Eccentric Flower:201105/Ten Years
From Eccentric Flower
Ten Years
In September of 2001 came the only time I have ever outright deleted a journal entry. It was that day. I had heard some news about the events of the day without yet knowing or understanding the full scope, and I wrote the entry too soon. It was highly offensive, and that offensiveness cost me: It destroyed a potential friendship with one person, and put dents in at least eight or ten more friendships which were slow to recover. Some of them have never fully recovered, ten years on, in particular if you are a New Yorker (more about this in a moment).
At the time I hadn't heard about people falling to their deaths or being crushed under wreckage or any of the other horrors of that day's stories. If I had, I would have modulated my response. My tone would have changed substantially, but - and here is the key thing - my message would not have changed one goddamned bit.
Because, that morning, I had one of the few bursts of Johnny Smith-like clarity I will probably ever have in my life - an explosive force of insight, sudden, like an electrical shock, bad enough to cause one to recoil. I saw the future that morning, and everything I saw has come true.
I foresaw a stupid and venal president - who had already proven by then that his only interest in governance was to hand the keys to the nation to the privileged interests which got him into the office - using this as an excuse to essentially suspend government, go into lockdown, do any damned thing it wanted to do in violation of law and ethics, in the interest of "national security."
I foresaw people all over the nation, suddenly jarred out of their complacency, becoming complicit in the suspension and eventual eradication of their own rights and privacies. I saw people who normally should be the worst enemies of such erosion rolling over and agreeing to cooperate with this violation, just so it would help them stave off their own fear and night terrors.
I foresaw a climate where any criticism of the responses to the day's events would be shouted down, where no opposition was possible, where all political parties and groups of every stripe would rush to toe the line.
This last was proven true immediately after the fact in my dealings with New Yorkers. I had to basically rule the whole topic as out of bounds, because any criticism of the public and political response to 9/11 magically turned into my making light of their emotional pain and loss. Which was, frankly, utter bullshit. I did not and never have meant any disrespect to that pain and loss. Horror is horror; horror is real. But when you lose the ability to safely say, "Well, I realize it hurts, and I'm sorry it hurts, but this is not a constructive reaction to that hurt," then you've come pretty close to the point where there can be no meaningful conversation on a topic at all.
My response, unfortunately, was to assume that New Yorkers would not be able to approach anything near a sane discussion on this topic for the foreseeable future. Possibly not until a new generation took up the topic for whom the wounds were not firsthand. That time has not yet come, ten years later.
Everyone in America except a few cynics like me learned something new about the world on 9/11: They learned they weren't safe. Those of us, like me, who pointed out that we had never been safe and it was about time the illusions fell so we could see what the real world was like, were offered a boot to the ass or the barrel of the nearest gun. No one wanted to hear, "Well, now you know what the entire rest of the world feels like. Want to try to participate in world civilization a bit more now?"
Because they didn't. That was the thing. The US did not then, and does not now, want to participate in world civilization. We could have used 9/11 as an opportunity for outreach, for becoming part of a larger organism. Instead we used it as an excuse to build walls, to make our immigration policy even more insane, to hand our airports and borders over to brutal, sadistic thugs, to fight spurious wars to assuage our hurt pride. We learned all the wrong lessons.
I don't know what 9/11 was to you, but I can tell you what it was to me: It was the day I realized I was never going to regain faith in my country and my countrymen. Never. I'd been on a downhill run before that, but that was when I looked at the rest of the track and realized there weren't any more uphills to come. That was the sort of innocence *I* lost on 9/11. The innocence the rest of you lost, I had lost years before that when reading a statement in a book by Spider Robinson.
And now bin Laden is dead, and there is a great deal of inappropriate glee, and shouting in the streets, and distasteful statements. I understand this need to blow off steam, I understand this need to feel some myth of closure, I understand this deep desire to try to close the book on something. But it's a lie. This changes next to nothing. And I hope you don't mind if I don't participate in the shouting.
This does not make the US safer. It does not magically undo the TSA and all the damage they have done to our lives. It does not roll back all the suspensions to and violations of our personal liberties. It does not get us out of Afghanistan. It may (as you'll see in a moment) have gotten us into something far worse.
Your mistake was building up bin Laden into some kind of demon figurehead, some sort of representative evil in the first place. You never will learn this. You made the same mistake with Saddam Hussein. I think it may be something in the American blood, that we don't have the attention span to think about vast, systemic evils, so we tend to pick one or two faces we can put on a playing card and vilify them instead.
Evil men do not exist in a vacuum. There are always root causes that make it possible for them to flourish where and how they do. Hussein was undeniably an evil man, and I'm not sad he's dead; but consider the conditions in his country that made it possible for a dictator to last so long there, and look at the chaos they quickly reverted to once that strong central dominant force was removed. bin Laden was undeniably an evil-enabling man, writing the checks for mayhem against the US; but ask yourself now about the climate of hatred and fundamentalism that provided the seedbed for projects for him to write the checks to. I'm not sad he's dead either, but let's not pretend for a moment that this represents any sort of setback for the sort of people who wish to do us damage. Nor should we pretend that it will ever be possible to eradicate such people.
There will always be people in the world who want to do us serious horror. Always. Sometimes some of them will get a chance to. People will get hurt. Those people could be you, or me, or people we love. Accept it.
I know you find it hard to accept that. You don't want to live your life or raise your children while constantly watching for unwanted shadows on the sidewalk. I get it. But I'm also telling you: Too goddamned bad. This is the way it is.
The consequence of a United States that had the will and ability to eliminate all its enemies would be a United States that was far more of a monster than any of the enemies it eliminated.
All of this is not to say that some things won't change now. There will be a few consequences. Some are good (at least to my mind). Some may be very bad.
1. Obama will get reelected. This was somewhat in doubt before. I don't want to jinx it, but I think it will not be in doubt now.
2. We now have a damned good excuse to leave Afghanistan. It remains to be seen whether Obama will have the guts to take it. I hope he will.
There is less reason for the United States to be in Afghanistan right now than there was for us to be in Iraq, and that's saying something. Also, the longer we stay in Afghanistan the more of a problem we create for ourselves in Pakistan - see below - and that's a much harder mess to work with.
I realize there are some people who want a happy ending in Afghanistan, but it's not going to happen. No one else wants us there; we are the enemies of everyone as long as we stay. Afghanistan will end up in either the hands of the zealots or the hands of the hopelessly corrupt and thuggish - which is to say, back to one of the two conditions it's been in since the Russians did one of the few smart things they've done militarily in fifty years, and got the hell out. There is no third way. We need to admit that and leave.
3. The rest of the world now knows we're insane. We have just convinced the entire world that we will go to any lengths whatsoever to find someone to take revenge upon when someone kicks us in the crotch. And that our standards will fiercely, passionately continue to be double, forever and ever. You all can kill each other all you want, but don't you dare come do it over here.
I present that statement cynically, but it does have some positive repercussions for your security; it means that from here on in, organized terrorism against us will be limited only to the ones who are just as crazy as we are. The bad news is that's not an especially high bar.
4. Our relationship with Pakistan just changed forever. And maybe not in a good way.
You can be excused for not knowing this, given that your news media has constantly treated it as a non-story, but Pakistan is an explosive mess. Every step we take against the Taliban in Afghanistan pushes them into Pakistan, which was their birthplace to begin with. Half the people in the country approve of the Taliban because at least they bring some semblance of order, unlike either the hopelessly inept and corrupt government, or the brutal military, the real power in the country. Half the people in the country, and untold hidden numbers in the government, secretly approve of the US getting kicked in the eye by organized terrorist types. It's not personal, it's just that the US is remotely distant, whereas the terrorists are just down the street and have to be lived with. There is sectarian, separatist-style violence in some parts of Pakistan (as if they didn't have enough trouble); Pakistan and India hate each others' guts and are still, after decades, feuding so badly over Kashmir that they can't even sit at a table with each other to discuss it; and the Pakistani military leaders have notoriously short tempers and memories.
Oh, yes, and Pakistan has nukes. Not very good ones, but they have them.
The US has, to date, tried to appease Pakistan minimally and keep it happy. It hasn't worked in recent years. The discovery of the operations-with-impunity of American CIA agents in Pakistan - presumably with approval of someone in high places in the Pakistani government - was a flashpoint earlier this year. Mutterings of hatred for US imperialism and interference were getting even louder than usual, too loud to ignore. Now suddenly the shoe is on the other foot. bin Laden was "hiding" in a mansion right in the suburbs of Islamabad? Even the stupidest person is going to maybe get a little supicious of what the Pakistani government did and didn't know, don'tcha think?
At best, the US will use this as a reason to push back hard on Pakistan and they will roll over and say, "yes, yes, please don't hurt us, whatever you want." Distant second-best would be the US and Pakistan agree to sort of not mention it, relations go to a sort of strained norm, and we get more cooperation from them toward our goals - which may, unfortunately for us, mean tolerating a strong jihadist presence in the northwestern portions of Pakistan (not sure we will be willing to do that). Worst case would be we push hard on Pakistan and it explodes in our faces and we end up at war with them.
I am not, at this time, placing or accepting any bets on which of these is most likely to happen. Even odds. You'll know as soon as I do. Cross your fingers.
P.S. I shouldn't have to say this, but this topic is so potentially inflammatory that I'm going to anyway: I expect utter civility in comments. Rudeness will, for once, be met with deletion. I have neither the time nor the energy to fire back in kind. In fact, I've already expended far more energy than I should have on this topic, and if my replies (if any) are quite terse, that's why.
I recognize that some of you will be thinking, "Oh, well, that's rich, he gets to be rude all he wants in the entry but we can't fire back in the comments." That's absolutely right, and yes, it's unfair. Too bad.
I have chosen my "I'm right and the rest of you are wrong" tone here on purpose, with all the snottiness that it implies, because something very rare has happened here: I'm right. (I do get to be right about once a decade.) And most of the rest of my countrymen are apparently wrong, judging from the evidence. This is appalling and disgusting and that's why I've chosen the tone I have, because I am very, very disappointed in so many of my fellow citizens, and have been for ten goddamned years. If you, too, find it appalling and disgusting, then the tone of the article was not meant for you and you can come sit over here on my side. Plenty of seats open over here.
I too decline to celebrate the death of Bin Laden. I don't think your tone is offensive. I agree with much of your argument (especially the willing relinquishment of civil rights that followed 9/11). I'm also married to a soldier, who has some rather extreme views on the topic, having been over there a couple of times. It is difficult, and there are many things We Do Not Discuss.
-- 21:13, 2 May 2011 (BST)
I bet! Sometimes topics do just have to be roped off like that. For everyone's sake.
-- 21:20, 2 May 2011 (BST)
Iain:
At best, the US will use this as a reason to push back hard on Pakistan and they will roll over and say, "yes, yes, please don't hurt us, whatever you want." Distant second-best would be the US and Pakistan agree to sort of not mention it, relations go to a sort of strained norm, and we get more cooperation from them toward our goals - which may, unfortunately for us, mean tolerating a strong jihadist presence in the northwestern portions of Pakistan (not sure we will be willing to do that). Worst case would be we push hard on Pakistan and it explodes in our faces and we end up at war with them.
I'm pretty sure that the net result, from our point of view, is going to be ... more or less nothing. On the one hand, yes, the fact that bin Laden was in the suburbs of Islamabad will cause many Pakistanis to look askance at their government -- more so than they do already, anyway. In terms of our relationship with Pakistan, neither side can afford to take too much notice. Again, on the one hand, person for whom Pakistan was allegedly helping us search found in suburbs of capital. On the other hand, foreign nation engages in major military operation in suburbs of capital of another sovereign nation with notable loss of life of said suburbanites. There's nothing about either side of that equation that isn't horrendously bad from a diplomatic point of view; about all either side can do is to agree to pretend it never happened. (Seriously, just imagine what would happen if a foreign nation decided, for what everyone would agree were decent reasons, to undertake a similar operation in, say, Georgetown. "Spectacularly ugly" would not begin to describe the reaction.)
Also, I wouldn't count on this getting Obama re-elected, especially if it doesn't lead to a fairly rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan. Somewhere out there, Bush I still mumbles to himself in the night, "But I won a war! In less than a month! Why didn't that get me a second term?" I suspect the fact that food and gas prices are spiking hard, and, for various and sundry reasons, will not soon be coming back down, is going to have more bearing.
EDIT: Strangely appropriate, especially given that it was written weeks ago for publication yesterday.
-- 21:42, 2 May 2011 (BST)
Mel:
I woke up early this morning, and Rob was getting dressed and watching the morning news, and he told me about bin Laden then - and I went back to bed and have been reading since I woke up, and completely forgot about it until now. I'm glad about that. I don't want to know what people have been saying. I'm generally even more cynical than Col is, and my opinion of humanity is bad enough without any further push in that direction.
I used to think that later we would be able to excuse the excesses of the U.S. in this past decade by calling it some sort of post-9/11 hysteria. Only I agree with what Col said above - it's not particularly getting any better, that I can see.
-- 22:41, 2 May 2011 (BST)
They (you?) only just killed Osama, Mel. I think you can still have hope that some of the post-9/11 insanity will be rolled back. At least until Friday, after which it'll be hopelessly naive to hope for better things once again.
(Just like I'm hoping that my country doesn't make a stupid mistake in today's election. Only I'll get to find out before I go to bed tonight.)
-- 00:30, 3 May 2011 (BST)
I would be interested to read that entry from 2001. I remember seeing it before you deleted it, and I remember thinking that while you were a bit blunt, you hadn't been crazy or cruel at all. Admittedly I wasn't near Ground Zero, but I doubt you said anything all that bad.
Sometimes I think you must run with a very touchy crowd.
-- 06:03, 3 May 2011 (BST)
Iain: For what it's worth, Andrew Sullivan agrees with me:
I love the photo in that item, by the by.
-- 14:41, 3 May 2011 (BST)
Iain:
Sullivan's rather obviously wrong about the debt deal, on purely procedural grounds. If there isn't a notable increase in the debt ceiling in place by the end of July, the US goes into formal default, and it certainly won't be obvious at the end of July that re-election is a slam-dunk. We go into technical default at the end of this month; however, the Treasury can do quite a few extraordinary maneuvers (that later have to be undone) to prevent a real default until the end of July. At that point, the extraordinary measures run out. A debt deal has nothing to do with re-election. Not Obama's, in any event. (And pointing out that Obama prevented another Great Depression and pushed forward our first attempts at universal health care ignores the facts that (1) The actual first economic packages and rescues took place under the Shrub's watch; (2) people LOATHE what had to be done to prevent a depression; (3) people aren't actually all that fond of the health care package, either.)
I don't say that it won't matter to people that bin Laden died at Obama's direction. I do say that it's not the only thing that will matter, and that if they're getting hammered in the pocketbook and aren't getting jobs (and your beloved Economist has something to say about the structural unemployment rate that we're creating for ourselves, I note), that will matter more. The question will then be, can the Republicans find a candidate who can bring ideas to the table that appeal? They don't have to be good ones -- in fact, they're extremely unlikely to be good ones -- they just have to sound good.
If things don't get any worse, or even get just slightly better, then yes, I think he'll be re-elected, although it's likely to be a dogfight all the way. However, it doesn't look like oil is going to stabilize any time soon, and that's going to put inflationary pressure on the economy that the Fed will eventually be forced to respond to. To the extent that they're able, they're not going to allow us to import hyperinflation. And taking steps against inflation will put the brakes on the economy just as effectively as a debt cutting deal will at this point. In fact, we're very likely to get a recession-inducing two-fer!
I'm not sure that making it obvious that we're at war with Pakistan does anybody any favors, especially since we're not literally willing to go to war with them. And while I suspect there really isn't a ... productive, for lack of a better word, response that either country can take, it does seem that silence isn't an option; Congress is now raising questions. Pakistan doesn't have to -- and won't -- respond to Congress, of course. And it's an open question as to how the administration is going to respond; publicly, at least, they're noting that Pakistan is an important ally in the counterterrorism efforts. There's no way to know what's being said privately, but I would imagine that if there's any communication at all at this point, it is, as they say, "frank and forthright." (They're calling each other names. Politely.)
I do think we may allow ourselves to give up on Afghanistan, although we're likely to just casually drop by to lob a few bombs into the hinterlands every now and again. I do wonder if that might have a weird sort of rebound effect, though. After all, if what they suspect is true, we basically wasted up to six years dying in Afghanistan and killing large numbers of Afghanis for no real reason whatsoever. People will want to punish someone, and Our Glorious Shrub isn't there to kick to the curb.
-- 17:25, 3 May 2011 (BST)
Iain:
Oh, my. This is about to get ... interesting, let's say.
How did bin Laden resist Navy SEALs without a weapon?
Weird thing is, according to the first statements made by the administration, it was pretty clear that this was a straight-up execution. Now they seem to be backpedaling and trying to sell the idea that it wasn't intended to be such. I wonder why? Any road, I'm guessing the team was sent in with a "kill or capture" order and they decided on their own that the "capture" part was ... impolitic, let's say.
Granted, this is a sideshow, and probably not a long lasting one, at that. But I do wonder why the question came up, and why the White House is unwilling to simply flat out say, "Yes, we executed the bastard in the field." Given that he had exactly two wounds -- one in the chest and one in the head -- that's pretty clearly what happened.
-- 20:08, 3 May 2011 (BST)
I remember that 9/11 post and thinking at the time, "Oh-oh, he doesn't get it. This is going to go badly." *I* was right about that.
I'm not sure what "New Yorkers" you are referring to above. The New Yorkers I knew and saw banded together after the attacks. Brave men and women combed the rubble. Even Giuliani conducted himself with dignity, which must have been extremely difficult. There is no point in my life that I recall the nation being as unified (and constructively so) -- maybe the moon landings, but I was six, so I can't say for sure. There's certainly no point in my life where the world was as unified in their support for the U.S.
And W blew it, and you're right, it did surprise me how he could waste all of that good will. Invading Afghanistan was a necessity -- you let a bully get away with it, he's going to take your lunch money *every* day. And even as horridly bad as Bush was, well, there still hasn't been a successful foreign terrorist attack on U.S. soil since.
It was Iraq and the falsified WMD intelligence that destroyed our credibility in the world. I fully believe Bush knew the evidence was cooked and went forward anyway both to avenge his father -- remember "He tried to kill my Dad"? -- and to supplant him by getting Saddam. Incredibly, he didn't even devote sufficient resources to get the job done right.
Bush was ultimately more successful in getting Americans killed than bin Laden. And he's a war criminal. I didn't foresee any of that, and I'd be surprised if you did (none of that was in your post-9/11 writings).
Finally, as for appearing insane to the world, that's been American policy going back to the Cold War. Remember MAD? It was even a trope right after 9/11; I remember some comedian doing a routine about how stupid are these al Qaeda guys? We kill each other on freeways for *sport.* Ask the Japanese what happened the last time someone bombed us. Of course we are batshit crazy and will come to your home in the middle of night, double-tap your ass and deep-six you off a carrier into the sea. It's what we *do.* (And I have no problem with that, as I've said elsewhere, and so don't need to repeat in detail here.)
-- 22:56, 3 May 2011 (BST)
You can be excused for not knowing this, given that your news media has constantly treated it as a non-story, but Pakistan is an explosive mess.
Pardon my impudence, but just how do YOU know this, when the rest of us couldn't possibly? A statement like this undermines your credibility. Anybody can say anything they like or believe, but sourcing is essential, if you're going to call the rest of us uninformed.
As for your conclusion that you are Right, I'm reminded of the quip "He's a legend in his own mind." You may very well be right. Or you could be wrong. The important thing is that this is your post, filled with your opinions, which you present as facts. I dunno how you can do that, but feel free to bask in whatever good feeling you derive from such a conclusion. At first, I was a little slack-jawed that you would make such a definitive statement, but then I thought, well, he must have access to obscure, esoteric and mysterious data not available to the rest of us, so maybe he really IS right. I suppose the fact that many of us are not put off by the Can-Do American bravado just proves your point. As Robert said, It's what we *do.* You find that repugnant. I don't happen to. So I guess that makes me Wrong. I can live with that.
-- 03:49, 4 May 2011 (BST)
I read non-US-based news media on a regular basis. In fact, I read more of it from various sources that I do US-based news media. I'm not saying that news from other countries doesn't have biases and faults of its own, but the more I see of the difference, the more I am convinced that US news media is designed to keep the US public in the dark about the actual condition of the world as much as possible.
Bravado is not the problem per se. If Americans weren't egotistical innovators with short attention spans, we probably wouldn't be the nation we are today. It's the idea that we don't have to coexist with the rest of the world or care what they think that pisses me off. Americans tend to operate as if the rest of the world doesn't matter. The one lesson that America really SHOULD have taken from 9/11 - that the rest of the world damned well does matter - they took the wrong way. Rather than ask, "Huh, gee, why do people hate us so much that they'd do something horrible like that," they decided the correct response was 1) slam the doors 2) get out the stompin' shoes.
-- 15:50, 4 May 2011 (BST)
Also, Bunny, yes, I was a little preemptively defensive against both you and Robert. You, because the place where we probably disagree most strongly and irreconcilably is on immigration/border security/national security policy. Robert, because one of the few places he goes ideologically that constantly irritates me, where I feel we have utterly no common ground, is his "to hell with the rest of the world" stance on foreign relations. I can't count the number of times that I've had a conversation with Robert where what I define as coexistence and outreach, he defines as appeasement and cowardice.
I'm willing to say bin Laden deserved to die, although I won't say it as obnoxiously and confrontationally as he did in his journal. Sure, bin Laden deserved to die. But it changes very little, and it doesn't seem to make us any more willing to address the question of why so much of the world hates us so much that it breeds terrorist acts against us, and whether we deserve that hate, and how we can change those conditions. This is the dark corner I think Americans are deliberately refusing to look into.
Now, some people will always hate us simply because we are the biggest target on the block, and it's easy to hate the dominant power. Nothing we can do about that. But a lot of these undercurrents of hate are for real and valid reasons, much of it having to do with a US Middle East (and sometimes Far East) policy that has more or less been designed to make friends in the wrong places for the wrong reasons, and make enemies everywhere else.
-- 15:57, 4 May 2011 (BST)
Iain:
Rather than ask, "Huh, gee, why do people hate us so much that they'd do something horrible like that," they decided the correct response was 1) slam the doors 2) get out the stompin' shoes.
Given the realities of the situation, that was not the proper question. If it was, there would have been a LOT more US-directed terrorism, by people other than religious ideologues or individuals directed by them.
Also, you tend to actually ignore and discount US media more than you should, in some ways. A lot of US media outlets have been fairly clear for quite some time that Pakistan is an unspeakable mess and that we're in a deal with the devil there.
-- 17:14, 4 May 2011 (BST)
I agree that we disagree about the coexistence/appeasement debate, but I think the U.S. should operate unilaterally only in the most dire circumstances. We had broad international support for Iraq I and Afghanistan, which we lacked for Iraq II. I recall making the point at the time that, sure when France says don't go to war, you can pretty much ignore it, but when *Germany* says don't go to war -- man, then you sit up and take notice. That said, I supported Iraq II at the time because I thought we actually had a plan and would devote the resources to build a peaceful, responsible post-Saddam society. I was wrong about that, and if you want to say, "I told you so," for my believing for the one and only time in what W was saying and doing, you're entitled to do so. As I said above, I thought Bush would be bad for the country from the outset (remember the Onion piece after his first inauguration that has him saying in his speech, "The long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is over"?), but I never imagined he would be as unrelentingly bad as he actually was.
-- 17:24, 4 May 2011 (BST)
See, I'm not convinced the whole world hates us enough to fulminate (is that the word I want?) terrorist acts on our shores. Islamic terrorists, of which there are many, do. I think that's who we're fighting, and must, in order to protect our very existence. They are relentless and driven and the personification of evil.
As for the rest of the world, they all seem to be struggling to get here, legally or otherwise, and I frankly don't blame them. We are that enviable, warts and all, (and I'm the first to admit that there are loads of those.) We send untold billions in foreign aid to countries that decry us disdainfully, and I,for one, do not think we should, but it's part of who we are. They badmouth us, but who's the first benefactor to be called when disaster strikes? I'm not surprised that we are laughed at. We're foolish enough to bankrupt ourselves to send aid out of the country. They laugh, but they don't terrorize us. Jihadists handle that. Except for them, I don't much care what anybody else thinks. You can't be egotistical in some things and subservient in others, I don't believe. Of COURSE the rest of the world matters, but not to our detriment. Do you think for a minute that xenophobic Japan cares a whit what we think of them?
I am still chewing over the advisability of withdrawing from Afghanistan, at this point. It is tempting, but I envision the place as a nice little training/plotting ground for further violence. We can't leave it for somebody else to monitor, because nobody would, right? We've already established they all hate us, right? It's a problem.
-- 21:21, 4 May 2011 (BST)
Joy:
You know what is irritating? I've gotten four busy server signals over the past week+ that I've started checking out the tumblr account. Out of maybe twice that many visits?
The comment system is also yucky, so I don't know that I'll say anything anymore.
-- 20:42, 9 May 2011 (BST)
Yes - their reliability was damned good, but this last week or so they have really dropped the ball. I'm not sure what's up with that and I'm hoping it will pass.
I'm not sure what people dislike about the comments - I mean, you click the button, type your comment, and post it. I do take it as evidence that I'm never going to please people, because I got all kinds of complaints about the comment system here too. I have no idea what people want in that department.
-- 21:29, 9 May 2011 (BST)
Joy:
I almost always hate it when the comments are behind a click. And I get all discombobulated by comments versus reactions versus whatevers.
-- 01:59, 10 May 2011 (BST)
A "reaction" is a trackback - it means that someone mentioned/linked to that post somewhere else that Tumblr knows about. However, Tumblr's trackback system is kinda broken. Technically, all my posts should have at least one reaction (because they all get echoed to Twitter). Reactions can be ignored.
Notes are peculiar to Tumblr. They will always be one of two things 1) someone else on Tumblr "liked" the item 2) someone else on Tumblr reblogged it, possibly with an added comment. Notes are cumulative throughout the ENTIRE paper trail of the item, so if I post something and it has 300 notes, it doesn't mean 300 people found it on MY Tumblr - it means that from the history of its first Tumblr posting, wherever, it has been passed along 300 times, one of them being me.
Comments are the part you are interested in; and the reason you have to click to give them is because the Disqus program that handles it is actually a separate service that has been more or less seamlessly merged in.
-- 03:30, 10 May 2011 (BST)
Sigh... I miss the salon. This place felt like a conversation among friends, not a comment site. I especially like that one can edit comments after the fact. Ah, well... "You can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself." Somebody said. If you're happier with Tumblr, then we'll just have to adapt.
-- 15:37, 10 May 2011 (BST)
The only thing I don't like about the Comments here is that the site periodically logs me out, yet still lets me type my comment, and then eats it when I click Submit. I have to remember each time to check to see if I'm still logged in.
-- 21:49, 11 May 2011 (BST)
DanLyke:
Quiet applause.
-- 20:52, 2 May 2011 (BST)