Published: Monday, December 27, 2010, 9:22 AM Updated: Monday, December 27, 2010, 9:54 AM
.
Enough's enough.
There is something instructive -- if painfully so -- when a story about a young woman who has done everything right inspires a few clinically depressed souls to resume braying about the threat to the pearl-white Ozzie & Harriet world in which they grew up. That's why I let the comment stream run its grumpy and predictable course on Sunday. I was encouraged when a number of readers stepped in to note the lapses of memory and fallacies of logic.
Nothing is served, however, by another day of this grousing.
Dan Li is a brilliant, dedicated student. But that's not why one of her teachers introduced her to me and it's not why I wrote about her. Over the last three years, Dan has attended three different high schools and lived in seven different women's shelters ... and the experience has only made her more determined to help those who have even less than she does.
For Dan, the "land of opportunity" has given her the opportunity to volunteer at Kaiser Sunnyside, raise money for earthquake victims in China and Haiti, and reach out to students struggling with the English language.
And for Dan, a Harvard education is not entre into New England high society, but the means to find her way to the poorest corners of the world and help those who may never escape them.
We can argue, I suppose, over whether Oregon universities would offer Dan the same opportunity. We can wonder aloud about why some teenagers wade into the wonder years with a work ethic and why others don't.
But Dan Li's story is far too compelling to be hijacked by the xenophobes in the crowd. And from this point forward, it won't be, at least not on this blog.
Sponsored Links
View: Oldest first | Newest first After reading this column I went back and re-read the previous and especially the comments which I hadnott read. Some are nothing more than knee jerk nasty. I know this is touchy for a journalist, particularly if comments are somewhat political, but do remember that freedom of the press resides with the publisher and not everyone has an automatic right to be published in Oregonian blogs. There are about 10 regular bloggers who will throw out the same bombs on anything remotly related to immigration without saying one thing new, and often these comments are not even relivent to the column under discussion. Your column, for example, was mostly about overcoming adversity, not immigration. Maybe it is time that the Oregonian starts removing blogs that are nasty, have little relivance to the original column or letter, and make no useful point.
Your point is valid bifocal. I am a believer is free speech. However, you are correct that there is a group who post here, all the time, who have one agenda; nativism. They are transparent and have nothing to add to the conversation. If anyone with a foreign sounding surname does ANYTHING, they crawl out of the woodwork. Dare a Hispanic ever commit a crime and these people are all over it, while ignoring 95% of crimes committed by whites. I want these people to post. Their blatant racism is so obvious.
Since this more-or-less-first online version of the The Oregonian came to be -- and not so gracefully dubbed "The Stump" -- it's been evident that most reader "stuff" is freely allowed that would never make it past the editors of the print edition.
While arguably the public is not entitled to know why, nonetheless if the question has ever been posed and refused answer by management and the publisher, it's missed my notice.
Consequently, "the gentle reader" is left to speculate. So, let's take a flier at it.
Perhaps what many find offensive generates advertising revenue -- "tabloidizing" hard news and legitimate opinion "sells". By permitting members of the public to do the incumbent dirty work in comment, the owners and publisher can step back with arms raised and eyes widened in averting any criticism by wrapping themselves in the honor of "protecting free speech". Meanwhile, the resulting online "back and forth" is an indicator of "readership" where, even if subconsciously, at least some of the advertising is being repeatedly "seen" (if not also read). That kind of frequency ("visual turnover") isn't possible in hard newsprint, even if the motive to do so by the owners/publisher was there.
Which is also to say that even the most rabid on any subject spend money on goods and services in the marketplace. It is reasonable to conclude that this newspaper doesn't discriminate in soliciting readership: it's a money business, after all. And the internet isn't picky about the cleanliness of anyone's undergarments.
Steve writes:
"There is something instructive -- if painfully so -- when a story about a young woman who has done everything right inspires a few clinically depressed souls to resume braying about the threat to the pearl-white Ozzie & Harriet world in which they grew up."
There's too much stigma already associated with depression for me to let this comment pass by without addressing it.
Steve, I'm diagnosed as clinically depressed, as in receiving Social Security Disability Insurance based on it, because, on top of the clinical depression of some thirty years' standing due to a seriously abusive childhood, I developed Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome and General Anxiety Disorder following serious, life-threatening abuse in the workplace between 2001 and 2006.
Clinical depression doesn't make people act out the way those folks did toward Dan Li's story. Most often, clinical depression would make one disengage completely from forums such as this, because clinically depressed people don't care about themselves or others.
For that matter, those of us who fight our clinical depression, trying to remain productive by contributing to society to the best of our ability, also deserve kudos for battling adversity.
There are disorders called "anti-social personality disorder" and "borderline personality disorder" that cause people to behave thoughtlessly which can co-exist with chronic depression. People with these disorders feel entitled but have trouble taking responsibility for their own actions. I'm no therapist, but maybe this is what we're dealing with?
I consider it good therapy to stay involved with community, even an on-line community. Although at present I can't return to my previous paid employment as a writer (because I can't guarantee I can function on deadline), participating in these forums is definitely a step in the right direction.
What I think is that, just as we don't yet have an official diagnosis for the personality who makes use of anonymity to vent hostility (I think we call them "trolls" or "flamers," do we not?) , we haven't yet evolved a social etiquette for on-line forums. I don't think the publisher of the Oregonian encourages participants to behave badly to generate advertising revenue. I think that they just haven't yet figured out the specifics of their responsibility for policing their on-line publishing activities.
I would love to hear Dan Li speak about her experiences, both pro and con, with the various shelters and schools she's passed through, so that those of us who do care can improve the quality of the services provided to the people who need the help. I'll bet she's got some very interesting, valuable insight into the system she's negotiated with such grace and accomplishment.
Mr Duin, you bring it on yourself, you are so pro illegal immigrant, you seem to search for those one or two, heart warming stories, about how an immigrant has succeded, and how that shows how all of us pro legal immigrant but anti illegal immigrant folks are wrong. How you have the one true messsage!
Nwokie, I'm surprised by your comment. You are clearly a conservative who values personal responsibility. Yet here, you defend those who write with such hate and anger. You're thinking is: It's not their fault: it's Steve Duin's fault! Duin BRINGS IT UPON HIMSELF!
It's that what you really want to say? Do you really feel that Steve Duin is so powerful that he can make people think and behave offensively? As a teacher, I am continually telling 10-11 year olds who say "Stevie made me do it!" that, no, Stevie did not make you do it. Remember, the xenophobic bloggers being discussed here are adults, and they should know better. So should you.
Nwokie, what about personal responsibility?
Steve Duin - I thank you for this post, and it is good to know that at least two on The Oregonian Staff (you and George R.) recognize how nasty things can get here, and how some of it is, truly, xenophobic. I could easily name a handful - probably more - of bloggers who respond just the way you are describing. They do so as if they are middle schoolers, with their ability to screen themselves in the off position.
Free speech, yes. The Oregonian, though, is private enterprise. As such, it has the right to print exactly what it wants. Clearly you do not want, nor do I want, nasty and ugly posts from xenophobes expressing their hate. They have the right to obtain their own URLs, develop a web site, and blog to their heart's content.
Steve, will you please look for a post from Lynne97030? It concerns the use of two offensive words that, thus far, Oregonlive has allowed.
As for Dan Li: What a remarkable young woman! I'd be blessed if I could summon even half her energy, strength, and commitment. Your article was perfectly timed for those of us feeling holiday stress. Thanks
After reading this column I went back and re-read the previous and especially the comments which I hadnott read. Some are nothing more than knee jerk nasty. I know this is touchy for a journalist, particularly if comments are somewhat political, but do remember that freedom of the press resides with the publisher and not everyone has an automatic right to be published in Oregonian blogs. There are about 10 regular bloggers who will throw out the same bombs on anything remotly related to immigration without saying one thing new, and often these comments are not even relivent to the column under discussion. Your column, for example, was mostly about overcoming adversity, not immigration. Maybe it is time that the Oregonian starts removing blogs that are nasty, have little relivance to the original column or letter, and make no useful point.
Your point is valid bifocal. I am a believer is free speech. However, you are correct that there is a group who post here, all the time, who have one agenda; nativism. They are transparent and have nothing to add to the conversation. If anyone with a foreign sounding surname does ANYTHING, they crawl out of the woodwork. Dare a Hispanic ever commit a crime and these people are all over it, while ignoring 95% of crimes committed by whites. I want these people to post. Their blatant racism is so obvious.
Since this more-or-less-first online version of the The Oregonian came to be -- and not so gracefully dubbed "The Stump" -- it's been evident that most reader "stuff" is freely allowed that would never make it past the editors of the print edition.
While arguably the public is not entitled to know why, nonetheless if the question has ever been posed and refused answer by management and the publisher, it's missed my notice.
Consequently, "the gentle reader" is left to speculate. So, let's take a flier at it.
Perhaps what many find offensive generates advertising revenue -- "tabloidizing" hard news and legitimate opinion "sells". By permitting members of the public to do the incumbent dirty work in comment, the owners and publisher can step back with arms raised and eyes widened in averting any criticism by wrapping themselves in the honor of "protecting free speech". Meanwhile, the resulting online "back and forth" is an indicator of "readership" where, even if subconsciously, at least some of the advertising is being repeatedly "seen" (if not also read). That kind of frequency ("visual turnover") isn't possible in hard newsprint, even if the motive to do so by the owners/publisher was there.
Which is also to say that even the most rabid on any subject spend money on goods and services in the marketplace. It is reasonable to conclude that this newspaper doesn't discriminate in soliciting readership: it's a money business, after all. And the internet isn't picky about the cleanliness of anyone's undergarments.
Steve writes:
"There is something instructive -- if painfully so -- when a story about a young woman who has done everything right inspires a few clinically depressed souls to resume braying about the threat to the pearl-white Ozzie & Harriet world in which they grew up."
There's too much stigma already associated with depression for me to let this comment pass by without addressing it.
Steve, I'm diagnosed as clinically depressed, as in receiving Social Security Disability Insurance based on it, because, on top of the clinical depression of some thirty years' standing due to a seriously abusive childhood, I developed Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome and General Anxiety Disorder following serious, life-threatening abuse in the workplace between 2001 and 2006.
Clinical depression doesn't make people act out the way those folks did toward Dan Li's story. Most often, clinical depression would make one disengage completely from forums such as this, because clinically depressed people don't care about themselves or others.
For that matter, those of us who fight our clinical depression, trying to remain productive by contributing to society to the best of our ability, also deserve kudos for battling adversity.
There are disorders called "anti-social personality disorder" and "borderline personality disorder" that cause people to behave thoughtlessly which can co-exist with chronic depression. People with these disorders feel entitled but have trouble taking responsibility for their own actions. I'm no therapist, but maybe this is what we're dealing with?
I consider it good therapy to stay involved with community, even an on-line community. Although at present I can't return to my previous paid employment as a writer (because I can't guarantee I can function on deadline), participating in these forums is definitely a step in the right direction.
What I think is that, just as we don't yet have an official diagnosis for the personality who makes use of anonymity to vent hostility (I think we call them "trolls" or "flamers," do we not?) , we haven't yet evolved a social etiquette for on-line forums. I don't think the publisher of the Oregonian encourages participants to behave badly to generate advertising revenue. I think that they just haven't yet figured out the specifics of their responsibility for policing their on-line publishing activities.
I would love to hear Dan Li speak about her experiences, both pro and con, with the various shelters and schools she's passed through, so that those of us who do care can improve the quality of the services provided to the people who need the help. I'll bet she's got some very interesting, valuable insight into the system she's negotiated with such grace and accomplishment.
Mr Duin, you bring it on yourself, you are so pro illegal immigrant, you seem to search for those one or two, heart warming stories, about how an immigrant has succeded, and how that shows how all of us pro legal immigrant but anti illegal immigrant folks are wrong. How you have the one true messsage!
Nwokie, I'm surprised by your comment. You are clearly a conservative who values personal responsibility. Yet here, you defend those who write with such hate and anger. You're thinking is: It's not their fault: it's Steve Duin's fault! Duin BRINGS IT UPON HIMSELF!
It's that what you really want to say? Do you really feel that Steve Duin is so powerful that he can make people think and behave offensively? As a teacher, I am continually telling 10-11 year olds who say "Stevie made me do it!" that, no, Stevie did not make you do it. Remember, the xenophobic bloggers being discussed here are adults, and they should know better. So should you.
Nwokie, what about personal responsibility?
Steve Duin - I thank you for this post, and it is good to know that at least two on The Oregonian Staff (you and George R.) recognize how nasty things can get here, and how some of it is, truly, xenophobic. I could easily name a handful - probably more - of bloggers who respond just the way you are describing. They do so as if they are middle schoolers, with their ability to screen themselves in the off position.
Free speech, yes. The Oregonian, though, is private enterprise. As such, it has the right to print exactly what it wants. Clearly you do not want, nor do I want, nasty and ugly posts from xenophobes expressing their hate. They have the right to obtain their own URLs, develop a web site, and blog to their heart's content.
Steve, will you please look for a post from Lynne97030? It concerns the use of two offensive words that, thus far, Oregonlive has allowed.
As for Dan Li: What a remarkable young woman! I'd be blessed if I could summon even half her energy, strength, and commitment. Your article was perfectly timed for those of us feeling holiday stress. Thanks
Keep up the good fight Steve. Xenophobes are hopefully a dying breed.