This is a response to Rhiannon’s “obligatory WBB disclaimer” for her Webmaster’s Behaving Badly series. Here’s *my* obligatory disclaimer: this isn’t a “OMFG I hate Rhiannon she’s so mean” post. In fact, I think she writes quite well, I enjoy her reviews and opinions, and she’s on my dailies list. But as she said on her disclaimer, “opinions are healthy, and those who are not afraid to display them in an honest, forthright manner deserve to be commended” so here’s my opinion!

Note: I’m writing from the premise that I don’t like making fun of other human beings, I don’t find insulting others as being entertaining. If you disagree with this, you’re likely to disagree with everything else I have to say below.

Passages in blockquotes are lifted directly from the disclaimer.

Justification

“There are several reasons why these webmasters could be behaving badly. Like I keep continually saying, it’s all about their attitude… If you think that putting a bitch in their place is wrong, then that’s your own opinion but in thinking this you’re seriously misinformed. “

She goes on to list examples of people who have rather unpleasant views about “fat” people, gay people etc. I can absolutely empathise with why Rhiannon would want to single these people out; I personally have pointed out when people have been racist or superificial and why such opinions are unjustified. However, I think Rhiannon’s disclaimer is misleading. Page 2, page 3 and Case One and Two of page five arguably pinpoint sites of webmasters that don’t really have the “attitude” that Rhiannon speak of. I’ll go through each:

  • Page 2 - This article focuses on very skinny layouts. I don’t like skinny layouts, nor squishy text, but does using this in one’s layout reflect the attitude of the webmaster? No. Does the type of affiliates (and their layouts) reflect on the attitude of the webmaster? No. Sure the owner of “Cheap Drugs” did have a very angry code warning, but does this fit the nasty attitude criteria detailed in Rhiannon’s disclaimer? I guess it’s arguable, but telling people to not steal your code isn’t the same as saying you hate fat people.
  • Page 3
    Case One - Rhiannon had singled out quotes of the webmaster saying that they prefer grungy layouts and likes small text.
    Case Two - The webmaster, on their own blog, writes extensively about her illness.
    I don’t see how these two examples fits in with Rhiannon’s disclaimer about her WBBs as being aimed to “put a bitch in their place”.
  • Page 5
    Case One - Rhiannon’s screencap of the layout comes from Firefox, to illustrate lurid green background to the content (the actual layout looks okay in Internet Explorer). She criticises the blog’s “goth” look and bad coding. I guess there’s some “attitude” in the disclaimer in how the webmaster doesn’t want people “bitching” about her opinions, but does this make her a “bitch to be put in their place”? Does this put her on par as saying she hates gay people? I don’t see it.
    Case Two - The layout has winged penises on it. Pretty silly I guess but does this mean the webmaster has an attitude?

Rhiannon clearly doesn’t just pick on webmasters who have a bitchy attitude, she doesn’t just “put a bitch in her place”… unless she extends the word “bitch” to people who make pages for their mental illness or feature grungy layouts.

All I’m saying is, Rhiannon’s disclaimer is flimsy if she’s trying to justifying it from the point of view that people with “attitude” deserve to be called out because as pointed out above, that’s not what’s happening. Some of those WBB articles hit easy targets of bad sites with flying penis layouts and lurid green backgrounds (in firefox). She no doubt writes her very popular WBB articles because it entertains a large number of visitors who think it’s funny to mock bad sites. I’m all for free speech; my point is not that Rhiannon should remove her articles and censor herself any more than I would advocate that the author of Men Are Better Than Women should remove his articles. The latter writes caustic and insulting articles too, but at least he doesn’t try to mask what he’s doing as anything more noble than appealing to and entertaining people who think one sex is inherently better than another.

Straw Man

“Seriously, shut the fuck up about wanting a utopia. If we all liked the same things and there was no difference of opinion, then the world would be an almighty boring place. I wouldn’t want to be a part of it. Negativity is an essential component of life, and we need this element to better understand the concept of having our own personal beliefs and ideals.”

Utopia =/= No difference of opinions. I am an opinionated person myself. I don’t hold the belief that for the sake of harmony, people should never criticise each other just to avoid conflict. I learn from other people’s opinions and what others say have different degrees of influence to how I think. However, difference of opinions =/= negativity. You’re not going to get your point across any more by calling something someone created a “Sad Sack of Shit”. While pointing out where the problem is (fixing the lurid green background) is an entirely fair criticism, how is name-calling (i.e. negativity) “an essential component of life”? Not dishing out useless insults doesn’t automatically mean you can’t give an opinion or you have to sugarcoat.

It is false to justify being negative by presenting the only alternative as sugarcoating. It’s absolutely possible to give constructive criticism without being insulting. However, if your aim is to be insulting because it’s fun for one’s audience who likes reading such drama-fueling language, why not just admit to it?

Inconsistencies

“I am here to give my opinion on anything or anyone I please - after all, surely it is my right not only as a human being but as a paying user of the internet to be able to comment on whatever I see? Why be so ridiculous as to think I should censor myself?“

Emphasis mine. Very good question and the simple answer is, Rhiannon shouldn’t need to censor herself. As she stated on her disclaimer, she’s aware that some people don’t like the way she writes and that shouldn’t (and doesn’t) stop her from writing what she does. But… doesn’t this right extend to everyone else? Why ought others “just…fuck up” on topics she doesn’t find entertaining? I don’t understand how it’s consistent to approve of writing many pages about others attitudes and webmastering skills (or lack thereof) but then say there’s “certainly no need to make an entire fucking page about” one’s “‘mental health’”. The fact that Rhiannon disclaims her WBB articles with the argument that “well I’m entitled to write whatever the hell I want” yet in her actual WBB articles she recommends censorship of other people’s content… it just seems rather hypocritical.

In this light, disclaiming her articles because she has a right to not be censored doesn’t sit right with her own attitude to other webmasters she criticises.

Oh, One Last Thing…

“Do you come here and read my reviews expecting to have me shit roses out of my ass and piss gallons of sugar into the eagerly awaiting mouth of the webmaster?”

I have nothing to say about this except I find it delightfully vulgar. :P

Conclusion
I know I kinda went a bit all over the place with this entry, but Rhiannon’s disclaimer just didn’t sit right with me… there are parts (mentioned above) that add up to at least subtle dishonesty in how she justifies writing WBB articles.