Last week's "This week in the Slacktiverse" included a link to John Scalzi's article Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is. In the days that followed the initial publication of that post Scalzi published an article, "Lowest Difficulty Setting" Follow-Up, about some of the comments made to the original article, some of which he deleted/moderated because they violated the commenting policy of his site. Finally, on May 21, Scalzi posted an article about the very nature of comments, "Lowest Difficulty Setting Follow-Up" Now on Kotaku + Comment on Comments.
In reading the comments to the original post, the follow-up post and the "comments on comments" post two different types of anger are visible: the first anger is aimed the content/argument of the original post; the second type of anger seems to reflect a particular form of commentator entitlement--the belief that it is always wrong/offensive for anyone to be asked to abide by a set of commenting rules even (or even particularly) by the person who owns/moderates the blog.
I admit that I don't "get" the way in which people deal with either form of anger. If one wants to be heard (in the sense of carrying any argumentative weight) in a blogspace then it behooves one to learn the community standards of that place and if one doesn't like the way a particular person runs their own blog then it seems best to me that one go somewhere else and start a blog of one's own.
What do you think?
The Slacktiverse is a community blog. Content reflects the individual opinions of the contributors. We welcome disagreement in the comment threads, and invite anyone who wishes to present an alternative interpretation of a situation to write and submit a post.