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

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by seebs

Which article is changed more?

That's a different question from the one I challenged you with, seebs, Why the switch?

Originally Posted by seebs

Because normally people don't need to wait to see how other people respond to a story to know whether an action was rude or not.

That isn't an answer to the question I asked either, seebs.

[mickthinks]

This is why I was asking you, mick, if you agree that your viewpoint is idiosyncratic among people who have commented here. The early responses to you focused on disputing P1, because everyone else (who bothered to respond) held P1'.

I think the early responses were looking for something to argue about. As soon as it was clear there was no major dispute about the feminism angle, everybody switched.

Mick
Idiosyncratic—you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[seebs]

I apparently misread your post.

Here's the thing. Your premises and conclusion are contingent, not on whether or not a female was present in the article, but whether her femaleness was central to the story.

No one disputes that there was at least one female in the story. What's disputed is whether it matters whether that person is female or not. Your P1 isn't just that the person in question is female; it's that the story is framed as "a male making a female cry".

For that to be true, it has to be true that the story would have to be reframed if the child in question had been a boy rather than a girl. Otherwise, "a female" is not part of the framing, but one of the non-framing facts.

[mickthinks]

We've been over all that, seebs, Why are you going over it again?

Originally Posted by mickthinks

If the story is about a vulnerable girl crying and making a man look bad, then I think there's a feminist angle. If on the other hand, the story is about a small child being frightened by a grown-up then there isn't a feminist angle. It depends how the story is spun.

... being appalled at a grown man making a kid cry?
I've seen that happen when a grown man refuses to buy a kid an ice cream. I wasn't appalled then and I am still waiting to be appalled now.

Please understand; I am not defending Bush against any of the justified charges against him. I am making a plea for a little more discrimination in response to manipulative journalism.

Mick

[seebs]

I think the point of dispute is that you seem to be indicating that you think the story itself was spun primarily in terms of a vulnerable girl (as opposed to a vulnerable boy). Not just that this was a possible angle, but that this was the primary angle.

So I guess let's step back a bit.

Is your argument that:

* There exists a feminist angle to the story
or
* The feminist angle is the most significant aspect of the story

I can't tell. I've been interpreting you as arguing #2, while most of the other people here seem to have been viewing it mostly as #1.

[mickthinks]

I am not here arguing anything. I believe there may be a feminist angle to the story. I think the journalists have exploited the child's sex to push the reader's buttons and get the result they want—"Bush lets out his inner asshole" vehemence rather than "Youngster overcome by pressure of the occasion" indifference. If you want to argue that didn't happen, be my guest.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I think the early responses were looking for something to argue about. As soon as it was clear there was no major dispute about the feminism angle, everybody switched.

Wait, why do you think there was no major dispute about the feminist angle? Everyone (who has commented) but you agrees that there is no feminist angle or, at best, that any feminist angle that may exist is secondary to the age issue and/or the authority issue.

Why do you think the early responders (I'm specifically thinking about livius and Sock Puppet here) were looking for something to argue about?

Idiosyncratic—you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I am using it to mean "unique to an individual". Your belief that the story is best framed in feminist terms is indisputably unique to you among the people who have so far commented on it here and, to the degree that what we see here is a representative sample of readers, appears to be rare in general.

My reason for pointing this out is that at least a portion of your position appears to hang on the idea that the journalist is using the sex of the questioner to manipulate readers' emotions. If the number of readers who interpret the story in such a way that the child's sex is important is relatively small, then the effectiveness of this purported strategy is called into question. Why, assuming he is not simply incompetent, would he choose this framing, and not the apparently far more common adult/child framing for his spin?

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I am not here arguing anything. I believe there may be a feminist angle to the story. I think the journalists have exploited the child's sex to push the reader's buttons and get the result they want—"Bush lets out his inner asshole" vehemence rather than "Youngster overcome by pressure of the occasion" indifference. If you want to argue that didn't happen, be my guest.

To clarify, to you believe that the journalist acted with intent to push buttons because you see this exploitation in the story as written, or do you see this exploitation in the story as written because you believe that the journalist acted with intent to push buttons? I think I asked this once before, because I was assuming the former, but a couple of your responses seem to indicate the latter.

Do you believe that "Youngster overcome by pressure of the occasion" is the proper reading of the facts, or are you just throwing that out there as another route the author could have taken? How would you write the story so as to get all the salient facts in there without pushing buttons?

[mickthinks]

Everyone (who has commented) but you agrees that there is no feminist angle or, at best, that any feminist angle that may exist is secondary to the age issue and/or the authority issue.
Okay, so tell me where's the big dispute?

Why do you think the early responders (I'm specifically thinking about livius and Sock Puppet here) were looking for something to argue about?
Because the feminism issue was pretty much forgotten about as soon as vm turned it into a thread about me:

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Don't be silly. If you're going to hold forth on what qualifies as proof (nay, evidence) of "moral repugnance", then at least let us know what objective standard you're measuring the President's behavior against. So far all your comments have "proven" is that the President of the United States being callous and flippant in response to the enquiry of a young girl isn't evidence of moral repugnance to you. On the contrary, you're inclined to blame the media and/or the young girl herself for her reaction to his comment. This may be evidence of a lot of things, but only proves that your moral standards are different from mine.

Mick
I am using it to mean "unique to an individual".
Okay, I have no idea whether I am unique in that interpretation, though it seems I am the only one here who's put it in words. I don't believe it is idiosyncratic in the usual sense of "peculiar to" me
To clarify, to you believe that the journalist acted with intent to push buttons because you see this exploitation in the story as written ...
I believe journalists often write in a way which deliberately pushes buttons. I don't believe that just because I see it happening here.
Do you believe that "Youngster overcome by pressure of the occasion" is the proper reading of the facts, or are you just throwing that out there as another route the author could have taken?
I think that is a much better description of the events, yes, and I think the journalists deliberately obscured it.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I am not here arguing anything. I believe there may be a feminist angle to the story. I think the journalists have exploited the child's sex to push the reader's buttons and get the result they want—"Bush lets out his inner asshole" vehemence rather than "Youngster overcome by pressure of the occasion" indifference. If you want to argue that didn't happen, be my guest.

Most people wouldn't be indifferent to an adult in a position of authority treating a "child" that way, regardless of the child's gender. Children need protection.

I honestly see nothing to support the theory that journalists "exploited" the child's sex. Can you give some kind of examples to show how you think the story would have been different had they not been trying to "exploit" the child's sex?

[mickthinks]

I honestly see nothing to support the theory that journalists "exploited" the child's sex.
Okay, you don't see it.

Can you give some kind of examples to show how you think the story would have been different had they not been trying to "exploit" the child's sex?
Yes, telling it as a story of a child overcome by self-consciousness in front of a live audience.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I honestly see nothing to support the theory that journalists "exploited" the child's sex.
Okay, you don't see it.

That, I suspect, is because it's not there.

Can you give some kind of examples to show how you think the story would have been different had they not been trying to "exploit" the child's sex?
Yes, telling it as a story of a child overcome by self-consciousness in front of a live audience.

Okay, let me try again.

Imagine that journalists were still portraying the story as "Bush is mean to child", but weren't exploiting the child's sex to do so. What would the story be like?

My question is specifically on how the sex difference enters into the story. I want to know how you think they would have written the same story, including the interpretation that the President was rude to a child, if it had been a boy child.

If you can show that the story would have been significantly different in that case, then you have made some kind of argument that the child's sex was significant. If you can't show that the story would have been significantly different, then the child's sex isn't demonstrably significant.

[Adam]

Suppose that Bush had responded to the question with "That's a good question..." or "Well, let me see if I can answer that..." instead of opening with a sarcastic (I know you don't see this, and I'm not disputing your report of your own mind, but everyone else who has commented believes Bush was being sarcastic) "Yeah, thanks...", and that the audience had not laughed. Do you think it likely that the girl still would have cried? Would this change your opinion?


Even given that you apparently do not believe he was being sarcastic, imagine that he was being sarcastic, since so many other people did detect sarcasm. Does that change your opinion?

[seebs]

I thought mick's point-of-dispute was whether the sarcasm was targeted at the child or not.

To which I answer, it doesn't matter; 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".

[Adam]

That may be the case. I originally thought that was well, but somewhere that I can no longer find he said something like "I don't see any sarcasm", which I may therefore be hallucinating.

Mick, if your point truly is that the sarcasm is not directed at the questioner, then disregard the part of that post that refers to pretending that you do see sarcasm. I'm still interested to know if you think your opinion would be different if he had used a non-sarcastic opener for his answer.

[LadyShea]

There seems to be three threads with this discussion.

My previous exchanges with Mick on this particular issue are here should anyone want to see my previous remarks

[Angakuk]

I think it is worthwhile to go back to the original Raw Story article and see what the girl in question had to say about why she was crying.

The Washington Times reports Jessica Hackerd was left in tears after Bush gave her a wry "yeah, thanks" in response to her query, drawing laughter from the crowd of 400 in Brecksville, Ohio Tuesday. Bush immediately began to backpedal when he saw the reaction from Hackerd, who told the Times she was crying because she is very shy and was nervous questioning the president.

Was the author, Nick Juliano, trying to spin the story in such a way as to make Bush look bad. His use of the term 'backpedal' would tend to suggest that such was case. However, if he were seriously trying to make Bush look bad why would he include Miss Hackerd's own explanation for her tears. An explanation in which Miss Hackerd appears to be accepting full responsibility for her tears and, just incidentally, taking the onus off the president. "[S]he was crying because she is very shy and was nervous questioning the president" implies, it seems to me, that Miss Hackerd would have very likely broken out in tears regardless of how the president had responded to her question. Does it matter whether or not Bush was actually responsible for her tears, or is it sufficiently condemnatory that his response could have been responsible for her tears?

[seebs]

The President, Miss Hackerd, and the journalist all seem to have a roughly compatible view:

The President's sarcasm threw someone off who was already close to the edge; it might have been better if he'd not done that, because a tension-breaking witticism isn't the best way to handle a shy kid.

Nothing here suggests any kind of male/female framing.

[LadyShea]

Well, I for one think his flippancy and sarcasm was out of place. The President used a question asked by a US citizen, in a formal setting, to get a cheap laugh...to me that laugh was at the questioners expense.

Whether she cried or not is not the point, for me. I never even read the original story. My opinion was based only on the video, which doesn't show her crying or show her face at all.

[Angakuk]

While it does not speak to the appropriateness of Bush's reply, I do think that Miss Hackerd's explanation for why she cried is relevant as a response to the claim that Bush made her cry. Would there have been any op-eds critical of Bush's comment if no one had cried? Maybe if Lady Shea was doing the write-up, but I doubt it otherwise. In which case, it is the fact that the girl cried that made this particular story newsworthy. If, however, it was not Bush's comment that caused her to cry, where is the newsworthiness in this event?

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by seebs

To which I answer, it doesn't matter [whether the sarcasm was targeted at the child or not]...

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.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

So, it would seem to me that I am much more likely to succeed at preventing myself from being the victim of bullying by making a change in my behavior so that the situation is altered in such a way that I am no longer the victim.

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

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

... 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.

The whole audience laughed when he said "Yeah, thanks". They got the sarcasm. Why would the girl not get it, or not register the fact that everyone laughed at his response to her?

[mickthinks]

The whole audience laughed because they thought what Bush said was funny. If they had thought that Bush was sarcastically laying into one of their local girls, frosty silence or even booing would have been in order. The crowd's enjoyment of the joke is a significant and important testimony against your perception of the event, I reckon.

[LadyShea]

Sarcasm is a form of humor, people often find it funny, regardless of whose expense it is made at.

[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.

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