In which I sing a song for JonMon

[harrock.livejournal.com]

My creative energy has been just about zero lately, thanks to a very busy schedule at work. But I'll say this for JonMon: His Lawsuit of Mass Destruction has inspired me. My wife, firstfrost, has received a threat letter, but she is not yet named in the LMD. I'm proud of everything she has said about JonMon. I didn't need JonMon's validation to be proud of her, but data is data.

I haven't been named or threatened in the LMD (yet), and I don't mean to make light of the anxiety that it has caused in our community. In particular, if you have taken something down or remained silent thanks to JonMon's toolbox of intimidation, I want you to know that I think no less of you for it. Every situation is unique, and we all have our limits of what we can deal with right this minute. My limit is high right now, so I'm standing up.

Likewise, I respect the opinions of those who have counseled caution or outright silence. I disagree with some of your key points, and I feel that some of your arguments apply better to people who are more concerned with anonymity than I am, or who cannot afford to risk an extended legal fight. The bottom line for me is this: One of the basic functions of any community is to sound a warning when a predator is around. If we're not sure the law can handle that, then it's time to get out and push.

This song is about JonMon's Lawsuit of Mass Destruction, and it is sung to the tune of "Charlie on the M.T.A." Permission is hereby granted to $verb this song, for all values of $verb, for every human being on planet Earth with the exception of Jonathan Graves Monsarrat. No permission of any kind is willingly granted to Mr. Monsarrat. In case he hadn't noticed, that's what happens when you are in the habit of excreting on your community.

---

Let me tell you the story
Of a man named JonMon
Who would really like to have his way...
He's the internet icon
Who you can't use your Psych on
He's the man who never will learn!

  Oh, his bridges are burned
  Please don't let him return...
  'cause his lesson's still unlearn'd!
  He may scam forever
  In the Square of Davis
  He's the man who never will learn!

He used to go by JonMon
But his rep has gone creepy
What's a smooth operator to do?
When you need to sound wholesome
Though your act is still loathesome
Then I guess that "Johnny" will do.

  Oh, his bridges are burned
  Please don't let him return...
  'cause his lesson's still unlearn'd!
  He may lurk forever
  On the blogs of Davis
  He's the man who never will learn!

Johnny says he's a victim
Because people keep on talking
Of some things no court has ruled
He says "come on and prove it
Or I'll make you remove it"
He's amazed when nobody's fooled

  Oh, his bridges are burned
  Please don't let him return...
  'cause his lesson's still unlearn'd!
  First he's looking your pants off
  Then he's suing your ass off
  He's the man who never will learn!

In Johnny's world the only law
Is what he gets away with
'less it's something he can use
To club his detractors
And intimidate their backers
And escape from paying his dues

  Oh, his bridges are burned
  Please don't let him return...
  'cause his lesson's still unlearn'd!
  He will leave you disgusted
  His ways won't be adjusted
  He's the man who never will learn!

Now the citizens of Davis Square
Are standing up to Johnny
And we all know what to do
When he says that you've been served...
And whines "I'm not a perv"
Just smile, and answer "fuck you!"

  Oh, his bridges are burned
  Please don't let him return...
  'cause his lesson's still unlearn'd!
  He'll play his games forever
  In the Square of Davis
  He's the man who never will learn!
  He's the man...who never will learn!

Comments

[moechus.livejournal.com]

Sigh. This is depressing. Not the failure to convince anyone; that's fine. It's the failure of people to grasp what I'm saying. I try to express it as clearly and as forcefully as possible, apparently to no avail. I'm beginning to suspect that the problem lies in a basic resistance to the message rather than in my expression of it. But, in case the fault lies with me, I will give it one more try.

You write that I "strike the balance so egregiously in what seems to most of us to be the wrong direction" when my entire point is that there is no balance to be struck. To weigh JonMon's worthiness for compassion against that of his victims is to exclude compassion altogether. It is mere egoism, completely natural and normal but (I paraphrase Schopenhauer again) neither blameworthy or praiseworthy. Compassion shatters the ego. It occurs when someone acts not, as is normally the case, out of egoistic motives but to relieve the pain of another without regard to ones own self-interest (and even contrary to ones self-interest). This can only happen when we throw away the scales and see the other person and ourselves as one. We are all suffering beings thrown into a life we did not choose and subject alike to its lacerations. The distinction between perpetrator and victim (and all other individual distinctions) vanishes. Compassion shatters the illusion of duality and we realize that we are all, ultimately, one. As the Hindu scriptures put it, "tat tvam asi" (thou art that). Or, to quote Shelly, "The One remains, the Many change and pass."

To say that JonMon doesn't deserve compassion or that his victims deserve it more is to miss the point. To quote Shakespeare again, "In the course of justice, none of us / Should see salvation; we do pray for mercy, / And that same prayer doth teach us all to render / The deeds of mercy."

[cos]

> To say that JonMon doesn't deserve compassion or that his victims deserve it more is to miss the point.

The astute reader may notice that I said neither of these things, yet the entire middle paragraph of the comment above is based on the assumption that I did. Hopefully that reader can understand that this is not the issue. You may notice that [Unknown site tag] is so locked into this frame of reference as to assume that it is the only way to look at this, but hopefully you are not similarly locked into it.

[moechus.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, I must have misread you. You said that I egregiously struck the balance in the wrong direction. I assumed you meant the balance between JonMon and his victims or between their respective worthiness of compassion. So between what and what did I strike the wrong balance?

All of these accusations and counter-accusations of misreading reminded me of a passage that i read many years ago and that has stuck with me. I think it worth repeating (it's from Harold Bloom's "Poetry and Repression"):

"Any poetaster or academic impostor can write a poem for us that oozes a plenitude of "meaning," an endless amplitude of significances. This late in tradition, we all come to one another smothered in and by meaning; we die daily, facing one another, of our endlessly mutual interpretations and self-interpretations. We deceive ourselves, or are deceived, into thinking that if only be could be interpreted rightly, or interpret others rightly, than all would yet be well. But by now--after Nietzsche, Marx, Freud, and all of their followers and revisionists--surely we secretly--all of us--know better. We know that we must be misinterpreted in order to bear living, just as we know that we must misinterpret others if they are to stay alive, in more than the merely minimal sense. The necessity of misreading one another is the other daily necessity that accompanies sleep and food, or that is as pervasive as light and air. There is no paradox in what I am saying; I but remind myself of an obvious truth, of ananke, or what Emerson called the Beautiful Necessity."

[ron_newman]

what was [Unknown LJ tag] supposed to be?

[cos]

Oh sorry, that was supposed to be moechus