|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gender and Humor | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7799 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
And again with the long posts. 8,000 words including quotes? Really?
You complained I wasn't answering your questions. I have endeavoured to do so - but some of them are 'have you stopped beating your wife' types. They rely on one misunderstanding of what I was saying or another. Given the length of your post - I've had to cut things a bit though, so I do miss some questions which I think are based on these kinds of misunderstandings. Once some more key issues are understood, we might go back to them later, OK? The case of the bizarre quote as proof Why that quote? Why then? Because in this conversation he hadn't expressed his obsession about my sex life until that moment. Are you expecting me to have pre-emptively responded to a comment he hadn't made yet? No, why would I be so stupid? oni said - my my what a long post.you replied, quoting this section - which proves that "You want to be able to spout any vile thought that crosses your mind without there being any consequences to what you're saying." I am asking you, how does oni's expression of exasperation at the length of your post prove that onifre wants to be able to spout any vile thought that crosses his mind without there being any consequences to what he's saying. Nothing to do with the gay joke stuff. So when you ask me 'Homophobia isn't vile?', this makes no sense since you yourself have noted that onifre was not being homophobic in the part you quoted him in. So where is the proof in what he said that he had a desire to be able to say vile thoughts without consequence?
That wasn't the first time onifre had commented about the length of my responses. Look, it's clear that you haven't been paying any attention to the system you're supposed to be moderating. Given your complete ignorance, what makes you think you have anything useful to say on the subject? Since you specifically wanted it answering I will. Yes, onifre has commented on the length of your posts before. As you point out, he says 'again' which clearly demonstrates that he has at least noted your long posts and strongly indicates on that alone he has commented on them previously. I asked a very simple question: how is that remotely related to onifre's purported desire to say vile things without consequence? If you just wanted to say that I could understand it. Based on your previous interactions you reached the conclusion that onifre was the way he was. But I'm confused as to how commenting on your post length is proof of this. When I asked, you started talking about other things onifre has said or done. Fine, let's accept for now that onifre does indeed want to say vile things sans consequence. How is the quoted comment proof of that? Rather than thousands of words, "It isn't" would have sufficed. Or "sorry, I didn't quote the bit I though I had" or something like that. What makes me think I have anything useful to say? My brain. I can think of no more honest an answer. Right now I'm just trying to clear up a simple issue I noticed in something you said, I didn't anticipate it would expand to this degree of argument. Who is the audience, and how do they decide? The audience are the collection of people that receive a performance.The intended audience is the body of people the performance was aimed at/tailored for. A member of the audience is one person who is part of the collective body that is the audience. A member of the audience IS NOT THE AUDIENCE. A subset of the audience IS NOT THE AUDIENCE. Anything that isn't the total collective body of receivers IS NOT THE AUDIENCE. OK. You said that the audience decides if someone has dropped a turd. Fine - is this consensus, majority vote, what? You then claimed that a small group of people can decide if someone has dropped a turd. But the small group is not the audience. So I'm asking if you could marry these two concepts together so that I can understand your ideas on when a performance drops a turd. Is that OK?
Have I ever said anything other than "the audience"? If so, I request that you provide such a quote. Now, I realize that you haven't actually read the thread, but the conversation goes so much better if you keep up. Fair enough. It was only a few posts ago, but that's still 20,000 words
Rrhain writes: onifre writes:
The fact that there was a segment on a television show that discussed it proves that point wrong. The point is that no one "laid a turd," When I queried how it was proof you said
Rrhain writes: If there were nobody who felt the joke was bad, there wouldn't have been a televised discussion with someone saying it was bad, now would there? So you seemed to be indicated that as long as enough people felt the joke was bad to influence Fox News try to make a big sensational story out of it and have three people argue about it for ten minutes then that proves that the audience thinks they dropped a turd. So I'm trying to ascertain: how does turd dropping get decided? Merely by a small subset of the audience (who were presumably not the intended audience) saying they didn't like it? Because I think a smaller subset of an entity and the entity are not identical. But you have really made it difficult to get this teensy little question, now long since passed its useful relevance, answered. You have finally come to the conclusion that it isn't just that someone has to think a turd was dropped but they must be able to justify it.
The entire audience counts, but only insofar as they are capable of justifying their response. But that seems to make it impossible to determine if a turd is dropped since we'd need to ascertain if people are capable of justifying their response. You have two people you think haven't, but that still isn't close to the entire audience. So how can you conclude that talking about it on Fox is proof that a turd was dropped? Or are you just taking the position what they did/said was absolutely unjustifiable? In which case, wouldn't it have been much easier just to say that so that we could explore that more.
Oh! That's right! You don't actually care about the audience. You only care about the "intended" audience. Well, the intended audience in this case is the people that regularly listen (generating ad revenue). For some reason you have assumed these are all bigots. "Ergo, bigots get to define bigotry." She isn't the intended audience, but she became part of the audience if/when she listened to the show (but there is probably some element of time here, if she listened to the 1 minute bit that everyone is talking about and nothing more, then she wasn't the audience she was more of a passing voyeur). Consequences You assert onifre wants to live in a world with no consequences because he is apparently arguing against some consequences. I am asking you are there any consequences to telling a bad joke that you might disagree with? And if you did disagree with those consequences, would expressing such disagreement be indicative of you wanting to live in a world without consequences? And if not, why is it the case with onifre?
Your question makes no sense. Yes, I know I am avoiding the issue because, to put it bluntly, I don't trust you. You're playing a game of gotcha. If I say that censorship is bad, then you're going to run away with it and apply it in completely inappropriate ways. If I say anything that appears to be that censorship is good, you're going to accuse me of being against free speech or some other form that will merely poison the well. You are being paranoid. I can only assure you I am discussing in good faith here. I have told you why I asked the question and if you don't believe me and instead think I'm trying to trick into saying something that is not relevant to the discussion I can see no way to persuade you otherwise. I used censorship because I figured it was reasonably close to the topic at hand, and you might disagree with outright censorship as a consequence. To be doubly sure, I included other consequences such as having one's throat slit for speaking out against Islam which I am 100% sure you disagree with. Unfortunately I think you broke that argument up into too many fragments and lost a sense of context because you thought I was saying that O & A's case was the same as religiously motivated beheadings. Do you agree that there are some consequences in some areas of life, that should they occur, you would speak out against - act against or whatever? Does this mean you want to live in a consequence free world?If not - how do you justify saying onifre wants to live in such a world based on the evidence that he is speaking out against certain consequences? When what you are saying is that there should be no consequences, then that precisely means that you want to live in a consequence-free world. That's right. But all you have is onifre arguing against some consequences. Not all. He even advocates some consequences.
This was because of your continued claim that there was "censorship" or something tantamount to it. Again, I stress: I am not saying there was something tantamount to censorship that occurred. I am asking you a hypothetical question for the purposes of getting across to you that you were being hyperbolic with regards to onifre's position regarding consequences. Have you noticed that you take my questions and turn them into statements of belief on my part? Shutting down speech Onifre's entire argument has been that Ms. Ossorio needs to shut up. Same with Patrice. That's "shutting down speech." I know that onifre has said she should shut up. But writing that a person should shutup on a board regarding words that were spoken a long time ago and recorded cannot really be justifiably be called shutting anything down. It's calling for someone to not say things which aren't true, which are unjustified out of the field of expertise. Patrice shut her down during the video. But onifre has not shut her down, he has just said she should 'shut up'. Which is essentially what she was saying to comedians that offend some people. So is she shutting down comedy now?
Oh...so she doesn't get to respond to their joke. She did. And she made out she was speaking for the people. I think the issue they are having is that they don't believe she does. So she should shut up saying that she does.
Is there another meaning to "shut the fuck up about it" that I'm not getting? I think its a statement that expresses that the person uttering things the ideal conclusion is that the person they are referring to should stop talking/making a fuss/screaming or otherwise making a noise. I think onifre would like to see people that get offended easily not go out of their way to listen to things that are obviously going to offend them and then complain that they got offended. As Homeless Charlie comments on that kind of attitude "Say what the fuck you want, you don't like it? Fuck You". He's perfectly entitled to express his desire for her to stop the cycle of getting offended, just as he as expressed that he will listen to what she has to say. But that should be that. If she was try and apply pressure by attempting to represent a larger group of people than she might actually...none of whom regularly pay attention to the adverts on O & As show...to pressure the sponsors into pressuring the radio station into pressuring O & A to apologize then onifre might have a problem with that. If O & A's regular audience called in in droves and complained, the sponsors fears would be well placed. So if she is spreading FUD, she should shut the fuck up. Sounds reasonable to me.
They, and you, have already claimed that you know that Ms. Ossorio didn't actually hear the broadcast but was rather simply told about it. I have no idea if she heard it or not. Nor have I said if she has or not. You are getting confused. You will attempt to provide a quote where I actually spoke about a general tendency of my view of what onifre was saying about vocal minorities. I already explained the misunderstanding but it didn't help. I would be surprised if you can find anything about me saying I KNOW that Ms. Ossorio specifically didn't hear it. And I'm not playing dumb by the way. I said what I meant and I meant what I said. Don't add bits in there in an attempt to strawman me, thanks. In case there is any remaining doubt. I do not know if Ms Ossorio has heard the whole show, if she listens to every one of them, if she has an O & A T-shirt, or any of these things. My argument does not rely on knowing any of these things about her. My apologies for any confusion I may have contributed to here, but that should settle that, right?
If it was a vocal minority
What "vocal minority"? Who is this "vocal minority"? And how do you know they are the "minority"? Maybe I should just give up since we don't speak the same language. In my world 'If' is an indicator that a conditional is going to follow. Rape But I guess, "fuck that bitch to death" doesn't mean, you know, "fuck that bitch to death." Now you're getting the idea!"I'm starving." - I'm hungry "I could kill for a burger" - I'm very hungry. "I could eat a scabby donkey" - same. "Man I want to fuck that girl so hard it hurts." - she's hot, my libido is engaged. "I worked my fingers to the bone." - I worked very hard. "The queen has a horsey-face" - The queen, like many other royals, suffers from lengthening of her face associated with inbreeding. You wanted to analyse the humour? Hyperbole. It can be funny its own right and its very common. Homeless Charlie was quite the master employing it for comic effect, as you probably know from having listened to the show right? Or maybe you think Charlie really believed that the Queen of England has a fully equine head? That he actually rang Al Sharpton to complain about his jewish landlord?
And "Punch her all in the fucking face. Shut up bitch!" doesn't actually mean, you know, "punch her all in the fucking face." No - that does mean that.
No, wanting to have sex with someone is not rape. Rape is sexual assault. Homeless Charlie didn't say that he was sexually aroused by Rice and Bush and the Queen. He said he wanted to assault them sexually. He said he wanted to fuck her. In typical Charlie fashion, just as when he talked about robbing to get money, he escalates it into something crazier and crazier. He didn't say he wanted to sexually assault the queen. He said fuck the queen. The Sex Pistols said the same thing. He didn't mention anything sexual to do with her at all. I've said fuck the queen. And I've subsequently met her (well she walked within raping distance). I really didn't have the urge to have sex with her consensually or otherwise.
And then punch them in the face. That's assault. Agreed. Unless it was consensual. Then its just kinky.
No, you didn't. You didn't give any indication as to why it wasn't necessarily rape. Instead, you changed the subject to your own fantasies. But this isn't about what you said, Modulous. It's about what Homeless Charlie said. He said he wanted fuck someone.I said I wanted to fuck someone. Was I expressing a desire to rape? If the two are different, how? Charlie meant it - it's offensive When someone says something outrageous and seriously means it, encouraging it is not the appropriate response. And when I asked for evidence he made it you quoted
quote: which references a joke from like 15-20 minutes earlier. The only person he was 'popping in the head' was C.Rice in the previous section who isn't an 'old lady'. The old ladies he was joking about beating up earlier are to what they are referring. You criticize me for not paying attention to context and not reading the thread, and that I somehow think everything you say occurs in a vacuum. You've spent hours composing these replies, have you spent even 30 minutes listening to the actual broadcast under discussion? Well, actually I can clearly tell that if you have it was a long time ago. If you don't care for full context leap up to 3minutes. When asked how makes money he says he picks up cans and 'mugs old bitches, it doesn't matter' after all 'what is she going to do, chase you down the street?'. When asked how he takes down the old ladies he comments that hooks the motherfuckers to the street. Again clearly not serious comments, just the kind of humour one might expect from an O & A fan. He goes onto advise you should mug them on cheque day, if you catch them to late they've just got cat food in their purse.
So it shouldn't be difficult for you to find some evidence that the O&A bit could be more damaging to society than it was beneficial
Um, what part of advocating rape is "beneficial"? No part of it, at least not under present circumstances. But I don't think they were. So, given the wealth of evidence you said existed can you show me that joking about something that, if real, would be a horrifying moral crime has the effect of advocating for the crime or has any other harmful effects? It's traditionally done using links to science papers. Sociology or psychology seem appropriate fields to start looking. I'm not just going to take your word for it, I'm afraid.
No, I think radio hosts are obligated to accept the consequences imposed by their employers when they encourage offensive behaviour. I agree with that to some degree. If the employers employed them to encourage offensive behaviour then the employers should be the ones accepting the consequences (and the radio hosts but not from their employers, from the law (where it was broken)).
And, as anybody who has had any experience with the internet knows, when you let the average Joe say whatever he wants into a microphone, you will inevitably get somebody saying something stupid. Now, does the radio host encourage the stupidity or do they acknowledge that it is stupid? If the former, is anybody really surprised that the employer might come down on the host lest people associate the stupid comment with the station? Such as by asking the host to apologize?
Agreed. However, O & A did take steps to correct Charlie after his comments - they moved him on to talking about something else more positive quite quickly and then rebuked his hypocrisy.
And then when the host gets pissy over that request to apologize, is the employer really out of bounds for suspending the hosts, claiming that they don't seem to understand the seriousness of the situation? That's all fine and dandy. Though there might be something to be said as to why the employer felt the need to do that. Was it because they realized it was offensive? Or was it because they heard a 100 people say they were offended and they feared a financial boycott based on what wasn't based on real audience reaction but instead on availability bias (aka a vocal minority - a group which is generally relatively very small but vocal. The fact that they are vocal means they are more noticeable that the majority who would disagree with them, but don't feel motivated to speak out at everything they liked). If a small group of people complained that you were doing your job the way your employer has given permission (since this I'm told was typical O & A stuff) to do it. And your employer asked you to apologize for it, you might feel a bit put out? Granted, knowing if it was a vocal minority difficult to ascertain. So to be clear I'm asking if it hypothetically was - would commenting in a negative fashion about the vocal minority's undue influence be so terrible? The homo drone Onifre's response makes no sense. I used a common phrase regarding posturing and he started talking about sex... I cut off the other 275 words where you repeat your defence even though you are not at all defensive. You are just constantly repeating your defence. Over and over again. That's all. Because it's very important that you know that I understand that it was justified. The last time you gave this defence I pointed out that you didn't just use a common phrase that you deliberately and provocatively chose to try and provoke a reaction. You actually used three penis metaphors. Oni picked up on it etc. Feel free to reread what I said at Message 200.
Precisely, and since you were construing onifre's comments as offensive, therefore your comments were too.
So why are you whining about me? I'm not whining about you. I simply said
quote: And later clarified I wasn't really offended, I was just pointing out that it was ironic that you dropped a turd by using offensive humour/wit in attempt to embarrass your opponent. That resulted in an outpouring of defensiveness on your part. I know why you did what you did, I saw it when you did it, and no explanation was needed. I pointed out it could be seen as offensive that's all. I was hoping you'd merely disagree so that we could use that as a segue into discussing how we can tell if it was offensive given I was part of the audience to your written performance (and internet debate is a bit of a performance piece right?) and I had decided you had dropped a bomb. But that didn't go that way, because you wanted to explain why you said what you said instead. So maybe we can move on to discussing that now?
Which is probably why onifre keeps trying to insult me through his fantasies of my sexuality. What's your excuse? A comedian makes a joke about how often you use penis metaphors and you take that as homophia and imply that since he is homophobic he must want to have sex with you. You do this a graphic fashion. The comedian, having been heckled realizes he's hit a comedy gold pot, but refrains and responds to you without referencing the situation. But you respond to me about onifre and you were getting a bit dickish at this point so onifre responded using provocative language of his own which sent you spiralling into madness. Onifre has been digging the gold mine since. If you want to keep onifre laughing at you, carry on, I'll abandon any hope of having a reasonable conversation with you. The really awkward part is that I've wanted to express to you for some time how I genuinely find you sexually attractive, and sometimes I even like your personality. But I fear that if I do that you'll think I'm being subtly homophobic or something. I kind of think Bill Hicks is fuckable too. Maybe that's why I'm trying to get between you two when you bicker
Oh, the condescending attitude, the false humility that you are simply trying to be "reasonable," this was exactly the way you behaved the last time we got into it. Now, I'll retract my comment of "moderator" and just leave it as "criticism of your abilities." Yeah - I do condescend people I feel are confusing their beliefs about their discussion partners (condescending neh?) with what the person actually is saying. Because I feel I need to break things down into the least controversial particles I can so I can break through the emotional filters between me and the normally reasonable person I am trying to talk to. Sorry about that - if (conditional!) we agree that this is the situation, what would you propose would be a better way to deal with it? I remember asking back in that immortal thread, and the only reply I remember getting was that the only action that would please those I disagreed with was to abandon my own views and slavishly comply with the demands of certain members. But seriously - I have been a dick with you - but you've be a gigantic prick with me so I feel that is fair. By trying to avoid being a dick, I ironically get condescending. You are right in this observation, it is a genuine character flaw. So Congratulations: You've dredged through the records and subjected me to analysis and located one of my many flaws and cruelly paraded it around like the gigantic prick that you are so fantastically portraying. Now that you have completed you ad hominem attack how about you address the relevant issues at hand? To be quite frank, I have a fiance who is more than capable of pointing out my flaws with much more precision and sting than you and I am quite poignantly reminded of them when they rear their ugly head. But she doesn't do it to score points in a debate. As for the condescension itself: Again, I'm sorry, but when you're a fucking genius like me, it's difficult to know what level to pitch at. The humility is real, by the way. The collapse of all fora as we know them I suggested we not talk about this here - but you insist bringing up years old discussions that left a bitter note as if it was important that you beat me into some kind of timid submission under the revelation that in my mid-twenties I was not the perfect paragon of excellence. All of this because I said I was offended at your using homosexuality as an insult in a faux kind of way to raise the point of people getting offended even if you think they shouldn't be (like with O & A). Fortunately, I'm not as big a prick as you, so I'm not going start making recriminations against your behaviour from an argument years ago (are you sure you aren't a woman?) or get into the territory where I am defending myself in a thread where it is clearly not on topic in a subtopic that is pushing those limits already. There is a link though, that I think is interesting to that thread. As I said I'm not dredging it up, but keep in mind your rant about consequences esp wrt not following the boss' requests. I note that you take quotes and you ascribe them to me despite the fact that I didn't say them. Could you please at least correct this? I appreciate that you might be using second person plural but this is not made clear and it is trivially easy to change that. Other than that - I stand unwilling to retaliate. Continue being a shithead to me if you so desire, see if I have a breaking point. I probably do. I've never been suspended for even a day from this site. Allow me to provide one at least classy insult courtesy of Blake
quote: If you succeed at pissing me off, that means you are gay. So ha!
What would it take for you to consider the possibility that you screwed up? And not just in a small way but rather at every single turn? I gave the answer at the time: evidence. I have already accepted some blame for things in this very thread. If you'd like to discuss the specific case with me some time, personal messages or a GD thread are more appropriate than here. I realize you are in defensive mode. But it seems to me that putting me on the defensive does not achieve the aim of increasing our mutual understanding of humour and cruelty. With maybe a view to gender at some point.
Again, it's a very simple way to prove me wrong: Onifre stops talking about his fantasies about my cock and we'll see how long I can go before mentioning onifre's fantasies about my cock. How about you stop talking to onifre, and see if he hounds you mercilessly about the issue. Then I will either suspend him, or since I am a participant here I will recommend his suspension. Meanwhile you and I can get to the humour topic this is nothing to do with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 792 days) Posts: 3193 Joined:
|
You guys should get this novel published. Maybe charge less for the condensed version.
"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way" -Carl Sagan |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12993 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Let me begin by confessing my inadequacy to sort through whatever is going on in this thread.
And so I merely request that participants please keep discussion focused on the topic. If there's interest in discussion of past or present moderation or other crimes then please just start another thread here in Coffee House. Members can also use the PM system to discuss these and other side issues. I'm not intending to monitor this thread, it's in Coffee House for God's sake, so just post to Report discussion problems here: No.2 or send me a PM.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined: |
The homo drone Gee whiz Mod, what the hell? While I admit, in the past, I MAY have whistled a show-tune or two. Or tried on women's underwear . . . for comfort issues ONLY. But does that really justify your name-calling? signed,the dronester
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2941 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Oni writes: Probably not cos you're gonna keep acting like a fag. No, homo...?
Rrhain writes: And still the obsession with getting my dick up your ass to dose you with my DNA continues. See, that's how a fag would respond. Not a homosexual, again, I'm being careful here to be specific about how I'm using the word 'fag'. You revert back to the same lame joke. How is me calling you a fag mean that I want to have sex with you? Even South Park did an entire episode about Harley riders being called fags, does that mean Matt and Trey want to fuck you too? Here's what I've gathered from this thread so far. Usually, for the most part I should say, you present a very good argument when debating. I've read a lot of it. When you are in the right you argue well. But... in this thread you couldn't be more wrong. You have absolutely lost. You are arguing in circles, contradicting yourself, and trying to spin crap into a decent argument all the while looking stupid in doing so. You are also out matched in the humor dept. This is when the fag in you comes out, when you're backed up against a wall of evidence against you and you have nothing else to contribute that will help your position. Basically, when you're losing you turn into a bitch...or a fag, either word will do. It's pathetic to see. It really has made me realize that no matter how smart or well educated someone is, when they don't know what the fuck they're talking about they can sound really fucking stupid. Here are the facts:
I agree with Straggler and the fag that Patrice could have done a better job with the interview, but he, like probably I would have, got frustrated by the woman's arrogance so he didn't do as good a job as he may have been able to. On this point I will concede. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
onifre responds to me:
quote: Yes. Can you? Remember, it was your source. Did you actually listen to it before you posted it?
quote: Indeed. Now think: Why was he there? He proclaimed himself to be an "expert on funny." OK...so what was this "funny" that required the services of an expert? He was there to defend O&A's position, to defend their joke, to explain why it was an act of comedy, not cruelty. And he failed miserably. At no point did he give any justification as to why Ms. Ossario was wrong. Instead, he spent the entire time denigrating everybody else there as "having nothing to do with funny," interrupting Ms. Ossario at every turn, and literally being reduced to shouting.
quote: Really? Why? What is your justification that he didn't really mean it? It certainly sounded like he meant it. Don't confuse the highly improbable nature of him ever being in a physical position to do it or the likelihood that he'd turn tail and run if he did with the idea the he doesn't mean it.
quote: Why? Where is your justification of this claim of yours? His statements sure sounded like he meant it. He said he did. O&A reacted as if they did. They even encouraged him and he went along. Are you saying that it is impossible for someone to say something they think is a joke and not realize that they have misjudged things? That so long as the person who says it thinks it's funny, then it is and that's that? That means bigots get to define bigotry.
quote: Right, because the physical phonemes, "ju stu-pId bItsh, kant ju taik aI dzhok," didn't escape his lips, then there is no possible way that that's what he was saying.
I don't know her, but I'm assuming that she has nothing to do with funny. "You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
How many unfunny rape jokes lead to rape? "You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
Your world is not funny! Your world is-s-s-s-s-s... "You stupid ass, can't you take a joke?"
I'm diabetic. I make jokes about that. I'm a victim. "You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
I'm trying to make fun of anything I think I can make fun of. "You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?" And after she politely let him speak, he interrupts her:
What nation? Is this the nation that's paying you? I'm not the nation. I'm just speaking for me and funny. "You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
You're speaking for the nation or you're speaking for...? "You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
Did you think they were trying to be funny? "You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
Why are you in their business? "You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
It was hilarious! "You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
That's why she doesn't like me. "You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
And the lady in her outrage didn't know what it meant. "You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
You're not living in the context of funny. You're living in the context of firing. "You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
It's the PC cops run amok. "You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
She has an entire encycolpedia of her stance on it but there's no passion involved. "You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
But it's not real. Here's just what she has to say, "We are outraged and fired and fired and fired." "You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
Why are you laughing? She's outraged! "You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
It's called humor that she has no clue what it is! "You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
All your information, ma'am, is second hand from someone making you aware that someone may have said something that you should be upset about. "You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?" So yes, the phrase, "You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?" did not pass his lips. Let us not play dumb and pretend that that wasn't precisely what he was saying. Over half of his sentences were just that. We can keep going back and forth on this. You need to respond to what I said, not merely parrot your original claim. I have agreed with you that the physical string of syllables, "You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke" did not escape his lips. However, I have provided plenty of his quotes indicating that is precisely what he meant. In order to rebut that, you need to explain why that isn't what he meant. It would help if you could quote something he said that would provide the context that allows us to interpret his words to mean something different. For example, "And the lady in her outrage didn't know what it meant." How is that not just a polite way of saying, "You stupid bitch, can't you take a joke?"
quote: Huh? You mean I don't have an entire interview of him talking and talking upon which to draw? He didn't actually say anything for the entire segment? You didn't really post an interview on Fox that included Patrice and Sonia Ossario? Or maybe you're saying that he didn't actually say what I quoted above; that I've misquoted him. Or perhaps I've left out some context. What is it, onifre? You need to do more than just whine, "Nuh-uh!" You have to start explaining why what Patrice said was an actual analysis of the O&A situation which explained why it was an act of comedy and not cruelty.
quote: It might be. Where is your analysis showing that this particular bit of O&A's was comedic in nature? "They meant it as a joke" is not sufficient. Sometimes what people think is comedic really isn't. Sometimes people misjudge things and make mistakes. Surely you don't mean to say that we just trust someone's claim that they meant something as a joke? Surely you don't mean to claim that someone who finds cruelty to be funny is sufficient to conclude that the act of cruelty really is comedic? I'm reminded of the prank code at Mudd. There was no official policy against pranks, per se, but the generally accepted rules were: 1) You take responsibility for what you did. That means you own up to it. 2) You are responsible for restoring everything back to the way it was. Any damages or labor required to undo things is up to the one pulling the prank to deal with. 3) Know who you're pranking. If the person being pranked does not appreciate what you've done, it's your fault for misjudging things. You don't get to say that you meant it as a joke and expect that to be good enough. It's that last point that made the pranking code effective. There was no real policy of what you could or could not do. However, you had better know what you were doing so that the victim would get the joke. It is not enough that you think it's funny. The person on the other end has to think so, too, or there's a problem. Now, perhaps it's just an issue of timing. I pranked my best friend our senior year. Her parents lived nearby and on her birthday, she went home. While she was gone, some other friends and I got a tank of helium and we filled her room with balloons...not completely stuffed but you had to duck a bit to get in. Because of the timing of when we started, some of them started to drop and by the time she came back, it was an interesting mix of balloons on the floor and ceiling. Now, if we had done this during exam time when she needed her room to study or had any other reason to have her room left alone, that wouldn't have been appropriate. Instead, the timing was just fine and it didn't interfere with anything. She thought it was great, kept them around for a few days (getting to wake up buried under more balloons as they dropped), and then said that enough was enough. So, we got everybody involved together, including some other people in the dorm, to have a balloon-busting party. Some fun destruction, we carted all the remains away, and everything was back to normal. My point? What makes it "funny" is not solely in the mind of the one telling the joke.
quote: And where is your evidence of such? I've quoted the actual exchange. There was no indication of it being a "bit." Or more precisely, the "bit" was O&A putting a wild card on the air who would not have any inhibitions about saying anything. And sure enough, he said something outrageous. But O&A did not give any indication that they were making fun of Homeless Charlie. Instead, they goaded him on:
Charlie: I'd love to fuck that bitch. She needs a fukin' man. I'll fuck that bitch... Anthony: I just imagine the horror in Condoleezza Rice's face Opie: (Laughing) As she realizes what's going on. Anthony: As you were just holding her down and fucking her. Charlie: Punch her all in the fucking face. Shut up bitch! Anthony: That's exactly what I meant. (Laughter) Charlie: You know... fuck... and George Bush wife... I'll fuck that bitch to death. Anthony: Yea? Charlie: Oh yea. She needs a man. "That's exactly what I meant." Huh? We've suddenly gone from making comments that might only be about how someone is uptight and we've wandered into advocating assault. Anthony is actually advocating assault. Where is your justification that that wasn't what he meant when he said that's what he meant? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Modulous responds to me:
quote: Yep. The more you refuse to pay attention, the more I have to quote everything that has come before in order to get you up to speed. The more you repeat refuted claims, the more I get to say the same thing multiple times.
quote: Indeed. You haven't. Looks like I have to ask them again because you're not going to respond to them. Here's the most significant one: What makes you think you have anything useful to say?
quote: Well, since you asked directly, I'll give you a direct answer: Because there's the distinct possibility that you are. Your history here has shown that you really don't pay attention to what people write. And every time you get backed into a corner, you lash out rather than considering the possibility that you made a mistake...even to the point of being...well..."less than truthful" about things. You'll even absue your powers as moderator in your outbursts. So it appears that when I see you doing something stupid, it may truly be because you are being stupid.
quote: Incorrect. Onifre said, "Christ dude, did you leave any thoughts out of this post? Here we go with the long posts again....." It was not merely a comment about my response being long. There go those superpowers of literacy again. Instead, his comment was that he was annoyed that I took his post seriously, that I should have just accepted his argument, and done what he demanded of Ms. Ossario and "shut the fuck up." My response has to do with his entire post, not just the individual words. It's part of those literacy powers I have: The ability to synthesize the entirety of a statement beyond mere individual sentences. Comments are not made in a vacuum but instead relate to comments made before as well as those later. Onifre is whining that I am taking him seriously and demanding that he justify his claims. Thus, my response is to say that I am not going to simply accept his premise that people are allowed to say whatever vile thought crosses their minds without consequence. And I am going to justify myself thoroughly.
quote: That's not an answer. Again, since I like to think more of my interlocutors, you're not typing simply because you like the clacking of the keyboard. What I am asking you to do is to justify your methodology that brings you to the conclusion that what you have to say makes any sense given the entirety of the thread. For example, you seem not to read threads and are incapable of remembering anything for more than a few seconds.
quote: No, not OK. More specifically, a member of the audience is the audience. A subset of the audience is the audience. Otherwise, we run the risk of bigots being the ones who define what bigotry is. In other words, it's the logical error of argumentum ad populum: So long as enough people believe it, then it must be true. But just because there are people who laugh doesn't mean it's comedy. Not even if a lot of people laugh.
quote: No. It's analysis of the response of the people affected. Here's a cinematic example: Carrie (yes, I know it's a fictional example, but it only works because of the acceptance of standards of behaviour and the difference between comedy and cruelty.) There's Carrie, standing on stage having been "voted" Queen, and Chris dumps pigs blood on her. Everybody bursts out laughing. Now, was that really an act of comedy? Everybody's laughing. And despite the fact that she's only one person, doesn't Carrie get to have a say in this? And isn't her reaction more important than all the others? Doesn't her reaction get to trump everybody else? Despite the fact that she's only one person? Yeah, everybody else is laughing, but why are they laughing? Because they are cruel and laugh at other people's misery. That doesn't make it comedy. It simply means their cruelty involves taking pleasure in other people's pain. But then again, I already went through this. You did read the posts before commenting, didn't you? Can you now understand why I have to consider the possibility that you really are that stupid? As I posted in Message 180: So here we have a comedian making my point about how comedy isn't simply about what you think is funny and that one other person can overrule a crowd.
quote: No. Especially because of the people who have come forward to defend O&A, there arguments have been that the person who didn't like it should just ignore it. Ooh! There's another question that needs to be answered: How is "shut the fuck up about it" interpreted to mean something other than "shut the fuck up about it"?
quote: Stop making me have to repeat myself and there will be fewer words. Stop playing dumb and there will be fewer words. Do your homework and read the whole thread first so that you can be up to speed and there will be fewer words.
quote: No, what I seemed to be indicating was that there was enough of a response that it was an inappropriate bit on the part of O&A that there ought to be a discussion of what happened and analysis of whether or not Sirius' was justified in their treatment of O&A. Instead, what we got was Patrice shouting denigrations and onifre saying the "cunt" should "shut the fuck up about it." Ms. Ossario was the only one to present any sort of justification for her claim. Thus, despite the fact that she is not the entire audience, her analysis is the only thing left standing. And despite Patrice and onifre's insistence that she didn't actually hear it, she clearly did. She seems to make a point of paying attention to these things, having attended an actual performance of Patrice and thus was able to make comments about his specific act. Note, he merely assumes to know what she is talking about and she gets to correct him that no, he doesn't. And his response? To shout and interrupt her.
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? Nice try, but that's been my entire point from the very beginning:
Message 180:
What if our lines differ, who's line do we go by? That would have been an interesting conversation to have. Message 188 So now we've gone from you saying that he's perfectly free to find it funny to you saying it isn't for him to say why. I then give an example of how you might go about that through my analysis of My Super Ex-Girlfriend in response to Slate's reviewer claiming it was a piece of misogynistic trash.
See how easy that is? You just go through the material, point out the context, connect to the social climate in which the material is being performed, and show how the analysis by the reviewer was very much off base. I then start begging onifre to actually engage and start justifying his claims:
See, you have to start analyzing the joke. You have to start explaining how it wasn't that in order for your argument to have any merit. And if you're not going to do so, if you're going to run away with whines of, "But it isn't my joke to defend!" then you don't have anything to say at all. You're just trying to legitimize the position that you should be free from the consequences of your actions. And again:
You still haven't defended the joke. And since I started my piece by making note of Patrice's point that everything has the potential to be funny, the only thing left to do is to explain how this particular piece was actually funny rather than degrading. That nobody seems to be able to do so is a pretty strong indicator that it wasn't a work of comedy but was an act of cruelty. And with Hyroglyphx, I make the same point:
Message 189 And you need to be able to analyze the actual substance in order to weed out the odd-yet-still-justified from the bloody stupid. And again:
Opinion about what? So far, nobody who has come to the defense of O&A has bothered to defend the actual joke. They're simply crying that somebody didn't find it funny and decided to say so out loud. Strange...their defense is that they have freedom of speech and their response is that the other person needs to shut up. And again:
The fact that nobody can explain how the joke isn't what it's being accused of is pretty damning evidence that it is precisely that. And again:
I'm the one asking for us to analyze the particular joke in question to see if there is anything legitimate in the claim being made against it, and I'm the one who's taking it personally, not the ones wallowing in their diarrhea from having someone contradict them. I even ask him directly to engage:
Do you have an explanation as to why this joke wasn't misogynistic? Of course, he runs away and I have to ask him again.
Message 197 Then let's discuss that. Because so far, all you've done is complain that while I agree they have a right to say it, I also insist they need to be willing to accept the consequences of saying it such as having their employer decide that they don't want to pay for them to say it anymore. You want them to be able to say whatever they want without any consequences for doing so. But it seems Hyroglyphx would rather run away:
But to go there, we'd have to actually discuss the joke, which nobody here seems to be willing to do, not even you. After all, if they're not the misogynistic jerks, then one would expect that if they were faced with evidence that they were behaving as such, the reponse would be, "Oops. You know, I thought that was funny at the time but now that you point out A, B, and C, I can see how what I said can be taken that way." Instead, the response has been to spout nothing but ad hominems against the person daring to think the joke wasn't funny but rather cruel. It's been attempts to silence critics all the while whining about "censorship!" It's been avoiding the issue by routine expressions of homophobia. You're doing everything you possibly can to avoid having to justify your argument. You then join in. And I point out the need to actually discuss the joke to you:
Message 198 What a wonderful discussion to have! Oh, but that would require actually analyzing the joke, something onifre has directly stated that he will not do. "It wasn't his joke to defend." If we're going to determine whether or not it is comedy or cruelty, we're going to have to talk about it and somebody is going to have to defend the joke. And again:
Because his reaction is not to engage her speech but to shut it down. And in return to my response to his speech was met with not only a refusal to engage but also an active denial of any responsibility to do so. And again:
And her point was that this misogyny has real effects upon real women. But rather than actually discuss that, rather than go into the details of the joke and determine if there really is any misogyny there, Patrice and onifre simply want to claim the woman to be a "cunt" for having the temerity to take O&A to task for what they said. Now, I could go on, but you'll only complain about the length of the post. See, this is what I mean when I say I have to suspect that you really are that stupid. You complain about something that was already dealt with previously, trying to crow in triumph over "catching" me when I was actually saying that all along...which you would have known if you had been paying attention and reading the thread before joining in. But the only way to convince you of that is to go back and repost the overwhelming evidence showing just how mistaken you are. It won't be sufficient to simply tell you to go back and read the posts because you won't. And even though I've posted all this stuff yet again, I predict that I will need to post it yet again because your attention span is so short that you'll forget about it by the time you post again.
quote: Irrelevant. If even only one can justify the claim, then that's sufficient.
quote: In and of itself, I can't. I never said I could. What I said was that talking about it on a TV program is sufficient proof that there is something to discuss and that yammering about how the "cunt" needs to "shut the fuck up about it" isn't justified.
quote: No, it's up to those who think the "cunt" needs to "shut the fuck up about it" to justify their claim. Again, I'm trying to get onifre to engage. Instead, he wants to run away, pissed that somebody is taking him seriously and requesting he go through the work of defending his assertion.
quote: Incorrect. Please provide justification for this claim. I'm tired of having to quote the entire thread back to you to prove you wrong. It's your turn now. You get to go back through the past posts and provide the quotes.
quote: Irrelevant. Bigots don't get to define bigotry. That O&A thought they were being funny doesn't mean they actually were.
quote: Incorrect. Please provide justification for this claim. I'm tired of having to quote the entire thread back to you to prove you wrong. It's your turn now. You get to go back through the past posts and provide the quotes.
quote: Incorrect. You were asking specifically about censorship. I responded that I reject your premise as there was no censorship to be found. You're now moving the goalposts. I won't play that game.
quote: You're going to have to prove it. Your past history does not lend itself to you being so. You've already shown that you're playing a game. Did you or did you not just say:
You have finally come to the conclusion that it isn't just that someone has to think a turd was dropped but they must be able to justify it. See, now if you were "discussing in good faith here," you wouldn't have made such a...dare I say it?..."stupid" comment because you would have read my previous posts and seen the dozens of times where I have literally begged people to start justifying their claims.
quote: What on earth does this have to do with anything? Remember, we're responding to the fact that onifre specifically told the "cunt" to "shut the fuck up about it." Ergo, he wants there to be no consequences. This has nothing to do with finding some imaginary punishment that I think would be beyond the pale. This has to do with the fact that onifre thinks that if a comedian screws up, there is to be no response or any accountability for the mistake. You're pretending that this is an example of you and me agreeing that a line should be drawn and we're just arguing over where. Instead, onifre is arguing that there is no line. If the comedian claims it's a "joke," then that's good enough and if you don't like it, "shut the fuck up about it."
quote: Non sequitur. Please rephrase.
quote: Ooh! There's another question that still hasn't been answered despite me asking it directly to you: Is there some other meaning to "shut the fuck up about it" that I am unaware of? I justify it by pointing out that onifre's response to someone having a negative response to O&A's bit is to "shut the fuck up about it." Ergo, no consequences.
quote: Incorrect. What I have is onifre telling the "cunt" to "shut the fuck up about it." Prove me wrong. I'm tired of having to quote the entire thread back to you to prove you wrong. It's your turn now. You get to go back through the past posts and provide the quotes.
quote: Then why did you bring it up? Hyroglyphx tried and I gave him the same response: What censorship? Nobody was put in jail. Nobody was arrested. No charges filed. Nothing. What on earth makes you leap to "censorship"? If you didn't mean it, why did you say it?
quote: And I am pointing out that you are engaging in a non sequitur. I am not being "hyperbolic." I am being quite literal. Onifre wants there to be no consequences for when a comedian screws up. Instead, any "cunt" who doesn't like it should "shut the fuck up about it." Or is there some other meaning to "shut the fuck up about it" that I am unaware of? How many times do I have to ask this directly of you before you answer?
quote: No. What I have noticed is that I point out the consequences of your statements and you run away.
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? I guess we have such a fundamentally divergent view of the world, there really isn't any way to get through to you, is there?
quote: That isn't what onifre said. Prove me wrong. Show me the justification that onifre was complaining about her saying something factually incorrect. I'm tired of having to quote the entire thread back to you to prove you wrong. It's your turn now. You get to go back through the past posts and provide the quotes.
quote: Same problem. Onifre gave no justification that this wasn't her field of expertise. Instead he, like you, simply assumed she had never heard the segment in question. No proof to justify your claim, just bald assertion. But in reality, it appears she did actually listen to it and even went so far as to watch Patrice's act so that she would be knowledgeable about the subject. Prove me wrong. I'm tired of having to quote the entire thread back to you to prove you wrong. It's your turn now. You get to go back through the past posts and provide the quotes.
quote: Which is precisely shutting her down. Or is there some other meaning to "shut the fuck up about it" that I am unaware of? Do I really need to ask you again to stop playing dumb?
quote: Incorrect. What she said is that comedians need to realize that cruel actions are not funny and that they should not be surprised to find that there are consequences for such cruelty. Prove me wrong. I'm tired of having to quote the entire thread back to you to prove you wrong. It's your turn now. You get to go back through the past posts and provide the quotes.
quote: When did we agree that there was any comedy to be found?
quote: Only to be told to "shut the fuck up about it."
quote: And she wasn't? Sirius certainly seemed to think that her point was valid. They wouldn't have had O&A apologize otherwise. And they wouldn't have then suspended them for complaining about having to apologize, pointing out that they don't understand the gravity of the situation.
quote: Incorrect. The issue they are having is that she is complaining at all. Prove me wrong. I'm tired of having to quote the entire thread back to you to prove you wrong. It's your turn now. You get to go back through the past posts and provide the quotes.
quote: And thus, bigots get to define bigotry and there are no consequences.
quote: You know, people often say things they don't mean. Especially when they are posturing that they are taking the moral high ground. Onifre has no intention to listen to what she has to say. She's a "cunt" who needs to "shut the fuck up about it." Prove me wrong. I'm tired of having to quote the entire thread back to you to prove you wrong. It's your turn now. You get to go back through the past posts and provide the quotes.
quote: Where's your evidence that they didn't? Sirius made O&A apologize. That didn't happen out of the blue. They then suspended them for being pissy about having to apologize. You're complaining about things you have no knowledge of when actual circumstances seem to indicate otherwise.
quote: Now, you're not exactly being truthful here, are you? Are you now denying that you wrote:
Message 200 They don't listen to what happened, take someone they trust's summary of the situation and then spin it into a whole new mythos that gets everyone saying they were joking about raping a black woman. Are you now denying that you wrote:
Message 222 I merely observed that it is common for the vocal minority to speak out against something they haven't witnessed. Please, let us stop playing dumb.
quote: So what do I win?
quote: Now, you're not exactly being truthful here, are you?
quote: No, no strawman needed. Just your own words. But I keep forgetting: Your attention span is quite short, you don't even pretend to believe your own arguments, and I should not be the slightest bit surprised to find you have forgotten your own post.
quote: And yet, you have no compunction against impugning her as one to "speak out against something they haven't witnessed." Remember, Modulous: You said what you meant and you meant what you said (an elephant's faithful one hundred per-said?) So were you not being truthful then or are you not being truthful now? Or does your conviction only last so long as it's convenient to hold it?
quote: Then why did you bring it up? I know I didn't. The questioning of Ms. Ossario's having heard the bit in question and how that relates to the legitimacy of her argument was not put into play by me. That was you. And now you're backpedaling. You have your choice of failure: Were you talking out of your ass then or are you talking out of your ass now? Of course, you could be constantly talking out of your ass and that would explain everything. But that, of course, leads me back to my question you didn't really answer: What makes you think you have anything useful to say?
quote: Wrong.
quote: Indeed. And where is your evidence that he wasn't being serious?
quote: Yes, I listened and was he? Really?
quote: The part where you didn't mean it. We've been through this before.
quote: Indeed. And you shouldn't.
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2008 Dec;34(12):1613-26. Epub 2008 Oct 1. The other side of we: when outgroup members express common identity.Gmez A, Dovidio JF, Huici C, Gaertner SL, Cuadrado I. Social and Organizational Psychology Department, Universidad Nacional de Educacin a Distancia, Madrid, Spain. agomez@psi.uned.es AbstractPrevious research on the common ingroup identity model has focused on how one's representations of members of the ingroup and outgroup influence intergroup attitudes. Two studies reported here investigated how learning how others, ingroup or outgroup members, conceive of the groups within a superordinate category affects intergroup bias and willingness to engage in intergroup contact. Across both studies, high school students who learned that other ingroup members categorized students at both schools within the common identity of "students" showed less intergroup bias in evaluations and greater willingness for contact. However, consistent with the hypothesized effects of identity threat, when participants read that outgroup members saw the groups within the superordinate category, they exhibited a relatively negative orientation, except when ingroup members also endorsed a superordinate identity (Study 1). This result occurred even when the relative status of the groups was manipulated (Study 2). PMID: 18832337 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Hmmm...it would seem that creating a sense of "other" results in prejudicial attitudes.
Arch Sex Behav. 2007 Jun;36(3):403-22. Predictors of sexual coercion against women and men: a multilevel, multinational study of university students.Hines DA. Department of Criminal Justice, University of Massachusetts, Lowell, Massachusetts 01854, USA. denise_hines@uml.edu AbstractSeveral explanations have been forwarded to account for sexual coercion in romantic relationships. Feminist theory states that sexual coercion is the result of male dominance over women and the need to maintain that dominance; however, studies showing that women sexually coerce men point towards weaknesses in that theory. Some researchers have, therefore, suggested that it is the extent to which people view the other gender as hostile that influences these rates. Furthermore, much research suggests that a history of childhood sexual abuse is a strong risk factor for later sexual victimization in relationships. Few researchers have empirically evaluated the first two explanations and little is known about whether sexual revictimization operates for men or across cultures. In this study, hierarchical linear modeling was used to investigate whether the status of women and adversarial sexual beliefs predicted differences in sexual coercion across 38 sites from around the world, and whether sexual revictimization operated across genders and cultures. Participants included 7,667 university students from 38 sites. Results showed that the relative status of women at each site predicted significant differences in levels of sexual victimization for men, in that the greater the status of women, the higher the level of forced sex against men. In addition, differences in adversarial sexual beliefs across sites significantly predicted both forced and verbal sexual coercion for both genders, such that greater levels of hostility towards women at a site predicted higher levels of forced and verbal coercion against women and greater levels of hostility towards men at a site predicted higher levels of forced and verbal coercion against men. Finally, sexual revictimization occurred for both genders and across all sites, suggesting that sexual revictimization is a cross-gender, cross-cultural phenomenon. Results are discussed in terms of their contributions to the literature, limitations of the current study, and suggestions for future research. PMID: 17333324 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] So it would seem that attitudes regarding the sexes have an impact upon sexual coercion.
J Interpers Violence. 2010 Jan 11. [Epub ahead of print] Stop Blaming the Victim: A Meta-Analysis on Rape Myths.Suarez E, Gadalla TM. University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. AbstractAlthough male rape is being reported more often than before, the majority of rape victims continue to be women. Rape myths-false beliefs used mainly to shift the blame of rape from perpetrators to victims-are also prevalent in today's society and in many ways contribute toward the pervasiveness of rape. Despite this, there has been limited consideration as to how rape prevention programs and policies can address this phenomenon, and there is no updated information on the demographic, attitudinal, or behavioral factors currently associated with rape myths. This research aimed to address this gap by examining the correlates of rape-myths acceptance (RMA) in published studies. A total of 37 studies were reviewed, and their results were combined using meta-analytic techniques. Overall, the findings indicated that men displayed a significantly higher endorsement of RMA than women. RMA was also strongly associated with hostile attitudes and behaviors toward women, thus supporting feminist premise that sexism perpetuates RMA. RMA was also found to be correlated with other "isms," such as racism, heterosexism, classism, and ageism. These findings suggest that rape prevention programs and policies must be broadened to incorporate strategies that also address other oppressive beliefs concurrent with RMA. Indeed, a renewed awareness of how RMA shapes societal perceptions of rape victims, including perceptions of service providers, could also reduce victims' re-victimization and enhance their coping mechanisms. PMID: 20065313 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] OK, so those who have a hostile attitude toward women seem to have screwed up views about rape. But this is probably what you really want to see:
J Interpers Violence. 2009 Dec 30. [Epub ahead of print] Exposure to Sexist Humor and Rape Proclivity: The Moderator Effect of Aversiveness Ratings.Romero-Snchez M, Durn M, Carretero-Dios H, Megas JL, Moya M. University of Granada, Granada, Spain. AbstractThe aim of this study is to explore the effect of exposure to sexist humor about women on men's self-reported rape proclivity. Earlier studies have shown that exposure to this type of humor increases rape proclivity and that funniness responses to jokes are a key element to consider. However, the role of aversiveness responses has not been studied. In a between-group design, 109 male university students are randomly exposed to sexist or nonsexist jokes. Participants are asked to rate the jokes according to their degree of funniness and aversiveness. Participants' levels of hostile and benevolent sexism were also measured. Results about the relationship between sexist attitudes and sexist humor and the relationship between sexist attitudes and rape proclivity are consistent with those of earlier studies. However, exposure to sexist humor affects rape proclivity only when aversiveness shown to this type of humor is low. The results are discussed in the light of the prejudiced norm theory. PMID: 20042541 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] Hmmm...those who don't find sexist jokes inappropriate are more inclined to rape when exposed to sexist humor. And more:
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2008 Feb;34(2):159-70. Epub 2007 Dec 4. More than "just a joke": the prejudice-releasing function of sexist humor.Ford TE, Boxer CF, Armstrong J, Edel JR. Department of Psychology, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC 28723, USA. tford@email.wcu.edu AbstractThe results of two experiments supported the hypothesis that, for sexist men, exposure to sexist humor can promote the behavioral release of prejudice against women. Experiment 1 demonstrated that hostile sexism predicted the amount of money participants were willing to donate to a women's organization after reading sexist jokes but not after reading nonhumorous sexist statements or neutral jokes. Experiment 2 showed that hostile sexism predicted the amount of money participants cut from the budget of a women's organization relative to four other student organizations upon exposure to sexist comedy skits but not neutral comedy skits. A perceived local norm of approval of funding cuts for the women's organization mediated the relationship between hostile sexism and discrimination against the women's organization. PMID: 18056796 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] So exposure to sexist humor increases acts of sexism. Now, you do know about PubMed, yes?
quote: You mean Sirius employed them to encourage sexual assault? Why don't I believe that? Instead, I think they employed them to be "edgy," but not so much so that the advertisers would get pissed. Remember, O&A were suspended not for the joke but for whining about their bosses on the air.
quote: Huh? Isn't it obvious why an employer might feel the desire to do something about their on-air talent badmouthing the employer?
quote: Irrelevant. They decided to voice their concern on air. Thus, there is no surprise to find the employer shutting that down.
quote: That's because you are repeating your refuted claim. If you want a new response, you need to come up with a new justification.
quote: Incorrect. Instead, we have you making a claim, me refuting it, and you ignoring it all to repeat your original refuted claim. Repetition of a false claim doesn't make it any less false or make the refutation invalid. I'll keep responding the same way to the same points until you come up with something new.
quote: Indeed, but it only goes to prove my point: Onifre (and Hyroglyphx) can't seem to talk to me or about me without broadcasting their obsession with my sex life. They could have responded to the plain meaning of what I said. After all, it's not like my phrasing was so completely beyond the pale that it was a nonsensical. "Wave your dick" is a common phrase to refer to posturing. As previously mentioned, I could have substituted "thump your chest" without any change in meaning and it would have been passed right on by. Onifre and I both talked about "pricks" without any incident, so clearly there is no problem with recognizing references to a penis as being something other than a comment about sexual activity. [See...if you want a new response, you have to come up with a new justification and not repeat one that's already been refuted.] The fact that they fell for it is not my problem.
quote: Huh? I wasn't using humor at all. I was referring to posturing.
quote: (*chuckle*) Yeah, you keep believing that. No, what came out was a detailed takedown of your sloppy analysis, showing how you weren't paying attention, were playing dumb, and contradicted yourself.
quote: And I pointed out that it would be ludicrous to conclude so, asking you to please not follow your usual tack of shooting the wrong party.
quote: Um...you do realize that the question of "how can we tell" can only be ascertained by "explaining why I said what I said," yes? We then get to analyze whether or not what I intended was reflected in what was said, etc., etc. And you wonder why I keep asking you to please stop playing dumb. You wonder why I have to always consider the possibility that yes, you are that stupid.
quote: Incorrect. A poster makes an insult about his speculations of my sexuality. Can we please stop playing dumb?
quote: Incorrect. Again, these posts are not made in a vacuum. This is not the first time onifre has made disparaging comments about me and attempting to insult me by insinuating that I'm gay. I even predict that that's precisely what he'll do and I'm right.
quote: Incorrect. I imply that he is homophobic and I turn it around by insinuating that the reason he cannot help but have a fantasy of sex whenever he thinks of me is indicative of him being gay. After all, I'm not the one who keeps on bringing up the other's sex life. Despite my repeated protestations to him that I will not fuck him, he continually goes on and on about his visions of what I do with my penis.
quote: Incorrect. The coward realizes he's been played but being too much of a chickenshit to just let it go, decides to try again. When he realizes that he's in over his head, he falls back on the only thing he can think of: Call him a "fag." I've had his number for a long time.
quote: (*chuckle*) Yeah, because it isn't like I go overboard in quoting people. No, my posts are devoid of any actual words of the people I respond to. I make it all up.
quote: I've already told you repeatedly: Stop playing dumb and start paying attention.
quote: Incorrect. What you were directly told was to examine what you were doing and compare it to the results you claimed you wanted to achieve:
crashfrog writes: Think it through. Keeping the forum from degrading into a flamewar is a good goal. It's what we want you to do. Is that what your actions are doing? Think it through. Do you think that you, Percy, and Moose can ever be cruel enough, capricious enough, and suspend enough people unfairly that people will stop complaining openly about you being cruel, capricious, and unfair? In the history of despotism, has that ever worked? Think it through. In short: Did it ever occur to you that perhaps you were wrong? What would it take to convince you that you were wrong? If the collapse of the board isn't sufficient for you to consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, your actions were not the best ones to take, what would be?
quote: That IS the issue at hand: Your repeated inability to pay attention to what is happening and your penchant for coming down on the one responding to the outrageous commenter rather than one who started it, all the while playing dumb.
quote: Now, you're not exactly being truthful here, are you?
quote: Huh? I never used homosexuality as an insult. Onifre did. You do understand that I am not onifre, yes? I used the closet as an insult. You do understand the difference between being gay and being in the closet about being gay, yes?
quote: Right...because I was the one banning people left and right for daring to contradict me.
quote: Huh? You do realize that that was a comment made by Percy regarding berberry and that I am neither of them, yes?
quote: (*chuckle*) That's hardly saying much, though. Considering the capriciousness with which the moderators here dole out their wrath, how does the fact that a moderator wasn't leapt upon by the other moderators indicate that you're a good boy? Remember, berberry was suspended not for something he did say but rather because Percy thought he might say something:
I suspended him to prevent him from saying even more things he might later come to regret When Dan Carroll pointed out that was bullshit, he got suspended, even though Percy admitted that he didn't do anything wrong:
You've not explicitly broken any rules Dan When I pointed out that was bullshit, *I* got suspended...for violating a moderator request that hadn't been made yet (the request came at post 111 though the post that supposedly violated that request was 110.) And you were...how shall we say..."less than truthful" regarding that action, pretending that I had violated a command of Phat's, though he wasn't wearing his admin hat at the time...and despite the fact that it was Minnemooseus who did the suspending specifically for violating his edict in post 111.
quote: Then turn around and look at the corpses left in your wake: Schraf, berberry, Dan, Ringo, I can go on. To use a bit of hyperbole: How many people have to die before you consider the possibility that you're doing something wrong? But that said, what good would providing evidence do? You'll only ignore it. Do I have to remind you that rather than simply going into the thread to read the posts, I had to repost the first page of a thread, going line by line to show just how inappropriate n_j was being, how the originator of the thread had to literally shout at him to stop it, before any action was engaged in? What good will evidence do? But since you ask, I'll respond with a question of my own: What evidence do you require for you to consider the possibility that you screwed up? What does it take?
quote: (*chuckle*) Yeah, you keep telling yourself that. You will note that I'm the one continually quoting you, showing you your own words contradict your later statements. And somehow I'm the one on the defensive? That's just precious.
quote: Indeed. But that's only because you are reacting the same way you always do: Lash out at the person taking the instigator down rather than focusing on the person who was causing the trouble in the first place. Consider the possibility that you screwed up...and not just in a little way but at every single turn.
quote: Bingo! Exactly as predicted. Onifre engages in homophobia and somehow I'm at fault for calling him out on it. You lash out at the one defending himself against outrageous behaviour (and as Miss Manners says, outrageous behaviour calls for an outrageous response) rather than the one who started it in the first place. This is exactly what I mentioned previously and you're doing it again. I'm not asking you to suspend anybody. I'm asking you to stop playing dumb regarding what's going on. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
fuckwit (though I don't really mean "fuckwit" when I say that) responds to me:
quote: Because it is a sexual reference. Ergo, you are incapable of considering me without having thoughts of sex run through your head, fuckwit. Oh, you can pretend that you don't really mean "fag" when you say "fag," but let's stop playing dumb here, shall we? Even when you're not talking to me but rather are talking to someone else about me, you can't help but let loose the sexual fantasies running through your head. Do I really need to repost your history?
quote: (*chuckle*) This coming from the fuckwit who brought up an example of someone who claimed to be an "expert on funny" who was invited on a show to discuss a bit by O&A and then immediately said that it wasn't there to do that when shown that it didn't actually have any defense for why the bit was "funny" rather than cruel.
quote: Right, because in the comparison between the fuckwit and me, the fuckwit's the one who has been quoting everybody and I'm the one who's been saying that I don't have to actually defend points. Fuckwit should keep telling itself that.
quote: Don't be so hard on yourself. I'm sure if you stopped playing dumb and started paying attention, you could begin to get into the swing of things and forget all about your desire for me to breed your ass.
quote: I never said otherwise. It came up during the progress of the discussion. After all, Patrice declared himself to be the "expert on funny" (ooh! There's the quotation thing...that must've been you! How did the fuckwit manage to insert text into my post?) Well, a natural way to respond to that is to impeach his credibility such as, perhaps, showing that he isn't engaging in comedy but rather in cruelty and thus is hardly an "expert on funny." That would be accomplished by looking at his act and showing that it isn't very helpful to ask a sexist prick if someone was unfairly treated as a sexist prick.
quote: I guess that makes you the fag and the fuckwit the same person because the fuckwit was the only one who said that. I know I never did. Prove me wrong. Show me where I said that Patrice was there to defend his own jokes. I'm tired of having to quote the entire thread back the fuckwit you to prove it wrong. It's its turn now. It gets to go back through the past posts and provide the quotes. Instead, I always said that he was there to defend O&A. So much for that "fact," fuckwit.
quote: Why not? Clearly something akin to her opinion affected the show for they were made to apologize.
quote: Says who, fuckwit? Clearly Sirius management shares it. Are you saying Sirius is owned by NOW? The flip side of that is that Patrice's opinion, while important to him, cannot affect Sirius management. That is one person's opinion, he does not speak for anyone else but himself (despite his protestation that he is the "expert on funny"), and thus he comes off as a self-righteous shit with an agenda. So much for that "fact," fuckwit.
quote: Nobody ever denied this. In fact, I was the one that brought this very point up. But the fact that cruel people find cruel actions to be funny doesn't mean they are comedic. So much for that "fact," fuckwit.
quote: But you just said that if you laugh at something, it's comedy, even if it may only be so to you. Well, which is it? If I laugh at cruelty inflicted upon you, does that make it comedy rather than cruelty? So much for that "fact," fuckwit.
quote: But that isn't exactly true, now is it, fuckwit? Untitled(Message 179) Gender and Humor | Coffee House | |
This had to do with that lady thinking she knows what's right and wrong to say on the air because she feels she can speak for the public. ... If you don't like what O & A say on THEIR show then change the station - especially on satellite. But more important, who the (curse word*) are you to say there is a line to be crossed? That's why jokes are considered "wrong to say," because people think their feelings mean something to the rest of us. ... But when the market speaks, as in the case with Howard Stern and Opie & Anthony, and people say they like the show and listen, then who are you or anyone else to think your opinion or taste in humor matters? This is a free speech issue within the context of O & A's show and them being free to do and say whatever they feel is funny on THEIR show over satellite radio. Her taste in humor, or anyone elses, shouldn't interfere with that. |
Again who cares what she considers funny on a radio show, change the channel and stop being the PC police. ... Why is this PC cunt making an issue of it when all anyone has to do is change the station? ... There are no consequences in this case, what there is is bitchy, whinny, PC cops trying to make themselves relevant by grasping to anything anyone says and making an issue of it. That's not a consequence to what Patrice or O & A said, it's an annoyance. ... She heard something, probably second hand because I'M SURE she's not listening to O & A on a regular basis, then SHE decide to make an issue of it. ... She's a person with no life who pretends to care about what the public should be listening to, but she has her own agenda and is clinging to anything she can to make a name for herself. ... The audience of the O & A show will decide if they care to listen, not some PC cunt who heard about it second hand and decide she would make an issue of it. ... People are getting outraged over WORDS. Its weak and pathetic. Change the station and get on with your pathetic life. ... So your opinion doesn't matter. ... You are just someone who heard what he said and got offended, so fine, sorry your feelings go hurt but heres what you do, don't watch Patrice or listen to O & A. Problem solved. But I like them, I also like Patrice. Who are you to tell me different? ... Who are you to tell them they can't enjoy it? ... And if there is an audience of people that love to watch you perform, then no one elses opinion matters. ... everyone else who doesn't listen to them should shut the fuck up about it. ... she's just some idiot trying to make a name for herself by going after some one like O & A because they have so much recognition. ... And those who don't like it can just not listen to it or watch performances by Patrice. Its that simple, change the station and get on with your pathetic, uninteresting lives and leave comedy to the comedians. ... But don't tell others what they should and shouldn't find funny or listen to. |
quote:
and gets most of the info about the show second hand
quote:
Even if she was a huge fan of the show, that still leaves the other million/plus listeners who do enjoy it.
quote:
Again, while I will listen to it and respect her for it
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 230 by onifre, posted 06-07-2010 1:27 PM | onifre has replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 240 by onifre, posted 06-28-2010 5:01 PM | Rrhain has not replied |
Message 234 of 269 (566759)
06-26-2010 8:17 PM |
Reply to: Message 232 by Rrhain 06-26-2010 1:22 PM |
|
quote:
You only care about the "intended" audience.Ergo, bigots get to define bigotry.
quote:
Mod Says: She isn't the intended audience
Rrhain replies: Irrelevant. Bigots don't get to define bigotry.
quote:
He wants to be able to spout any vile thought that crosses his mind without there being any consequences to what he's saying.
quote:
There we go again with the idea that people should be free from consequences for their actions.
quote:
How dare anybody point out that actions have consequences!You want the right to be a prick without facing the consequences of being one.
quote:
You want to be able to spout any vile thought that crosses your mind without there being any consequences to what you're saying.
quote:
You're just trying to legitimize the position that you should be free from the consequences of your actions.
quote:
..he wants to be able to pretend that he understands that actions have consequences, but he doesn't want to have to live up to that principle
quote:
Oh, that's right, you don't want to have any consequences to your actions.
quote:
You want to act without consequence.
quote:
Instead, onifre wants to hide behind whines of censorship as if accepting consequences for one's statements is beyond the pale.
quote:
He doesn't want there to be any consequences.
quote:
Instead, you want to be able to say anything you want without consequences.
quote:
I do what I think is funny and genuine. If its funny, then the audience will be there to listen, if it is not funny, then no one will be there.
quote:
Instead, onifre wants to hide behind whines of censorship as if accepting consequences for one's statements is beyond the pale.
quote:
This is one person's opinion, she does not speak for anyone else but herself, and thus she comes off as a self rightious cunt with an agenda.
quote:
No. I definitely mean it. I really do want to have filthy perverted and ludicrous sex with Sheridan Smith.
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 232 by Rrhain, posted 06-26-2010 1:22 PM | Rrhain has replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 235 by Rrhain, posted 06-27-2010 5:32 AM | Modulous has replied |
Message 235 of 269 (566773)
06-27-2010 5:32 AM |
Reply to: Message 234 by Modulous 06-26-2010 8:17 PM |
|
quote:
So, his quote does not prove what you claimed it proved - it was his post - and others like it - that you claim proves that.
quote:
Yeah I did. I came to a different conclusion than you. But to you, if someone comes to a different conclusion they must be either 'stupid' or has a memory problem or a reading problem. It couldn't possibly be a different mind, processing different information in a different way and coming to a different conclusion could it?
quote:
And yet onifre has not argued from a premise that people can say what they like without consequences - you just think he has - but your support for this is very lacking.
quote:
That proves you are arguing that onifre wants a world without consequences.
quote:
One of the consequences of going on Fox News and being Outraged, and asking Won't Someone Please Think of The Children - is that people will say 'shut the fuck up and change the channel.'It seems you want to live in a consequence free world.
quote:
So when it's a non sequitur when applied to you - why does it follow with onifre?
quote:quote:
Then why did you bring it up? ... What on earth makes you leap to "censorship"?Because you mentioned it to me first:
quote:
onifre has given an argument as to why he thinks she should shut the fuck up.
quote:
Which is different than the claim I was talking about.
quote:
We disagree with what 'shutting someone down' means, that's all - why are you being so unnecessarily hostile?
quote:
She said that the violent images put out to women were 'uncalled for'. I think that means she thinks they should shut the fuck up. She said she didn't care if it was funny or not.
quote:
I was talking about the general vocal minority and referred it back to the specific case.
quote:
Censor sexist jokes
quote:quote:
So exposure to sexist humor increases acts of sexism.For people that are already sexist.
quote:
You can continue firing arrows at the strawman (the opponent that won't fight back). If you really want to discuss it, *Slaps Rrhain around the face with a glove* - I warn you - you'll not enjoy fighting the real deal.
quote:
I fail to see why your opinion matters here.
quote:
I was 'offended' that you would use graphic sexual imagery in order to simply make the point that you think onifre was being homophobic.
quote:
I know you like to invoke graphic sexual imagery, and it rarely seems to do you any good.
quote:
Thus proving Rrhain has no sense of humour.
quote:
And I said I did mean it
quote:
*Slaps Rrhain around the face with a glove* - you are wrong about this.
quote:
I was referring to the fact that you are bringing up an argument from years ago
quote:
Now you are claiming your quotemine was attributed to Percy when in fact your were quotemining me.
quote:
I wasn't suggesting you were 'at fault'.
quote:
If onifre kept bringing it up without your giving him reason to, you would have proven him to be the one to blame and I would have seen that clearly.
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 234 by Modulous, posted 06-26-2010 8:17 PM | Modulous has replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 236 by Modulous, posted 06-27-2010 7:14 AM | Rrhain has not replied |
(1) | |||||||||
Message 236 of 269 (566775)
06-27-2010 7:14 AM |
Reply to: Message 235 by Rrhain 06-27-2010 5:32 AM |
|
The stupid! It burns! |
What are you gonna do? Suspend me? If you really think you have a justification for your idiotic behaviour, then sweetie, honey, baby, pussycat, bring it on. |
You're right. Why I'm having such a hard time with this, I'm not sure. I'm clearly pulling the quotes from the right place, but why I am having such a hard time with the name attached to the post I'm pulling them from, I can only attribute to my own lack of rigor. |
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 235 by Rrhain, posted 06-27-2010 5:32 AM | Rrhain has not replied |
Message 237 of 269 (566872)
06-28-2010 11:29 AM |
Reply to: Message 197 by Rrhain 05-14-2010 4:56 AM |
|
By muzzling her. How amazingly hypocritical of you. |
Are you saying that if her response is respected enough that there shouldn't be any consequences for the comedian? |
How nice of you to recognize the censorship. So where is your denigration of him as "too weak to live with freedom"? You don't give a flying fuck about "censorship." You want the ability to be a sexist bigot without any response. |
I am simply pointing out that she has just as much right to try and convince the world that his idea is inappropriate and unacceptable as he does in trying to convince the world that it is funny and doesn't have the effect it is being accused of having. |
Let's not play dumb. Just because the word "dick" did not escape your lips doesn't mean you were not making reference to my sexuality. |
but I knew that if I chose a phrase that referenced a penis, you'd immediately accuse me of being gay. For someone who claims to not care, you seem to spend an awful lot of time obsessing about what I do with my dick. |
Prove me wrong: Show that you can respond to me without bringing up sexuality. |
You want them to be able to say whatever they want without any consequences for doing so. |
You talk a good game about being against censorship but then immediately say that the person speaking against the comedian needs to be silent. |
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 197 by Rrhain, posted 05-14-2010 4:56 AM | Rrhain has replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 262 by Rrhain, posted 07-02-2010 5:10 AM | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
Message 238 of 269 (566878)
06-28-2010 11:55 AM |
Reply to: Message 232 by Rrhain 06-26-2010 1:22 PM |
|
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 232 by Rrhain, posted 06-26-2010 1:22 PM | Rrhain has replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 263 by Rrhain, posted 07-02-2010 5:32 AM | New Cat's Eye has not replied |
Message 239 of 269 (566927)
06-28-2010 4:58 PM |
Reply to: Message 231 by Rrhain 06-26-2010 7:10 AM |
|
quote:
No, I agree that he could have meant that, but he didn't say it!
—Oni
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 231 by Rrhain, posted 06-26-2010 7:10 AM | Rrhain has not replied |
Message 240 of 269 (566929)
06-28-2010 5:01 PM |
Reply to: Message 233 by Rrhain 06-26-2010 1:54 PM |
|
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 233 by Rrhain, posted 06-26-2010 1:54 PM | Rrhain has not replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 241 by Rahvin, posted 06-28-2010 7:00 PM | onifre has replied |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024