a couple quick notes

So here’s some bile from commenter Dawn Kwicksoat that is one part common, one part unique:

And you guys… we have to stop arguing by telling others what the believe instead of arguing with what they actually believe. It’s useless and destructive.

I guess when you use a different internet handle at other locales, this general prescription doen’t apply to you, eh Fred?

But who can blame you? You have angst to release, and that’s so hard to do when you’re being an academic rhetorician writing convoluted, dry and boring jargon-laden essays. An academic has to avoid even passive aggression, and must stifle those nefarious urges to snark and ping and smack.

Thankfully one can inhabit as many alternate personages as one can imagine and manage separately, and those devices allow a lot of room for releasing the pent-up feelings whose expression academia proscribes when speaking to fellow academicians.

The first part, that I have other “handles” that I comment with online, is a new one on me. In large part, that’s because I’m fairly notorious for commenting on other people’s blogs and sites using my real name. A fair number of professional writer types have made fun of me for the practice; I guess the thinking is that commenting is for the rabble, not for the pros. Luckily, I’m not a pro. I comment using my own name because being held accountable for what you say is a cherished value to me. The only times I have deviated from this practice was back in like, 2005-2006, when I first started reading blogs, I had no blog of my own, and essentially nobody commented under their own name; and I also have occasionally commented at The Atlantic under a commenter handle because my Facebook-connected account got banned. (Totally unfairly, by the way.) I have since gotten a new account under my real name there. So I have no idea what Dawn here is talking about. I have had, in the past, people post intentionally offensive things under my name in comments sections as a way to discredit me (think, like, blatant anti-Semitism, racial slurs, etc.) but that was mostly a short-term thing when I had attracted the attention of some conservative cesspit.

I mean, I’m used to a lot of abuse, but the idea that I’m unable to be public about my feelings, or that I have to take to pseudonyms to express what I don’t like is… odd. It’s been the advice of many that I shouldn’t argue about politics as a graduate student, as that could unnecessarily disadvantage me for jobs in an already brutal market. But while some of my opinions are controversial, I don’t think any of them are offensive in the traditional sense, and I believe that basic academic and intellectual freedom should protect political expression. I also think that academics need to be more willing to express themselves publicly, not less. If there are negative professional consequences for that stance, well, I can live with it.

As for the second bit, making fun of me through making fun of the study of rhetoric, this one is quite common. It’s also a very bad tactic, because I don’t, by and large, study rhetoric. I’m in a rhetoric and composition program, yes. But just as you might, for example, be in a Film and Theater department and focus almost entirely on drama and not on film, I am focused on the composition side. My research, currently, explores hybrid approaches to writing education that involve techniques from applied linguistics and textual processing. I also have a strong focus on literacy education policy, particularly when it comes to empirical measures and assessment.  I have taken extensive coursework in rhetoric, and I very much value the field. I find the notion that there’s something inherently unserious about studying the way we argue and persuade each other to be pretty nuts. In a democracy, these questions are of vital importance. But regardless, don’t consider myself a rhetoric scholar, and it’s a very weird, scattershot way to go after me. So everybody who does this, please adjust your invective accordingly, OK? Lord knows, there’s plenty of material out there if you’re looking for avenues of attack.


  1. So your sock puppetry threatens your doctoral review team’s appraisal of you, eh? Sure, you always post as Frederick de Boer, Purdue PhD candidate. Or as Fred de Boer. Never as anything else.

    Apparently lying is quite easy for you, and easily done with a straight (but not sexually so) face.

    I’m sure none of Bacharach’s buddies know your comments because Frederick deBoer never commented at any of Jacob’s blogs. Some other guy who has the same exact views and interests, but posts them with swishy gay modifiers dressing up for tea with refined tasteful guests, all of them Upper Class in your mind. That guy, he can’t be Frederick deBoer because if he were, someone might actually realize that the self-impressed PhD candidate in rhetoric doesn’t tell the truth about anything.

    Apparently at Purdue, “rhetoric” means “artful lying and outright disavowal of things one’s done, is doing, and will do despite the disowning.”

    It’s tough to be so academic all the time when you really want to utter those gay modifier cliches like tremendously important or horrifically shocking, but thankfully you can inhabit numerous sock puppet identities which let you do that.

    And then you have this beard of a website so that nobody knows your aim is to get that PhD to troll for incoming freshman twinks.

    Great strategy, chum. NAMBLA approves.

    Say, Fred: would you like a conversation? Or do you want to just toss accusations as conclusions? You know, like you do when you’re posting under your other handles at other gay men hookup websites which appear to be discussions of things other than gay men hooking up.

    Or like you do directly above?

    You seem sure you know what I’m saying here. And before. You just impress upon my comments whatever meaning helps you make sense of the lying double-life you’ve constructed for yourself.

    And you imagine yourself so wise in rhetoric. I’ll remind you again, rhetoric isn’t about lying with a poker face. It’s about explaining. What have you explained about your double life, Fred?

    1. So… you’re insane, right? I mean, that’s the only conclusion I can come to here. Absolutely none of this is true. I have not got the slightest clue what you’re talking about. If I didn’t respect him so much, I could ask Jacob to dig out the IP addresses of whoever you think I am. But I wouldn’t waste his time.

      Oh! By the way! Here are some posts at Jacob Bacharach’s blog where I posted under my own name!


      This is all on the first page or so of his blog! And I did when he was IOZ, too! You’re full of shit, probably insane, and you’re going to be blocked if you keep coming up with this nonsense.

      1. Commonly held myth that getting a PhD in rhetoric and setting up and commenting through numerous sock-puppet accounts is the most economical and effective way to have sex with gay college freshmen. (The Atlantic has run dozens of posts saying as much, as I’m sure you know.)

        1. Being neither gay nor straight doesn’t actually mean you’re duplicitous, trolling commenter. Or that you maintain sockpuppets or want to sleep with your students.

    2. This comment is a thing of beauty. Like what I imagine the old days on the internet used to be like, before it became so PC.

  2. I have only been reading this blog regularly for a month or two, but already I am amazed at the high proportion of “wingnut” commenters around here. I am impressed that you have the patience to go to such efforts to respond to trolls, but if it were me, I’d lay out a stricter comments policy and then be a lot more aggressive in banning people who make no contribution to the discussion. It’s disheartening to have to sift through so much bile.

    1. I’m fast coming to the same conclusion. When I get back home after a brief trip this weekend, change will be coming.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *