Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 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
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 218 of 269 (563477)
06-05-2010 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Modulous
05-14-2010 1:44 PM


Modulous responds to me:
quote:
So what was the purpose with preceding with a quote where onifre was not being defensive but light hearted?
(*chuckle*)
"Light hearted." That's rich. See, part of the superpower of literacy is the ability to remember things that have been said before and being able to carry them into current conversations. These posts are not made in a vacuum.
quote:
You attempted to prove that by showing a single example of a person (with an associated special interest group) that was clearly not the audience.
Huh? What is this "not the audience" you speak of? Anybody who listens is the audience.
quote:
So - who gets to decide regarding turd dropping - a loud politically correct group of people - or the intended audience of millions?
Oh! You think that bigots get to decide what bigotry is! Now it makes perfect sense. Minstrel shows and blackface aren't racist because black people aren't the "intended audience." Why didn't we think of that before?
Who gets to decide? The audience does. The entire audience, not just the ones who laugh. Or are you saying that there is no such thing as a bigoted joke so long as somebody thinks its funny?
quote:
This would be like someone calling for the banning of playing Mozart on the air because someone complained about how Mozart used an offensively racist portrayal of a Moor through Monostatos.
It's something to be considered. And if there's a good response to the claim, then we have an understanding. Interesting you should point out classical music because that is precisely what goes on in discussions of Wagner. He was horrendously anti-Semitic, publishing a screed about the offensiveness of Jews. When it was republished under his own name, there were protests at the perforamnce of his work.
But in order to answer that question, we have to analyze the music, the man, and how everything fits together. "Shut up, bitch...can't you take a joke" isn't it.
quote:
I am either dumb, or you shifted the definition of 'laying a turd' between posts.
This from the man who decided that the "audience" was not the group of people who heard the joke but only the people who decided to like it. Or are you saying that there is no such thing as a bigoted joke so long as it's only told to bigots?
quote:
And if the consequences amount to censorship?
Huh? What censorship? Were O&A arrested? Put in jail? Had any charges against them laid? No? Then there was no censorship. Surely you're not implying that blowback from one's employers is "censorship," are you? Your right to free speech does not come with a right to my nickel to broadcast it.
And in case you've forgotten, they weren't fired, they were only suspended. And even then, it wasn't for the joke. Instead, it was for mouthing off about their bosses on the air.
Where is this "censorship" you are so scared of?
See...this is why I keep saying we have to analyze the joke and not just slip into, "Shut up, bitch...can't you take a joke?"
quote:
Clearly you think the consequences here are just fine, but onifre might argue differently.
Except he isn't arguing. He's calling Ms. Ossorio a "cunt."
quote:
If saying "Jesus was a fraud" could get you burned alive - do you think onifre would be merely whining if he complained about that?
And if anybody were "burned alive" or even remotely close to such a thing, you might have a point. Instead, we have a couple of talking heads on a TV program jawing at each other. Yeah, that's exactly the same.
quote:
What about Ayaan Hirsi Ali's complaint about the consequences of having one's throat slit for criticising Islam - are you suggesting she wants to live in a consequence free world?
Huh? What on earth does that have anything to do with what we're talking about? Looks like we've got a variation of Godwin's Law here. You clearly don't understand not only the problem of religious violence but also your own argument if you think what happened to O&A has any similarity to being beheaded.
quote:
So if the consequences for telling a joke that a loud enough minority complain about is losing one's livelihood... that might be something worth commenting on.
Yep. But it requires analyzing the joke in order to determine if that's appropriate.
Points to remember before you respond:
1) Your right to free speech does not come with a right to someone else's nickel to broadcast it.
2) I have not said one word about whether or not O&A's joke was funny. I've simply pointed out that we need to discuss the actual joke in question in order to determine if they were engaging in comedy (even if it fell flat) or cruelty. "Shut up, bitch...can't you take a joke?" is not discussing the joke.
3) Bigots don't get to define bigotry.
quote:
I think onifre's position is that the context being 'comedy' is sufficiently important.
If that were what he was arguing, then perhaps, but he isn't arguing any such thing. I'm trying to get him to defend the joke as comedy and he's running away screaming that it isn't his burden to do so. The fact that somebody claims "it was just a joke" doesn't mean it was. Sometimes people don't realize just what it is they have said and the consequences of what they have done. But in order to figure out just what was going on, you have to analyze the joke and onifre has steadfastly refused to do so.
quote:
Except he hasn't. At all.
You know the terrible thing about the Internet? People's words get saved:
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.
...
Her taste in humor, or anyone elses, shouldn't interfere with that.
Message 181
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.
...
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.
...
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.
The audience of their show loves them, again, by the millions listen to them. If they are ok with it then that is the end of it. 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.
Message 199
Analyzing the joke? Why? I found it funny, she didn't. Ok. Who gives a fuck? There, I've analyzed it.
...
BUT, if the people listening to the O&A show weren't offended and found the show funny, or the bit funny, this woman's personal opinion should not affect anything. Sure, I'll listen to her, and she'll listen to me. But in the end, neither of our opinons should affect anything.
And those are just the comments specifically about her. He went on and on about how anybody who doesn't like it should just go away. You have to pay attention and read what people write before responding, Modulous. It makes the conversations go that much better when you keep up.
quote:
She thinks the comedians should shut up. Onifre thinks she should shut up. You are condemning onifre for responding to her responding to them. Why?
Because she is referring to something specific while he's just whining. Her position is that things like the stunt O&A pulled have real negative effects on real people. Onifre simply wants to ignore it all.
She's willing to discuss why (though she didn't do a very good job). He wants to shut the conversation down completely.
You do see the difference, yes?
quote:
It is my view that onifre is a 'free market' comedian.
No, he's a protectionist comedian. Those who don't appreciate the joke aren't allowed to talk to anybody else lest they convince others that it wasn't funny. Heaven forbid there should be consequences for failure.
quote:
Why go chicken little when a comic makes a comedic error (if such an error occurred)?
Huh? What "chicken little"? O&A weren't fired. And the trouble they did get into had nothing to do with the joke.
But since you brought it up, don't you think providing a platform for a person who is seriously advocating sexual violence against someone is disconcerting at best? And then to suggest increasing the assault is problematic? If you were the owner of a broadcast network, wouldn't you be concerned when your on-air talent is suggesting that somebody should be raped and beaten? Wouldn't you want to examine the specifics and determine exactly what it is that happened so that you could respond appropriately?
"Shut up, bitch...can't you take a joke" is not it.
quote:
If you worked in a grimy basement bar, and a passing tourist came in to see the local 'colour' and then got upset when you greeted them, "Yeah whaddya want?" should you be fired - if your regulars all prefer that to 'What can I serve you today, sir?"
Huh? How on earth does that compare? The actions in the bar don't extend beyond the bar. Advocating the rape and assault of someone does. You do understand the difference, yes?
quote:
I appreciate this is not a direct parallel for a number of reasons
Then why'd you bring it up? It's so flawed as an analogy as to be worthless.
quote:
its purpose is to highlight that just because you might balk at the consequences that actually result from an action - that doesn't mean you believe you should live in a consequence free world. Just a world free of a specific consequence.
Huh? That has nothing to do with what we're talking about here.
quote:
Onifre seems to be irritated that when she speaks, she does so as if she has the backing of the many
But he doesn't seem to realize that he is engaging in precisely the behaviour that he's condemning. He whines that she's trying to shut O&A down by shutting her down. Two wrongs don't make a right.
And need I remind you, O&A were not fired.
quote:
which in turn leads to consequences which are unfair.
Says who? You? Why should we believe you?
D'oh! There I go again demanding that we analyze the joke when onifre insists that it isn't our job to do so!
quote:
Since this is an internet forum - unless you have video footage you can embed to the contrary - all I see is onifre responding to her speech on their speech with more speech of his own.
But did you actually read what he wrote? It is not sufficient to merely notice that someone has said something. You have to actually read the words they spoke. Now, I know that it is a burden to pay attention (the moderators have repeatedly stated that they don't actually read the threads they're supposed to be monitoring), but it is the only way to have something legitimate to say. What onifre said is that the "cunt" should shut up if she didn't like it.
quote:
The brunt of which is: You are an individual lady, don't think you speak for everyone when you dictate what is or is not funny, what is or is not offensive etc.
To which I responded: What is your justification?
But oh, that requires analyzing the joke in question and onifre has pissed his pants whining that that isn't his job.
quote:
So is there any particular reason you are criticising Onifre for doing what it is your are defending?
Because he isn't. He's trying to shut the discussion down while I'm trying to engage. It is not "discussion" when your entire message is "shut up." You will note, I have not mentioned my personal opinion of the joke. We haven't managed to get that far because onifre is of the opinion that it shouldn't be discussed at all. "If you don't like it, don't listen."
quote:
Because neither onifre nor Patrice did it and so don't feel obliged to apologize for any offense they may have caused in so doing.
They why are they talking at all? If they have nothing to add to the discussion of what happened and whether or not the results were appropriate, what is the reason for the flapping of their gums? We all understand that they don't like what happened. That's good enough for a single line in a single post. Instead, onifre has gone on and on to insult Ms. Ossorio and whine that he isn't going to discuss why what happened was inappropriate.
quote:
They seem more concerned with the general principle of whether a comedian should have licence to offend in pursuit of their art and whether artists should have funding to their work cut off by the active pressure from vocal minorities.
"Minorities"? And how did you manage to come to that conclusion?
And remember, my very first statement (which was also agreed to by Ms. Ossorio...you did listen to the interview, yes?) was that of course people have the right to say what they want. But the question here is whether or not what happened was an act of comedy or an act of cruelty.
quote:
Homeless Charlie didn't actually express a desire to rape anybody.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
He most certainly did. You said it yourself:
He expressed a desire to have sex with several people and a desire to have sex and punch in the face another as a remedy for their image of sexlessness.
That's rape, Modulous.
quote:
But Sheridan Smith is unlikely to consent to getting covered in baby oil and letting me have anal sex with her while badly tattooing my name on her spine...but that doesn't mean expressing my desire to do that is expressing a desire to rape.
The difference is that you don't mean it. Homeless Charlie did.
quote:
They don't listen to what happened
There we go again with the assumption that they didn't actually listen to the segment. Where is your evidence of this? Can you provide any quotation or justification for this assertion of yours?
quote:
take someone they trust's summary of the situation
Huh? Where did this come from? Exactly how do you know who heard what? When you read other people's minds, do you hear a great cacophony and then have to focus in on the one you are trying to hear or do you just immediately latch onto the target?
quote:
and then spin it into a whole new mythos that gets everyone saying they were joking about raping a black woman.
Ah, yes...reality is "spin."
quote:
Unless of course, I've missed a significant part of the bit?
Yes.
quote:
So when a soldier is in a foxhole, and his makeshift shelter is destroyed by shellfire and he later comments to his comrades "Damnit, I just got this place the way I liked it." should a member of the press who overhears this black humour then apply pressure to the Generals to fire the soldier because when soldiers start making jokes about getting shelled they'll think that shelling is funny and potentially start shelling innocent people for fun and the military might treat those people as less than monsters?
Huh? What on earth does this have to do with anything? Is the term "sarcasm" completely lost on you?
quote:
Ho ho - we're all smirking (I doubt laughing) about a serial killer raping someone and a fictional character tearing out the insides of someone's genitals. Clearly we'll now think people that do those things are not monsters.
Huh? What on earth does this have to do with anything? Part of what makes deprecating humor an act of comedy is that you don't actually mean it. Compare this to what happened on O&A's show where the statements were made seriously. And rather than pointing out the ridiculousness of such a statement, they hosts decided to take it further.
quote:
I know you weren't saying these are walls, but small bricks that form walls, but do you have any evidence that humour about a bad situation leads to tolerance towards those bad situations?
Yes. Are you saying you haven't done any investigation into social psychology? We have an entire system of jurisprudence that is based upon the recognition that "jokes" often result in things that are anything but funny.
quote:
But O&A can't stop people from being exposed to a prevalent attitude.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
Their reason for existence is to present people with things. Of course they can stop people from being "exposed to a prevalent attitude." Now, let's not play dumb and claim that I'm somehow trying to say that they are omnipotent and have control over everything, but they have complete control over their own show. Surely you're not implying they were forced to do what they did?
quote:
Their job is to laugh at such attitudes
But that's just it. They didn't laugh "at" such attitudes. They encouraged them. And when they got blowback, they got pissy at their employers for having to respond.
quote:
I don't think they vetted him to make sure he held no opinions that might offend, and I don't think they are obligated to.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? The hosts of a show have no responsibility for what goes out on their show? If they're going to "wing it" and allow any random person to say anything they want, then they're going to have to respond when outrageous things happen. There are plenty of radio commentators who have their "open mike" segments where they don't screen calls and allow the caller to say whatever they wish. And yep, some pretty outrageous things get said when that happens, but the hosts don't then encourage them.
The fact that this guy is physically incapable of carrying out his plan doesn't mean he isn't serious about it.
quote:
But you didn't just say that, otherwise onifre's actual response makes no sense.
That my point. Onifre's response makes no sense. I used a common phrase regarding posturing and he started talking about sex. Ergo, he must be thinking about sex. You will note that he and I were capable of using the word "prick," which is another word for the penis, without him immediately shifting to his fantasies about sex with me. Thus, the problem clearly isn't the use of a word that is connected to the penis but rather his obsession with my sex life. Even when he isn't talking to me but simply about me, he is incapable of saying anything except things about my sex life.
I just called him out on it. He seems to be quite preoccupied about where I put my dick. There's a simple way to change that conclusion: Stop talking about my dick.
quote:
Onifre was suggesting that he was perfectly fine with you being gay, and said nothing disparaging about you.
Which, of course, isn't exactly true, now is it? There are those superpowers of literacy again. The ability to remember other posts he has made, other statements that he has expressed, and combine them with his current statements in order to have a fuller context upon which to understand what someone is saying. I've already posted a few of the times he has used his fantasies about my sex life as slurs against me.
Let's not play dumb.
quote:
Surely you are being homophobic when you suggest he is homosexual for making a joke about you being homosexual?
Huh? This is nothing more than the stupid "refusal to accepty bigotry is bigotry" argument. I took his own statement and used turned it back against him. The only possible way that could be considered problematic is if his comments were problematic to begin with because it is his attitude that is being reflected back upon him.
Three wrongs don't make a right, Modulous. When are you going to learn that lesson?
quote:
I was only making a tiny point that your comments about onifre being gay as if that was an insulting thing to say to him, could be construed as being offensive even if they are very witty in context.
Showing that you clearly don't understand the context. It can only be "construed as being offensive" if onifre's original comments are also "construed as being offensive" for I only turned his own attitude back on him. If it's unacceptable when I do it to him, then it is just as unacceptable when he does it to me. And your coming down on me only compounds the problem.
Three wrongs don't make a right, Modulous. When are you going to learn that lesson?
quote:
Onifre has not represented himself in any kind of politically correct context.
What does that have to do with anything? If we know that he's a homophobic prick (see...there's that word referring to a penis again), why does that give him a pass when he expresses that bigotry?
quote:
You even tried to throw a little defensive shit my way referencing an argument we had years ago.
"Defensive"? Nice try, but I'm on the offensive here. I'm the one making the accusations. I'm the one pointing out that once again, you have decided to circle the wagons when faced with criticism of your abilities as a moderator rather than engage and explain yourself. You still haven't learned your lesson. The board collapsed because your incompetence. You, specifically. And now you're throwing another hissy fit.
Three wrongs don't make a right, Modulous. When are you going to learn that lesson?
quote:
Erm, or we could just discuss things in a grown up fashion using occasional adult humour that we don't take personally?
Indeed. Someday, onifre might be capable of that.
He's going to have to get over his obsession with giving me a hummer first.

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 200 by Modulous, posted 05-14-2010 1:44 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2010 8:53 AM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 219 of 269 (563482)
06-05-2010 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by onifre
05-21-2010 2:09 PM


onifre responds to me:
quote:
He was there representing comedy and comedians and jokes in general, not to defend himself or a joke he said.
You do realize that the latter part of your sentence immediately contradicts the former, yes? In order to "represent comedy and comedians," he needs to defend the joke as an act of comedy. That he and you keep running away shows that you aren't "representing comedy."
quote:
And we know that Homeless Charlie is never going to rape, Rice.
You're confusing physical incapacity to carry out an act with psychological incapacity. We know Ralph is never going to do it not because he is physically incapable of getting within five feet of Alice but rather because we know that it simply isn't in him to do it. It's all an act, nothing but bluster. Underneath all the preening and posturing, we know that he loves his wife more than anything and would never do anything to hurt her.
quote:
Sure. The joke she's refering to is The Angry Pirate.
No, it isn't. Didn't you listen to your own source? Patrice assumed that's what she was referring to, but she contradicted and corrected him. Oh, but she's just a "cunt." What on earth does she know about her own argument?
quote:
No. Here's where you continue to get confused. The point of the discussion was whether or not O&A's joke was meant as a joke or was it just plain cruelty.
Huh? You do realize that what makes it an act of cruelty and not comedy is that Homeless Charlie meant it, right?
quote:
I think he was saying exactly what he said, and he never called her a stupid bitch.
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.
quote:
You claim it's "what he really meant to say" but that's just your opinion and I don't share it.
No, not what he "really meant to say." It's what he actually said. Let us not play dumb and pretend that because a specific sequence of phonemes were not uttered, that isn't what was said.
It's the exact opposite of Jan Brewer's claim that whe she said that her father "died fighting the Nazi regime in Germany," that doesn't mean she was saying that her father, you know, died fighting the Nazi regime in Europe.
It's cute the way people try to pretend that their words don't actually mean what they mean.
quote:
He said people find it funny, thus it's comedic.
But that isn't true. Just because people laugh doesn't mean it's comedy. Cruel people laugh at their cruel actions upon others, but that doesn't make what they do comedic. It just means they find cruelty to be funny. Part of what can separate cruelty from comedy (for the line between them is often quite thin) has to do with intent. As mentioned before, slapstick humor is all about violence, but what makes it be comedy rather than cruelty is that at no point is it ever intended for anybody to be actually hurt.
quote:
It's also comedic because he meant it as a joke
That is not sufficient. Again, cruel people laugh at their cruelty, but that doesn't make it anything other than cruel.
quote:
That settles it for me.
Oh, so bigots get to define what bigotry is. I guess minstrel shows and blackface aren't actually racist, then.
quote:
You're mixing up the O&A joke with his joke
You have that completely backwards. It is you who are mixing up the incident on O&A with Patrice's routine. I notice in the above, you seem to be refering to Patrice's routine when I was still referring to O&A. You've really got that projection thing down, don't you.
quote:
For the O&A joke he said he thought they were trying to be funny
And Ms. Ossorio agreed. You do remember that, yes? You did actually listen to your own source, yes? You whine and whine about how I'm "only listening to her," but it seems you haven't even bothered to listen to her at all.
So while everyone agrees that they were trying to be funny, that doesn't mean they weren't engaging in cruelty. Sometimes you don't quite realize what it is you've done until after it is over. Surely you're not saying you've never stuck your foot in your mouth, are you? The fact that the big dog doesn't realize that his tail is knocking everything off the coffee table and doesn't mean to knock everything off the coffee table doesn't mean he isn't actually knocking everything off the coffee table nor does it negate the damage caused.
quote:
he asked her what she thought but she said she didn't care if it was funny or nor (2:20min)...so that ended that conversation about that.
Indeed, because the fact that somebody laughs doesn't mean it's comedy. The next logical step is to then analyze the joke to determine if it was comedy or cruelty.
quote:
What else was there to discuss that you felt he didn't answer?
Why it was comedy, not cruelty. Just because people laugh doesn't mean it was comedy.
You do remember that the host specifically asked him to justify the joke, yes?
quote:
quote:
He was brought on to defend O&A's bit,
No he wasn't.
Oh, yes, he was:
Is radio cleaning house?
...
Patrice, are O&A next?
...
What if they're not funny?
...
I don't know how many jokes about rape there are.
...
You think it's OK to try to make jokes about rape?
...
Here's my question: How can you justify a bad joke, a joke that isn't funny, doesn't get any laughs, and is about raping the first black woman to ever become the Secretary of State of the United States?
...
Don't you think a joke about rape is doomed to be not funny?
...
You've heard a funny rape joke?
...
You've got the same problem that Opie and Anthony did. You can't say just anything on the air
Did you even bother to listen to your own source? The host tries and tries and tries to get Patrice to defend the joke...or does the phrase "how do you justify" mean something different in your world?...and he evades, avoids, and distracts.
quote:
Question though, who got O&A back on the air?
Their bosses at XM. They were only suspended, not fired, so they were going to go back on the air, assuming they didn't do something stupid like piss their bosses off even more during their suspension.
quote:
I think it was an act of comedy. They did a bit, they meant to make a joke, it failed. End of story, right?
Wrong. Just because somebody laughed doesn't make it comedy. Why was it comedy, in your opinion?
Time to analyze the joke.
quote:
And we know that Homeless Charlie is never going to rape, Rice. So that makes it an act of comedy.
Huh? What on earth does that have to do with anything? That he will never be able to gain physical proximity in order to carry it out doesn't mean he didn't mean it. And if he meant it, then it wasn't comedy.

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 207 by onifre, posted 05-21-2010 2:09 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by onifre, posted 06-06-2010 11:57 AM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 220 of 269 (563483)
06-05-2010 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by onifre
05-28-2010 5:24 PM


onifre responds to me:
quote:
Probably not cos you're gonna keep acting like a fag. No, homo...?
And still the obsession with getting my dick up your ass to dose you with my DNA continues.

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 215 by onifre, posted 05-28-2010 5:24 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by onifre, posted 06-07-2010 1:27 PM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 221 of 269 (563485)
06-05-2010 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Shield
05-28-2010 6:10 PM


rbp responds to me:
quote:
so you dont care for freedom of speech
(*chuckle*)
Yeah...the person who wants to engage and actually discuss the joke so that we can come to a logical conclusion about what the consequences of what happened is the one who "doesn't care for freedom of speech" while the ones who want to shut all discussion down are the champions.
That makes sense.
quote:
and you think there's specific rules regarding whats funny and whats not.
Well, yeah. I've even referenced some of those rules. Do you deny them? If so, why? Can you provide more information?
(See? I'm engaging you and asking you to continue your speech rather than simply shutting you down.)
quote:
You are the biggest douchebag i have ever encountered on the internet, Rrhain.
And I care why?
quote:
You are so delusional, even more so than your average YEC.
That is all.
And yet, clearly it isn't because you kept on going:
quote:
ps. Rrhain, Whats the great thing about fucking twentythree year olds?
THERE'S TWENTY OF THEM!
Oh and, Rrhain, there was a rumor going around town, that my dad was fucking my 5 year old sister, But thats so not true, her pussy dosent taste like my dads dick at all!
OK...and why is what you said comedic in nature? Think carefully. I've brought up why I think you're trying to engage in humor a couple times. What's your justification?

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 216 by Shield, posted 05-28-2010 6:10 PM Shield has not replied

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


Message 224 of 269 (563662)
06-06-2010 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Modulous
06-05-2010 8:53 AM


Modulous responds to me:
quote:
OK, but that doesn't explain why you chose that particular quote of onifre's at that time.
How many times must I nicely ask you to stop playing dumb? 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?
quote:
Surely if onifre has the tendency to 'spout any vile thought' with the desire that there be no consequences, you could have just supplied a quote where he actually spouted a vile thought.
Homophobia isn't vile? Both you and he are whining that I'm calling him out on it. It would seem the two of you want him to be able to spout any vile thought that crosses his mind without any consequences.
quote:
Not one where he passed comment that your post was long with an expression of exasperation?
I guess I need to ask again: Can we please stop playing dumb? There go those superpowers of literacy again. 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?
That is a serious question. I really want to know your answer to it. I realize that every time I directly and specifically ask a person to answer a question, that is a guarantee that it will be completely ignored, but apparently I am unable to learn that lesson. So I guess I need to add yet another very simple question to the list of questions that never get answered no matter how many times they are asked:
What makes you think you have anything useful to say?
Of course, one doesn't need to have followed the entire history of onifre and myself in order to pick up on the fact that this isn't the first time onifre has commented on it:
Here we go with the long posts again.....
Hmm..."again." Here we go with the long posts "again." What could that word "again" possibly mean? You've already admitted you don't actually read the board, so I guess I'm going to repeat myself:
What makes you think you have anything useful to say?
quote:
Since you are big on your English class. If you wanted to provide an example of Shakespeare using metaphor, you wouldn't quote him saying "As he was valiant, I honour him." and then defend that by saying that Shakespeare constantly used metaphor and his plays were not made in a vacuum.
Huh? What on earth does this have to do with anything? Yes, the word "Shakespeare" appeared in my post, but you will note that I wasn't talking about William Shakespeare but rather the play, --> The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (abridged), --> which isn't actually by Shakespeare but is rather a play by Adam Long, Daniel Singer, and Jess Winfield. What does Shakespeare have to do with anything?
quote:
quote:
Huh? What is this "not the audience" you speak of? Anybody who listens is the audience.
Anybody who listens is a member of the audience. The audience is a collective body.
Huh? You didn't answer my question. You just repeated my claim. I was asking you who this "not the audience" you were talking about. Have you already forgotten your own post?
You attempted to prove that by showing a single example of a person (with an associated special interest group) that was clearly not the audience.
You're the one who claimed there was a body who was "not the audience." So who are these people who are "not the audience"? It is clear you weren't referring to people who were unaware of the performance and thus didn't hear it. Instead, you were referring to people who heard the performance but didn't appreciate it:
So - who gets to decide regarding turd dropping - a loud politically correct group of people - or the intended audience of millions?
Can we please stop playing dumb?
If you're not going to even pretend to believe your own argument, then I have a different spin on my question:
What makes you think you have anything useful to say?
quote:
No, I'm just asking you who you think gets to determine 'turd dropping' because you seem to be inconsistent with it.
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. Otherwise:
What makes you think you have anything useful to say?
quote:
How on earth did you conclude that I think bigots get to determine bigotry?
I quoted you. You even included it in your response to me. Do you deny saying the following:
So - who gets to decide regarding turd dropping - a loud politically correct group of people - or the intended audience of millions?
Hmmm..."intended." Or the "intended" audience of millions. What could that word "intended" possibly mean? Can we please stop playing dumb? If you're not going to even pretend to believe your own argument:
What makes you think you have anything useful to say?
quote:
Can you please stop using that enormous brain of yours and just stick to what I am saying?
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? You who have included the very justification for my response are now claiming that I'm not following along?
Can we please stop playing dumb?
What makes you think you have anything useful to say?
quote:
You can use your cunning mind to determine my motivations on your own time.
No, it has to be handled right here because that is the entire point of the conversation.
Or do you deny saying the following:
So - who gets to decide regarding turd dropping - a loud politically correct group of people - or the intended audience of millions?
Hmmm..."intended." Or the "intended" audience of millions. What could that word "intended" possibly mean? Can we please stop playing dumb? If you're not going to even pretend to believe your own argument:
What makes you think you have anything useful to say?
quote:
That doesn't answer the question. Does the entire audience need to collectively agree on the turd drop, or does a single person count?
It most certainly does answer the question. The entire audience counts, but only insofar as they are capable of justifying their response.
Patrice and onifre's justification was nothing more than "Shut up, bitch...can't you take a joke?" That's not a justification. That's emotional defensiveness. In order to justify their take that it was a "joke," they're going to have to analyze what happened and provide reasons that support their claim that what was said was an act of comedy, not cruelty. Just because people laugh doesn't mean it's comedy. By your logic, minstrel shows and blackface aren't racist so long as the "intended audience" (hmmm...what does that word, "intended," mean?) doesn't find them such, but clearly that isn't true.
So since neither Patrice nor onifre were able to respond to Ms. Ossorio's or the host's comments, she's the only one who provided any sort of justification (though I agree it was pretty weak).
quote:
quote:
Or are you saying that there is no such thing as a bigoted joke so long as somebody thinks its funny?
No I am not saying that.
Then why did you say:
So - who gets to decide regarding turd dropping - a loud politically correct group of people - or the intended audience of millions?
That word: "Intended"? Just what did you intend when you said, "intended"? The phrase, "intended audience," has a very specific meaning: The group of people that the speaker is specifically trying to reach. This is a common thing to consider when writing: Who are the people who are going to be reading it? The "intended audience" of a journal article is not the same as the "intended audience" of a popular science book.
But here's the thing: The "intended audience" doesn't change the nature of the content. That is, a technical report is not somehow made simple just because the "intended audience" are people who are familiar with the terminology and can follow the intricacies. Similarly, a bigoted statement is not somehow made innocuous just because the "intended audience" are other bigots.
So if someone engages in sexism, that doesn't make any less sexist just because they call it a "joke" and people start saying that, "If you don't like it, change the channel."
quote:
Here is what saying that would look like, for the record:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no such thing as a bigoted joke so long as somebody thinks its funny
The stupid! It burns!
Can we please stop playing dumb? You seem to be wallowing in the same inanity that onifre is: That because a particular phonetic sequence was not uttered, then you didn't actually say anything like it. You see, one of the superpowers of literacy is the ability to restate something in different words, to be able to see past individual sequences of phonemes and syllables in order to get to the meaning underneath.
Now, you may disagree with what I am receiving from your message. After all, misunderstandings happen. But the response to that is to rephrase your argument to show how your original statement was misinterpreted.
Instead, you have backpedaled. So please tell me what you were really trying to say when you said, "intended audience." Were you making some argument other than a variation on, "If you don't like it, change the channel"? And does that not then let bigots off the hook for their bigotry? After all, if you don't like the sexist, egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigot, then don't listen to him, right? No harm, no foul, right? It's not like they have a national "audience of millions," right? And thus have an effect upon cultural attitudes regarding women, right?
quote:
Since when is Fox News a venue we'd expect to see an academic discussion?
What does this have to do with anything? Indeed, I don't expect any common media outlet to have a deep discussion. After all, look at the guests they chose to discuss it: Neither one was prepared and the host was unwilling to focus. As I stated in my original post on this, it was a stunt. Makes for good television to have people screaming at each other.
But just because the specific instance of this shoutfest was illegitimate doesn't mean that the underlying premise that they only paid lip service to is of no concern and it certainly doesn't mean that the participants actually had anything useful to say that should be taken seriously regarding it.
The fact that Fox couldn't rise to the occasion doesn't mean that we can't.
quote:
Since when did we demand irreverent comics give such analysis?
Since they started presenting themselves as "the expert on funny."
Since the host directly asked said "expert on funny" to justify the joke.
Now, I know you haven't actually read the thread or done any sort of homework, but it would really help if you would keep up otherwise:
What makes you think you have anything useful to say?
quote:
quote:
This from the man who decided that the "audience" was not the group of people who heard the joke but only the people who decided to like it.
But I made no such decision.
Did you or did you not say the following:
You attempted to prove that by showing a single example of a person (with an associated special interest group) that was clearly not the audience.
Did you or did you not say the following:
So - who gets to decide regarding turd dropping - a loud politically correct group of people - or the intended audience of millions?
Who is this "not the audience" you were referring to? What did you intend when you said, "intended audience"?
Can we please stop playing dumb?
quote:
Could you explain what your definitive view on 'laying a turd' is?
What part of "act of comedy or act of cruelty" were you having trouble understanding?
quote:
Regardless of the events in the example specifically under discussion, I was asking a more general question. What would you think if the consequences did amount to censorship?
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.
My opinion on censorship (and let's not play dumb and pretend you don't know what it is) is completely irrelevant because there is no censorship here. Nobody was arrested. Nobody was put in jail. Nobody had any court action taken against them. No legislation was offered or passed. No executive orders issued. The only reason to bring it up is to sidetrack the discussion.
quote:
There's plenty of it around. And not all of it is frightening. Use your literacy and eyes, I'm sure you'll find some examples.
No, I don't. "Censorship" means something specific: Governmental interference in speech. There was nothing remotely like that in this case, so I'm going to have to ask my question again:
Where is this "censorship" you are so scared of?
quote:
But I'm glad you agree with the principle: Just because somebody complains that a certain consequence (whether the consequence actually occurred is not relevant to the point) is not fair, just, appropriate etc does not mean they desire to live free of consequences as you previously asserted.
I agreed to no such thing. In fact, my entire point rests upon denial of your claim. Patrice and onifre want there to be no consequences. She's a "cunt." She has "nothing to do with funny." Their entire argument is that those who find the O&A situation to be not comedy but cruelty should just shut up about it. Thus, no consequences. Cruel actions should simply be ignored rather than acted upon.
quote:
We were talking about consequences.
Yes. But we were talking about the difference between having to answer to your employers and not having anything happen at all. You're trying to employ a variation of the argument that we both agree that a line needs to be drawn, we're just arguing over where.
But we're not. Patrice and onifre's argument is that we should not respond to acts of cruelty. We certainly shouldn't talk about it lest other people agree that it was not comedy but cruelty and thus consequences be meted out. O&A should not have been suspended. They said it was a joke, and that's good enough.
quote:
Just because we do that does not mean we want to live in a consequence-free world.
Huh? 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.
quote:
I don't remember disagreeing with any of those points, I assure you I need no reminding of them.
Since you don't read the posts, by your own admission, you most certainly do.
For example, let's take the first point: Your right to free speech does not come with a right to someone else's nickel to broadcast it.
This was because of your continued claim that there was "censorship" or something tantamount to it. You've even repeated that claim in this very post. Or do you deny saying just a few sentences ago:
What would you think if the consequences did amount to censorship?
As I pointed out the first time you brought it up, it is not "censorship" when your employers take you to task.
Thus, it seems you did need to be reminded that your right to free speech does not come with a right to someone else's nickel to broadcast it. Therefore, it is not "censorship" when your employer decides to no longer pay for your services due to something you said on the stage he pays for.
Do you really need me to explain why I must remind you about the second and third points? No, wait...of course you do. But seeing as how I'm going "with the long posts again" (hmmm...what does that word "again" mean?) I'll stop here.
quote:
Her words are saved. His words are saved. Where is the shutting down of speech here exactly?
The stupid! It burns!
Please, let us stop playing dumb. Look, I know you haven't read the thread, but you really need to keep up. Onifre's entire argument has been that Ms. Ossorio needs to shut up. Same with Patrice. That's "shutting down speech." The fact that she managed to get on TV to say something doesn't mean that her interlocutor was trying to shut her down. Not only philosophically but literally as well: Patrice regularly interrupted her to stop her from talking.
quote:
I paid attention.
(*chuckle*)
Yeah, you keep telling yourself that.
quote:
I don't see him making DMCA notices to youtube to take her videos down or anything. So why is commenting about her in a negative fashion and expressing his opinion on what she should do somehow perceived as 'shutting her down'?
Please, let's stop playing dumb. You really need to start paying attention and keeping up. I already covered what onifre said back in Untitled
(Message 198)
Thread 14430:Gender and Humor
Forum 14:Coffee House
', 500)" onMouseOut=" hb.off(0)" onMouseMove="mouseTracker(event)">Message 198 . You did actually read that before you responded, yes? Since you clearly did not, let's try it again, shall we?
Untitled
(Message 179)Thread 14430:Gender and HumorForum 14:Coffee House', 500)" 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)" 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.
Oh...so she doesn't get to respond to their joke. So much for that "responding to speech with more speech" claim of yours. Or is there another meaning to "shut the fuck up about it" that I'm not getting?
See, there's that strange effect: I ask a direct question which means it will be specifically and deliberately ignored.
I really want to know your answer to this, Modulous: Is there another meaning to "shut the fuck up about it" that I'm not getting? That's what he said. Please tell us how "shut the fuck up about it" is actually a request to engage with the point the speaker is making in order to analyze what went on and come to a rational conclusion.
quote:
I see onifre is engaging in conversation. If he wanted to shut it down, he'd just stop responding.
The stupid! It burns!
Can we please stop playing dumb? Just because somebody is nattering away doesn't mean they are engaging in conversation. Insulting somebody is not conversation. Avoiding direct questions is not conversation. Evading points is not conversation.
quote:
Just because his view of things is that she is over reacting, doesn't mean he is shutting anything down.
Oh, so when he said, "Shut the fuck up about it," he didn't mean, you know, "shut the fuck up about it."
quote:
OK Rrhain, you go right ahead and believe that. Meanwhile I'll interpert onifre to be saying that if the audience didn't like the show and refused to listen to O&A, then there will be proper action taken which he would be find with.
Right, because onifre didn't actually say any of the following:
Untitled
(Message 179)Thread 14430:Gender and HumorForum 14:Coffee House', 500)" 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)" 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.
Oh...so she doesn't get to respond to their joke. So much for that "responding to speech with more speech" claim of yours. Or is there another meaning to "shut the fuck up about it" that I'm not getting?
Fourth time I've asked that question of you, Modulous. I really want to know your response to that question (which, of course, means you won't answer it ever):
Is there another meaning to "shut the fuck up about it" that I'm not getting?
quote:
On the other hand if the people listening to the O&A show weren't offended and found the show funny, or the bit funny, this woman's personal opinion should not affect anything.
Oh! So bigots get to define bigotry and she isn't part of the audience. Makes perfect sense.
quote:
Sure, I'll listen to her, and she'll listen to me. But in the end, neither of our opinons should affect anything. The listeners of the O&A show will make the final verdict.
And how does that exclude you or her? You're stuck in this vision that somehow she isn't part of the audicence.
Oh! That's right! You don't actually care about the audience. You only care about the "intended" audience.
Ergo, bigots get to define bigotry.
quote:
Because that is what he seems to be saying to me.
Right, because "shut the fuck up about it" doesn't actually mean, you know, "shut the fuck up about it."
quote:
Fox News framed this as a joke about raping black woman. When it wasn't. It was some guys laughing about fucking women.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? Violent sexual assault isn't rape? Yeah, well, in a strict legal definition, I guess it isn't, but up until recently it was legally impossible for a man to be raped and yet I don't think any rational human being would agree with that definition.
But I guess, "fuck that bitch to death" doesn't mean, you know, "fuck that bitch to death." And "Punch her all in the fucking face. Shut up bitch!" doesn't actually mean, you know, "punch her all in the fucking face."
quote:
Then they tried to angle this as some kind of 'is radio cleaning house?'
And why? Are you completely unaware of the context in which this incident took place? Did you do any sort of homework about this before you opened your yap?
What makes you think you have anything useful to say?
quote:
THEY were making out to be a big thing. When as you point out, it wasn't.
Where did I say that? I seem to recall saying that contributing to the societal oppression of women, even if it is not the most significant, is still a bad thing.
quote:
So what you meant by "He doesn't want there to be any consequences." was that you think bigots get to choose who censor?
"Censor"? What "censor"?
quote:
I think his complaint more centres around the idea that she is trying to represent a larger majority than she actually in fact does.
Right, because "shut the fuck up about it" doesn't actually mean, you know, "shut the fuck up about it." His justification for why she should "shut the fuck up about it" is his assertion that she doesn't represent any significant group, but his argument is that she shouldn't be talking about it at all.
quote:
I know that more words by themselves does not result in censorship of previous words.
There's that word "censorship" again. What censorship?
quote:
Why are you talking?
Because I think we should analyze the situation and come up with a reasoned response to what happened.
Oh, I guess I should say that we should "shut the fuck up about it" in order to convince you that we should talk about it since "shut the fuck up about it" doesn't actually mean, you know, "shut the fuck up about it."
quote:
You aren't apologizing for the joke either.
That's because onifre needs to go first. He's the one who brought this entire scenario up only to say that we should "shut the fuck up about it."
quote:
I came to the opinion that onifre and Patrice believed the NOW woman had a minority view by reading their words in which they expressed that view.
Oh, so you accept their assertion without question. Does the word "naive" mean anything to you?
quote:
You probably got confused again between me telling you what someone else's opinion is with my own opinion.
No, I got confused about why you thought they had justified their assertion. 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.
And you know this why? As I asked you directly, which means you won't answer:
How did you manage to come to that conclusion? Patrice's claim that he is an "expert on funny" is accepted without hesitation and the complete dismissal of Ms. Ossorio is taken as a given.
quote:
yes, the internet remembers things. Go back and double-check if you really like, but I can confirm that the words you copied and pasted from my post were typed by me.
The stupid! It burns!
Can we please stop playing dumb? The point of my statement is incredulousness at what you said, not a denial that you said it; that it is shocking to find you saying something so clearly inappropriate. That is a common English phrase, and you have seen me use it plenty of times. But somehow, this one time causes you to lose your senses.
What makes you think you have anything useful to say?
quote:
Wanting to have sex with someone is rape?
I thought rape was having sex with somebody without their consent?
The stupid! It burns!
Can we please agree to stop playing dumb?
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.
That's rape.
And then punch them in the face.
That's assault.
quote:
It's a significant impediment to discussion if you don't expand on your assertions.
The stupid! It burns!
Can we please agree to stop playing dumb?
That's the impediment to this discussion. You seem to want to pretend that every comment is made in a complete vacuum. Given that you don't actually read the posts in the threads (by your own admission), this isn't such a bizarre position for you to have: You truly are a blank slate.
quote:
I gave you an argument as to why it wasn't necessarily rape.
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.
quote:
Now - where is your evidence that Homeless Charlie 'meant it'?
His own words. You did listen to them, yes? I note that you have paraphrased what he said and that is very telling. Heaven forbid that we should look at his actual words.
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.
"She needs a man" is a common phrase advocating rape. Not always, but it does mean we need to pay attention to the context in order to determine exactly what was meant. After all, this wasn't a meddling aunt saying that her niece would be so much happier if only she could get married ("She needs a man.") This was something completely different. In response to O&A saying that he's "holding her down" (rape), he includes physical violence.
"Fuck that bitch to death."
Now, where is your evidence that he was merely being hyperbolic?
quote:
I was careful to not specify anybody
That's the problem with the internet. Your words get kept:
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. In fact, if you watch the video Fox News frames the discussion that way from the outset.
Thus, your claim that you were "careful not to specify anybody" isn't exactly true, now is it? Or is the phrase, "Fox News" inspecific? Fox News interviewed a disembodied idea? There weren't any actual people in "the video"?
Can we please stop playing dumb?
What makes you think you have anything useful to say?
quote:
I merely observed that it is common for the vocal minority to speak out against something they haven't witnessed.
And who, exactly, is this vocal minority? Which of Patrice and Ms. Ossorio is the one you are claiming is the "vocal minority"? And if neither of them is the "vocal minority," then what on earth are you talking about?
You get your choice of failure, Modulous: Are you being less than truthful in claiming you weren't referring to a specific person? Or did you take leave of your senses and start complaining about something that didn't exist?
And where do you get your justification that they "haven't witnessed" the O&A bit? Are you reading their minds?
quote:
People speaking out about films they never watched, books they never read are replete and I'll be happy to find an example of this should you have managed to miss this delightful aspect of life.
Where is your evidence that Ms. Ossorio didn't hear the O&A segment.
Please, let us not play dumb and pretend that you weren't referring to her. Again, you get your choice of failure: Either you aren't being truthful in your claim that you were "not specifying anybody" or you're complaining about something that doesn't exist. Which is it?
quote:
Psst, that's where you quote or link to the bit I missed and talk about it
Psst, that's where you go back and read the entire thread which you clearly haven't done. The entire thread is the evidence you have missed. I can't force you to read it. And to copy and paste the entire conversation thread would be silly.
What makes you think you have anything useful to say?
quote:
Is Anthony being sarcastic at the end there?
What does Anthony have to do with it? This is about Homeless Charlie's comments. When someone says something outrageous and seriously means it, encouraging it is not the appropriate response.
You see, O&A were not trying to play Homeless Charlie as a boob. They were not playing a game of, "Let's get the bigot to say something bigoted so that we can laugh at him." Now, they do know him and they do know that he is going to say outrageous things. But they put him on the air specifically so that those statements can be made without any rebuttal. You will note that neither Opie nor Anthony contradicted anything he said.
Note, Anthony actually points out that Homeless Charlie means it:
"As long as you don't hurt nobody." This coming from a guy that POPS old ladies in the head.
The two of them encourage him:
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.
So to answer your question, "Is Anthony being sarcastic at the end there?"
No.
quote:
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"?
quote:
The question is - why did their employers 'have' to respond?
You mean the inappropriateness of the segment isn't sufficient? A broadcaster shouldn't bother paying attention to the people they have employed to speak on air in order to ensure that what is being broadcast is within their guidelines for what they want being broadcast?
quote:
If it was a vocal minority
What "vocal minority"? Who is this "vocal minority"? And how do you know they are the "minority"?
Oh, that's right! Bigots get to define what bigotry is. I mean, if everybody's a bigot, then it doesn't matter, right? It isn't a problem if everybody's doing it, right?
quote:
He was taking the piss.
Non sequitur. Please rephrase. Let's try it again:
Onifre's response makes no sense. I used a common phrase regarding posturing and he started talking about sex. My comments had nothing to do with sex, and yet onifre decided to do what he always does, start talking about his visions of my sex life. The fact that I said the word "dick" isn't indicative because he and I both said the word "prick" without incident. If he is capable of comprehending that saying so-and-so is a "prick" isn't an indication of sexuality, then sure he can understand that saying he is "waving his dick at me" isn't an indication of sexuality, either.
If I had said, "thumped your chest," instead of "waved your dick," my statement would have meant exactly the same thing. And we certainly wouldn't expect onifre to respond about how he's worried about my fixation on chests. That's because we all know that "thump your chest" is a phrase referring to posturing, not an indication of someone literally thumping a chest. Thus, using a different phrase that means exactly the same thing is also not an indication of someone literally waving a penis.
Thus, why on earth would onifre respond in such a fashion? It's clear I'm not talking about his actual penis and still, he reponds as if I am. So which failure mode is it? Is onifre a blithering idiot who simply went off on a tangent for no reason? Well, I like to think a little bit better of my interlocutors. Given his other posts that show an inordinate obsession with what I do sexually, it is not unreasonable to consider the possibility that he has once again had a fantasy of sex involving me. And given his homophobia, he decided to do it as an insult, expecting me to go into apoplexy.
quote:
Your inability to make sense of it
Incorrect. I made perfect sense of it.
I simply refused to play along. He tried to insult me and I reflected his homophobia back upon him.
quote:
Precisely, and since you were construing onifre's comments as offensive, therefore your comments were too.
So why are you whining about me?
Three wrongs don't make a right, Modulous. When are you going to learn that lesson? If it was wrong for him to do it to me and then wrong for me to do it to him, it is wrong for you to take it out on me. This wouldn't happen if onifre would keep his mind out of my pants.
It's quite easy to prove me wrong: Have onifre refrain from commenting about his fantasies of my penis and we'll see how long I can last without mentioning his fantasies of my penis.
quote:
Even if we assume your understanding of context is perfect: In the context of 'It was fair turnaround' you failed to take into account a minority of sensitive people that might have been so sensitive they didn't take it into account. Therefore, causing offence to sensitive homosexuals.
And the way we fix that is by talking about it, analyzing what was said. As I pointed out, my comments were based not upon the idea that being gay is bad but rather upon the idea that being in the closet and internalized homophobia are bad. You can see that when I said the following ( Untitled
(Message 188)Thread 14430:Gender and HumorForum 14:Coffee House', 500)" onMouseOut=" hb.off(0)" onMouseMove="mouseTracker(event)">Message 188 ):
C'mon, onifre, just come out and say it. You'll feel so much better when you come out of the closet and stop hiding your true feelings. Every time you try to deflect it by calling other people "fag," you only show just how deep your self-hatred goes.
...
Look, I understand what you're trying to do. You think that by goading me often enough, I'll take pity on you and treat you like the submissive piece of shit you have objectified yourself as. Now, there are plenty of dominants who will do that for you. You might even be able to find one who will respond to your attempts. But there's a difference between being a "pushy bottom" and a pathetic asshole. The ones who will snap and respond the way you want them to will not have your interests at heart and you'll only get hurt. A good dominant knows that even when a bottom says he has no limits, there are always limits and will not cross them no matter how much the bottom begs.
A good top will never break his toys, though they may need some maintenance when he's through.
So no, onifre, I'm not going to sleep with you. First, get your headspace adjusted so that you have come to terms with the reality of your need to be humiliated.
But even then, I'm not going to sleep with you.
You see the difference to what onifre says? He spouts his "fag" and "Peter Pan" comments with the bile of hatred against gay people, that there is something wrong with being gay. My comments say nothing of the sort. Instead, they denigrate the closet and self-hatred.
Imploring him to come out of the closet, that his life will be so much easier if he simply comes to terms with his sexuality, is not an indication of there being something wrong with being gay. On the contrary, it is a statement that there is nothing wrong with being gay...only in denying it.
quote:
Having read and understand my last post you already know why I'm 'coming down' on you and not onifre since I said it.
Yes, because you think three wrongs make a right. It was bullshit when your insistence upon that path led to the collapse of the board three years ago. Did you learn nothing?
quote:
On the other hand, you went apeshit with implications that onifre wanted to fuck you
No, I didn't.
I said that onifre wanted me to fuck him and then told him I wasn't going to. I wasn't the one who brought up sex. He was. I simply took that to mean he has a hard time regarding me without immediately having sexual fantasies popping into his head, given his repeated comments about my sex life, even when talking to other people.
Silly boy...what makes you think onifre's a top?
quote:
which could have been humorous if you had delivered well.
Given the continued obsession onifre has shown...and now it seems that you've been drawn into it...it would appear I delivered it perfectly. My god, are you incapable of having a conversation without talking about my cock?
Prove me wrong: Stop talking about my cock and we'll see how long it takes for me to mention it.
quote:
Yes, that's what people who are getting defensive do - they lash out and try to point out the flaws in others and all those other things.
Which is probably why onifre keeps trying to insult me through his fantasies of my sexuality.
What's your excuse?
quote:
I'm not acting as moderator, nobody is criticising my abilities as a moderator and I am not circling any wagons. What the hell are you gibbering about?
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."
quote:
Temporarily suspending a member that was using personal insults directly lead to the collapse of this forum? Or was it when I expressed my opinion that I disagreed with the opinions of a group of other members that caused the metaphorical sky to fall?
You really think that was the problem? Your attention span really is that short, isn't it? N_j insulted gays and berberry called him out on it...and got banned for it. Dan Carroll pointed out that it was wrong to ban berberry...and got banned for it. I pointed out that it was wrong to ban Dan...and got banned for it.
In case you forgot: Message 120
Let's not forget, you specifically said that Dan had not broken any rules:
You've not explicitly broken any rules Dan
And yet, he still got suspended. Even crashfrog pointed it out ( Message 130 ):
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.
And even he realized that you would probably ban him for pointing it out:
Message 133
I'd say something like "I fully expect to be suspended for this", but like you did with Dan Carrol, I suspect I'd be misinterpreted. People don't say that to indicate that they're about to violate the guidelines. People say that because they know the moderator attention their about to receive is so predictably biased against them that they can forsee the unfair action they're about to take.
But let me say this. If any of you are toying with the notion of suspending me for continuing this subject - and remember that this is the suspension of Rrhain we're talking about right now, not Berb's suspension - consider that, if you suspend me someone else will pop up to complain about how unfair that is. It happened when you suspended Berb, it happened when you suspended Dan for complaining about suspending Berb, it happened when you suspended Rrhain for complaining about suspending Dan.
You never did answer my direct questions to you. I know...by asking them directly and succinctly, that is a guarantee that they will never get answered. I'd still like to know the answer, though:
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?
That is my concern, Modulous. When A picks on B and B turns it around on A, it is inappropriate to come down on B. Ignoring any question of moderator action, staying completely in the realm of spectator making a comment, the problem is not B but rather A and to go after B shows you are not helping but instead are encouraging the problem to continue.
Three wrongs don't make a right.
quote:
I thought that the general populace's (and I include myself in that) inability to let the matter drop resulted in a change in the way the moderation thread was structured (and the composition of the moderator team) which in turn lead to some members leaving in protest.
That's only half of it. Many people were banned outright, not in protest, but because they dared to ask the moderators to explain themselves.
quote:
I was just pointing out that I made a single wry comment and you bring up a years old discussion and try and fling shit my way.
Yep.
Because you haven't learned your lesson. Because I am predicting that you are going to behave in exactly the same way as you did then: Pick on the person who is pointing out your mistaken response rather than on the person who originally caused the problem.
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.
But no, you want to complain about my response to a foolish comment.
quote:
Do you think radio hosts are obligated to vet their guests for opinions that might offend?
No, I think radio hosts are obligated to accept the consequences imposed by their employers when they encourage offensive behaviour. Plenty of radio hosts have what is essentially an "open mic" where they don't screen calls and anybody can say whatever they want. 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?
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?
Edited by Rrhain, : Misattributed a quote of Percy's to Modulous.

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 222 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2010 8:53 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Modulous, posted 06-06-2010 4:54 PM Rrhain 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 HumorForum 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

  
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

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


Message 262 of 269 (567653)
07-02-2010 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Hyroglyphx
06-28-2010 11:29 AM


Hyroglyphx responds to me:
quote:
I'm not muzzling her, I'm protesting her
Did you or did you not say the following:
She has every right to say what she wants, but has no right to stop people from saying what they want to say just because it offends her delicate sensibilities. People like that are too weak to live with freedom.
So as long as her speech doesn't have any actual effect, then she can say what she wants. But the moment some action does take place based upon her argument, then there's a problem.
How is that not muzzling her?
quote:
She wants to get certain things taken off the air (that's censorship).
No, it isn't. Censorship is governmental restriction of speech. She's just talking to society in order to convince others of an argument. The result of that may be that society no longer finds such attitudes expressed in the O&A bit acceptable, but that isn't censorship. That's the very marketplace of ideas you claim to be defending.
quote:
We don't need the government intervening and threatening speech, when the market (the audience) will decide what is appropriate and what is not.
And exactly how was the government involved in the O&A situation?
quote:
You have no clue what censorship is, do you?
Nice try. That's my question to you. As I have repeated pointed out, nobody was arrested, nobody was sent to jail, there was no criminal case, not even a stern talking to by police officers or criminal prosecutors.
And yet, you're the one that keeps throwing out the word "censorship."
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
quote:
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.
No, it isn't. Censorship is governmental restriction of speech. She's just talking to society in order to convince others of an argument. The result of that may be that society no longer finds such attitudes expressed in the O&A bit acceptable, but that isn't censorship. That's the very marketplace of ideas you claim to be defending.
quote:
You don't like what he said? Change the fucking channel...
Why? Why not respond to what was said? We'll let society figure out who has the better idea.
quote:
She crossed the threshold when she wanted to censor his material.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Censorship is governmental restriction of speech. She's just talking to society in order to convince others of an argument. The result of that may be that society no longer finds such attitudes expressed in the O&A bit acceptable, but that isn't censorship. That's the very marketplace of ideas you claim to be defending.
Question: Suppose O&A's audience all decided that it was inappropriate, they didn't like it, and they all left. Would that be "censorship"?
If not, why would Ms. Ossario's comment leading to the audience saying, "You know, she's right," and them leaving be "censorship"? It isn't like she can make anybody stop listening. She has no power to actually remove them from the air. She is not the government, she doesn't have control over broadcasting licenses, she doesn't regulate the air waves or satellite communications.
So how is convincing others that her analysis is correct an example of "censorship"?
As someone so recently said, you have no clue what censorship is, do you?
quote:
Show me the reference I made about your sexuality before you starting talking about your dick.
Huh? I didn't talk about my dick.
I said that onifre was posturing by using the common phrase, "wave your dick at me."
I then said that Patrice was compensating for a lack of having an argument by using the common phrase, "I'm very sorry about his penis."
You will note that in neither case did I refer to my own genitalia.
And more importantly, you will note that in neither case did I actually make any reference to either of their sexualities, neither as a question of being gay or straight nor even as a question of the physical act of sex, itself. These are known as "metaphors." When someone says, "wave your dick," the meaning has nothing to do with someone placing his hands upon his penis and flapping it about in the air. It's why you can say it to a woman: It isn't about an actual penis but rather about the posturing. Similarly, "I'm sorry about your penis" isn't actually a comment of sympathy about erectile dysfunction. It's about somebody using bluster and hype as a compensatory mechanism.
But despite this very clear useage, onifre decided to turn it into a commentary on my sexuality. This despite the fact that "prick" had been tossed around and nobody seemed to mind.
So if we all can understand how one word that references a penis ("prick") can be used such that it doesn't actually mean "a penis," what is so special about these other ones?
And then there's you:
That's your opinion, just like it's my opinion that you're a melodramatic theater hag.
Let us not pretend that you chose that phrase at random.
Why is it you have such a hard time avoiding thinking about sex when you talk to me?
quote:
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.
Did you or did you not say in Message 183:
That's your opinion, just like it's my opinion that you're a melodramatic theater hag.
Please, let us not play dumb and pretend that you chose that phrase at random. You talk a good game about how you've changed, but it's nothing but talk. Your "revelation" that you are actually NJ doesn't surprise me in the slightest. You've been cleaner about the way you talk about gay people, but your homophobia is still quite rampant.
quote:
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?!?!?
Indeed: "WTF?!?!?!" Where did I talk about my cock?
Message 180
Now that you've had your chance to wave your dick at me....
...
Look, I'm very sorry about his penis but until he can show why the joke isn't part of the problem, he's only showing that he's just as much of a sexist prick.
When did the word "your" come to mean "my"? When did the word "his" come to mean "my"?
I didn't talk about my cock. Onifre did. I didn't talk about my sex life. You did.
I just turned it around on you. So let's try a little experiment: You stop making references, however veiled they may be, about my sex life and we'll see how long I can go without bringing it up.
quote:
How many times must I repeat that consequences are fine and dandy?
Until you actually mean it. Because you keep tossing around the word "censorship" as if there was any such thing going on here. Because you keep saying things like, "You don't like what he said? Change the fucking channel...." So long as her speech doesn't cause any actual change, then she's allowed to talk all she wants but as soon as her arguments convince people to mete out consequences on O&A, then there's a problem.
You can repeat it all you want, but you have to justify why her presenting an argument that results in people saying, "Yeah, she's right," and responding appropriately by no longer providing the stage for O&A to perform on is such a horrible thing. They don't have a right to Sirius' airtime. And if her argument convinces Sirius that they don't want to employ O&A's services anymore, how is that "censorship" and not the vaunted marketplace of ideas you claim to be defending?
quote:
My sole problem is that she wants to censor people from saying what they want.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Censorship is governmental restriction of speech. She's just talking to society in order to convince others of an argument. The result of that may be that society no longer finds such attitudes expressed in the O&A bit acceptable, but that isn't censorship. That's the very marketplace of ideas you claim to be defending.
quote:
But don't censor people.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Censorship is governmental restriction of speech. She's just talking to society in order to convince others of an argument. The result of that may be that society no longer finds such attitudes expressed in the O&A bit acceptable, but that isn't censorship. That's the very marketplace of ideas you claim to be defending.
quote:
Show me where I'm trying to make her silent.
Did you or did you not say the following:
She has every right to say what she wants, but has no right to stop people from saying what they want to say just because it offends her delicate sensibilities. People like that are too weak to live with freedom.
So as long as her speech doesn't have any actual effect, then she can say what she wants. But the moment some action does take place based upon her argument, then there's a problem.
How is that not trying to make her silent? So long as she's effective, she must be quiet.

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 237 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-28-2010 11:29 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

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


Message 263 of 269 (567662)
07-02-2010 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by New Cat's Eye
06-28-2010 11:55 AM


Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote:
From my experiences, you're usually wrong about what you think the other person is thinking.
So why is it nobody ever answers my direct questions asking why the conclusion doesn't follow?
quote:
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.
So the logical response is to then say, "That doesn't follow for the difference between what I said and the conclusion you drew is...."
Instead, what I get is nothing more than a restatement of the original problem that still leads to the conclusion that I drew despite my asking questions to have them explain why A does not lead to B.
Take this bit: The argument from Patrice, onifre, and Hyro was that those who don't like what happened should just "shut the fuck up about it" and "change the channel."
Oh...so there shouldn't be any consequences?
If the response is, "But I think there should be consequences," then that requires explanation such as, perhaps, giving examples of what consequences might be acceptable. "Shut the fuck up about it" doesn't actually bring any consequences to O&A for their actions. Nor does "change the channel."
As I asked Hyro just now: Suppose O&A's audience all decided that it was inappropriate, they didn't like it, and they all left. Would that be "censorship"?
If not, why would Ms. Ossario's comment leading to the audience saying, "You know, she's right," and them leaving be "censorship"? It isn't like she can make anybody stop listening. She has no power to actually remove them from the air. She is not the government, she doesn't have control over broadcasting licenses, she doesn't regulate the air waves or satellite communications.
The only thing she can do is persuade people of her argument. And yet, that seems to be problematic. So long as her argument doesn't actually lead to any consequences to O&A, she's golden but the moment there are any actual consequences to be meted out, there's a problem.
Repeating the word "censorship" a la Hyroglyphx doesn't actually answer the question. As already pointed out, there is no censorship. I've explained how the arguments put forth lead to a conclusion of "no consequences." So if that isn't what is meant, then something new needs to be brought up that explains how what was said doesn't lead to the conclusion.
If all you do is repeat the same refuted claim, all you get is the same refutation. You have to come up with something new.
quote:
I think you assume the worst of people
That would require I have emotional investment in you. Why do you think that?
quote:
And one huge problem with your approach is that it violates the rules of this forum: Argue the position, not the person.
Where do I ever argue the person without said person opening the door? You will note, Hyroglyphx and I were actually discussing the topic at hand up until the moment he said:
That's your opinion, just like it's my opinion that you're a melodramatic theater hag.
I gave it a couple lines of silly response, turning it back around on him, and he couldn't let it go. If he wants to stop having his homophobia pointed out, he should probably stop exposing it for all to see.
D'oh! I said, "expose"! Now somebody's going to think I was talking about him sexually exposing himself.
And then they'll call me a fag.
Let's see if that prediction fails to come true.
quote:
"Get to"!? Why would you want to? Its stupid and annoying.
For whom? Youm? That you're annoyed is my problem why?
Again, the solution is simple: Answer my questions, stop playing dumb, and don't simply repeat the same refuted argument. We'll get much further.

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 238 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-28-2010 11:55 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024