Hey Book 2

March 9, 2015 § Leave a comment

You can't afford NOT to buy it

You can’t afford NOT to buy it

Wow, so hello everyone after literally 6 months of not saying anything because I’m coy. No, not coy. Busy. Revising a book, which if you feel so inclined could be purchased here (hey cool, if you want to buy a used copy it’s only $999.11!). And also starting a second book project with the illustrious Ryan M. Milner of the College of Charleston, whose book on memes just went to contract at MIT (well, to say it’s on MEMES doesn’t really capture it — more like memetic logic, a bigger thing that you should really talk to him about). This second thing is forthcoming with Polity Press in 2017 (-ish), which I am so so excited about and three cheers and all that. Here is the blurb:

Between Play and Hate: Antagonism, Mischief, and Humor Online brings together disparate studies from a wide range of humanities disciplines in order to demystify and help contextualize digitally mediated behaviors that fall somewhere between “play” (that which is not harmless but is also not straightforwardly negative, including crass joking, identity experimentation, and ambiguous media participation) and “hate” (conspicuously damaging behaviors, including cyberbullying, hate speech, and various other malicious antagonisms). This book explores the topic from five vantage points—antagonism, identity play, audience participation, folklore, and humor—and considers key emergent discourses within digital media studies, including the political significance of digitally-mediated content, where the “offline” world ends and the “online” world begins, and the relationship between the digital humanities and traditional humanities. By asking these questions, Between Play and Hate seeks to bring a nuanced, historically situated perspective to discussions of ambivalent online behaviors.

FUN RIGHT?? We’ll also be emphasizing the extent to which technological, economic, and interpersonal infrastructures impact (shape, allow for, encourage, etc) ambiguous behavior online and off. I’ve just been working on the folklore chapter and it is glorious, my friends, just glorious. People were so FILTHY back in the day, as evidenced by this book everyone should read (and speaking of memetic logic). So yeah updates! NOW BEHAVE YOURSELVES.


“So Bad It’s Funny: Ambiguous Fan Engagement as an Expression of Cultural Literacy” — Presentation for 2014’s International Communications Association Meeting in Seattle, WA

May 23, 2014 § 2 Comments

Actual first slide

Actual first slide

 From the panel “How Memes Matter: Probing New Modes of Popular Participation and Exclusion,” May 24, 2014.

Today I’m going to be talking about online content that is so bad, or so weird, or so broken, or so dated, that it’s great.

Although English lacks a quick and easy way of describing such content, the Japanese and Chinese-speaking webs have it covered: kuso (“e gao” in Mandarin), literally translated from Japanese as “shitty.”

In Japan, “kuso” is a basic and highly versatile adjective—not unlike shitty in English. In the context of bad video games (Kuso-ge) and other amusingly sub-par content, however, the term takes on more nuanced meaning, something to the effect of “this is so bad and stupid and terribly designed, I LOVE IT!!!”

That’s the basic overview of what this talk will cover. Here are two things I will not be addressing:

Another actual slide -- notice a theme?

Another actual slide — notice a theme?

« Read the rest of this entry »

References Done!

April 27, 2014 § Leave a comment

I don’t have much of a temper, as a human, and in fact could stand to cultivate maybe 10% more of one. There are however a few things that make me just RAGE: booking flights and hotel rooms (really, filling out any sort of online form), mouth sounds, sexist men, board games, and formatting references for academic papers. This last thing in particular is the one area in my life where sometimes I am tempted to procrastinate (excuse me, “engage in tactical delays“), and occasionally even do (only for like an hour though). So, it is with great delight and happy-of-myself-ishness that I can announce that I am done-done-DONE with my highly weird 50-page reference list. It’s been ages since I looked the list over carefully, and was struck by the following:

  • Good god I have a lot of sources that have “since been deleted.”
  • I had to think carefully about how I handled Encyclopedia Dramatica references, since in the 5 years since beginning this project, the site has undergone 3 respawns and the majority of the content I originally found there has been lost in the anals (not a typo) of time. The Chicago Manual of Style isn’t equipped for that shit.
  • Related to my second point, it’s funny to format sources created by friends.
  • It’s funny to remember where I was geographically and in my life as I picked through each reference. Like I can clearly remember where I was sitting not just when I first found whatever source, but when I initially formatted whatever source. Feels time-capsuley man.

In conclusion, I am done with formatting, and from here on out will be concerned with final revisions & line editing! PROGRESS.

Mary Beard on the Literary and Philosophical History of Women Being Told to Shut Up

February 17, 2014 § Leave a comment

Mary Beard opens her recent London Review of Books essay on the public voice of women –or lack thereof– by beginning at the beginning, or very close to the beginning, specifically the Odyssey. She describes an incident in which Telemachus, Odysseus and Penelope’s son, tells his mother to shut up and go upstairs to make crafts or sing or something because “speech will be the business of men, all men, and of me most of all; for mine is the power in this household.” As Beard explains:

There is something faintly ridiculous about this wet-behind-the-ears lad shutting up the savvy, middle-aged Penelope. But it’s a nice demonstration that right where written evidence for Western culture starts, women’s voices are not being heard in the public sphere; more than that, as Homer has it, an integral part of growing up, as a man, is learning to take control of public utterance and to silence the female of the species. The actual words Telemachus uses are significant too. When he says ‘speech’ is ‘men’s business’, the word is muthos – not in the sense that it has come down to us of ‘myth’. In Homeric Greek it signals authoritative public speech (not the kind of chatting, prattling or gossip that anyone – women included, or especially women – could do).

« Read the rest of this entry »

Gone Archivin’

October 15, 2013 § 1 Comment

compudance cool guy

Way back in the forever ago (last year), I used to write some things for Modern Primate, may it rest in peace. It occurred to me that someday the site will likely be recycled for scrap metal, or whatever ends up happening to decommissioned websites, so I’d best start archiving.

This realization coincided with an earlier realization that I have done a horrible job indexing this blog, due largely to the fact that the whole thing started out as a haphazard repository for snarky PhD exam commentary. I had been tagging certain things as “Digital Culture,” for example, but only in relation to my digital culture exam list. All the actual “digital culture” posts, you know, the ones in which I talk about things on and around the internet, got filed under “Spotlight On” or “Lightning Round,” tags I eventually deleted because they were annoying (which didn’t delete the posts, but rather how they’re indexed onsite). This has made searching for stuff very difficult, which is silly if the whole point of a blog is to write things that other humans can find.

Anyway, in order to kill two birds with one post, I’ve transferred the full text of all my Modern Primate writings to their corresponding posts here. And then because I was already doing that, I figured I might as well collate them all in a separate, more easily navigable MEGApost. No one cares! So without further ado:

On Television:

Of and Related to Dogs:

Internet Culture:

Santorum Slashfic, which got increasingly weird as the months wore on:


October 9, 2013 § Leave a comment

deal with it dog

A few days after Popular Science announced their decision to disable their comments section (nutshell version: too many trolls, not enough science), The Daily Dot asked me to share my thoughts on the thorny issue of comment moderation. YES WONDERFUL I said, and wrote this article, which just went live. In particular, I focus on the “free speech” question, which makes me want to eat my own face.

The kind of speech most likely to be defended by [“free speech” in the colloquial sense] is speech that is bigoted and antagonistic, largely toward women and other historically underrepresented groups (note the infrequency with which women and people of color use the “…but but FREE SPEECH” defense in a debate, whether online or off-). Free speech in the colloquial Internet sense, particularly as it’s used in the context of comment moderation, almost always justifies or outright apologizes for a typically male, typically white aggressor. It is a concept that frames freedom in terms of being free to harass others, not freedom from being harassed, or simply from being exposed to harassment (which often amounts to the same thing).

Unlike discussions of the ideal relationship between author and commenter, or the extent to which platforms are responsible for protecting their readers from harassment,  concerns over “free speech” are unlikely to precipitate thoughtful conversations about best moderation practices. In fact, by actively latching onto “free speech” as a behavioral ideal, platforms inadvertently privilege the aggressor and pathologize readers—readers who, for some strange reason, don’t like wading through a tsunami of antagonistic bullshit every time they scroll through a comments section.

For the conclusion, head on over to The Daily Dot. I even make a joke about poo-flinging, so it’s totally worth it.

“When Internet Trolls Attack” – Karyne Levy on Internet Trolls and Refusing to Refuse to Feed Similar

September 26, 2013 § 5 Comments

A while back I wrote an article on the Daily Dot critiquing the phrase “don’t feed the trolls” due to its implicit victim-blaming (the idea being that if you hadn’t fed the trolls they wouldn’t have attacked you, making their actions ultimately your fault — bullshit I say). This morning Karyne Levy published a nice piece on CNET discussing trolls, platform moderation, and the value of online comment sections. After addressing Popular Science’s decision to shut off its comments section due to too many assholes, Levy discusses her own experiences with online antagonists. As she writes:

And I’m over the online bullying. Mostly. But some of the comments break my heart. They make me want to pack up my things, get off the stage, and go back to being a behind-the-scenes editor. I want to quit the entire thing, stop producing the show that I love, and give up.

She then mentions that my Daily Dot article changed how she looked at trolls, particularly the imperative not to feed them, which is really — I mean just nice, what a nice thing to read.

I’ve since then changed my tactics. Now, whenever the comments on my YouTube page are accidentally left on, I pop in there, comment back, and sometimes tweet the responses. It makes me feel better. Kind of.

Extrapolating out, she continues:

If comments can’t be moderated, should there be comments at all? If the whole purpose of reader comments is to engage the readers, and all I get is personal attacks, am I the one doing something wrong? The Internet can be a place that fosters free speech. And while yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion about my looks, does that mean they should let those opinions be known when it’s irrelevant to the work I’ve produced? I don’t think so. Maybe there shouldn’t be comments at all. Maybe this is why we can’t have nice things.

Years ago, when I first started my trolling research, I aligned myself with the “don’t feed the trolls” logic. But as I continued researching, and more importantly, grew the fuck up and started seeing more examples of the offline impact of online shit-stirring, I began to question how we should deal with online antagonism (note that I’m not using the word “troll” here and instead am focusing on the full range of bad behavior online, a category which includes subcultural trolling but also includes straight-up unambiguous bigotry).

My position these days veers somewhere between “SHUT IT DOWN,” putting me in the comment section-closing camp, and “LET ME AT ‘EM,” putting me in the “if you can’t beat them, then shame them straight to hell” camp. Context matters, of course, so I have a slightly different perspective depending on the specific forum and topic and community. But overall, I’m tired of how much airtime the assholes are getting, and support efforts to push back against those who feel entitled to do what they want, when they want, with little fear of impunity. And don’t even get me started on discussions of “free speech.”

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing the Publications category at a sandwich, with words???.