discuss the matter every time you leave a comment either. Stop it.

       Reply

       • Those terms are only “widely understood, even by small children, to be unacceptable” because a distinct political faction is exercising a distinct species of coercive power (over their parents) to make it so. That “wide understanding” is recent and, like all things which come into being, must pass away therefrom.

         Admittedly, I’m surprised that you won’t pay me the courtesy of refraining from editing or emending my comments–as opposed simply to replying to them. If you can’t perform that small justice, how will you ever be up to performing the “social” justice of which you dream? He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much.

         Reply

         • This is a part of your problem, McKenzie: You acknowledge that you are doing wrong, intentionally, and promise to do better, and then immediately turn around to denying that you’ve been doing wrong.

           I specifically instructed you not to use a foul or declared-unacceptable word knowingly except to discuss its usage. Proper orthography is to place such a term, when being discussed as a term, in quotation marks. Doing so would also happen to be a good discipline for someone like you to adopt. Saying things just to “get my goat” is puerile behavior – or trolling: Also unacceptable.

           The following comment – which you left a little while ago, and forced me to “moderate” – is an improper comment:

           As you know, I don’t often use “foul” language–I don’t particularly like it myself. I have on occasion used it–as “f**k-all” above (a comment I assumed wouldn’t see the light of day)–specifically to get your goat.

           However, I’m afraid I don’t consider nigger to be an instance of profanity–as I said, it *just is* the standard English word for a black African. You and your (admittedly, presently influential) political faction don’t get to superintend the historic English language as if it were merely an instrument for the advancement of your political project. (For more, see Heidegger’s Unterwegs zur Sprache.)

           The following comment would be a proper comment, which is not to say I consider it a well-considered comment, or a comment of a type I would encourage now, since I do not have time to get into the subject matter you’re intent on raising with anything like the care I believe required:

           As you know, I don’t often use “foul” language–I don’t particularly like it myself. I have on occasion used it–as “f**k-all” above (a comment I assumed wouldn’t see the light of day)–specifically to get your goat.

           However, I’m afraid I don’t consider “nigger” to be an instance of profanity–as I said, it *just is* the standard English word for a black African. You and your (admittedly, presently influential) political faction don’t get to superintend the historic English language as if it were merely an instrument for the advancement of your political project. (For more, see Heidegger’s Unterwegs zur Sprache.)

           Enough on this today. Any further violations of the rules for commenting that I have made clear – prohibiting use of foul and unacceptable language as I have defined it for you, repeatedly – will be answered by suspension of your commenting privileges.

           Reply

           • Alright, CK.

             I really must confess–I can’t stand the new “avatar”. Would you please remove it? (Can you not show me even one kindness–I who shared my prize collection of Leo Strauss course transcripts with you?)

             Reply

             • http://gravatar.com/

               Follow the simple instructions. Use an acceptable image.

               Reply

               • I just want my name up there, like it was. I don’t want an “avatar”.

                 “I do not have time to get into the subject matter you’re intent on raising with anything like the care I believe required”

                 If you weren’t wasting your time designing “avatars” and writing about it, you might have the time.

                 Reply

                 • Going avatarless where avatars are required will usually be easy, for those who know what needs to be done. If you can manage, say, ten consecutive substantive comments in no need of moderation, then I will show you how. Alternatively, you may learn to love your Magritte apple, or you may decide that not commenting is preferable until such time as I get around to writing another boring instructional web design post that happens to cover this topic.

                   Reply

     • The only excuse for you or anyone else to use the word “nigger” at this blog will be specifically to discuss use of the word “nigger.” Place it in quotation marks when you do so. Any other use of that word – as of other vulgar language – will be subject to editing. I don’t like foul language of any kind, and I may or may not choose to explain myself. Just don’t use it. Don’t use profanity. Don’t seek to offend. Don’t use my blog for your personal campaigns against the evil speech-controlling SJWs unless you can do so in a way that doesn’t tend to justify their existence.

       Reply

   • As for why the apple, the allusion is to one of the better-known images in the history of art. Its recognizability is not on the level of la Gioconda or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, but for the same reason it may for some divide the world a bit more effectively into the “two kinds of people” of legend.

     I’m not so sure either about the general notion or about that particular dividing line, but your ignorance on that score – maintained stubbornly even in the presence of helpful hints – specifically in combination with your reflexively crude and foul, unacceptable etc. response – does strengthen the case in favor.

     As for the rest, it is not clear to me at all that you are in fact capable of “remedy[-ing] that defect.” You seem instead to be capable only of promising to do so, as you have demonstrated repeatedly, so no longer with any believability. So, go ahead and weep: Regardless of your preferences, which your conduct gives me good reason to reject, I think my next post may have more on this other feature I am working on, already in use in rough form: “comment-featuring” under the title “Extraordinary Comments.”

     As it happens, the EC displays in the sidebar and on its own archive page happen to include, for now, a recent comment of yours, along with your apple, which latter I think you should not disparage, as it may be your best feature, or your most extraordinary one. Perhaps you can use the prospects offered by the new featuring features, and by other new commenting enhancements, both already produced and still to come, as incentives to keep your promises and to produce comments worth highlighting. The ones disfigured by racist epithets, foul language, and special pleading will not make the cut.

     When I’ve gotten far enough along on the featuring feature, I do expect next to turn to the docket, as already mentioned at the end of the post, though first from the point of view of new functionality. I may post one or two or more in the process of testing it, and you’re welcome to participate: Among the key new features I am planning will, if all goes well enough, be one allowing you to subscribe to be notified when a particular post of interest to you is published, freeing you to spend more time at sites like VDARE or Taki’s Magazine or Stormfront or wherever.

     Reply