Inspired by an article from Jezebel
The term is often used to refer to someone being a "sore loser". However, it only means "rationalization of failure to attain a desired end. ... It doesn't deal with jealousy or sore losing.
When you're a blogger, then you've seen segments of the blogging population — spout the notion that any blogger who so much as disagree with another blogger must be jealous and have sour grapes, we have a problem.
The phrase "Sour Grapes" is not only usually incorrect, it's reductive, and paints the accuser as emotionally immature and petty.
I have to hand it to the phrase "she's just sour grapes." It's pretty much the most perfectly infuriating thing someone can say to another person who is trying to have a legitimately critical discussion besides "relax."
Like when I commented that another Blogger seemed to give an impression that because she doesn't host advertisements on her Blog that somehow she is more justified when asking for donations...When I explained that having ads on a Blog doesn't bring in the big bucks that she alluded to, one of her minions "attacked" and said that she donated to that Blogger and that I was just jealous and sour grapes.
"Jealous Sour Grapes"
The term is simultaneously lazy, self-aggrandizing, and indicative of a pathological lack of self-awareness, Do I sense "Sour Grapes?" That question does it all. It's a “Humblebrag”!
(That other blog is so fabulous and that other Blogger is so loved, that it's envy-inspiring.)
It's a quick and dirty dismissal! (You're wrong; That other Blog is awesome.) It's a way to characterize enemies as petty!
Is there no legitimate way to disagree? Oh yes there is! If you are
reading this post then you are on my blog. My blog's not only awesome, it's trendy and features some of the same blogging hacks the bigger Lesbian sites use.
Lesberatti the blog is visited hourly by readers from across the globe who can either make a donation or not. I write whether or not I receive donations and because I really don't receive donations I am not obliged to curb my expression, which is why I complain about "selfish" readers who never leave comments and who only visit Lesberatti to report back to their matron blogs that will subsequently allude to not displaying ads on their site as if that is reason enough to claim Blogging superiority, or worse: Reason to indict those who do have ads on their pages, through attacking Lesberatti the Blog indirectly by having their supporters accuse other bloggers of "Sour Grapes."
What do they want?
I believe that certain readers and Blog owners want to visit other blogs but never contribute anything be it monetary or commentary, and also not have those very same sites earn the one or two pennies per week that can from having ads on their pages. that's what some selfish readers and Blog owners want.
None-the-less if I even correct a typo on one of my posts at any time I guarantee that readers with flock to my blog to see what changes I've made. Even sources from Los Angeles [where the big girl lesbian blogs originate from) regularly check out Lesberatti to see what I am writing about.
UPDATED:
Is that Sour Grapes? Such responses reliably shut down dialogue; it's nearly impossible to respond to such accusations without sounding defensive. It's the idiot trump card, particularly when they've responded to your comment out of context in the first place. There will NEVER be a day that goes by that my visitor's map isn't scrollling with visiting locations.
Granted I've vented about the lack of input on my sites, I've threatened to not post on my sites until I saw something substantive. I never saw anything substantive from my readers [commentary or monetary] so I started posting regardless. Therefore I certainly cannot be accused of not posting unless I receive a financial kickback, can I? In fact since I never see anything from my readers, I don't give to my readers in terms of prizes and such. I don't buy love an reader loyalty.
Accusing any and all detractors of an incurable case of Sour Grapes is hardly a new phenomenon nor is it exclusively used in the Blog-o-spher.
It's inconceivable that a Blogger can be jealous of another Blogger.
But here's a foolproof trick for telling the difference between Sour Grapes and legitimate criticism — jealousy-based criticism isn't substantial, it's not based in actual, back-uppable disagreement with a viewpoint someone may hold. Like the assumption that Bloggers who have ads on their sites only write for pay (I wish).
In order to end the tyranny of "Sour Grapes," there will have to suddenly be a mass realization that it's possible for a Blogger to write about what appears on another Blog without first assessing how the two blogs compare against each other.
Ultimately we'll all have to accept that sometimes the people you accuse don't have Sour Grapes, but that maybe you're actually a jerk.
The term is often used to refer to someone being a "sore loser". However, it only means "rationalization of failure to attain a desired end. ... It doesn't deal with jealousy or sore losing.When you're a blogger, then you've seen segments of the blogging population — spout the notion that any blogger who so much as disagree with another blogger must be jealous and have sour grapes, we have a problem.
The phrase "Sour Grapes" is not only usually incorrect, it's reductive, and paints the accuser as emotionally immature and petty.
I have to hand it to the phrase "she's just sour grapes." It's pretty much the most perfectly infuriating thing someone can say to another person who is trying to have a legitimately critical discussion besides "relax."
Like when I commented that another Blogger seemed to give an impression that because she doesn't host advertisements on her Blog that somehow she is more justified when asking for donations...When I explained that having ads on a Blog doesn't bring in the big bucks that she alluded to, one of her minions "attacked" and said that she donated to that Blogger and that I was just jealous and sour grapes.
"Jealous Sour Grapes"
The term is simultaneously lazy, self-aggrandizing, and indicative of a pathological lack of self-awareness, Do I sense "Sour Grapes?" That question does it all. It's a “Humblebrag”!
(That other blog is so fabulous and that other Blogger is so loved, that it's envy-inspiring.)
It's a quick and dirty dismissal! (You're wrong; That other Blog is awesome.) It's a way to characterize enemies as petty!
Is there no legitimate way to disagree? Oh yes there is! If you are
reading this post then you are on my blog. My blog's not only awesome, it's trendy and features some of the same blogging hacks the bigger Lesbian sites use. Lesberatti the blog is visited hourly by readers from across the globe who can either make a donation or not. I write whether or not I receive donations and because I really don't receive donations I am not obliged to curb my expression, which is why I complain about "selfish" readers who never leave comments and who only visit Lesberatti to report back to their matron blogs that will subsequently allude to not displaying ads on their site as if that is reason enough to claim Blogging superiority, or worse: Reason to indict those who do have ads on their pages, through attacking Lesberatti the Blog indirectly by having their supporters accuse other bloggers of "Sour Grapes."
What do they want?
I believe that certain readers and Blog owners want to visit other blogs but never contribute anything be it monetary or commentary, and also not have those very same sites earn the one or two pennies per week that can from having ads on their pages. that's what some selfish readers and Blog owners want.
None-the-less if I even correct a typo on one of my posts at any time I guarantee that readers with flock to my blog to see what changes I've made. Even sources from Los Angeles [where the big girl lesbian blogs originate from) regularly check out Lesberatti to see what I am writing about.
UPDATED:
Is that Sour Grapes? Such responses reliably shut down dialogue; it's nearly impossible to respond to such accusations without sounding defensive. It's the idiot trump card, particularly when they've responded to your comment out of context in the first place. There will NEVER be a day that goes by that my visitor's map isn't scrollling with visiting locations.
Granted I've vented about the lack of input on my sites, I've threatened to not post on my sites until I saw something substantive. I never saw anything substantive from my readers [commentary or monetary] so I started posting regardless. Therefore I certainly cannot be accused of not posting unless I receive a financial kickback, can I? In fact since I never see anything from my readers, I don't give to my readers in terms of prizes and such. I don't buy love an reader loyalty.
Accusing any and all detractors of an incurable case of Sour Grapes is hardly a new phenomenon nor is it exclusively used in the Blog-o-spher.
It's inconceivable that a Blogger can be jealous of another Blogger.
But here's a foolproof trick for telling the difference between Sour Grapes and legitimate criticism — jealousy-based criticism isn't substantial, it's not based in actual, back-uppable disagreement with a viewpoint someone may hold. Like the assumption that Bloggers who have ads on their sites only write for pay (I wish).
In order to end the tyranny of "Sour Grapes," there will have to suddenly be a mass realization that it's possible for a Blogger to write about what appears on another Blog without first assessing how the two blogs compare against each other.
Ultimately we'll all have to accept that sometimes the people you accuse don't have Sour Grapes, but that maybe you're actually a jerk.
Technorati Tags: Blogging