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: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 133 of 269 (558858)
05-05-2010 6:47 AM


Has Hitchens not been brought up yet?
To summarize the case for women not being funny:
Men are faster than women. You can come up with examples of some women that are faster than some men. But that doesn't mean the general statement 'men are faster than women' isn't true.
Hitch suggests in a casual fashion, a possible evolutionary explanation. He suggests that women are more prone to finding men more attractive if they are funny that men are prone to finding a woman more attractive if they are funny. He also points towards some parts of the female laugh ritual as being 'suggestive' in it's own right (head back, eyes closed, mouth slightly open repetitive vocalisation and breathlessness) as food for thought.

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by aiki, posted 05-05-2010 10:34 AM Modulous has replied

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


Message 150 of 269 (558906)
05-05-2010 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by aiki
05-05-2010 10:34 AM


Re: Has Hitchens not been brought up yet?
But everyone does the head-back, open-mouth, breathless and rhythmic funny noises thing when they laugh. There's no special 'female laugh ritual'.
And everyone has nipples.
I made some vague point a while ago about how laughter makes you physically vulnerable, and that could explain a male reluctance or resistance to laughing when with women, particularly with women that he wishes to impress with his manly strength and self-control.
This may be true - but it doesn't explain why women find women less funny than men. If that were true (and I believe some very small scale studies have shown that it might be), then we really do have a behavioural differences between us and it's something to think about. Is it genetic or cultural? Is it genetic that its cultural?
I suppose making someone laugh is a way of overpowering them, reducing them to a weakened state.
Maybe that would explain being funny - and Hitchens raises the point regarding laughter being a kind of surrender. It still raises the question of the forms of laughter and why they take on the forms they do (Why do we curl up into a spasming ball? What's paying for that?), I'm not sure if the 'looks a bit like having sex' phenomenon has any particular support. Maybe some of the habits in sex emulate laughter instead?
Some ideas look at it as a possible signal of communal 'all safe' noise, similar to that which our cousins make (or even, "Attack!" which might contribute towards explaining Schadenfreude and black comedy). When we encounter a confusing situation, once we have understood that it is just an absurd lingustic play, we alert others not to worry about the paradoxical or strange content. There is good evidence (and you can test it yourself) that people laugh harder and longer when in a crowd that is also laughing. I'm sure we've all experienced the sensation of being unable to stop from laughing despite your best intentions when surrounded by others. So the primal primate communal signalling idea has some merit perhaps.
It would be interesting to do a survey. First find how people rate sense of humour highly as a relatively important feature in a sexual partner.
Of those that do, ask why is that important.
It would be interesting to see if there was a sex based difference between "I want someone who can make me laugh" and "I want someone who will laugh at my jokes." type answers. It would be even more fascinating if we could tell if they were telling the truth or not
Anyway...erm. Yeah. I have yet to see conclusive studies that answer any of this, and I've been playing with introducing a 'Evolution of Laughter: Why did God create laughing at willies and farts again?' topic for a while but I've never been able to polish it off (fnar).
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by aiki, posted 05-05-2010 10:34 AM aiki has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Straggler, posted 05-05-2010 1:20 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 175 by dronestar, posted 05-07-2010 11:02 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 167 of 269 (559075)
05-06-2010 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by onifre
05-05-2010 4:00 PM


Re: Analyzing humor, seriously.
And Channel 4 here in UK did one polling the tastes of a different country, this is a list by perceived skill at stand up:
quote:
1 BILLY CONNOLLY
2 RICHARD PRYOR
3 RICKY GERVAIS
4 BILL HICKS
5 EDDIE IZZARD
6 PETER KAY
7 BILL BAILEY
8 CHRIS ROCK
9 MICHAEL MCINTYRE
10 VICTORIA WOOD
11 ROSS NOBLE
12 STEWART LEE
13 JIMMY CARR
14 DYLAN MORAN
15 WOODY ALLEN
16 DARA O'BRIAIN
17 LEE EVANS
18 HARRY HILL
19 SEAN LOCK
20 TOMMY COOPER
21 LEE MACK
22 RUSSELL BRAND
23 DANIEL KITSON
24 LES DAWSON
25 AL MURRAY
26 JACK DEE
27 ALAN CARR
28 GEORGE CARLIN
29 FRANKIE BOYLE
30 JO BRAND
31 ROBIN WILLIAMS
32 TOMMY TIERNAN
33 JERRY SADOWITZ
34 OMID DJALILI
35 RUSSELL HOWARD
36 TIM VINE
37 JASPER CARROTT
38 BEN ELTON
39 REG D HUNTER
40 EDDIE MURPHY
41 ED BYRNE
42 RHOD GILBERT
43 ALAN DAVIES
44 TOMMY TRINDER
45 FRANK SKINNER
46 DAVE GORMAN
47 BOB HOPE
48 JOHNNY VEGAS
49 ROB NEWMAN
50 STEVEN WRIGHT
51 BERNARD MANNING
52 CHRIS ADDISON
53 LENNY BRUCE
54 PAUL MERTON
55 DAVE ALLEN
56 JERRY SEINFELD
57 JOAN RIVERS
58 GRAHAM NORTON
59 STEVE COOGAN
60 ANDY KAUFMAN
61 STEVE MARTIN
62 CHUBBY BROWN
63 PHIL JUPITUS
64 BOB MONKHOUSE
65 JASON MANFORD
66 MARK THOMAS
67 DEMETRI MARTIN
68 PAUL O'GRADY
69 FRANKIE HOWERD
70 JENNY CLAIR
71 DENIS LEARY
72 ALEXEI SAYLE
73 JIM DAVIDSON
74 BILL COSBY
75 PATRICK KIELTY
76 CHIC MURRAY
77 EMO PHILLIPS
78 ARDAL O'HANLON
79 JULIAN CLARY
80 RONNIE CORBETT
81 TIM MINCHIN
82 BOB NEWHART
83 LENNY HENRY
84 DAVE SPIKEY
85 BARRY HUMPHRIES
86 HARRY ENFIELD
87 JETHRO
88 JOE PASQUALE
89 SEAN HUGHES
90 DICK GREGORY
91 RIK MAYALL
92 KEN DODD
93 ROSEANNE
94 ARTHUR SMITH
95 JACKIE MASON
96 LEE HURST
97 FRANK CARSON
98 DAVID BADDIEL
99 SHAPPI KHORSANDI
100 FREDDIE STARR
Just to show that it isn't a USA phenomenon. The female impersonators are almost as well represented as the actual women!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by onifre, posted 05-05-2010 4:00 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by onifre, posted 05-06-2010 1:16 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 171 by Son Goku, posted 05-06-2010 5:14 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 169 of 269 (559090)
05-06-2010 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by onifre
05-06-2010 1:16 PM


Re: Analyzing humor, seriously.
The list has Hicks at #4 which I must agree with. The US list had him too far down.
Well....I don't find Hicks at all funny :\ - he has moments where I smirk but it doesn't compare to even an unknown at a comedy club. But apparently I'm in a serious minority on that.
other than not recognizing a few names
I laughed at the American list. A little home-bias is to be expected, but how many people on that list of Greatest Comics of all time are not US/Canadians? I don't recognise a lot of the names on yours so I can't be sure but it does look a little...myopic.
I'm going to look up the comics I don't recoginze.
While I disagree with the placements, I basically agree with most of the appointees. There are some fantastic stand-ups listed, veritable paragons. With the occasional clanger.
For what it's worth if you were tempted to see if Brits could put any decent female standups, I think they over-rated them all. Victoria Wood writes some funny songs, though witty and catchy songs about being a middle aged woman are difficult to relate to. Likewise, I enjoy Jo Brand just being Jo Brand because she is a smart and interesting person with a clever and fast sense of humour. But I don't rate her as a performer of prepared comedy at all since a huge amount of material is basically her pointing out in a variety of different ways that she is fat,old and ugly.
And Jenny Eclair is just a gobshite.
And Demetri Martin and Emo Phillips should not be anywhere near a list, lol.
I have no idea how Demetri Martin managed to show up on the UK radar...I've never seen his standup stuff. I'll try and find that bit of the show and explain what the talking heads were saying...
As for Emo Philips, I have to say I have enjoyed some of his routines though I haven't seen anything original for a long time.
But the US list had Gallahger so I guess we're even.
I looked up a picture to see if I recognized him - thought RAZD had taken up smashing fruit and closed the browser window. Fair play.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by onifre, posted 05-06-2010 1:16 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by nwr, posted 05-06-2010 4:10 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 172 by onifre, posted 05-06-2010 6:24 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

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


(2)
Message 191 of 269 (559569)
05-10-2010 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Rrhain
05-09-2010 11:59 PM


Christ dude, did you leave any thoughts out of this post? Here we go with the long posts again.....
Which only goes to prove my point: You want to be able to spout any vile thought that crosses your mind without there being any consequences to what you're saying.
You concluded that from him commenting in a light hearted fashion that your post was rather long? Your powers of interpretation are superhuman.
The point is that no one "laid a turd,"
The fact that there was a segment on a television show that discussed it proves that point wrong.
I'd be keen to see this proof. How does a group of people talking about something, some of who may have disliked the skit, prove that someone 'laid a turd'. I have a feeling it all comes down to what is meant by 'laying a turd'.
quote:Again who cares what she considers funny on a radio show, change the channel and stop being the PC police.
Ah, yes...the common refrain of the bigot: Deny any responsibility and try to shift the attention to the person pointing out the problem. How dare someone actually pay attention. How dare someone respond to speech with more speech.
But that's all onifre is doing! He's responding to her speech with more speech - by pointing out her concerns can be ameliorated while the concerns of those that enjoy the performers are likewise taken into account...merely through a minor act of will on her behalf. Why the smear?
I don't have to be the author or the performer to get that. I just have to pay attention and treat the subject matter seriously rather than getting defensive.
I haven't heard the routine, but from what I can tell it draws upon the alarming juxtoposition between a very poor man (poor in finances and morality) and rich powerful women. It has an uneducated man propounding about the fact that someone seem to have loveless lives and, I quote, "She needs a fukin' man".
This "Homeless Charlie" needs to be played by a man because...the comedian is a man. The humour seems to derive from his sense of sexual entitlement and the misogyny that stems from the improbable union described.
They then say "Fuck the queen" (not as in 'have sex with the queen', but in the Sex Pistols kind of fashion).
I've no idea if it was delivered well but I've seen some hilarious "Have rough/violent sex with inappropriate/taboo/socially aloof/'frigid' type routines."
It could have been done with women comedians commenting about how Gordon Brown needs a 'fuckin' blow job' and a 'good fisting'.
And for additional punch this is followed by a commentary on the freedom to say what one likes in America.
If it misses then it misses. All jokes have the potential to fail.
At which point the response is, "Oops. I'm sorry," not, "You stupid bitch. Can't you take a joke?"
Something like this?
quote:
We apologize to the public officials for comments that were made on our XM show on May 9. We take very seriously the responsibility that comes with our creative freedom and regret any offense that this segment has caused.
Why is this PC cunt making an issue of it when all anyone has to do is change the station?
Because actions have consequences. You get enough people saying something and you wind up with people introducing legislation to revoke the citizenship of natural-born Americans for the mere suspicion of being "terrorists." Yeah, you changed the station, but you aren't the end-all/be-all of society.
I appreciate that actions have consequences. What are the consequences you think might follow from this? That enough people will get together and introduce legislation to make mandatory violent sex against Ms. Rice a citizen's duty?
The only consequences I can see here are people might say 'Oh that wasn't very nice, what a horrid thing to say. Now I'm in a bad mood.' and the solution to that is rather simple.
Let's not play dumb. The problem of misogyny. The problem of sexism. The problem of the denigration of women. Again, I'm hardly saying that certain subjects can never be funny, but you have to explain why it is funny and not disparaging.
You make it sound like 'funny' and 'disparaging' are always mutually exclusive.
Saying the words 'Press the flesh' isn't funny or disparaging. It is a funky way of saying 'get out there and shake some hands', advice sometimes given to politicians.
However, when the context is the Queen, and she's naked with her legs apart and someone makes a speculum shaped hand gesture with a certain intonation to 'Press the flesh' with a possible second rhyming phrase of "Her Maj's Vag"...that has the potential to be both disparaging and funny.
And what about satire?
Stop shoving your ass on my cock and I will.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Rrhain, posted 05-09-2010 11:59 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Rrhain, posted 05-14-2010 7:50 AM Modulous has replied

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


Message 200 of 269 (560348)
05-14-2010 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Rrhain
05-14-2010 7:50 AM


You never know what is enough until you know what is more than enough
No, I concluded that from his offense that somebody took his comments seriously and that his first reaction was not to engage but rather to get defensive
So what was the purpose with preceding with a quote where onifre was not being defensive but light hearted?
If there were nobody who felt the joke was bad, there wouldn't have been a televised discussion with someone saying it was bad, now would there?
Don't ask me - you are the one that claimed that the determiner of turd laying was the audience. 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. If they performed that bit at a NOW-NYC conference, then you'd be making a much stronger point.
I don't think onifre ever disputed that a human being existed that didn't like the joke - so pointing out that such human beings exist doesn't really seem relevant.
So - who gets to decide regarding turd dropping - a loud politically correct group of people - or the intended audience of millions?
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. Or even worse (since the racist bits can almost be entirely extracted without hampering the music) - banning it because it is an inherently misogynistic piece.
Is there a reason you're playing dumb?
I'm not playing dumb. I am either dumb, or you shifted the definition of 'laying a turd' between posts.
Instead, onifre wants to hide behind whines of censorship as if accepting consequences for one's statements is beyond the pale.
And if the consequences amount to censorship?
Rrhain, you are a reasonable fellow. Clearly you think the consequences here are just fine, but onifre might argue differently.
If saying "Jesus was a fraud" could get you burned alive - do you think onifre would be merely whining if he complained about that? 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?
Probably not.
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. It might not, it would depend on context. I think onifre's position is that the context being 'comedy' is sufficiently important.
Because his reaction is not to engage her speech but to shut it down.
Except he hasn't. At all. 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?
He doesn't want there to be any consequences.
It is my view that onifre is a 'free market' comedian. If the market finds it funny the consequences are that you make money and go on tours and so on. If the market finds it crass, tasteless, offensive and unfunny, you don't make any money and probably get things thrown at you or at least heckled into humiliation. You know - Ford occasionally produces a car that is dangerous and should never make it to the roads. Occasionally they do. Unless this is endemic, we don't close Ford down while there is still market demand for them. Why go chicken little when a comic makes a comedic error (if such an error occurred)?
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?"
I appreciate this is not a direct parallel for a number of reasons, 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.
Onifre seems to be irritated that when she speaks, she does so as if she has the backing of the many and that this unjustly gives greater weight to her words which in turn leads to consequences which are unfair.
Oh...so she doesn't get to respond to their joke. So much for that "responding to speech with more speech" claim of yours.
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. As you yourself point out, you have deduced this using your reading comprehension skills. Which must mean you are looking at words. Which constitutes 'speech'.
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.
So is there any particular reason you are criticising Onifre for doing what it is your are defending? I can understand you disagreeing with him - but you seem to be going further than that.
So why are Patrice and onifre saying something different?
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 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.
Huh? Are you saying that consensual sex is equivalent to rape?
No.
Homeless Charlie didn't actually express a desire to rape anybody. 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. Like any humour it relies on the unexpected: A person is brought to mind, and then something unexpected happens. You associate Ms Rice with statesmanship, with being well dressed, dignified and maybe some other things. The unexpected is the image of that person undressed and undignified.
Granted, Ms Rice would probably not consent to having violent sex with Homeless Charlie. 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.
That this was a deliberate attempt on O&As part to make jokes about raping Ms Rice is just the kind of thing that vocal minority does: 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.
Unless of course, I've missed a significant part of the bit?
That raping and beating a woman will be considered "funny" rather than despicable, leading to women being actually raped and beaten and having their attackers treated as something less than the monsters they are.
Allow me laugh like fucking drunk whore who just got punched in her kidneys by a child abusing Nazi vivisectionist.
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?
quote:
Q: What is worse than being raped by Jack the Ripper?
A: Being fingered by Captain Hook
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.
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?
O&A can't stop the child from watching Daddy beat up Mommy and making him think that women are objects to be abused at will, but they can certainly prevent those who are spouting that viewpoint from having a nationwide audience and then laughing along and taking it even further.
As far as I can see, they gave a load of homeless people money and alcohol and they were let loose in a shopping mall. Naturally - I would agree this is irresponsible and is beyond the realm of comedy.
But O&A can't stop people from being exposed to a prevalent attitude. Their job is to laugh at such attitudes and to get their audience to laugh at them too. Whether they succeed or not is not relevant as far as that point is concerned.
So here is what happened as far as I can see, from the transcript. Apparently they put him on the air because he was a funny guy and they had been talking for a while when the following basically takes place.
Homeless guy: I think C.Rice needs a man, she needs sex, I'd like to volunteer for the job.
Comedians: I can just imagine the look on her face when she realizes what's going on.
Homeless guy: I'd like to commit violent acts against her.
Comedians: Yes that's exactly what I meant
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.
I made a comment about onifre "waving his dick" at me. This is a common phrase that refers not to sex but rather to one-upsmanship. There are plenty of phrases I could have used, but I decided to use the one that included a penis because I knew that onifre would be unable to resist the urge to express his own homophobia. And in this context, it is especially relevant since it's an example of speech being responded to with more speech and detailing the difference between comments used for cruelty and comments used for another purpose.
But you didn't just say that, otherwise onifre's actual response makes no sense. You used the dick waving metaphor provocatively as you admit and you also said,
quote:
Look, I'm very sorry about his penis
To which onifre wryly remarked (as comics are wont to do) that not only did you think of a penis metaphor when you wanted to express an ego battle of one upmanship but you did it again when attempting to humorously express your sorrow for Patrice being male by suggesting you had penis on your mind, and building up from there.
You retorted that onifre did this because he was secretely gay for you, and that suggesting that onifre was making advances on you.
Onifre was suggesting that he was perfectly fine with you being gay, and said nothing disparaging about you. You seemed to take being called gay was an attempt to insult and so retorted "And you!". If you think onifre was being homophobic for joking about you making two penis references must mean its on your mind, therefore you like gay porn. Surely you are being homophobic when you suggest he is homosexual for making a joke about you being homosexual?
You even took 'stop being a fag about it' not to mean 'stop being an annoying meddler' but to mean 'stop doing things that gay people do about the affair' and ranted about onifre's metaphorical attempt to anally rape you before impugning him for homophobia.
He's trying to get a rise out of me, put me on the defensive, and shift the focus onto my sexuality as if I'm supposed to get so upset at being accused of being gay that I forget everything else.
Clearly it worked if that was his intent. 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.
You responded on a defensive rant against onifre's homophobia. But I wasn't talking about onifre's homophobia or lack thereof. Onifre has not represented himself in any kind of politically correct context. You even tried to throw a little defensive shit my way referencing an argument we had years ago.
I could raise the "I'm offended about your jokes about gayness" point against onifre I suppose - but he'd probably just retort "So?", because I think that's kind of his point. For the record, I don't think either of you are being homophobic.
Again, there's a very simple way to prove me wrong: All onifre needs to do is stop making comments about my sex life and we'll see how long I can go before I make a comment about his.
Erm, or we could just discuss things in a grown up fashion using occasional adult humour that we don't take personally?
I just saw onifre replied while I was typing this, it'd be interesting to see what my score is on 'what I think onifre is attempting to say'
Edited by Modulous, : just added a bit since I realized I forgot to give credit to some context.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Rrhain, posted 05-14-2010 7:50 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Rrhain, posted 06-05-2010 5:31 AM Modulous has replied

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


Message 222 of 269 (563499)
06-05-2010 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Rrhain
06-05-2010 5:31 AM


Chilax, dude.
"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.
OK, but that doesn't explain why you chose that particular quote of onifre's at that time. 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. Not one where he passed comment that your post was long with an expression of exasperation?
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 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.
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!
No, I'm just asking you who you think gets to determine 'turd dropping' because you seem to be inconsistent with it. How on earth did you conclude that I think bigots get to determine bigotry? Can you please stop using that enormous brain of yours and just stick to what I am saying? You can use your cunning mind to determine my motivations on your own time.
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?
That doesn't answer the question. Does the entire audience need to collectively agree on the turd drop, or does a single person count?
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. 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
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.
Since when is Fox News a venue we'd expect to see an academic discussion? Since when did we demand irreverent comics give such analysis?
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.
But I made no such decision. Could you explain what your definitive view on 'laying a turd' is?
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.
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?
Where is this "censorship" you are so scared of?
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.
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.
You are right. That part where I said this 'controversy' was exactly the same as burning people alive was entirely unjustified.
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.
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.
We were talking about consequences. Some of them we don't agree are fair/just etc. Some of them we speak out about. Some of them we act out against.
Just because we do that does not mean we want to live in a consequence-free world.
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.
I don't remember disagreeing with any of those points, I assure you I need no reminding of them. I remember you thinking I disagreed with them, but that's different.
..is reaction is not to engage her speech but to shut it down.
Except he hasn't. At all. She thinks the comedians should shut up. Onifre thinks she should shut up.
You know the terrible thing about the Internet? People's words get saved
I know. That was my point. Her words are saved. His words are saved. Where is the shutting down of speech here exactly?
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.
I paid attention. Onifre said some things. 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'?
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?
I see onifre is engaging in conversation. If he wanted to shut it down, he'd just stop responding.
Just because his view of things is that she is over reacting, doesn't mean he is shutting anything down.
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.
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. 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. 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.
Because that is what he seems to be saying to me.
Huh? What "chicken little"? O&A weren't fired. And the trouble they did get into had nothing to do with the joke.
Fox News framed this as a joke about raping black woman. When it wasn't. It was some guys laughing about fucking women. Then they tried to angle this as some kind of 'is radio cleaning house?' and she was saying the nation is going through a big change and so on. THEY were making out to be a big thing. When as you point out, it wasn't.
He doesn't want there to be any consequences.
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.
Sorry I thought you were talking about onifre's attitude towards consequences. It was that bit when you said that he doesn't want there to be any consequences that fooled me. I forgot to use Rrhain's superior comprehension techniques.
So what you meant by "He doesn't want there to be any consequences." was that you think bigots get to choose who censor?
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?
Since you read and understood my post you already know the answer since I already gave my opinions about this.
He whines that she's trying to shut O&A down by shutting her down.
I think his complaint more centres around the idea that she is trying to represent a larger majority than she actually in fact does.
which in turn leads to consequences which are unfair.
Says who? You? Why should we believe you?
The bit before the sentence cutoff says who. It was my understanding of onifre's broad position. You don't have to take my word for it. But you should probably believe me that it is my take on onifre's position.
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.
I know that more words by themselves does not result in censorship of previous words.
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?
Why are you talking? You aren't apologizing for the joke either. It's probably a combination of your desire to express your opinion and that people are asking you about your opinion along with being given a medium through which to express it.
I suspect that applies to Patrice and onifre too.
"Minorities"? And how did you manage to come to that conclusion?
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.
You probably got confused again between me telling you what someone else's opinion is with my own opinion.
You did not just say that, did you?
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.
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.
Wanting to have sex with someone is rape?
I thought rape was having sex with somebody without their consent?
abe: It's a significant impediment to discussion if you don't expand on your assertions. I gave you an argument as to why it wasn't necessarily rape. You replied by re-asserting it was necessarily rape. Could you explain why you think that rather than just repeating it? Otherwise we won't get anywhere.
The difference is that you don't mean it. Homeless Charlie did.
No. I definitely mean it. I really do want to have filthy perverted and ludicrous sex with Sheridan Smith.
Now - where is your evidence that Homeless Charlie 'meant it'?
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?
I was careful to not specify anybody
I merely observed that it is common for the vocal minority to speak out against something they haven't witnessed. 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.
Unless of course, I've missed a significant part of the bit?
Yes.
Psst, that's where you quote or link to the bit I missed and talk about it
Huh? What on earth does this have to do with anything? Is the term "sarcasm" completely lost on you?
Sarcasm! How fortuitous you should bring that up!
And rather than pointing out the ridiculousness of such a statement, they hosts decided to take it further.
quote:
Charlie: I tell you what. What's that George Bush bitch.. um Rice? Condoleezza Rice?
Anthony: Condoleezza Rice, yea.
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.
Is Anthony being sarcastic at the end there?
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.
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 (the harm of sensitizing us vs the therapy of laughing at shitty things).
You know - rather than hoping the sheer power of your intellectual charisma would suffice in lieu if evidence.
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.
Maybe - but I still don't see this is definitely true. From what I can tell, both could be true at once.
The question is - why did their employers 'have' to respond? If it was their own concerns and their sponsors etc, that's one thing. If it was a vocal minority spreading Fear of a backlash if they didn't respond in some token fashion...that's a crap state of affairs.
That my point. Onifre's response makes no sense. I used a common phrase regarding posturing and he started talking about sex
He was taking the piss. It's quite a common thing between men who are comfortable with each other, it might even be a form of bonding. It did make sense in that context. Your inability to make sense of it, is not the same thing as it being nonsensical.
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.
Precisely, and since you were construing onifre's comments as offensive, therefore your comments were too.
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.
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.
The encounter reminds me of a clueless nerd versus the class bully.
Stop giving the comedian stellar material!
And your coming down on me only compounds the problem.
Having read and understand my last post you already know why I'm 'coming down' on you and not onifre since I said it.
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?
But I wasn't saying he was a homophobic prick. Onifre was just having a joke at your expense in a completely natural way. Cavediver once joked that I was a 'bloody secret german' or something - is Cavediver a nationalist or a racist?
On the other hand, you went apeshit with implications that onifre wanted to fuck you which could have been humorous if you had delivered well. You just ended up coming off like you might think O&A did: like a jerk that has deep issues about being jokingly referred to as gay after you make a bunch of penis metaphors.
"Defensive"? Nice try, but I'm on the offensive here.
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.
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.
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?
You still haven't learned your lesson. The board collapsed because your incompetence. You, specifically. And now you're throwing another hissy fit.
LOL. 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?
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.
But if you want to talk about that in any great detail - it's probably best in Private Messages or maybe a Great Debate thread if you want it public. 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. Like someone getting massively defensive would.

another edit: I missed a question you asked. Thems the problems with these long posts where you fragment arguments into individual statement or sentence fragments I suppose.
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?
No - I'm not. You are right that the point I raised was trivial - they technically can't protect people from being exposed to shitty attitudes. Presumably you were speaking a little imprecisely for brevity - the intent of which I can't criticize you for !
Anyway, the point you chose to quote was really irrelevant to the point in the section you quoted
quote:
As far as I can see, they gave a load of homeless people money and alcohol and they were let loose in a shopping mall. Naturally - I would agree this is irresponsible and is beyond the realm of comedy.
But O&A can't stop people from being exposed to a prevalent attitude. Their job is to laugh at such attitudes and to get their audience to laugh at them too. Whether they succeed or not is not relevant as far as that point is concerned.
So here is what happened as far as I can see, from the transcript. Apparently they put him on the air because he was a funny guy and they had been talking for a while when the following basically takes place.
Homeless guy: I think C.Rice needs a man, she needs sex, I'd like to volunteer for the job.
Comedians: I can just imagine the look on her face when she realizes what's going on.
Homeless guy: I'd like to commit violent acts against her.
Comedians: Yes that's exactly what I meant
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.
Do you think radio hosts are obligated to vet their guests for opinions that might offend? There are certainly steps they can take to ameliorate the risk, and O & A clearly exacerbated the risk as far as I can tell. But assuming that mistake, they used Charlie's comments as segue into a discussion on the freedom of speech (though I agree, it could be argued that this doesn't equate to freedom to have other people pay for your speech to be broadcast, but it should also be noted that there is no right to 'not be offended').
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : missed a bit

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Rrhain, posted 06-05-2010 5:31 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2010 10:24 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 224 by Rrhain, posted 06-06-2010 11:23 AM Modulous has replied

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


Message 223 of 269 (563569)
06-05-2010 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Modulous
06-05-2010 8:53 AM


Re: Chilax, dude.
Rather than editing the long post. I've just listened to the first twenty minutes of the show and I should note that I made an error: Homeless Charlie was a long time fan of the show and once appeared in an event called Homeless Shopping but that event was not on at that time.
Charlie appeared on the show because he the only fan that turned up to their show that day so they put him on air. For the record I think he's a funny guy, and I detect no intent or desire to commit rape having heard as much as I have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2010 8:53 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

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


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


Gender, humour and cruelty
And again with the long posts. 8,000 words including quotes? Really?
You complained I wasn't answering your questions. I have endeavoured to do so - but some of them are 'have you stopped beating your wife' types. They rely on one misunderstanding of what I was saying or another.
Given the length of your post - I've had to cut things a bit though, so I do miss some questions which I think are based on these kinds of misunderstandings. Once some more key issues are understood, we might go back to them later, OK?

The case of the bizarre quote as proof

Why that quote? Why then? Because in this conversation he hadn't expressed his obsession about my sex life until that moment. Are you expecting me to have pre-emptively responded to a comment he hadn't made yet?
No, why would I be so stupid?
oni said - my my what a long post.
you replied, quoting this section - which proves that "You want to be able to spout any vile thought that crosses your mind without there being any consequences to what you're saying."
I am asking you, how does oni's expression of exasperation at the length of your post prove that onifre wants to be able to spout any vile thought that crosses his mind without there being any consequences to what he's saying.
Nothing to do with the gay joke stuff. So when you ask me 'Homophobia isn't vile?', this makes no sense since you yourself have noted that onifre was not being homophobic in the part you quoted him in. So where is the proof in what he said that he had a desire to be able to say vile thoughts without consequence?
That wasn't the first time onifre had commented about the length of my responses. Look, it's clear that you haven't been paying any attention to the system you're supposed to be moderating. Given your complete ignorance, what makes you think you have anything useful to say on the subject?
Since you specifically wanted it answering I will.
Yes, onifre has commented on the length of your posts before. As you point out, he says 'again' which clearly demonstrates that he has at least noted your long posts and strongly indicates on that alone he has commented on them previously.
I asked a very simple question: how is that remotely related to onifre's purported desire to say vile things without consequence? If you just wanted to say that I could understand it. Based on your previous interactions you reached the conclusion that onifre was the way he was.
But I'm confused as to how commenting on your post length is proof of this. When I asked, you started talking about other things onifre has said or done. Fine, let's accept for now that onifre does indeed want to say vile things sans consequence. How is the quoted comment proof of that?
Rather than thousands of words, "It isn't" would have sufficed. Or "sorry, I didn't quote the bit I though I had" or something like that.
What makes me think I have anything useful to say? My brain. I can think of no more honest an answer. Right now I'm just trying to clear up a simple issue I noticed in something you said, I didn't anticipate it would expand to this degree of argument.

Who is the audience, and how do they decide?

The audience are the collection of people that receive a performance.
The intended audience is the body of people the performance was aimed at/tailored for.
A member of the audience is one person who is part of the collective body that is the audience.
A member of the audience IS NOT THE AUDIENCE.
A subset of the audience IS NOT THE AUDIENCE.
Anything that isn't the total collective body of receivers IS NOT THE AUDIENCE.
OK.
You said that the audience decides if someone has dropped a turd.
Fine - is this consensus, majority vote, what?
You then claimed that a small group of people can decide if someone has dropped a turd.
But the small group is not the audience. So I'm asking if you could marry these two concepts together so that I can understand your ideas on when a performance drops a turd.
Is that OK?
Have I ever said anything other than "the audience"? If so, I request that you provide such a quote. Now, I realize that you haven't actually read the thread, but the conversation goes so much better if you keep up.
Fair enough. It was only a few posts ago, but that's still 20,000 words
Rrhain writes:
onifre writes:
The point is that no one "laid a turd,"
The fact that there was a segment on a television show that discussed it proves that point wrong.
When I queried how it was proof you said
Rrhain writes:
If there were nobody who felt the joke was bad, there wouldn't have been a televised discussion with someone saying it was bad, now would there?
So you seemed to be indicated that as long as enough people felt the joke was bad to influence Fox News try to make a big sensational story out of it and have three people argue about it for ten minutes then that proves that the audience thinks they dropped a turd.
So I'm trying to ascertain: how does turd dropping get decided? Merely by a small subset of the audience (who were presumably not the intended audience) saying they didn't like it? Because I think a smaller subset of an entity and the entity are not identical.
But you have really made it difficult to get this teensy little question, now long since passed its useful relevance, answered.
You have finally come to the conclusion that it isn't just that someone has to think a turd was dropped but they must be able to justify it.
The entire audience counts, but only insofar as they are capable of justifying their response.
But that seems to make it impossible to determine if a turd is dropped since we'd need to ascertain if people are capable of justifying their response. You have two people you think haven't, but that still isn't close to the entire audience.
So how can you conclude that talking about it on Fox is proof that a turd was dropped?
Or are you just taking the position what they did/said was absolutely unjustifiable? In which case, wouldn't it have been much easier just to say that so that we could explore that more.
Oh! That's right! You don't actually care about the audience. You only care about the "intended" audience.
Well, the intended audience in this case is the people that regularly listen (generating ad revenue). For some reason you have assumed these are all bigots. "Ergo, bigots get to define bigotry."
She isn't the intended audience, but she became part of the audience if/when she listened to the show (but there is probably some element of time here, if she listened to the 1 minute bit that everyone is talking about and nothing more, then she wasn't the audience she was more of a passing voyeur).

Consequences

You assert onifre wants to live in a world with no consequences because he is apparently arguing against some consequences. I am asking you are there any consequences to telling a bad joke that you might disagree with? And if you did disagree with those consequences, would expressing such disagreement be indicative of you wanting to live in a world without consequences? And if not, why is it the case with onifre?
Your question makes no sense. Yes, I know I am avoiding the issue because, to put it bluntly, I don't trust you. You're playing a game of gotcha. If I say that censorship is bad, then you're going to run away with it and apply it in completely inappropriate ways. If I say anything that appears to be that censorship is good, you're going to accuse me of being against free speech or some other form that will merely poison the well.
You are being paranoid. I can only assure you I am discussing in good faith here. I have told you why I asked the question and if you don't believe me and instead think I'm trying to trick into saying something that is not relevant to the discussion I can see no way to persuade you otherwise.
I used censorship because I figured it was reasonably close to the topic at hand, and you might disagree with outright censorship as a consequence. To be doubly sure, I included other consequences such as having one's throat slit for speaking out against Islam which I am 100% sure you disagree with. Unfortunately I think you broke that argument up into too many fragments and lost a sense of context because you thought I was saying that O & A's case was the same as religiously motivated beheadings.
Do you agree that there are some consequences in some areas of life, that should they occur, you would speak out against - act against or whatever?
Does this mean you want to live in a consequence free world?
If not - how do you justify saying onifre wants to live in such a world based on the evidence that he is speaking out against certain consequences?
When what you are saying is that there should be no consequences, then that precisely means that you want to live in a consequence-free world.
That's right. But all you have is onifre arguing against some consequences. Not all. He even advocates some consequences.
This was because of your continued claim that there was "censorship" or something tantamount to it.
Again, I stress: I am not saying there was something tantamount to censorship that occurred. I am asking you a hypothetical question for the purposes of getting across to you that you were being hyperbolic with regards to onifre's position regarding consequences.
Have you noticed that you take my questions and turn them into statements of belief on my part?

Shutting down speech

Onifre's entire argument has been that Ms. Ossorio needs to shut up. Same with Patrice. That's "shutting down speech."
I know that onifre has said she should shut up. But writing that a person should shutup on a board regarding words that were spoken a long time ago and recorded cannot really be justifiably be called shutting anything down. It's calling for someone to not say things which aren't true, which are unjustified out of the field of expertise.
Patrice shut her down during the video. But onifre has not shut her down, he has just said she should 'shut up'. Which is essentially what she was saying to comedians that offend some people.
So is she shutting down comedy now?
Oh...so she doesn't get to respond to their joke.
She did. And she made out she was speaking for the people. I think the issue they are having is that they don't believe she does. So she should shut up saying that she does.
Is there another meaning to "shut the fuck up about it" that I'm not getting?
I think its a statement that expresses that the person uttering things the ideal conclusion is that the person they are referring to should stop talking/making a fuss/screaming or otherwise making a noise.
I think onifre would like to see people that get offended easily not go out of their way to listen to things that are obviously going to offend them and then complain that they got offended. As Homeless Charlie comments on that kind of attitude "Say what the fuck you want, you don't like it? Fuck You".
He's perfectly entitled to express his desire for her to stop the cycle of getting offended, just as he as expressed that he will listen to what she has to say. But that should be that. If she was try and apply pressure by attempting to represent a larger group of people than she might actually...none of whom regularly pay attention to the adverts on O & As show...to pressure the sponsors into pressuring the radio station into pressuring O & A to apologize then onifre might have a problem with that.
If O & A's regular audience called in in droves and complained, the sponsors fears would be well placed. So if she is spreading FUD, she should shut the fuck up.
Sounds reasonable to me.
They, and you, have already claimed that you know that Ms. Ossorio didn't actually hear the broadcast but was rather simply told about it.
I have no idea if she heard it or not. Nor have I said if she has or not. You are getting confused. You will attempt to provide a quote where I actually spoke about a general tendency of my view of what onifre was saying about vocal minorities. I already explained the misunderstanding but it didn't help. I would be surprised if you can find anything about me saying I KNOW that Ms. Ossorio specifically didn't hear it.
And I'm not playing dumb by the way. I said what I meant and I meant what I said. Don't add bits in there in an attempt to strawman me, thanks.
In case there is any remaining doubt. I do not know if Ms Ossorio has heard the whole show, if she listens to every one of them, if she has an O & A T-shirt, or any of these things. My argument does not rely on knowing any of these things about her. My apologies for any confusion I may have contributed to here, but that should settle that, right?
If it was a vocal minority
What "vocal minority"? Who is this "vocal minority"? And how do you know they are the "minority"?
Maybe I should just give up since we don't speak the same language. In my world 'If' is an indicator that a conditional is going to follow.

Rape

But I guess, "fuck that bitch to death" doesn't mean, you know, "fuck that bitch to death."
Now you're getting the idea!
"I'm starving." - I'm hungry
"I could kill for a burger" - I'm very hungry.
"I could eat a scabby donkey" - same.
"Man I want to fuck that girl so hard it hurts." - she's hot, my libido is engaged.
"I worked my fingers to the bone." - I worked very hard.
"The queen has a horsey-face" - The queen, like many other royals, suffers from lengthening of her face associated with inbreeding.
You wanted to analyse the humour? Hyperbole. It can be funny its own right and its very common. Homeless Charlie was quite the master employing it for comic effect, as you probably know from having listened to the show right?
Or maybe you think Charlie really believed that the Queen of England has a fully equine head? That he actually rang Al Sharpton to complain about his jewish landlord?
And "Punch her all in the fucking face. Shut up bitch!" doesn't actually mean, you know, "punch her all in the fucking face."
No - that does mean that.
No, wanting to have sex with someone is not rape. Rape is sexual assault. Homeless Charlie didn't say that he was sexually aroused by Rice and Bush and the Queen. He said he wanted to assault them sexually.
He said he wanted to fuck her. In typical Charlie fashion, just as when he talked about robbing to get money, he escalates it into something crazier and crazier.
He didn't say he wanted to sexually assault the queen. He said fuck the queen. The Sex Pistols said the same thing. He didn't mention anything sexual to do with her at all.
I've said fuck the queen. And I've subsequently met her (well she walked within raping distance). I really didn't have the urge to have sex with her consensually or otherwise.
And then punch them in the face.
That's assault.
Agreed. Unless it was consensual. Then its just kinky.
No, you didn't. You didn't give any indication as to why it wasn't necessarily rape. Instead, you changed the subject to your own fantasies. But this isn't about what you said, Modulous. It's about what Homeless Charlie said.
He said he wanted fuck someone.
I said I wanted to fuck someone.
Was I expressing a desire to rape? If the two are different, how?

Charlie meant it - it's offensive

When someone says something outrageous and seriously means it, encouraging it is not the appropriate response.
And when I asked for evidence he made it you quoted
quote:
"As long as you don't hurt nobody." This coming from a guy that POPS old ladies in the head.
which references a joke from like 15-20 minutes earlier. The only person he was 'popping in the head' was C.Rice in the previous section who isn't an 'old lady'. The old ladies he was joking about beating up earlier are to what they are referring.
You criticize me for not paying attention to context and not reading the thread, and that I somehow think everything you say occurs in a vacuum. You've spent hours composing these replies, have you spent even 30 minutes listening to the actual broadcast under discussion? Well, actually I can clearly tell that if you have it was a long time ago.
If you don't care for full context leap up to 3minutes.
When asked how makes money he says he picks up cans and 'mugs old bitches, it doesn't matter' after all 'what is she going to do, chase you down the street?'. When asked how he takes down the old ladies he comments that hooks the motherfuckers to the street. Again clearly not serious comments, just the kind of humour one might expect from an O & A fan.
He goes onto advise you should mug them on cheque day, if you catch them to late they've just got cat food in their purse.
So it shouldn't be difficult for you to find some evidence that the O&A bit could be more damaging to society than it was beneficial
Um, what part of advocating rape is "beneficial"?
No part of it, at least not under present circumstances. But I don't think they were. So, given the wealth of evidence you said existed can you show me that joking about something that, if real, would be a horrifying moral crime has the effect of advocating for the crime or has any other harmful effects?
It's traditionally done using links to science papers. Sociology or psychology seem appropriate fields to start looking. I'm not just going to take your word for it, I'm afraid.
No, I think radio hosts are obligated to accept the consequences imposed by their employers when they encourage offensive behaviour.
I agree with that to some degree. If the employers employed them to encourage offensive behaviour then the employers should be the ones accepting the consequences (and the radio hosts but not from their employers, from the law (where it was broken)).
And, as anybody who has had any experience with the internet knows, when you let the average Joe say whatever he wants into a microphone, you will inevitably get somebody saying something stupid.
Now, does the radio host encourage the stupidity or do they acknowledge that it is stupid? If the former, is anybody really surprised that the employer might come down on the host lest people associate the stupid comment with the station? Such as by asking the host to apologize?
Agreed. However, O & A did take steps to correct Charlie after his comments - they moved him on to talking about something else more positive quite quickly and then rebuked his hypocrisy.
And then when the host gets pissy over that request to apologize, is the employer really out of bounds for suspending the hosts, claiming that they don't seem to understand the seriousness of the situation?
That's all fine and dandy. Though there might be something to be said as to why the employer felt the need to do that. Was it because they realized it was offensive? Or was it because they heard a 100 people say they were offended and they feared a financial boycott based on what wasn't based on real audience reaction but instead on availability bias (aka a vocal minority - a group which is generally relatively very small but vocal. The fact that they are vocal means they are more noticeable that the majority who would disagree with them, but don't feel motivated to speak out at everything they liked).
If a small group of people complained that you were doing your job the way your employer has given permission (since this I'm told was typical O & A stuff) to do it. And your employer asked you to apologize for it, you might feel a bit put out?
Granted, knowing if it was a vocal minority difficult to ascertain. So to be clear I'm asking if it hypothetically was - would commenting in a negative fashion about the vocal minority's undue influence be so terrible?

The homo drone

Onifre's response makes no sense. I used a common phrase regarding posturing and he started talking about sex...
I cut off the other 275 words where you repeat your defence even though you are not at all defensive. You are just constantly repeating your defence. Over and over again. That's all. Because it's very important that you know that I understand that it was justified.
The last time you gave this defence I pointed out that you didn't just use a common phrase that you deliberately and provocatively chose to try and provoke a reaction. You actually used three penis metaphors. Oni picked up on it etc. Feel free to reread what I said at Message 200.
Precisely, and since you were construing onifre's comments as offensive, therefore your comments were too.
So why are you whining about me?
I'm not whining about you. I simply said
quote:
I find your casual homophobia offensive. Time and again you project some kind of homosexual intent on your debate opponents as if it were some kind of retort to suggest they might be gay for you.
And later clarified I wasn't really offended, I was just pointing out that it was ironic that you dropped a turd by using offensive humour/wit in attempt to embarrass your opponent.
That resulted in an outpouring of defensiveness on your part. I know why you did what you did, I saw it when you did it, and no explanation was needed. I pointed out it could be seen as offensive that's all. I was hoping you'd merely disagree so that we could use that as a segue into discussing how we can tell if it was offensive given I was part of the audience to your written performance (and internet debate is a bit of a performance piece right?) and I had decided you had dropped a bomb. But that didn't go that way, because you wanted to explain why you said what you said instead.
So maybe we can move on to discussing that now?
Which is probably why onifre keeps trying to insult me through his fantasies of my sexuality.
What's your excuse?
A comedian makes a joke about how often you use penis metaphors and you take that as homophia and imply that since he is homophobic he must want to have sex with you. You do this a graphic fashion. The comedian, having been heckled realizes he's hit a comedy gold pot, but refrains and responds to you without referencing the situation. But you respond to me about onifre and you were getting a bit dickish at this point so onifre responded using provocative language of his own which sent you spiralling into madness. Onifre has been digging the gold mine since.
If you want to keep onifre laughing at you, carry on, I'll abandon any hope of having a reasonable conversation with you.
The really awkward part is that I've wanted to express to you for some time how I genuinely find you sexually attractive, and sometimes I even like your personality. But I fear that if I do that you'll think I'm being subtly homophobic or something. I kind of think Bill Hicks is fuckable too. Maybe that's why I'm trying to get between you two when you bicker
Oh, the condescending attitude, the false humility that you are simply trying to be "reasonable," this was exactly the way you behaved the last time we got into it. Now, I'll retract my comment of "moderator" and just leave it as "criticism of your abilities."
Yeah - I do condescend people I feel are confusing their beliefs about their discussion partners (condescending neh?) with what the person actually is saying. Because I feel I need to break things down into the least controversial particles I can so I can break through the emotional filters between me and the normally reasonable person I am trying to talk to.
Sorry about that - if (conditional!) we agree that this is the situation, what would you propose would be a better way to deal with it? I remember asking back in that immortal thread, and the only reply I remember getting was that the only action that would please those I disagreed with was to abandon my own views and slavishly comply with the demands of certain members.
But seriously - I have been a dick with you - but you've be a gigantic prick with me so I feel that is fair. By trying to avoid being a dick, I ironically get condescending. You are right in this observation, it is a genuine character flaw.
So Congratulations: You've dredged through the records and subjected me to analysis and located one of my many flaws and cruelly paraded it around like the gigantic prick that you are so fantastically portraying. Now that you have completed you ad hominem attack how about you address the relevant issues at hand? To be quite frank, I have a fiance who is more than capable of pointing out my flaws with much more precision and sting than you and I am quite poignantly reminded of them when they rear their ugly head. But she doesn't do it to score points in a debate.
As for the condescension itself: Again, I'm sorry, but when you're a fucking genius like me, it's difficult to know what level to pitch at. The humility is real, by the way.

The collapse of all fora as we know them

I suggested we not talk about this here - but you insist bringing up years old discussions that left a bitter note as if it was important that you beat me into some kind of timid submission under the revelation that in my mid-twenties I was not the perfect paragon of excellence. All of this because I said I was offended at your using homosexuality as an insult in a faux kind of way to raise the point of people getting offended even if you think they shouldn't be (like with O & A).
Fortunately, I'm not as big a prick as you, so I'm not going start making recriminations against your behaviour from an argument years ago (are you sure you aren't a woman?) or get into the territory where I am defending myself in a thread where it is clearly not on topic in a subtopic that is pushing those limits already.
There is a link though, that I think is interesting to that thread. As I said I'm not dredging it up, but keep in mind your rant about consequences esp wrt not following the boss' requests.
I note that you take quotes and you ascribe them to me despite the fact that I didn't say them. Could you please at least correct this? I appreciate that you might be using second person plural but this is not made clear and it is trivially easy to change that.
Other than that - I stand unwilling to retaliate. Continue being a shithead to me if you so desire, see if I have a breaking point. I probably do. I've never been suspended for even a day from this site. Allow me to provide one at least classy insult courtesy of Blake
quote:
He who the ox to wrath has moved
Shall never be by woman loved.
If you succeed at pissing me off, that means you are gay. So ha!
What would it take for you to consider the possibility that you screwed up? And not just in a small way but rather at every single turn?
I gave the answer at the time: evidence. I have already accepted some blame for things in this very thread. If you'd like to discuss the specific case with me some time, personal messages or a GD thread are more appropriate than here.
I realize you are in defensive mode. But it seems to me that putting me on the defensive does not achieve the aim of increasing our mutual understanding of humour and cruelty. With maybe a view to gender at some point.
Again, it's a very simple way to prove me wrong: Onifre stops talking about his fantasies about my cock and we'll see how long I can go before mentioning onifre's fantasies about my cock.
How about you stop talking to onifre, and see if he hounds you mercilessly about the issue. Then I will either suspend him, or since I am a participant here I will recommend his suspension. Meanwhile you and I can get to the humour topic this is nothing to do with.

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

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

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


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Rrhain, posted 06-26-2010 1:22 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Rrhain, posted 06-27-2010 5:32 AM Modulous has replied

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


(1)
Message 236 of 269 (566775)
06-27-2010 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Rrhain
06-27-2010 5:32 AM


The stupid! It burns!
Clearly further discussion is pointless so I won't further bother. No doubt you'll consider that vindication of everything you said - but given I've spent thousands of words and many hours trying to simply get you to understand what I am saying to no avail, I suspect writing would have the same impact as not bothering.
What are you gonna do? Suspend me?
If you really think you have a justification for your idiotic behaviour, then sweetie, honey, baby, pussycat, bring it on.
No - I'm not going to suspend you. I'm going to show you how massively wrong you are. I'll plop the thread into Coffee House but if you'd prefer to Great Debate it, lemme know.
abe: Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?, see you there.
You're right. Why I'm having such a hard time with this, I'm not sure. I'm clearly pulling the quotes from the right place, but why I am having such a hard time with the name attached to the post I'm pulling them from, I can only attribute to my own lack of rigor.
Indeed, thanks for conceding the error again. I intend to show you in the other thread how your lack of rigor has caused you to be wrong in other ways too.
Take care,
Mod
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024