Stuck on Repeats - Page 319

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 10-24-2012, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

To demand additional security from conference organizers is a bizarre response.

Acidentially deleted my post.

She has the right response. For every dumb joker, there is a sicko capable of doing something. Security should focus on people who have been the subject of threats, especially this kind of sexually oriented harassment. This is not a bizarre response at all - it ought to be basic security.

Sidd Finch · 10-24-2012, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

It's wrong to be rude; it's not wronger to be rude to someone "in your community."

Thank god, or the PB would never have lasted this long.

Atticus Grinch · 10-24-2012, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Acidentially deleted my post.

She has the right response. For every dumb joker, there is a sicko capable of doing something. Security should focus on people who have been the subject of threats, especially this kind of sexually oriented harassment. This is not a bizarre response at all - it ought to be basic security.

Does this "basic security" rule you're proposing also extend to public property? Just curious. I think the situation is more complicating than you're considering.

ETA Not sure if you're agreeing with Adder that he should/could be barred from the event.

ThurgreedMarshall · 10-24-2012, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder

Yes, this.

It horrifies and amazes me that people don't seem to think twice about directing sexual and violent insults toward women who deign to speak.

It would be one thing if that's just the nasty way we express disagreement, but it doesn't seem to happen to men to the same degree.

I didn't read the whole thing because I think I read this same story and discussed it here ages ago. Is there something new?

But I will tell you one thing. I never, ever read the comments section on any piece on the internet. The few times I have, it doesn't matter what the piece is about, it devolves (instantly) into a place where people say the most racist shit they can think of. I'm sure I've seen some awful sexist, misogynist shit too, but good lord, people are just disgusting.

TM

ThurgreedMarshall · 10-24-2012, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

(1) She made this Slateworthy by saying it's from members of her "own community." I think she's discovered, as many before her, that you don't have some greater right to dignity and respect within a self-defined community as without. It's wrong to be rude; it's not wronger to be rude to someone "in your community." It's that type of insider/outsider bullshit that leads to privilege, and excuses terrible things like FGM and hazing. There is no higher standard; the standard is the same.

Doesn't it depend on the community? Part of her point was that she found a community of thinkers who seemed to be logical and understanding. To her surprise, there were a bunch of people in that community who were completely off their rockers. I think your point goes a little too far. It's not like she defined a community as Brooklyn moms or something ridiculous like that.

TM

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 10-24-2012, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Does this "basic security" rule you're proposing also extend to public property? Just curious. I think the situation is more complicating than you're considering.

ETA Not sure if you're agreeing with Adder that he should/could be barred from the event.

Surely you're not suggesting protecting public property deserves the same priority as protecting against sexual assault? I'm not sure what you're worried about here, but the woman has been threatened with sexual assault by multiple people. Yeah, security ought to be aware of and focus on that. What is the threat against public property you want to compare to that?

Sidd Finch · 10-24-2012, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

But I will tell you one thing. I never, ever read the comments section on any piece on the internet. The few times I have, it doesn't matter what the piece is about, it devolves (instantly) into a place where people say the most racist shit they can think of. I'm sure I've seen some awful sexist, misogynist shit too, but good lord, people are just disgusting.

2. And when they aren't that, they are often just incredibly stupid. How many times does someone have to post "First!" before it gets old?

Hank Chinaski · 10-24-2012, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

(1) She made this Slateworthy by saying it's from members of her "own community." I think she's discovered, as many before her, that you don't have some greater right to dignity and respect within a self-defined community as without. It's wrong to be rude; it's not wronger to be rude to someone "in your community." It's that type of insider/outsider bullshit that leads to privilege, and excuses terrible things like FGM and hazing. There is no higher standard; the standard is the same.

dissent. We have a community here and we have had insane rude people from time to time post horribly racist and sexist crap (not Me anyone?). We sort of banded together as a community and ran them off in a way that we wouldn't have had it occurred on "I love the SF Giants" or some other more general chat board, didn't we? I think she is naive not to realize the internet is just full of sick fucks willing to hit post on vile rants, but that it grew out of people she felt a kinship with is worthy of some additional, what, angst?

On the other hand, if I recall the story, she was bothered that someone in her "community" offered to have sex with her, so maybe she is far from in touch with her community.

Hank Chinaski · 10-24-2012, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

2. And when they aren't that, they are often just incredibly stupid. How many times does someone have to post "First!" before it gets old?

Unfortunately, here we define "gets old" relative to Flower making sebby "horns in rock" jokes, which is absolute old, so nothing can be old: QED.

ThurgreedMarshall · 10-24-2012, 05:32 PM

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=1404

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=1405

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=1406

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=1407

TM

Adder · 10-24-2012, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I didn't read the whole thing because I think I read this same story and discussed it here ages ago. Is there something new?

The background is the same, except now she is talking about all the disgusting shit that has been said to her since the initial furor.

Adder · 10-24-2012, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Surely you're not suggesting protecting public property deserves the same priority as protecting against sexual assault?

I think he's suggesting that a public event organizer might have first amendment issues with reacting to this statement.

That might be true. But so what?

Adder · 10-24-2012, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

dissent. We have a community here and we have had insane rude people from time to time post horribly racist and sexist crap (not Me anyone?).

I clearly missed some excitement as I do not know what this person did.

Atticus Grinch · 10-24-2012, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Doesn't it depend on the community? Part of her point was that she found a community of thinkers who seemed to be logical and understanding. To her surprise, there were a bunch of people in that community who were completely off their rockers. I think your point goes a little too far. It's not like she defined a community as Brooklyn moms or something ridiculous like that.

The "skeptic community" is something she defined primarily out of interest in leading it. But she seems not to have a grasp of who's in it. Notice the equivalency between Richard Dawkins and an anti-circumcision activist? I think the definition of her community was primarily to get it past whatever spambot at Slate decides which articles to publish. Otherwise it's just "Internet community is horrible," and that's dog-bites-man.

Atticus Grinch · 10-24-2012, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder

I think he's suggesting that a public event organizer might have first amendment issues with reacting to this statement.

That might be true. But so what?

Some communities of interest face complicated governance questions that lack pat answers. I think it's a useful exercise for private actors to consider why certain constraints are placed on government, and to choose wisely when deciding to impose those constraints on themselves.