Wow. I must admit I feel a little bit sorry for this guy, but then again, it’s his own fault.

It also illustrates the primary reason I’ve made a conscious effort not to use this blog as a pulpit for politcal views; It just invites ad hominem attacks and flame wars.

A few days ago ‘Pete’ (the owner of the blog in question), posted this article on his blog. (WARNING: Graphic abortion picture appears on that page).

Anyone who is familair with ‘The Onion’ and the content that publication produces, would immediately know it’s not a good idea to use quotes from an Onion article as a means to support your position on anything, let alone a position as volatile as abortion. This is, of course, due to the fact that The Onion is a satirical publication. Nothing published in it (other than its music and movie review section) is real.

Pete obviously did not know this, and when he came across an Onion editorial titled, ‘I’m Totally Psyched About This Abortion’, he penned the article I linked to above on his blog as a response.

Now I realize not everyone is familiar with The Onion and it’s satirical nature. Even the mainstream media (AP, The Washington Post, etc) has been fooled into using Onion articles as sources in articles in the past. It happens, and when it does, a responsible publication or author will publish they were fooled, wait out the inevitible few pot-shots from readers and then get on with their blog, hopefully a bit wiser for the experience.

Not Pete.

He first decided he’d try and post a response picking apart the satirical article, ‘putting the satire right back at them’. Now, satire is meant to make a point, and if you disagree with this point you should feel free to argue it, but if you do, it’s best to formulate your argument in such a means that it attacks the point the satire is making, not the satire itself. This is because satire by definition is hyperbolistic, exaggerated, and illogical. It makes it’s point by being ridiculous. This fact was apparently lost on Pete.

Fine. I still don’t really have a problem with the guy. He got caught in an embarrassing situation on a public forum and isn’t very familair with satire. Once again, at this point you should just cut your losses. Post a statement saying you were fooled into thinking the article in question was legitimate and get on with your blog.

Not Pete.

He now claims the first entry was a joke he posted while full aware of the satirical nature of the Onion article. Ok, but why would you source a satirical article in a ‘joke’ article and not make it clear that the source was satire? I’m sorry Pete, but that’s a pretty poor attempt at a joke. The original article is the one I linked to above, this one is the ‘It was all a joke’ article. Not only does he claim the first article was a joke, but he now claims the ‘Intellectual left’ is out to get him. He backs this by saying that he had to close down his comment section due people posting personal information on him and the fact that the ‘Intellectual left’ can’t leave a comment which doesn’t consist of anything more than a string of cuss words.

At this point I still feel sorry for the guy, although he’s also rapidly beginning to get my ire up. Having seen my share of flame wars on blogs I know how ugly they can get at times. Also, posting a bloggers personal contact info as a means to further your point or position in a flame war is wrong. There is no excuse for it.

So I’m feeling a bit sorry for the guy, however, I’m also angry over his ‘Intellectual-left’ comment. This is not due to the fact that I would probably be catagorized as falling under that definition, I would have been just as angry had he said ‘conservative right’. It’s a cop out phrase and does nothing more than create a stereotype in the minds of your readers. When you start using labels such as that as reasons or causes you are no longer in the relam of fact, and have now entered spin, opinion, and bigotry.

I decided to look at the comments myself to see just how bad they were. I guess Pete thought that if he disabled them, no one would be able to see them. Not true Pete. Once you put something on the internet it’s damn hard to get it off. If the data isn’t still actually on your webserver, it’s probably been archived by Google or some other web service. The end result is the comments were easy to find and read, and holy cow are there alot of them. Below are links to them.

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/turnstile/115271854178491623/
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/turnstile/115219671206889457/
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/turnstile/115259322998005708/
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/turnstile/115266379145170133/

After reading these almost all sympathy I had for this fellow has left me. The majority of these comments are at least intelligent, and while many are calling him an idiot, they are not malicious about it. In fact many of them are pleading for him to please just admit he made a mistake. It’s kind of sad to read them really.

Truth can be very hard to discern in this 21st century world. The signal to noise ratio tends to be overwhelming at times. But I think there is a lesson to be learned here.

1. With the internet comes a potential vast audience, and with that comes accountability. If you do publish something stupid, it’s best to just admit it, weather the embarrassment and then bravely soldier on.
2. If you publish something stupid or incorrect on the internet don’t try and hide it. Someone will find it.
3. Finally, though I do not condone the publication of personal information as a ‘tactic’, if you are going to be blogging you need to realize this information can easily be found. The more controversial you intend to be, the more you’d better be prepaired to have the information eventually surface.