John, I’m not really sure why you’re addressing your post to me.

I addressed my post to you because you wrote, earlier, the following post:

Who was it, one of the fringe MRAs who thinks Glenn Sacks is a wimpy feminist sympathizer?

I think attributing Internet misbehaviour to people you ideologically oppose, if done without evidence, harms the larger project of encouraging the basic Internet trust that allows free speech.

Really, where did I suggest that it would be OK for Hugo to call an MRA’s supervisor and suggest that person be fired?

Never, and I didn’t suggest you had. I did say, and I believe, and I will maintain, that only one way exists to keep and build on the basic trust that keeps the Internet (relatively) free; we have to condemn everyone who violates that trust, and we have to make our readiness to do so clear. It doesn’t do to simply avoid suggesting that we would condone real-life vendettas based on Internet disagreements; other people have to trust us to condemn without reservation those who do, even if we agree with them in other respects. In my opinion, making unfounded assumptions that an offender comes from a group you disagree with does not help.

Why is he done here? It doesn’t appear that he has said anything out of line.

If I can make someone angry enough to try and get me fired, I wonder if I could make an already unstable someone angry enough to go to the point of physical violence. And while the childless man can say “bring it on!”, the prospective father has to be more careful.

That’s a bit of a red herring. You’re not saying, “bring it on.”

One thing I believe after 20-odd years of research into computer and internet ethics: you can’t deal with misbehaviour by making it into a club to whack the “other side” with. Sustaining the trust on which a community depends ranks as a categorical imperative; everyone has to do it, and everyone has to uphold the obligation to do it. On the Internet, we have little or no power to impose “real” consequences for misbehaviour; we have only the moral force of our disapproval. That can work; the thought of a large community rejecting your actions, turning away, discounting your arguments does have a lot of persuasive power. But we dissipate that effect if we don’t hold our best friends to the same standard as our worst enemies.

This has a practical basis. To work, disapproval has to come close to unanimity. If someone who violates the trust we all depend on when we put our opinions out on the net knows that a like-minded community will rally around them, the thought of disapproval from the “other side” won’t bother them. In this sense, whatever our ability to trust when we write on the net depends on reciprocity; people who disagree with Hugo should condemn efforts to visit “real world” consequences on what he says, and in return his supporters must condemn just as loudly someone who does the same to one of your opponents (insert MRA name here). It really only works that way.

@mythago: I think, you misunderstood my comment. With ‘HE’ I was referring to Hugo, and not to Glenn Sacks.

Hugo has pissed off many, and obviously one too many. And it was your question ‘Who was it?’ - and not my question, but Hugo did not reply so far…so I presume, it cannot be someone out of the MRA-movement.

You cannot deny, there are others not related to MRAs, who might not appreciate Hugo’s behaviour…think about possible disappointed lovers, ex-wives, female students around him, radical feminists (he banned them from his blog…)…etc.

For me, Hugo is the funny type of a ‘male feminist’ - waxing, masturbation, boys dress and desire, or surgery, sex, shame and paternalistic feminism…

MRAs are open to humour - I see no reason for the MRAs to backbite…as I said, MRAs are not feminists.

The point is that blogging publicly has certain risks, and how we cope with those risks is an important issue for any blogger. This isn’t the time or place to debate comment moderation policies, save to remind all that this is a feminist blog, and not the Hyde Park speaker’s corner.