Rifle Games for 7-Year Olds

A few days ago Scott pointed out that Online Integrity is dead. Now, I think there's plenty of actual integrity online, so that's good. But the Online Integrity of the sort sponsored by our good friend Tacitus, aka Josh Trevino -- well, that's gone and buried, done and over. And that's even better.

As any number of people picked up on at the time, last May, the big problem with the "OI" project was that the person who was pushing it, this Trevino fellow, himself lacks integrity, in the same rather spectacular negative fashion that the Sun lacks ice cream. Oh, he talks about "honor" all the time, like he's Worf or something. But when he says "honor" he says it like you'd phonetically pronounce a word in a foreign language that you don't understand.

It was, and is, too rich: here was someone wanting to primarily define "integrity" as "respect for a person's right to anonymity online," who had been notorious for stunts like this. And the incident where he coquettishly let slip Billmon's last name. And other nonsense. The record shows that Tac sees anonymity or pseudonymity solely as an opportunity to whip out a cudgel against someone he doesn't like, because if you can "out" them, oh boy, you've got one over on them! What a mighty little fellow you are! Have a biscuit! Hence his addiction to using real names whenever he can, even when he knows full well that the other person is known online by a pseudonym. And even when it's pointless because the target doesn't really care. (The purpose is to insult, as in the infantile usage, "The Democrat Party." Bonus insulting points in that he doesn't say "fuck" so he's still one "civil" little Fauntleroy!)

So for Tac to start up an "Online Integrity" project where everyone would swear not to out people, well, that was like the Ted Haggard Crusade Against Meth n' Gay Hookers. Just too funny. So my initial response, once I heard it was him behind it all, was to make fun of it. And to complete the joke, the Online Blogintegrity site that began as a parody is still in existence, and indeed about to evolve (more on that soon).

Indeed, from our vantage point right now, it's pretty clear just what exactly Online Integrity always was: the bouquet of flowers the abuser buys in order to prove -- mostly to himself -- that he's... not an abuser. Witness Tac's behavior in this recent Sadly No thread. It's been going on for days now. (Scroll down to the end for the real fun, where Tac reveals the nickname of the sports teams at the CC where I teach, immediately after he has accused Scott Lemieux and HTML/Retardo of being "obsessives" because they read and criticize his blog posts.)

Integrity consists in holding to a principle because it's a principle. If you have respect for the legitimacy of anonymity or pseudonymity online, then you do not under any circumstances violate that principle.

So much for Tac's "principles." He's right now in the process of violating a principle he once launched a public campaign to champion.

I think that's super.

(Crossposted to BlogIntegrity)

***UPDATE***

Marble Boy does one of his patented passive-aggressive comments threads cameos here, appearing in a puff and a cloud bearing a thesaurus, a snootful of attitude, and a silly "argument." Let's play!

1. Skilled dredger of the Google Cache that he is, he resurrects the OI Statement of Principles from its sewagey grave, intoning "the issue of anonymity/pseudonymity was third out of four, and qualified, at that." Which it is! Of course, Number One reads:

Private persons are entitled to respect for their privacy regardless of their activities online. This includes respect for the non-public nature of their personal contact information, the inviolability of their homes, and the safety of their families. No information which might lead others to invade these spaces should be posted. The separateness of private persons’ professional lives should also be respected as much as is reasonable.

So much for that noise, then.

2. JT also says:

This Statement was a compromise document -- drafted by a left-wing majority -- and as such, does not reflect my own views on the subject, nor anyone else's, 100%.

Irrelevant. If you don't want other people to hold you "100%" to a statement of a principle, then don't publicly endorse that principle, much less publicly campaign for others to do likewise. There's this thing called "giving your word," a concept that seems to elude poor Tac.

This gets to precisely my issue with Tac. Full as he is of himself and full as his rhetoric is of high-minded platitudes, what he really wants to do is to is, well, what he wants to do. He sees a public statement of principles as a definition of a kind of a boundary: "aha, this tells me how far I can go, and hence anything I do up until that point is fair play!" Now, me, I see a statement of principles as an aspiration and a guide for behavior, and not as grounds for endless, twisty, knotty ethical negotiation and compromise. The weasel's twist, the weasel's tooth -- sign a pact with Tac, that's what you get.

For more of this sort of wingnut "ethics," see the wonderful "fake but accurate" right blogospheric formulation, as well as stuff like "the President wasn't technically lying when he said Saddam sought to get nuclear material from Africa." For the results of this sort of moral logic, see today's Iraq.

3. Tac says,

Respect for anonymity or pseudonymity online is at best a courtesy, as there is no generalized moral case for respecting another's preference for it.

See OI Number One, genius.

Not that this guff about "moral cases" is relevant, or that "courtesy" is "merely" anything. Tac seems to take this blogging crap a lot more seriously than I do. Blogs are a bunch of people talking -- like in a bar, or a living room, or whatnot. Sometimes things get heated. Tac is the jackass who always thinks he has a "right" to "take things outside," not so much to fight (Lord forbid), but to harass, to nurse grudges, to take down phone numbers, to follow you home so he knows where you live, to tell mommy on you when she gets home, to put sugar in your tank... in other words, to get revenge for slights in some other forum besides the one where he felt humiliated or beaten or otherwise pettily aggrieved.

Don't see any other way to interpret the obsessive behavior in the Sadly No thread, chief.

4. JT intones:

The remainder of your post, based as it is upon these false premises, is therefore discarded.

Not so. As is the case with my blog generally, this post is based upon licensed premises. And you still can't keep up.

Comments

[Josh Trevino]

I'll break a rule just this once, because there's something illustrative in the following:

....here was someone wanting to primarily define "integrity" as "respect for a person's right to anonymity online....

Wrong. No such right exists; nor did anyone -- but for you and yours -- ever posit this fake "right" as the prerequisite of "integrity." Respect for anonymity or pseudonymity online is at best a courtesy, as there is no generalized moral case for respecting another's preference for it. (There are specific moral cases, but you have cited none here.) You and those like you fetishize your play-names as a means of escaping natural consequences. This is not irrational of you; neither is it something others are bound to respect. Your objection to the failure to show that respect is therefore irrelevant.

On the OI Statement of Principles itself, the issue of anonymity/pseudonymity was third out of four, and qualified, at that. This Statement was a compromise document -- drafted by a left-wing majority -- and as such, does not reflect my own views on the subject, nor anyone else's, 100%. All this has been public knowledge from the beginning.

The remainder of your post, based as it is upon these false premises, is therefore discarded.

[marc page]

Pardon me a moment while I retrieve that post .... hmm ... looks okay to me ...

"Josh Trevino" (if that's your real name, and you don't think you've disgraced it quite enough just yet) maybe it's time you went outside for a while ; took a little walk; got some air ...

some of us are beginning to worry about you ...

well, not really, but just the same -- you really need to get some help; becoming known as an 'internet stalker' will not look good on your resume.

[Clarke in Hoboken, about 5'9", grey hoodie]

"You and those like you fetishize your play-names as a means of escaping natural consequences."

Christ, what a jagoff you are, Trevino. Only in a mind as diseased as yours can "having someone's psycho readership send you roadkill in a shoebox along with a cryptic note" be synonymous with "natural consequences."

Oh, and I know pseudonymity doesn't make sense to a guy so empty inside he needs to see his name in print as much as possible, but you're overanalyzing it. Some online writers/commenters want to stay off the grid for whatever reason, but the vast majority use pseuds for a real simple reason: Thirtysomething honkies don't get to have rap names.

[Ripley]

You and those like you fetishize your play-names as a means of escaping natural consequences.

I hope you'll expound on this natural consequences business, Josh. In my view, it seems that 99% of the 'consequences' over the last 9 months or so have been birthed by neocon bloggers attempting to silence or intimidate liberal bloggers.

I don't suppose you'll take me seriously until I post my DOB, SS #, bank account info and Mother's maiden name online, though. Would that make my "objection to the failure to show that respect" valid?

[Phoenix Woman]

Funny, Josh "Tacitus" Trevino spent much if not most of his online life using a pseudonym. But of course, Republicans are nothing without their hypocrisy and their cognitive dissonance.

[Oregon guy]

I read ticky-tacky's blog back in 2003, when I thought it was a kind of center-right counterweight to DKos. Once the room filled with mouthbreathing yahoos and the ever-ebullient-and-vocabularious Tacitus, I got bored and left.

Every now and again I see his name popped up on one site or other, like the Sadly No! thread he hijacked (linked above).

Judge for yourselves: the man puts his image online (brandishing a light-saber, no less). SN! publishes parody of said image (as if parody was necessary). At some point later in time, Tacky comes to SN! attempting to out the writer going by the name of HTML Mencken, by using information posted in Mencken's (in no way related) MySpace or FaceBook page.

Now I am a believer in not putting anything online, which is why the most info you'll get on the Oregon guy is on my DKos profile (so there's your tip when you want to out me, Tacky). Spoiler - it sez I'm in the Army.

Anyhoo - Tacky is a waste of time whose many blogs have crashed and burned (fizzled would probably be a more appropriate term), and he now spends his time on the left coast (oh, the irony) as a recipient of wingnut welfare (more irony for you).

Avoid him. He's a douchebag.

[sdf (Stu)]

The remainder of your post, based as it is upon these false premises, is therefore discarded.

Zing! Zowie!

If Conservapedia needs more of those fine prose stylists, it knows where to recruit.

[Hubris Sonic]

What a pathetic fuck you are Trevino... go back on your meds you sorry fuck.

[Righteous Bubba]

On the OI Statement of Principles itself, the issue of anonymity/pseudonymity was third out of four, and qualified, at that.

The third is where it was listed by name, but I get this crazy idea that the first two have something to do with it too.

Spirit of the law is as important as letter, no? It is, after all, "simple".

The Online Integrity Statement of Principles is simple:

1. Private persons are entitled to respect for their privacy regardless of their activities online. This includes respect for the non-public nature of their personal contact information, the inviolability of their homes, and the safety of their families. No information which might lead others to invade these spaces should be posted. The separateness of private persons’ professional lives should also be respected as much as is reasonable.

2. Public figures are entitled to respect for the non-public nature of their personal, non-professional contact information, and their privacy with regard to their homes and families. No information which might lead others to invade these spaces should be posted.
3. Persons seeking anonymity or pseudonymity online should have their wishes in this regard respected as much as is reasonable. Exceptions include cases of criminal, misleading, or intentionally disruptive behavior.
4. Violations of these principles should be met with a lack of positive publicity and traffic.

[Oregon guy]

Oh yeah, one other thing:

You and those like you fetishize your play-names as a means of escaping natural consequences. This is not irrational of you; neither is it something others are bound to respect. Your objection to the failure to show that respect is therefore irrelevant.

Sounds like the work of someone who has never had a security interview, or perhaps someone who has liked to keep work/meat-space/and on-line space separate.

I used to post on a sports blog regularly. There was this one guy who basically made a fetish out of identifying all the people who supported his team's rival (which happened to be the team I supported). One day my bosses and some professional associations got calls from this asshole, who had spent some hours tracking down my personal info.

So fuck you Trevino, there are plenty of us who wish to, and choose to, remain anonymous. YOU are not the arbiter of other people's lives.

You are, on the other hand, a two-faced, smarmy loser.

[clap shitty]

The remainder of your post, based as it is upon these false premises, is therefore discarded.

The right wing simply cannot help writing in the passive-voice style of a dungeon master's guide.

[Judge Larry]

Has the lightsaber photo been entered into evidence?

I will rule on where it is to be buried after I see it for myself.

[Anonymous, Based of Principle 3]

This is just precious. Tacitus argues that he shouldn't be held accountable for 25% of the principles that he voluntarily endorsed (50%, really, since ignoring Principle 3 essentially negates Principle 4). This is clearly someone who lacks the gene for basic embarassment.

Of course, in a sense, Tacitus is the Pete Best of bloggers. He was there in the Cavern Club as the Beatles were forming and he probably thought that he would be whisked along on the ride to the top. It must be hard to face the fact that, while many of your contemporaries have become major players in the blogosphere (e.g., Atrios and Kos), you didn't quite make it.

Actually, this site only helps Tacitus by giving him a brief moment in the sun, and Atrios gives him an early Xmas gift by even mentioning his name on a first-tier blog.

[Lawnguylander]

What a drag is right.

I had no idea that was still going on. What I can't figure out about this Trevino character is whether he comes by his pretentious writing style naturally or if it's an affect meant to impress his mouth breathing readers. The kind who read Hitchens but have no idea what the fuck he's talking about and get frustrated. So they read Tacky and see phrases like the following and feel part of the club of intellectulas at last;

I have stated previously that I endorse cruel things in war — to eschew them is folly.

It is indeed difficult to imagine now the methods that transformed the Philippines for us, and South Africa for the British, from bitter foe to steadfast friend being applied in Iraq. Would that they were. But patriotism, pride, and honor are nonetheless still present in the American character. It is the American political class that lacks them in corresponding measure.

Would that they were? Which is worse his pomposity or his genocidal tendencies?

[JimPortlandOR]

Has anyone mentioned that tacky is an arrogant fuck?

Reading his RedState and Tacitus posts over several years (intermittently, since a regular diet of his blather is bad for one's health), makes clear that no one is as smart, clearheaded, or consistent as he is - in his own judgement.

And hey, that lightsaber is awesome. The sign of real adult at work.

[Rob]

Not killing anyone is like 7 out of 10! Obviously God really didn't mean it!

[Doctor Biobrain]

Personally, I never like to know a blogger's real name. It takes out all the fun and makes them seem mortal. I myself would never use a fake name, as Mr. and Mrs. Biobrain would never forgive me for it. But were I to do so, I'd prefer that people continue to use the fake name. It makes us bigger than life.

Nobody cares when celebrities use fake names, so why can't we? But Josh's comment says it all. He likes to be able to punish people with "natural consequences". And truth be told, I'd rather be mocking a dude named Tacitus than "Josh Trevino". That makes it all too personal and it's kind of embarrassing. Even now, I wish I never knew Tacitus' real name. But I guess I wouldn't mind if I had never heard the fake one either.

[James G]

What the? Comment #1 pretty much shows the conservative mind to me. It's exactly like Bush's signing statements. You sign something, but you add a qualifier saying what it says isn't what it meant. And Tacitus was bludgenoning lefties who didn't want to sign the agreement. I guess he had his fingers crossed.

[mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari]

Josh Trevino, putting the mouth back into mouth-breather.

[dmbeaster]

Trevino:

This Statement was a compromise document -- drafted by a left-wing majority -- and as such, does not reflect my own views on the subject, nor anyone else's, 100%.

I see! You had your fingers crossed when you made the pledge. Your pledge does not extend to those parts for which you harbor secret reservations.

Hypocrite.

Kind of like Dick Cheney's pledge to the Constitution -- that document full of limitations insisted on by those dodgy leftists.

[Sceptic]

You and those like you fetishize your play-names as a means of escaping natural consequences

I love this comment by Tiky Taky because it lays bare his agenda. What he is refering to is that in our day to day world, the world of work and work rules, courts and laws, print media and politicians, there are many ways to hurt people you disagree with that are perfectly legal; he can bother your boss to get you fired, register a frivilous libel suit againts you, defame you in the media or let a political operative expose you as an example.

What Tavino fails to recognize is that despite the fact that these actions are all legal, they are morally wrong in the context of internet based political debate. They violate the very idea of Western Democracy.

What kind of person wants to fuck another person up just becasause he doesn't like what was said in a political argument?

An ugly morally crippled person.

When he talks about "natural consequences" he reveals his ugly nature. But maybe it is not that personal. This attitude is happily embraced by all conservative Republicans, after all when you 'know' the truth why let morality stop you?

[Sceptic]

You know now that I think about it, Trevino is part and parcel of the authoritarian anti-enlightenment forces that make up the modern Republican party. He doesn't care about democratic deliberation or argument, he doesn't care about empiricism, reason or facts. He cares about knowing his side is right and silencing anyone who disagrees by any means possible. All under the guise of 'civility'.

The American Right is out to destroy the democratic traditions and practices that have made the West great. And they just don't care. Some always wanted to destroy modern Western society (the religious nuts) others have deluded themselves that we have to burn the village to save it (i.e. conservative 'thinkers')
The bottom line is they need to be stopped, pushed back and transmuted into a political force that stands by liberal democracy and its institutions.

I know I know - good luck with that.

[paperwight]

The fun part here is that Trevino is a hack who lives on the wingnut welfare handouts he gets from the proto-feudalists whose agenda he justifies, so as long as he hews to the wingnut line, there's nothing he can say that will hurt his day job. In fact, the more actual damage he does to people who criticize him and his paymasters, the more likely he is to get a raise.

On the other hand, there are a lot of people who work for companies with Trevino's politics, or live in places full of people with Trevino's sense of "discretion". So when Trevino "outs" his critics, he's actually trying to harm them using an attack to which he's immune because he's successfully attached himself, in the fashion and function of a remora, to the larger predators. All class, that guy.

[whetstone]

On the OI Statement of Principles itself, the issue of anonymity/pseudonymity was third out of four, and qualified, at that.

Maybe they should have put them all on the same line, so as not to confuse Josh. Or put them all on top of each other.

[pseudonymous in nc]

Trevino?

You really are a toxic cunt with a power-of-the-name fetish that deserves to be medicated along with your other symptoms.