Thoughts about a comment

I received the following e-mail from Blogger:

earnest has left a new comment on your post "The Death Clock is ticking":

your fuckin retarted, death clock .com is not real,

Posted by earnest to Digitation at 26 March, 2008 22:25


I found the comment in response to my posting about the Death Clock (which I have since reread, and found straightforward) unhelpful and unenlightening. Apart from intending to be offensive and insulting, I was and remain puzzled about the purpose of the comment. Why go to the trouble of posting a comment that is neither supportive, nor constructive, nor positional?

I am also unclear how the commenter came to be reading the weblog posting. The time stamp says 22:25, which suggests recreational browsing. (I also note from the time stamp that program writers in the US find it nearly impossible to set out the time and date in a rational fashion. What is wrong with logical, rational, well-punctuated, elegant and unambiguous European time and date format: 22:25 Wednesday 26 March 2008?)

I checked the identity of the person who made the comment, 'earnest', but they have made their profile invisible, a practice discouraged but not forbidden by Blogger. Interesting choice of name: not Ernest, but earnest, and with the e.e.cummings lower case initial 'e'. For someone with that choice of screen name, the comment itself seemed incongruent: my posting about the Death Clock is quite earnest.

The facts that the comment starts with a lower case 'y'; the first three words are misspelled, the name Death Clock or deathclock.com is handled uncomfortably, and the comment ends with a comma, all point to someone whose first language is not English, or else whose English is limited to a vernacular restricted code.

I am perplexed by the idea that the Death Clock "is not real". In context, it is quite complex to identify what is meant by the term "real". Of course, the most obvious answer is that the Death Clock does not possess some kind of supernatural prescience, but as I acknowledge and explore the issue in my posting, that answer makes little sense.

The emotional power packed into the comment suggests extreme contempt. I had two thoughts about this. First, that 'earnest' had seen the Death Clock and been seriously spooked by it. By rejecting my posting about the Death Clock, he was attempting to regain a sense of control. Second, as 'earnest' is obviously a Blogger member, he has read my Profile and disliked what he saw. I am aware from having read material placed by the British National Party (a largely English extreme right-wing, ultra-nationalist political movement) on their own website, that as an educated, liberal, middle-class pluralist, I could be seen as a traitor to white-skinned people, and undoubtedly represent the values they most detest. I am not trying to suggest that 'earnest' is sympathetic to the aims of any particular political movement. Instead, I am suggesting that some people do take offence to who I am, and maybe 'earnest' is one such.

A final, and perhaps the most important, point. I find it hard to understand why so many people use as terms of abuse language relating to learning disability. At the end of 101 Dalmatians, Cruella de Vil calls her henchmen, Jasper and Horace, morons and imbeciles. What makes is acceptable to use these terms, along with the terms 'retard' and 'retarded', as insults. Surely the people to whom they should correctly refer deserve our respect and compassion. For many people with a learning disability life is already hard enough without people stigmatising their disability.

I have no way of knowing whether my musings about 'earnest's' comment approached any truths. However, I have done what I can with the comment. I might write another Death Clock posting, as it is a while since I wrote the first one.