Those who have come from Pz's blog, aka THAT thread

[tattuchu]

That's a very funny cartoon

[dj357]

I also hear that men and women are capable of having conversations sometimes that don't even have anything to do with sex.

To be fair though at least one of them is probably wracking their brains trying to work in some kind of double-entendre into the conversation

[Robert_S]

This is all I will say on the subject.

To all - if you are going to support your friend's right to stir shit, then expect ANYTHING to happen - whether or not you think the reaction is out of proportion still makes Pappa the one responsible. So take your licks and stop blaming other guy, and wallowing in your victimhood and hypocrisy. Pappa was the one responsible.

Mai, I find this quite disturbing. This is precisely the reasoning many around the world used to blame the Danish cartoonists for the violent response to their work; also to blame Rushdie, etc.

In some circles, it's called Victim Blaming, when it's done by your enemies. Apparently it's different when it's done by your friends.

Nobody took it beyond words. If PZ had bombed or harassed anyone here IRL, then that would be like blaming the Danish cartoonists.

Pappa typed up some words and a lot of other people typed some other words.

[Wumbologist]

Pappa typed up some words and a lot of other people typed some other words.

Oh yeah? Well here's some words for you, Robert.

Associated

Brobdingnagian

Reticent

Cutlery

Hydroelectric

Preservative

Mantle

Prophylactic

Hampered

Toast

Palpable

Hinged




What do you have to say to that?

[Robert_S]

Pappa typed up some words and a lot of other people typed some other words.

Oh yeah? Well here's some words for you, Robert.

Associated

Brobdingnagian

Reticent

Cutlery

Hydroelectric

Preservative

Mantle

Prophylactic

Hampered

Toast

Palpable

Hinged




What do you have to say to that?

Reported.

[Wumbologist]

Reported.

Nah man, we're good, we're good! I can't go back to the time-out place. You don't know what's it's LIKE in there, man.

[Robert_S]

Reported.

Nah man, we're good, we're good! I can't go back to the time-out place. You don't know what's it's LIKE in there, man.

You know you like it!

[MiM]

That's a very funny cartoon

Nah, not to me. It is structured like a good joke, building up tension and then delivering a surprise at the end, but due to the seriousness at least I didn't laugh. Thought provoking, but not funny. I liked it.

[MiM]

See, there your wrong, again. Please, for once, will somebody please point out, in specific, the "threat" in that joke. I'm sorry, still can't see any threat. No one is responsible for what someone sees in their own head. Please, let some people take responsibility for their own delusions and stop trying to make things what they are not.
...
There is no difference at all between PZs jokes about the murders in Aurora and his Official Raper and Pappa's. None. Hypocrisy is a nasty word, but you seem fine with double standards in this case. Why? If all you have is, there is a difference, then I can't see continuing this conversation, since it will go nowhere.

The problem is that real life threats are often non specific. For example, last Friday in the local metro, there was a couple. When the man started to leave he made some angry comments about "still coming and get his stuff.. et.c", clearly a break-up situation between them. When he had left the cart he hit the window, very hard, from the outside at the place where the woman was still sitting. Was he just blowing up some steam or was there a threat in there "next time there maybe will not be a strong glass in between" . Idon't know, but I wouldn't blame the woman for overcautiousness, if she erred in the direction of caution, and seeked protection.

One obvious difference was that Pappas joke was directed at a small identifiable group of people. PZ:s Aurora joke was directed at himself and his own fears (as he has pointed out himself). I'm not completely sure about the "Official raper" thing, as I don't know what he responded to, but it seems to be directed at society.

[Coito ergo sum]

I would like to go on record as saying I do not support Mai's sentiment. If you're going to accuse someone, Pappa (and every member of Rationalia), of being a rapist, condoning rape, and guilty of threatening and harassing someone, then the burden on you, as on any rational person, is to fully investigate the matter BEFORE issuing your condemnations en masse. Unlike Mai, I DO expect anyone making such serious and damaging accusations to expend themselves in due diligence. If this had occurred in real life with our real names you can bet you'd have a nasty little lawsuit on your hands. Your conduct was irresponsible and conduct unbecoming for a so-called 'rationalist'. You're a disgrace. I can only hope you perform more diligently in your professional life.

And that's all I have to say about that.

So feel free to do your due diligence while cower and shake in the corner.

Pappa chose to play with a dangerous weapon, with different consequences than real life. He pointed it at PZ's friends who have been targeted before, and that was how PZ chose to protect them. One of the accidental shots hit us.
But we are an obscure forum, so all really happened is some people were made to feel uncomfortable by untrue accusations. So how exactly were his actions so much more serious? Maybe he's human doesn't respond rationally under when going into protect mode?

Using that rationale, the same can be said for PZ Myers and the Skepchicks. They too choose to play with a dangerous weapon, with different consequences than real life. They use "naming and shaming" and "ridicule" as weapons against folks, and they claim the right to do that. Others have chimed in to oppose them in that regard, and it is not uncommon to hear them suggest that those objecting are whining, had their "widdle feewings" hurt, and they've argued that ridicule is an appropriate tool for them to use.

That is what they choose to do.

Certainly, all "sides" are entitled to say whatever they want, and Pappa does need to deal with being "made to feel uncomfortable."" Yes. But, by the same token, Skepchicks and Myers, and everyone else, must also deal with being "made to feel uncomfortable." You hit the nail right on the head.

What I would point out, though, is that the Skepchicks/Myers camp want to wield their "dangerous weapons" and be immune from retorts. They want to cause people to be made to feel uncomfortable, but they want to be protected from discomfort themselves.

[Coito ergo sum]

setting the expectation that hugs are pre-consented (and in a limited fashion — the post he linked to says one hug per vaccination!) is absolutely not an undercutting of the idea that one needs to obtain consent before performing an action.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... -campaign/

Preconsent. Huh. Good idea.

So, if we want to, we could create a policy that "the content of people's posts are not censored, even if they are considered by some to be offensive, so if that is unacceptable to you, don't come here and read posts." Considering, that has been the policy here at Rationalia for as long as I can remember, can we rely on the pre-consent rule that the above Freethoughtblogger suggested?

After all, you can set up a campaign that says that you've preconsented to a hug...surely we can "preconsent to free and open content that might offend you" policy?

[Jaygray]

After all, you can set up a campaign that says that you've preconsented to a hug...surely we can "preconsent to free and open content that might offend you" policy?

How about a copy of this before every post?

[Badger3k]

This is all I will say on the subject.

To all - if you are going to support your friend's right to stir shit, then expect ANYTHING to happen - whether or not you think the reaction is out of proportion still makes Pappa the one responsible. So take your licks and stop blaming other guy, and wallowing in your victimhood and hypocrisy. Pappa was the one responsible.

Mai, I find this quite disturbing. This is precisely the reasoning many around the world used to blame the Danish cartoonists for the violent response to their work; also to blame Rushdie, etc.

In some circles, it's called Victim Blaming, when it's done by your enemies. Apparently it's different when it's done by your friends.

Nobody took it beyond words. If PZ had bombed or harassed anyone here IRL, then that would be like blaming the Danish cartoonists.

Pappa typed up some words and a lot of other people typed some other words.

Not to be too pedantic, but that's what victim blaming is - words. What happened to the cartoonists went beyond blaming and into actual assault, vandalism, terrorism, whatever else was involved. Lars Vilks (sp?) had his house broken into by a guy wielding an axe. Definitely beyond words. But it does start there, doesn't it?

[Badger3k]

See, there your wrong, again. Please, for once, will somebody please point out, in specific, the "threat" in that joke. I'm sorry, still can't see any threat. No one is responsible for what someone sees in their own head. Please, let some people take responsibility for their own delusions and stop trying to make things what they are not.
...
There is no difference at all between PZs jokes about the murders in Aurora and his Official Raper and Pappa's. None. Hypocrisy is a nasty word, but you seem fine with double standards in this case. Why? If all you have is, there is a difference, then I can't see continuing this conversation, since it will go nowhere.

The problem is that real life threats are often non specific. For example, last Friday in the local metro, there was a couple. When the man started to leave he made some angry comments about "still coming and get his stuff.. et.c", clearly a break-up situation between them. When he had left the cart he hit the window, very hard, from the outside at the place where the woman was still sitting. Was he just blowing up some steam or was there a threat in there "next time there maybe will not be a strong glass in between" . Idon't know, but I wouldn't blame the woman for overcautiousness, if she erred in the direction of caution, and seeked protection.

One obvious difference was that Pappas joke was directed at a small identifiable group of people. PZ:s Aurora joke was directed at himself and his own fears (as he has pointed out himself). I'm not completely sure about the "Official raper" thing, as I don't know what he responded to, but it seems to be directed at society.

So, you're trying to equate something that happened between two people who have known each other, in person, probably lived together, had a relationship and had that ended, along with physical actions that imply anger...to....an anonymous email? Seriously? If you're that scared, then honestly, how do you leave your house? Thunderf00t has a new blog post highlighting some of the things that happen on the internet. Trolls exist. What we're seeing is people who take them seriously, and end up dancing to their tunes. The trolls win. Any idea how many celebrities there are in the world, and how many of them get trolled? I'd wager quite a bit, especially activists. Being passionate about something gives trolls a lot of material to work with. How many of them, out of all those emails, have ever had anything happen to them based on those emails? I'd wager a vanishingly tiny fraction of a fraction.

I am not sure if I posted an email that Watson called "hate mail" in this thread or the "invite skepchicks" one, but if that is the standard being used, then someone needs to really get out more. I've had worse "hate speech" directed at me by my students. I get worse than that from people on the internet.

If you want to see those differences as somehow changing the very nature of humor, then good on ya, but don't expect others to follow suit. PZ was, to take it as a joke and follow the skepchick/PZ logic, incredibly insensitive and disrespectful of those killed in Aurora and their families. He was mocking what happened to them by diminishing the severity of what happened to them. That's pretty offensive to some people. Yet that was fine. His Official Raper comment was in direct violation of his "it is NEVER ok to make rape jokes" assertion. Apologists can try to spin it however they want, but he was using absurd humor to try to make a point (which is one purpose of humor). However, this is a double standard. Since I haven't seen any comment on that, I assume you still think it is ok, but I don't. One standard. Do as I say, not as I do is something parents tell kids. In the times when I do something I tell my kids they can't do, I try to explain the different standards we have for different roles (teacher/adult/student/teen) - I try to avoid absolutes because I have yet to find one that is. My take on hypocrisy is probably as close to an absolute that I can get to, but even there I acknowledge exceptions - life and death situations may render that null and void for instance.

-------------------------------------

Matt D has a post up at skepchick on, what else, "hate speech" (here. He made one point I did want to highlight:

You don’t get to decide what someone else finds offensive.
You don’t get to decide what someone else finds uncomfortable, unwelcoming, disconcerting, stressful, harrassing, troubling or painful.

You aren’t the world: everyone isn’t exactly like you.

Right back at you. Elsewhere I equated his efforts to make people safe to the ratings system designed to "protect" kids from things some adults would rather they not see. He wants to (or wants to let someone else) set the standards, probably as low as possible, to protect those who are more like children. He wants life to be rated E. Well, it is for everyone, but guess what, it's rated R, and X, and PG - all at different times. I'd rather help people be adults, then remain sheltered as kids.

----------------------------------------
Re: the cannibal angle for the joke. I think I may have been thinking of "substitute rape with cannibalism", and it may have been more amusing since it would require someone to have eaten the one dude as a kid (maybe just a bite). A bit more absurd. However, I am still undecided. I think it is thought provoking, and the ironic twist at the end - going from "you're just saying that, it's a common trope, etc" turns into a shocked "no I'm serious" and uncomfortable silence descends). That ending is humorous for that reason. It's also a bit humorous since it relies on the "men must cross the street at night" (since changed to "sometimes" in the current rewrite by slimeball Laden) illogic.

What really gets me is that the people who are all up in arms are the same ones saying "you don't have a right to not be offended", yet that is what they want.

Pre-post ETA: in the situation you observed, what did you do? Did you think he might have carried it out, and acted on that? Did you call the cops? Did you ask her if she was ok? Or did you just sit by and do nothing, judging it to be not a threat, or just not your problem? Is she still alive? Have you checked with the police reports to see any domestic violence cases? How far did you take it?

True story - one afternoon, I heard several people at my neighbor's door (but couldn't see them over the fence), pounding on the door and making threatening comments. It went on for a while. Guess what, since the last people to live there ended up with a guy sitting in his car in front of my house with a gun, while the SWAT team kept on him to give himself up before he offed himself (fun night), I acted on it. Why take chances. Nothing happened - cops came and talked to them, and they never said anything to me about calling the cops, not unusual since I don't know them. Some things are actionable - and the context definitely helps. An online joke, a "threat" that only some people can see - not actionable. Not without something more than that. Best practice when seeing something offensive on the internet. Shake your head and move on. It's what I do (although the current kerfuffle has me making snide comments elsewhere), not make angry blog posts, twitter calls for boycotts, defamation, energizing the base like some political or religious leader looking for money.

[MiM]

See, there your wrong, again. Please, for once, will somebody please point out, in specific, the "threat" in that joke. I'm sorry, still can't see any threat. No one is responsible for what someone sees in their own head. Please, let some people take responsibility for their own delusions and stop trying to make things what they are not.
...
There is no difference at all between PZs jokes about the murders in Aurora and his Official Raper and Pappa's. None. Hypocrisy is a nasty word, but you seem fine with double standards in this case. Why? If all you have is, there is a difference, then I can't see continuing this conversation, since it will go nowhere.

The problem is that real life threats are often non specific. For example, last Friday in the local metro, there was a couple. When the man started to leave he made some angry comments about "still coming and get his stuff.. et.c", clearly a break-up situation between them. When he had left the cart he hit the window, very hard, from the outside at the place where the woman was still sitting. Was he just blowing up some steam or was there a threat in there "next time there maybe will not be a strong glass in between" . Idon't know, but I wouldn't blame the woman for overcautiousness, if she erred in the direction of caution, and seeked protection.

One obvious difference was that Pappas joke was directed at a small identifiable group of people. PZ:s Aurora joke was directed at himself and his own fears (as he has pointed out himself). I'm not completely sure about the "Official raper" thing, as I don't know what he responded to, but it seems to be directed at society.

So, you're trying to equate something that happened between two people who have known each other, in person, probably lived together, had a relationship and had that ended, along with physical actions that imply anger...to....an anonymous email? Seriously? If you're that scared, then honestly, how do you leave your house? Thunderf00t has a new blog post highlighting some of the things that happen on the internet. Trolls exist. What we're seeing is people who take them seriously, and end up dancing to their tunes. The trolls win. Any idea how many celebrities there are in the world, and how many of them get trolled? I'd wager quite a bit, especially activists. Being passionate about something gives trolls a lot of material to work with. How many of them, out of all those emails, have ever had anything happen to them based on those emails? I'd wager a vanishingly tiny fraction of a fraction.

I am not sure if I posted an email that Watson called "hate mail" in this thread or the "invite skepchicks" one, but if that is the standard being used, then someone needs to really get out more. I've had worse "hate speech" directed at me by my students. I get worse than that from people on the internet.

If you want to see those differences as somehow changing the very nature of humor, then good on ya, but don't expect others to follow suit. PZ was, to take it as a joke and follow the skepchick/PZ logic, incredibly insensitive and disrespectful of those killed in Aurora and their families. He was mocking what happened to them by diminishing the severity of what happened to them. That's pretty offensive to some people. Yet that was fine. His Official Raper comment was in direct violation of his "it is NEVER ok to make rape jokes" assertion. Apologists can try to spin it however they want, but he was using absurd humor to try to make a point (which is one purpose of humor). However, this is a double standard. Since I haven't seen any comment on that, I assume you still think it is ok, but I don't. One standard. Do as I say, not as I do is something parents tell kids. In the times when I do something I tell my kids they can't do, I try to explain the different standards we have for different roles (teacher/adult/student/teen) - I try to avoid absolutes because I have yet to find one that is. My take on hypocrisy is probably as close to an absolute that I can get to, but even there I acknowledge exceptions - life and death situations may render that null and void for instance.

-------------------------------------

Matt D has a post up at skepchick on, what else, "hate speech" (here. He made one point I did want to highlight:

You don’t get to decide what someone else finds offensive.
You don’t get to decide what someone else finds uncomfortable, unwelcoming, disconcerting, stressful, harrassing, troubling or painful.

You aren’t the world: everyone isn’t exactly like you.

Right back at you. Elsewhere I equated his efforts to make people safe to the ratings system designed to "protect" kids from things some adults would rather they not see. He wants to (or wants to let someone else) set the standards, probably as low as possible, to protect those who are more like children. He wants life to be rated E. Well, it is for everyone, but guess what, it's rated R, and X, and PG - all at different times. I'd rather help people be adults, then remain sheltered as kids.

----------------------------------------
Re: the cannibal angle for the joke. I think I may have been thinking of "substitute rape with cannibalism", and it may have been more amusing since it would require someone to have eaten the one dude as a kid (maybe just a bite). A bit more absurd. However, I am still undecided. I think it is thought provoking, and the ironic twist at the end - going from "you're just saying that, it's a common trope, etc" turns into a shocked "no I'm serious" and uncomfortable silence descends). That ending is humorous for that reason. It's also a bit humorous since it relies on the "men must cross the street at night" (since changed to "sometimes" in the current rewrite by slimeball Laden) illogic.

What really gets me is that the people who are all up in arms are the same ones saying "you don't have a right to not be offended", yet that is what they want.

Pre-post ETA: in the situation you observed, what did you do? Did you think he might have carried it out, and acted on that? Did you call the cops? Did you ask her if she was ok? Or did you just sit by and do nothing, judging it to be not a threat, or just not your problem? Is she still alive? Have you checked with the police reports to see any domestic violence cases? How far did you take it?

True story - one afternoon, I heard several people at my neighbor's door (but couldn't see them over the fence), pounding on the door and making threatening comments. It went on for a while. Guess what, since the last people to live there ended up with a guy sitting in his car in front of my house with a gun, while the SWAT team kept on him to give himself up before he offed himself (fun night), I acted on it. Why take chances. Nothing happened - cops came and talked to them, and they never said anything to me about calling the cops, not unusual since I don't know them. Some things are actionable - and the context definitely helps. An online joke, a "threat" that only some people can see - not actionable. Not without something more than that. Best practice when seeing something offensive on the internet. Shake your head and move on. It's what I do (although the current kerfuffle has me making snide comments elsewhere), not make angry blog posts, twitter calls for boycotts, defamation, energizing the base like some political or religious leader looking for money.

I did not try to equate anything and as starting from such a huge misconception that is far tl /dr

Nuff said.