What exactly is a “rage blogger”? I see the epithet thrown around a lot, but it’s almost always by people who are raging about the putative “rage bloggers,” so I can never get a good handle on exactly what they mean by the label.
PZ has the same problem with some “rage blogger” accusations by Barbara Drescher, a former employee of the James Randi Foundation.
What’s it all about, with this passive-aggressive veiled insinuation that someone is ‘lining their pockets’ and ‘puffing up their egos’? It turns out that she’s a bit peevish because Phil Plait wrote a nice post praising Amy Roth’s activism, specifically her art installation, “A Woman’s Room Online”, which illustrates the harassment women receive on the internet.
It’s one of the more petty complaints I’ve seen from the hardcore skeptic weirdos. She is unhappy because someone said something nice about someone else. She is aggrieved because Amy Roth has creatively documented the dreadful activity that Drescher wants to believe doesn’t exist. And I suspect she’s at least vaguely aware that she’s being childish and stupid because of her fear that someone might notice her behavior.
That doesn’t stop her from doubling down. In addition to her petty resentment and her mindless lashing out at “rage bloggers”, she goes on to accuse Amy of bilking people for personal profit. This art installation is something Amy assembled at her own expense, and which she is exhibiting with free admission, and Drescher is somehow arguing that she’s doing it solely for personal gain, and that Phil Plait is gullibly colluding with her to con all those people who might sympathize with her cause.
And yet it’s other people, according to Drescher, who are the “rage bloggers.” It’s mystifying.
Oh, that’s easy.
You have rage. I have righteous indignation expressed in purely logical arguments.
Drescher aptly demonstrates the real true power of The Secret:
(from her public FB):
It’s a dog-whistle.
It can mean a blogger that is letting their anger get to them in unhealthy ways. But it’s use is often to dismiss the anger or outrage of a blogger (or just writer) without actually addressing if the emotion is justified, and while completely avoiding what they are talking about. So when used without explanation it’s a cowardly offensive assertion.
What exactly is a “rage blogger”
It’s what you call a blogger when you can’t actually argue against what they’re saying; it’s just another form of tone-trolling. “Tut, tut! The way you talk!”
You are now a rage blogger, because the story popped up in here
🙁
How nefarious, she got all the rage blogs to out themselves
….what does that make Thunderf00t i wonder?