Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gender and Humor
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 226 of 269 (563738)
06-06-2010 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Rrhain
06-06-2010 11:23 AM


Gender, humour and cruelty
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 point is that no one "laid a turd,"
The fact that there was a segment on a television show that discussed it proves that point wrong.
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:
"As long as you don't hurt nobody." This coming from a guy that POPS old ladies in the head.
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:
I find your casual homophobia offensive. Time and again you project some kind of homosexual intent on your debate opponents as if it were some kind of retort to suggest they might be gay for you.
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:
He who the ox to wrath has moved
Shall never be by woman loved.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Rrhain, posted 06-06-2010 11:23 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by dronestar, posted 06-07-2010 11:13 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 232 by Rrhain, posted 06-26-2010 1:22 PM Modulous has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 792 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 227 of 269 (563744)
06-06-2010 5:22 PM


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: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 228 of 269 (563911)
06-07-2010 10:02 AM


Moderator Request: Please Stay On Topic
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.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 229 of 269 (563924)
06-07-2010 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Modulous
06-06-2010 4:54 PM


gender, humor, and gay slurs?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Modulous, posted 06-06-2010 4:54 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 230 of 269 (563959)
06-07-2010 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Rrhain
06-05-2010 6:36 AM


Rrhain and his loud Harley...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Rrhain, posted 06-05-2010 6:36 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Rrhain, posted 06-26-2010 1:54 PM onifre has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 231 of 269 (566718)
06-26-2010 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by onifre
06-06-2010 11:57 AM


onifre responds to me:
quote:
Can you follow what we're talking about?
Yes. Can you? Remember, it was your source. Did you actually listen to it before you posted it?
quote:
What I'm saying is that he wasn't there to defend HIMSELF or a joke HE SAID.
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:
So was Homeless Charlie just an act...nothing but bluster.
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:
He didn't mean it. It was part of a radio bit. It was meant as a joke.
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:
No, I agree that he could have meant that, but he didn't say it!
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:
so you're just wasting your time speculating.
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:
doing a bit about raping Rice may be funny.
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:
It was a radio bit, he didn't mean he actually wanted to rape her. It was done as a joke.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by onifre, posted 06-06-2010 11:57 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by onifre, posted 06-28-2010 4:58 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 232 of 269 (566735)
06-26-2010 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Modulous
06-06-2010 4:54 PM


Modulous responds to me:
quote:
And again with the long posts. 8,000 words including quotes? Really?
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:
You complained I wasn't answering your questions.
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:
No, why would I be so stupid?
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:
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."
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:
What makes me think I have anything useful to say? My brain.
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:
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.
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:
Fine - is this consensus, majority vote, what?
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:
Is that OK?
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:
It was only a few posts ago, but that's still 20,000 words
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:
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.
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:
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.
(*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:
You have two people you think haven't, but that still isn't close to the entire audience.
Irrelevant. If even only one can justify the claim, then that's sufficient.
quote:
So how can you conclude that talking about it on Fox is proof that a turd was dropped?
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:
Or are you just taking the position what they did/said was absolutely unjustifiable?
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:
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."
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:
She isn't the intended audience
Irrelevant. Bigots don't get to define bigotry. That O&A thought they were being funny doesn't mean they actually were.
quote:
You assert onifre wants to live in a world with no consequences because he is apparently arguing against some consequences.
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:
I am asking you are there any consequences to telling a bad joke that you might disagree with?
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 are being paranoid. I can only assure you I am discussing in good faith here.
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:
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?
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:
Does this mean you want to live in a consequence free world?
Non sequitur. Please rephrase.
quote:
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?
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:
But all you have is onifre arguing against some consequences. Not all. He even advocates some consequences.
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:
I am not saying there was something tantamount to censorship that occurred.
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:
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.
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:
Have you noticed that you take my questions and turn them into statements of belief on my part?
No. What I have noticed is that I point out the consequences of your statements and you run away.
quote:
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.
(*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:
It's calling for someone to not say things which aren't true
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:
which are unjustified out of the field of expertise.
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:
But onifre has not shut her down, he has just said she should 'shut up'.
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:
Which is essentially what she was saying to comedians that offend some people.
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:
So is she shutting down comedy now?
When did we agree that there was any comedy to be found?
quote:
She did.
Only to be told to "shut the fuck up about it."
quote:
And she made out she was speaking for the people.
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:
I think the issue they are having is that they don't believe she does. So she should shut up saying that she does.
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:
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.
And thus, bigots get to define bigotry and there are no consequences.
quote:
just as he as expressed that he will listen to what she has to say.
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:
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.
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:
I have no idea if she heard it or not. Nor have I said if she has or not.
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:
I would be surprised if you can find anything about me saying I KNOW that Ms. Ossorio specifically didn't hear it.
So what do I win?
quote:
And I'm not playing dumb by the way.
Now, you're not exactly being truthful here, are you?
quote:
I said what I meant and I meant what I said. Don't add bits in there in an attempt to strawman me, thanks.
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:
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.
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:
My argument does not rely on knowing any of these things about her.
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:
but that should settle that, right?
Wrong.
quote:
You wanted to analyse the humour? Hyperbole.
Indeed. And where is your evidence that he wasn't being serious?
quote:
Homeless Charlie was quite the master employing it for comic effect, as you probably know from having listened to the show right?
Yes, I listened and was he? Really?
quote:
Was I expressing a desire to rape? If the two are different, how?
The part where you didn't mean it. We've been through this before.
quote:
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.
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
Abstract
Previous 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
Abstract
Several 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.
Abstract
Although 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.
Abstract
The 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
Abstract
The 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:
If the employers employed them to encourage offensive behaviour then the employers should be the ones accepting the consequences
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:
Though there might be something to be said as to why the employer felt the need to do that.
Huh? Isn't it obvious why an employer might feel the desire to do something about their on-air talent badmouthing the employer?
quote:
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?
Irrelevant. They decided to voice their concern on air. Thus, there is no surprise to find the employer shutting that down.
quote:
You are just constantly repeating your defence.
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:
Because it's very important that you know that I understand that it was justified.
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:
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.
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:
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.
Huh? I wasn't using humor at all. I was referring to posturing.
quote:
That resulted in an outpouring of defensiveness on your part.
(*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:
I pointed out it could be seen as offensive that's all.
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:
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.
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:
A comedian makes a joke about how often you use penis metaphors
Incorrect. A poster makes an insult about his speculations of my sexuality. Can we please stop playing dumb?
quote:
and you take that as homophia
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:
and imply that since he is homophobic he must want to have sex with you.
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:
The comedian, having been heckled realizes he's hit a comedy gold pot
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:
Yeah - I do condescend people I feel are confusing their beliefs about their discussion partners (condescending neh?) with what the person actually is saying.
(*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:
what would you propose would be a better way to deal with it?
I've already told you repeatedly:
Stop playing dumb and start paying attention.
quote:
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.
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:
Now that you have completed you ad hominem attack how about you address the relevant issues at hand?
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:
The humility is real, by the way.
Now, you're not exactly being truthful here, are you?
quote:
All of this because I said I was offended at your using homosexuality as an insult
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:
Fortunately, I'm not as big a prick as you
Right...because I was the one banning people left and right for daring to contradict me.
quote:
so I'm not going start making recriminations against your behaviour from an argument years ago (are you sure you aren't a woman?)
Huh? You do realize that that was a comment made by Percy regarding berberry and that I am neither of them, yes?
quote:
I've never been suspended for even a day from this site.
(*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:
I gave the answer at the time: evidence.
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:
I realize you are in defensive mode.
(*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:
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.
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:
How about you stop talking to onifre, and see if he hounds you mercilessly about the issue.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Modulous, posted 06-06-2010 4:54 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Modulous, posted 06-26-2010 8:17 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 238 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-28-2010 11:55 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 233 of 269 (566737)
06-26-2010 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by onifre
06-07-2010 1:27 PM


fuckwit (though I don't really mean "fuckwit" when I say that) responds to me:
quote:
How is me calling you a fag mean that I want to have sex with you?
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:
But... in this thread you couldn't be more wrong.
(*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:
when you're backed up against a wall of evidence against you
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:
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.
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:
Patrice was not on the show to defend himself or a joke he did
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:
(The fag continues to say that Patrice was there to defend a joke he personally did - the fag is an idiot)
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:
The woman's opinion, while important to her, cannot affect the O&A show.
Why not? Clearly something akin to her opinion affected the show for they were made to apologize.
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.
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:
If you laugh at something, it's comedy, to you. Period. You can break it down in retrospect and claim that it was more cruel than comedic or whatever, but that is irrelevant after the fact. When it happened, you laughed your ass off and thus for that split second it was comedy TO YOU.
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:
A cruel action is not part of the comedy genre, that I can agree with.
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 I have repeatedly said that I don't care if there are consequences
But that isn't exactly true, now is it, fuckwit?
Untitled
(Message 179)
Thread 14430:Gender and Humor
Forum 14:Coffee House
', 500, event)" onMouseOut=" hb.off(0)" onMouseMove="mouseTracker(event)">Message 179 :
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.
Untitled
(Message 181)Thread 14430:Gender and HumorForum 14:Coffee House', 500, event)" onMouseOut=" hb.off(0)" onMouseMove="mouseTracker(event)">Message 181
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.
Yeah...the fuckwit doesn't care. That's why there are little flecks of spittle as it screams at her to "shut the fuck up about it."
So much for that "fact," fuckwit.
quote:
and gets most of the info about the show second hand
You know, I keep asking you this and you have yet to explain:
And you know this how? You are in possession of Ms. Ossario's schedule and can pinpoint exactly when and how she came to be aware of what happened?
So much for that "fact," fuckwit.
quote:
Even if she was a huge fan of the show, that still leaves the other million/plus listeners who do enjoy it.
Right, because bigots get to decide what bigotry is.
quote:
Again, while I will listen to it and respect her for it
Now, you're not exactly being truthful there, are you, fuckwit?
[Hint to Modulous: Three wrongs don't make a right. Think it through. Who is the instigator here?]
And I ride a Drifter, fuckwit.

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.
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

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 234 of 269 (566759)
06-26-2010 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Rrhain
06-26-2010 1:22 PM


Rrhain's short fall from grace
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?
My brain. I already answered that. You replied,
That's not an answer
Well clearly it is. It just doesn't satisfy you. I'm not sure any answer would, I'm afraid.
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."
Wow - the superpowers are awesome. I thought he just said "Christ dude, did you leave any thoughts out of this post? Here we go with the long posts again". I didn't see anything in there about him being annoyed that you took his post seriously and that you should just accept his argument. I think you just read that into it, rather reading meaning out of it.
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.
That was easy wasn't it? So, his quote does not prove what you claimed it proved - it was his post - and others like it - that you claim proves that.
You'll even absue your powers as moderator in your outbursts.
You ignored my repeated polite requests, in Private Messages and in this thread. You ignored Percy's suggestion to take it to another thread. *Slaps Rrhain around the face with a glove*.
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.
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?
Incidentally, if I am stupid - I'm not playing dumb.
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 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.
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.
Classy, Rrhain.
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.
If you ever said the first part of that conjunction - I don't remember disagreeing with it.
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."
Incorrect. Please provide justification for this claim.
You said:
quote:
You only care about the "intended" audience.
Ergo, bigots get to define bigotry.
The intended audience is the regular listeners of the radio show. The ad revenue creators. For some reason, you think the 'intended audience' is 'bigots'. In your next paragraph you say the same thing, knowing how I was defining 'intended audience':
quote:
Mod Says: She isn't the intended audience
Rrhain replies: Irrelevant. Bigots don't get to define bigotry.
See?
You assert onifre wants to live in a world with no consequences because he is apparently arguing against some consequences.
Incorrect. Please provide justification for this claim.
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
(that ones about Patrice)
quote:
Oh, that's right, you don't want to have any consequences to your actions.
quote:
You want to act without consequence.
(To hyro)
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.
That proves you are arguing that onifre wants a world without consequences. Your support for those statements relies on the fact that they are arguing against some consequences (the specific consequence in question seems to be something along the lines of a disproportionate knee-jerk response without sufficient justification) in spite of them arguing in favour of others.
I am asking you are there any consequences to telling a bad joke that you might disagree with?
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.
No goal post movement. I have maintained that there are some consequence you disagree with but that doesn't mean you want to live without consequences.
Remember, we're responding to the fact that onifre specifically told the "cunt" to "shut the fuck up about it."
OK. I'm not sure how that changes anything. 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.
To which you reply:
Non sequitur.
Precisely. So when it's a non sequitur when applied to you - why does it follow with onifre?
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?
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?
It means 'please stop yammering on about it'. It does not mean 'I want there to be no consequences'. I've answered your question, answer my question.
But all you have is onifre arguing against some consequences. Not all. He even advocates some consequences.
Incorrect. What I have is onifre telling the "cunt" to "shut the fuck up about it."
Prove me wrong.
So - that's some consequences (eg her yammering on about it, kicking up a fuss, saying that she represents a larger group than she does etc), onifre has given an argument as to why he thinks she should shut the fuck up. And you are using that argument to conclude he wants to live without consequences.
Here are some consequences he has advocated:
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.
The consequences of a comic not being funny is that people don't pay to see their act.
QED
I am not saying there was something tantamount to censorship that occurred.
Then why did you bring it up? ... What on earth makes you leap to "censorship"?
Because you mentioned it to me first:
quote:
Instead, onifre wants to hide behind whines of censorship as if accepting consequences for one's statements is beyond the pale.
So I thought "I'll grant Rrhain's contention that onifre thinks there is censorship...what if OnifreRrhain was right - would you still be disagreeing with him?"
I am not being "hyperbolic." I am being quite literal. Onifre wants there to be no consequences for when a comedian screws up.
Which is different than the claim I was talking about. I am fairly certain that Onifre believes the consequences should be: you make no money, you have no audience, you get heckled off stage etc. So even this less hyperbolic claim than 'He doesn't want there to be any consequences.' is still wrong.
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?
It is you that seems to take it to mean something else; That there should be no consequences to screwing up.
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?
Then why are you bothering?
We disagree with what 'shutting someone down' means, that's all - why are you being so unnecessarily hostile?
It's calling for someone to not say things which aren't true
That isn't what onifre said. Prove me wrong. Show me the justification that onifre was complaining about her saying something factually incorrect.
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.
Since Ms Ossario claimed to be speaking 'for the nation' - I think he's calling on her for making a factually incorrect statement.
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.
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.
Now, you're not exactly being truthful here, are you?
I actually was. I was talking about the general vocal minority and referred it back to the specific case. Sorry that it confused you but I have explicitly stated my position, if you want to accuse me of lying or being stupid or whatever then go right ahead. I'm sure it'll lead to real productive discussion.
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.
I think you actually mistook my questions and my explanation for what I think onifre was saying as my actual position. Easy mistake to make when you create monster length posts, I'm sure.
Hmmm...it would seem that creating a sense of "other" results in prejudicial attitudes.
Agreed.
So it would seem that attitudes regarding the sexes have an impact upon sexual coercion.
Of course.
OK, so those who have a hostile attitude toward women seem to have screwed up views about rape.
No argument here.
Hmmm...those who don't find sexist jokes inappropriate are more inclined to rape when exposed to sexist humor.
Interesting one. It seems on the basis of there are two broad possible responses if we want to impact rape rates:
1. Censor sexist jokes
2. Increase society's aversion to sexism.
Given the impact number 2 would have with regards to the other paper's cited, and the impossibility of 1. I vote for more number 2 - though I appreciate you think perhaps a little toning down on sexist jokes wouldn't hurt too. As the paper says, one can find a sexist joke funny AND have an aversion to it. Indeed - aversion needs to be 'low' before it increases rape proclivity.
So exposure to sexist humor increases acts of sexism.
For people that are already sexist.
Now, you do know about PubMed, yes?
Yep - that was good stuff. The impact is that people that are sexist are more inclined towards rape if they are exposed to sexist humour.
You mean Sirius employed them to encourage sexual assault?
No, and I don't think that's what they did - as I've said previously. If you keep track of what I'm saying it might help you make sense of what I mean.
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.
Quoting doesn't mean you have understood what is being said, does it? Especially when you have difficulty quoting the right people (as demonstrated below) and you are prone to quotemining (see below).
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
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.
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?
*Slaps Rrhain around the face with a glove*.
I pointed out it could be seen as offensive that's all.
And I pointed out that it would be ludicrous to conclude so
I fail to see why your opinion matters here. Or do bigots get to decide bigotry (NO I AM NOT SAYING YOU ARE A BIGOT)? I was 'offended' that you would use graphic sexual imagery in order to simply make the point that you think onifre was being homophobic. You laid a turd.
I know you like to invoke graphic sexual imagery, and it rarely seems to do you any good. Maybe you could just make the point in a calm fashion and allow the homophobe to hang himself rather than throwing shit all over the place and having a paddy that makes you look terrible, possibly so bad that the homophobe comes across as perfectly rational and civil in comparison.
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.
Now, you're not exactly being truthful here, are you?
Thus proving Rrhain has no sense of humour. I was making a joke at my own expense you dickhead. I was trying, as I did in private messages, to lighten the mood a little. Clearly you are dead set on seeing me in a bad light and even when I agree with you - you accuse me of dishonesty.
Setup: 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.
Here - I condescendingly apologise while pointing out how brilliant I am, which has a pinch of humour to it in itself. I hammer home with the
Punchline: The humility is real, by the way.
You quote mined the punchline, and then accused me of dishonesty.
The punchline completely undermines me since I was saying that I was great and that I am humble. Hint: Read for comprehension - not for rebuttal.
The best bit is - here I was trying to demonstrate that Charlie was clearly not being serious in his comments and you weren't seeing the big picture that is Charlie. And now we I have cast iron evidence of you quote mining a joke in order to see it in the worst possible light. Classic Gold.
Was I expressing a desire to rape? If the two are different, how?
The part where you didn't mean it. We've been through this before.
And I said I did mean it:
quote:
No. I definitely mean it. I really do want to have filthy perverted and ludicrous sex with Sheridan Smith.
So am I expressing a desire to rape? The reason we've been over this is because you keep repeating that I didn't mean it, when I did.
Maybe you are just bigoted against black homeless men - thinking that when they say it they mean it and have an intention to carry it out, but when a white homeowner says it - even when he says he means it - then he couldn't possibly mean it. Hey - this stupidly throwing around of the term 'bigoted' is kind of fun.
Fortunately, I'm not as big a prick as you
Right...because I was the one banning people left and right for daring to contradict me.
*Slaps Rrhain around the face with a glove* - you are wrong about this.
so I'm not going start making recriminations against your behaviour from an argument years ago (are you sure you aren't a woman?)
Huh? You do realize that that was a comment made by Percy regarding berberry and that I am neither of them, yes?
I was referring to the fact that you are bringing up an argument from years ago (it's a common refrain in 'what is it with {insert sex}' type jokes, since I'm not sure you're all that up to speed with comedy I thought it necessary to condescend (notice I didn't the first time, though, and only did so when you got confused about what I was actually saying)), not to the Time When Mod Showed His True Colours. *Slaps Rrhain around the face with a glove*.
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
Rrhain, thanks for correcting the misattributed quote in your last post. But you've done it again. Your carelessness has you undone once more. Now you are claiming your quotemine was attributed to Percy when in fact your were quotemining me. *Slaps Rrhain around the face with a glove* - I'm sure the spanking won't hurt if getting it wrong once didn't inspire you to get it right the next time.
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?
If you want to talk about this, *Slaps Rrhain around the face with a glove*.
If you don't propose the topic laying out your case, I'll try and find the time to propose it instead. I figure that since you think that repeating yourself over and over again within the same post clarifies things, makes it more likely to be read and paid attention to I'll do likewise since my previous attempts were simply ignored.
Bingo! Exactly as predicted. Onifre engages in homophobia and somehow I'm at fault for calling him out on it.
I wasn't suggesting you were 'at fault'. That's the view of someone who is being defensive - viewing everything as an attack. It was a pragmatic solution. 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. But if you don't want to do that, fair enough. I'm sure you'll live with the consequences without complaint.
You wanna go back to exclusively discussing the topic (which is gender and humour) or the sub-topic cruelty in comedy, where is the line? Or shall we just give up?
(apologies for any entirely repeated sections, the editing went screwy and posted the entire post within the post. I think I cleaned most of it up - but I may have missed bits and may have deleted bits I shouldn't have. IF you could slim down the posts a little with some of your more salient posts I honestly think we can have a sane discussion.)

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

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 235 of 269 (566773)
06-27-2010 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Modulous
06-26-2010 8:17 PM


The stupid! It burns!
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.
And I guess that means you are so literal-minded that you cannot understand a response to a complaint about an entire post by responding in kind, making reference to his entire post?
As you say, you aren't "playing" dumb. You really are that dumb.
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?
Incorrect. The reason that I conclude that you are not approaching this discussion in an intellectually honest fashion is that right after you claim that you did read the thread, you come up with this:
If you ever said the first part of that conjunction - I don't remember disagreeing with it.
What do you mean "if I ever said"? Didn't you read the thread? I did say that. Multiple times. And yet here you are, claiming to have read the thread, completely ignorant of that fact.
So what am I supposed to make of your presentation? When someone claims to be familiar with a topic and yet shows absolutely no comprehension of the main points of said topic, what is the most reasonable conclusion regarding the one who has failed to demonstrate his command of the topic?
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.
You mean the many quotes of his that I have posted here...multiple times...don't exist? Who was the one who said:
And if there is an audience of people that love to watch you perform, then no one elses opinion matters.
And yet, you claim to have read the thread. And Modulous is an honorable man.
quote:
That proves you are arguing that onifre wants a world without consequences.
The stupid! It burns!
You are engaging in the logical error of equivocation, thinking that my discussion about being free from consequences applies to every single activity one could possibly think of, far beyond that of being called out by one's boss.
And yet, I was referring only to the concept of performers who are paid by someone else. I remember talking about stages and nickels and who's paying for what.
See, this is why I repeatedly ask you to stop playing dumb. Your quotes of me are all in the context of a performer being called out by the owner of the station and yet you seem to think I'm talking about something more universal.
See, the examples that I give are about "spouting vile thoughts" and "being a prick" and "statements." Where is your justification that I am referring to anything else other than a performer?
Be specific.
Ah, but Modulous claims he has read the thread. And Modulous is an honorable man.
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.
Huh? Where does that come from? You're trying to pull the lame argument that refusing to accept intolerance is just more intolerance. Instead, we have a scenario of a discussion specifically created to analyze a certain situation and one side does nothing but scream, "Shut the fuck up about it!"
And upon being asked to justify that stance, to explain why this was not an act of cruelty, the one having a conniption fit then explodes over the audacity of having to provide the evidence to justify his claims.
quote:
So when it's a non sequitur when applied to you - why does it follow with onifre?
Because I have provided the justification for my claims. Onifre has claimed that it isn't his responsibility to analyze the O&A joke.
quote:
quote:
Then why did you bring it up? ... What on earth makes you leap to "censorship"?
Because you mentioned it to me first:
But I wasn't the one who brought it up. Onifre and Hyroglyphx were.
But Modulous claims he has read the thread. And Modulous is an honorable man.
quote:
onifre has given an argument as to why he thinks she should shut the fuck up.
No, he hasn't. He has merely asserted that it was an act of comedy. He hasn't given any argument as to why. Conclusions are not self-justifying. He need to analyze the O&A joke and provide the reasons why it wasn't what Ms. Ossario was claiming.
But onifre repeatedly stated that he wasn't going to do so and that it wasn't his responsibility to do so.
quote:
Which is different than the claim I was talking about.
Which means I get to ask you to stop playing dumb again.
Your claim is a non sequitur as nobody, not even me, was talking about anything other than the specific scenario in which we found ourselves.
But Modulous claims to have read the thread. And Modulous is an honorable man.
quote:
We disagree with what 'shutting someone down' means, that's all - why are you being so unnecessarily hostile?
Because you're being unneccessarily dumb.
Modulous claims to have read the thread. And Modulous is an honorable man.
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.
So we shouldn't respond to acts of cruelty? When people are being cruel, we shouldn't shut them down?
There shouldn't be any consequences to actions?
Just because someone finds an act of cruelty to be funny, that doesn't make it something other than an act of cruelty. Bigots don't get to define what bigotry is.
quote:
I was talking about the general vocal minority and referred it back to the specific case.
Now, you're not exactly being truthful here, now are you? Here we go again with the false humility, the pretense of being "reasonable," all the while denying your own very words.
What "vocal minority"? How do you know? Where is your evidence?
No, you just assume that which you need to prove and damn anybody for daring to ask you for justification.
quote:
Censor sexist jokes
There's that word, "censor," again. What "censorship"? Nobody was censored. Nobody called for censorship.
quote:
quote:
So exposure to sexist humor increases acts of sexism.
For people that are already sexist.
Um, your point? Do you really think that the person who is raped can be consoled by the fact that the person was already a bigot when he got worked up to go rape someone?
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.
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.
quote:
I fail to see why your opinion matters here.
As the person who made the statement you are accusing of possibly being interpreted as homophobic, I think I get to have a say in what it was I was trying to say. Now, that doesn't mean I expressed it well, but I am infinitely more qualified to tell you what I was thinking than you are, no matter how mighty you think your mind-reading powers are.
That's why I quoted the specifics of what I said, pointing out that nowhere did I denigrate onifre's desires but rather discussed the pathetic way in which he is trying to goad another into fulfilling said desires.
You do understand the difference between denigrating something as bad and denigrating the way in which you are going about achieving as bad, yes?
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.
So now your changing your argument. Before, you were complaining that it was homophobic. Now, you're whining that it was sexually explicit.
Which is it?
quote:
I know you like to invoke graphic sexual imagery, and it rarely seems to do you any good.
(*chuckle*)
You seem to think that I am doing this to try and change onifre's homophobia. I don't have that ability. There is nothing I can say or do here that will ever change his mind.
Consider the possibility that I don't do it for him. Consider the possibility that I have no emotional investment in him, just as I don't have any in you.
Y'all simply aren't that important.
quote:
Thus proving Rrhain has no sense of humour.
Incorrect. Rather, it proves that I got the joke even more than you did. Yes, Modulous, I understood you were being sarcastic. But notice, I played dumb and look how frustrated you became.
Now, if it's so annoying to you when people play dumb to you, imagine how others feel when you play dumb to them?
quote:
And I said I did mean it
Huh? You didn't think I was talking about your desire to have sex, did you? We were talking about rape. You do understand that rape is not "having sex," yes?
quote:
*Slaps Rrhain around the face with a glove* - you are wrong about this.
You mean there were no mass bannings? Or that I was the one who did them? That you didn't rise to the defense of the moderators? Do I really need to post all of the comments made directly to you regarding your behaviour?
Sweetie, honey, baby, pussycat: Bring it on.
quote:
I was referring to the fact that you are bringing up an argument from years ago
Yes, and I was bringing it up to point out that you are behaving in exactly the same manner now as you did then when you completely failed at every turn: You're whining to me rather than to the one who is caused the trouble in the first place.
In other words, I was trying to point out that you were following a train of thought that was proven to be invalid.
It seems you still haven't learned your lesson: When A picks on B and B turns it around on A, it is inappropriate to come down on B.
Three wrongs don't make a right.
quote:
Now you are claiming your quotemine was attributed to Percy when in fact your were quotemining me.
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.
But looking back on it, that means I'm going to have to retract my retraction.
You suspended Dan Carroll for not breaking the rules.
quote:
I wasn't suggesting you were 'at fault'.
Did you or did you not say (Message 191):
I find your casual homophobia offensive. Time and again you project some kind of homosexual intent on your debate opponents as if it were some kind of retort to suggest they might be gay for you.
Oh, I'm sure you'll reply about how you were just having fun, just bantering with someone who can 'take it', it's just a game of wits. Yeah yeah i's all fun and games until someone loses an eye. Do you really think that the way we joke about homosexuality has no connection to how we treat homosexuals?
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.
And since I didn't, one wonders why you are having trouble seeing it clearly.
Ah, but Modulous says he read the thread. And Modulous is an honorable man.

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.

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

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(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!
Clearly further discussion is pointless so I won't further bother. No doubt you'll consider that vindication of everything you said - but given I've spent thousands of words and many hours trying to simply get you to understand what I am saying to no avail, I suspect writing would have the same impact as not bothering.
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.
No - I'm not going to suspend you. I'm going to show you how massively wrong you are. I'll plop the thread into Coffee House but if you'd prefer to Great Debate it, lemme know.
abe: Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?, see you there.
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.
Indeed, thanks for conceding the error again. I intend to show you in the other thread how your lack of rigor has caused you to be wrong in other ways too.
Take care,
Mod
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Rrhain, posted 06-27-2010 5:32 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 237 of 269 (566872)
06-28-2010 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Rrhain
05-14-2010 4:56 AM


More nonsense from the Rrhain Man
Your post is incredibly long, so I'll try and cut to the chase to your mental breakdown.
By muzzling her. How amazingly hypocritical of you.
Nonsense. I'm not muzzling her, I'm protesting her. She wants to get certain things taken off the air (that's censorship). Me saying that she's a stupid bitch for it is not censorship. If you can't see the critical difference then you're part of the problem.
Are you saying that if her response is respected enough that there shouldn't be any consequences for the comedian?
Modulous said it best, so I will parrot what he's said. I see this in sort of free market terms. We don't need the government intervening and threatening speech, when the market (the audience) will decide what is appropriate and what is not. If people don't like what he is saying, they will protest, just as you are. His career demands that people laugh at his jokes. If they find his material offensive, he will have to censor himself since he'll lose his fanbase. That's the consequence, without your (government) interference. Self-censorship is the only acceptable and just form of censorship.
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.
What an idiotic remark. You have no clue what censorship is, do you? Protesting is NOT censorship. Protesting IS speech. The CRITICAL DIFFERENCE (pay attention) is that she wants to take him off the air so that no one has the ability to hear what he has to say. THAT'S censorship. If you can't understand that simple principle, then you have no business masquerading yourself as a friend of Free Speech. You're as tyrannical as she is, too weak to handle freedom.
You don't like what he said? Change the fucking channel...
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.
Persuading people that his jokes are misogynistic is protesting. She crossed the threshold when she wanted to censor his material.
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.
Utter horseshit! Show me the reference I made about your sexuality before you starting talking about your dick. Are you out of your mind???
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.
What.... the..... fuck.... are...... you....... talking..... about??? Are you out of your fucking mind??? Where do you come up with this shit??? I'm seriously flabbergasted... I don't even know what to say, this is so off the wall insane.
Prove me wrong: Show that you can respond to me without bringing up sexuality.
Prove to me that you can! This isn't the first time you've mentioned your cock in an argument COMPLETELY unsolicited, and then falsely accused others of being obsessed. WTF?!?!? I think the obsession is all on your side of the table. Look, if you like to slam dudes in the ass, I really don't care. If you like big, fat, hairy chicks, I don't care. If you like midget tossing, I don't care. You really seem to have some repressed sexuality. You might want to go to the headshrinker for that, because it's clearly a huge source of discontent for you.
You want them to be able to say whatever they want without any consequences for doing so.
How many times must I repeat that consequences are fine and dandy? My sole problem is that she wants to censor people from saying what they want. I'm not talking about her protesting. I'm talking about her trying to take away the right of people to say what they want. You have the right to be offended, and so does she. What you, her, the Gestapo, and the rest of the Thought Police don't have a right to do in this fucking country, is muzzle people.
So do yourself a favor. Be offended all day long. Have a fucking cry about it for all I care. But don't censor people.
You talk a good game about being against censorship but then immediately say that the person speaking against the comedian needs to be silent.
Pure bullshit. Show me where I'm trying to make her silent.
The scary part is that you actually believe the bullshit that comes out of your mouth. That's the scariest part.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

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

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 238 of 269 (566878)
06-28-2010 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Rrhain
06-26-2010 1:22 PM


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.
From my experiences, you're usually wrong about what you think the other person is thinking. At least for me, whenever you write: "So, what you're really saying is...." whatever follows that is not what I'm really saying and you've got it all wrong.
I think you assume the worst of people in order to have them in a more debatable position.
And one huge problem with your approach is that it violates the rules of this forum: Argue the position, not the person.

The more you repeat refuted claims, the more I get to say the same thing multiple times.
"Get to"!? Why would you want to? Its stupid and annoying.

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

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 239 of 269 (566927)
06-28-2010 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Rrhain
06-26-2010 7:10 AM


Oni writes:
What I'm saying is that he wasn't there to defend HIMSELF or a joke HE SAID.
Rrhain writes:
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.
No, I won't say to "defend their joke," I didn't get that from the interviewer at all. I felt he was there to give his expert opinion on the joke and on the entire issue as it relates to censorship.
Other than that point, I agree.
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.
I have already conceded that he could have done a better job, but I still think his point was made clear - She is not in the business of funny so why is she sticking her nose in it?
Now, relax yourself for a second before you lash out into another manifesto. What I mean by "she's not in the business of funny so why is she sticking her nose in it" is not intended to mean she doesn't have the right to speak up. Anyone can speak up. Everyone has the right to be heard. Got that for now?
However, not everyone is an expert in certain fields so their opinion on the matter, while well within their right to give, is useless. My opinion on music, while important to me, doesn't mean shit since I have no experience in music.
Give your opinion, if you wish, but don't expect someone who's been in that particular field (in this case comedy) for over 20 years to value it too much.
Oni writes:
So was Homeless Charlie just an act...nothing but bluster.
Rrhain writes:
Really? Why? What is your justification that he didn't really mean it? It certainly sounded like he meant it.
Right, that's what acting and performing is supposed to do, give you the listener/viewer the sense of realism. I take the fact that it was done as a radio comedy bit to mean it was part of a comedy routinue being done on the O&A show.
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?
WTF?
No, when did I say this? I have repeatedly said that the market will judge what funny is, an audience, people. That's who says something is funny. That's why comics get on stage over and over every single night doing as many bits as they can fit into their time slot, to see if an audience finds it funny.
Oni writes:
No, I agree that he could have meant that, but he didn't say it!
Rrhain writes:
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.
Yes, he didn't say it so it is a FACT that that's NOT what he was saying.
Let us not play dumb and pretend that that wasn't precisely what he was saying. Over half of his sentences were just that.
It could be what he felt, or was thinking, or wrote in his diary, or tattooed to his cock, BUT HE DIDN'T SAY IT.
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.
And how did I respond to you? You fucking quoted it...
quote:
No, I agree that he could have meant that, but he didn't say it!
  —Oni
So you can stop parroting your original claim.
Where is your analysis showing that this particular bit of O&A's was comedic in nature?
I found it funny.
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?
Making jokes about cruel acts is funny, has always been funny, and will continue to be funny. There are many rape jokes that are hilarious, but no one has claimed that the act of committing rape is funny in and of itself.
Homeless Charlie made an attempt to be funny, it failed in the eyes of a few/many (who knows the exact numbers) but it didn't in the eyes of others, me being one of them.
My point? What makes it "funny" is not solely in the mind of the one telling the joke.
Rrhain, I can point to at least a dozen times where I have said that the audience decides what's funny.
If the audeince listening to the O&A show found the bit funny, would that be good enough for you?
But O&A did not give any indication that they were making fun of Homeless Charlie.
Do you mean Homeless Charlie the character that ever now and again is given air time to say whatever crazy thing comes out of his mind in an attempt to have fun on the air and do a bit with him? HE IS THE BIT. HOMELESS CHARLIE.
Not that what he said was a bit, HE, Homeless Charlie, like Beatle Juice on Howard Stern is the bit when he's given air time.
"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.
Opie & Anthony banter with him and egg him on, they've done it before, for a long time. Charlie knew where O&A wanted him to take the bit because, (1) they've done it in past interviews, and (2) it is O&A bring up the violent act. They set Homeless Charlie up.
It's a bit dude, and if you listened to O&A before you'd know that. That's why a lot of the listeners found it funny, including me. This is why out of context PC cunts and fags can make anything look as though it is meant one way, when it is not.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Rrhain, posted 06-26-2010 7:10 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 240 of 269 (566929)
06-28-2010 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Rrhain
06-26-2010 1:54 PM


I covered all the details about the interview in the above post, but I had to respond to this:
Oni writes:
How is me calling you a fag mean that I want to have sex with you?
Rrahin writes:
Because it is a sexual reference.
The word 'fag' is a sexual reference???
Evidence please.
- Oni

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024