Deadly internet bullying, OR ways in which the FF is like police brutality

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Are you arguing that laughter implies humour and humour implies sarcasm, and hence that the crowd's laughter shows they thought Bush was being sarcastic, LS?
I hope not because that just doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

No, I am arguing that they laughed at a remark that isn't funny unless understood to be sarcastic.

What's funny about "yeah thanks"? In what other form of wit would the words "Yeah, thanks" be remotely humorous?

... people often find [sarcasm] funny, regardless of whose expense it is made at.[/COLOR][/I]
That isn't my experience.

What isn't your experience?

Do you mean YOU don't find humor in sarcasm ever or do you mean nobody you have ever met finds humor in sarcasm?

[mickthinks]

In what other form of wit would the words "Yeah, thanks" be remotely humorous?
Self-deprecating irony, I'd say.

Do you mean YOU don't find humor in sarcasm ever or do you mean nobody you have ever met finds humor in sarcasm?
Sorry if I wasn't clear there. People who laugh when someone they feel protective or sympathetic toward is the victim of sarcasm—they are rare in my experience.

[LadyShea]

You and I must have vastly different understandings of sarcasm, in which case we can never agree.

"Self deprecating irony" is a form of sarcastic humor, in my experience.

I also don't consider sarcastic humor so heinous as to label people "victims" of it. "Smart ass" and "Wisecrack" are terms used to describe sarcastic humor. It's a well known form of wit, not always a weapon.

[mickthinks]

Sarcasm was originally a metaphorical "tearing of the flesh", and though it is no longer so intense, it hasn't entirely lost that sense of inflicting wounds. I believe that is the sense in which the journalists used it to colour the story of this event, and that intent to hurt is precisely what I do not see in the clip.

We don't need to agree about 'sarcasm', because the real issue is 'deliberate hurt'. If you accept that "yeah thanks" may not have been intended to hurt the girl at all, then what is there left to complain about in Bush's behaviour?

Mick

[LadyShea]

I never read the journalists take on the story. I watched the video clip only, and formed my opinion of the incident based solely on that viewing.

As I have stated multiple times, his behavior was inappropriate for the setting and for his position.

Sarcasm, or self deprecating irony, or whatever you want to call it was uncalled for and out of place right then and there. The consequence was that everyone laughed at his response to the girl's question...which could reasonably cause embarrassment to the questioner who's question prompted the humorous remark, at the very least. The consequences were negative even if unintentional. That's my only complaint.

Had he not said "yeah, thanks" at all, and simply answered the serious question seriously there would be no issue.

[mickthinks]

Why would self-deprecating irony be in any way reprehensible?

Had he not said "yeah, thanks" at all, and simply answered the serious question seriously there would be no issue.
Had the girl not cried there would be no issue.

She did cry though, and thus she could be cast as Bush's victim, on whatever pretext. If he hadn't said "Yeah thanks" I expect those journalists would have found something else to hang their story on.

Mick
I never read the journalists take on the story. Okay, that would explain why you didn't realise how the word 'sarcastic' was being used.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I think it's crucial to the central issue for which Bush is in the dock here; whether or not it is fair to condemn his behaviour toward the child.

... a child of that age is unlikely to interpret the sarcasm as being directed at the speaker or the circumstance, and is likely to go with the simpler "he is responding to me, therefore his response is directed to me".
Have you any evidence to support this suggestion? It seems to me most likely that she would not see any sarcasm being directed at anyone.

There is a fair bit of published literature on development. In general, children perceive sarcasm by the time they're 10 or so. But keep in mind the response -- everyone laughed.

Imagine this sequence:

Child does something.
Adult responds.
Everyone laughs.

Even a fairly small child will typically be hurt and embarassed unless they are able to figure out what the funny part is and that it's not directed at them.

I mean, for fuck's sake. Cats get offended and upset if you laugh right after they do something. This is not an advanced social skill.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

We don't need to agree about 'sarcasm', because the real issue is 'deliberate hurt'. If you accept that "yeah thanks" may not have been intended to hurt the girl at all, then what is there left to complain about in Bush's behaviour?

Poor planning.

An adult in a position of authority being asked a question by a child, with an audience, should not respond in a way that would likely cause people to laugh, unless there's high confidence that the child will also get the joke, and thus know it's not directed at the child but at something else funny.

Otherwise, the likely outcome is that people will laugh and the child will be hurt.

I'm really curious about the way you're modeling this. Specifically, you really seem to model only direct intent, not anticipation of other peoples' responses. Most people would include reasonable expectations about how other people will respond, or how other people will interpret those responses, as part of their evaluation of a social action. I often don't, unless I'm actively thinking about it...

[mickthinks]

Cats get offended and upset if you laugh right after they do something.
Indeed. And yet no one would dream of castigating you if you made some people laugh and your cat seemed to be upset, no matter how predictable that response might be. I don't think that's merely because cats aren't expected to treated kindly.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Cats get offended and upset if you laugh right after they do something.
Indeed. And yet no one would dream of castigating you if you made some people laugh and your cat seemed to be upset, no matter how predictable that response might be. I don't think that's merely because cats aren't expected to treated kindly.

It's mostly because there's nothing to suggest that the cat will still know, even five or ten minutes later, that it was previously offended. While cats certainly can experience emotional distress, it doesn't appear to remain part of their world. By contrast, we generally do recognize a duty to try to avoid inflicting emotional distress on children.

If people usually had kids because kids do funny things and amuse us, I suspect no one would have objected to Bush's behavior; it'd just be a great example of how funny it is having kids around!

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Ang, you are assuming that each of us is left to cope on our own. But we aren't alone. What happens if we start to post in support of each other when the bullying starts?

Are you saying that the community is collectively powerless, because I don't believe that. My approach is not to get people to see it my way, as you suggest. It is to get people to recognise that is not powerless in the face of its own mob.

Mick

No, I am assuming that each of one of us is, in the final analysis, responsible for his/her own behavior and responses to the behavior of others.

I don't think that the community is collectively powerless. I do think that, for the most part, the community either does not recognize the existence of this alleged mob or does not consider the behavior of this alleged mob to be particularly problematic.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by seebs

If people usually had kids because kids do funny things and amuse us, I suspect no one would have objected to Bush's behavior; it'd just be a great example of how funny it is having kids around!

Are you suggesting that there is some other legitimate reason for having children?

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

mickthinks' efforts remind me of an experience from my teenage years. I was actively involved in a church youth group, not because I was a Christian, but because it was one of the few social activities I was allowed while I was grounded by my parents (and I was grounded much of the time). Anyway, I made a serious effort to change the character of the group so that it would be more social and less religious. I will leave you to make your own guesses about how successful I was in that endeavor.

Your church youth group actually dealt with religious stuff? The one I was in did so only once in a very great while. Mostly, it was social stuff. The tales I heard come back from the church camp experience would lead me to keep any child I had from church camps, church youth groups, church social events, or especially consorting with the minister's child or children (yeah, yeah...I know, that last item is difficult for you Catholics, but they are there).

Based upon my experience in youth church groups, it's clear to me that those folks need to rethink that 'abstinence only' approach to teen pregnancy. The drugs and rock'n'roll were pretty decent, though.

[Qingdai]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Are you suggesting that there is some other legitimate reason for having children?

Well, some anticipate the care they may get when they are enfeebled by age, but don't count on it!

[godfry n. glad]

As for a "mob", I doubt such exists.

I do think that there are groups of 'groupthink' types around here who tend to act in concert, usually by reinforcing each other. The old 'girly gang' is long gone and in my estimation has been replaced by what I call the 'Insane Clown Posse'. I don't know exactly how it works, but if you say anything to which one of them objects, the chances that you will be harrassed by one or more of their number goes up considerably.

For example, try suggesting that cell phone use should be taxed. Then the Insane Clown Posse comes out of the woodwork. The point man, so far as I can discern, is ChuckF. Since he has the ability to throw around insults and to beat down who he damned well wishes without much in the way of correction or disapproval, presumably because he is considered 'witty', he can lead the way and just get into harrassment "for the lulz", which is how he has dismissed some of his most mean-spirited attacks. Sure enough, a smallish group of dipshits seems to follow fairly closely behind ChuckF...enough for me to wonder how many of them are merely sox.

But, as noted, if you place them all on ignore, it becomes much easier to engage in coherent and comprehensible conversation. For me, that was approximately seven specific posters. If you dis ChuckF, within a short time, there will be members of this little entourage of lickspittal running dogs in your face with an attempt at intimidation and/or disruption....I just note the names on all the gray stripes. It is almost always the same bunch of dickheads.

So...To a certain extent, I agree with mickthinks about subgroups acting to suppress and/or disrupt opinion here. I disagree that there is much which can be done about it, as I perceive those who could act to change it as being in denial, complicit, or just plain don't give a shit about it, because they have not been targets, "and ChuckF is just soooooo funny!". There won't be much change, because those here are comfortable to have it like it is.

[ChuckF]

Basically everyone on is one of my socks.

Damn godfry, you get up in my face and bug the shit out of me, and it doesn't make everything better? What the fuck is the world coming to?

show spoiler

View post: STOP CLICKING IT

BTW:

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

For example, try suggesting that cell phone use should be taxed. Then the Insane Clown Posse comes out of the woodwork.

I strongly encourage everyone to read the relevant thread, not only because it is lulz-rich, but to reach your own conclusions concerning the identity of the aforementioned Insane Clown(s?). The fun starts near the bottom of the first page and goes on and on. Here's a free preview: you probably support manslaughter.

[Naru]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

But, as noted, if you place them all on ignore, it becomes much easier to engage in coherent and comprehensible conversation. For me, that was approximately seven specific posters.

Can you be more specific on these seven specific posters? Who are they?

[erimir]

You're one of em, o'mite

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

As for a "mob", I doubt such exists.

I do think that there are groups of 'groupthink' types around here who tend to act in concert, usually by reinforcing each other. The old 'girly gang' is long gone and in my estimation has been replaced by what I call the 'Insane Clown Posse'. I don't know exactly how it works, but if you say anything to which one of them objects, the chances that you will be harrassed by one or more of their number goes up considerably.

For example, try suggesting that cell phone use should be taxed. Then the Insane Clown Posse comes out of the woodwork. The point man, so far as I can discern, is ChuckF. Since he has the ability to throw around insults and to beat down who he damned well wishes without much in the way of correction or disapproval, presumably because he is considered 'witty', he can lead the way and just get into harrassment "for the lulz", which is how he has dismissed some of his most mean-spirited attacks. Sure enough, a smallish group of dipshits seems to follow fairly closely behind ChuckF...enough for me to wonder how many of them are merely sox.

But, as noted, if you place them all on ignore, it becomes much easier to engage in coherent and comprehensible conversation. For me, that was approximately seven specific posters. If you dis ChuckF, within a short time, there will be members of this little entourage of lickspittal running dogs in your face with an attempt at intimidation and/or disruption....I just note the names on all the gray stripes. It is almost always the same bunch of dickheads.

So...To a certain extent, I agree with mickthinks about subgroups acting to suppress and/or disrupt opinion here. I disagree that there is much which can be done about it, as I perceive those who could act to change it as being in denial, complicit, or just plain don't give a shit about it, because they have not been targets, "and ChuckF is just soooooo funny!". There won't be much change, because those here are comfortable to have it like it is.

how dare you fuck with chuckf, you bastard!!

[Petra]

I can't help myself. I'm in lol with ChuckF.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Petra

I can't help myself. I'm in lol with ChuckF.

But you have not yet been a target.

PETRA UR BUTT STINKS

[LadyShea]

To a certain extent, I agree with mickthinks about subgroups acting to suppress and/or disrupt opinion here. I disagree that there is much which can be done about it, as I perceive those who could act to change it as being in denial, complicit, or just plain don't give a shit about it, because they have not been targets

You think vehement disagreements, such as you and I have had several times, shared by multiple people in some instances, is an effort to "suppress and/or disrupt opinion"? Do you really think those of us that don't perceive the suppression of opinion are complicit, in denial, or callous?

Isn't the simpler explanation that on some topics, multiple people disagree with one person? Isn't it more likely that some of us simply don't believe that vehement disagreement is "suppression or disruption of opinion"?

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Here's a free preview: you probably support manslaughter.

[Adam]

God damn, that thread was all kinds of awesome.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You think vehement disagreements, such as you and I have had several times, shared by multiple people in some instances, is an effort to "suppress and/or disrupt opinion"? Do you really think those of us that don't perceive the suppression of opinion are complicit, in denial, or callous?

Isn't the simpler explanation that on some topics, multiple people disagree with one person? Isn't it more likely that some of us simply don't believe that vehement disagreement is "suppression or disruption of opinion"?

Jeez, try to reign in your womanly hysteria. Can't you see that the obvious and highly rational explanation is that you are all my sock puppets (or "sox," in the hip vernacular)? Now my sock puppets and I are all going camping in a national park. bbl.

Originally Posted by Adam

God damn, that thread was all kinds of awesome.

No foolin. One of the best.