144 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url
mygif

Alright, I got a bit heated there. My bad. I don’t like smug insults, and I don’t know that there was (or is) any other way to read what John wrote.

Here’s my take:

Was what Tosh said utterly stupid? Yeah.

Was it what I would have said? No.

Do I see it as having been a real/valid threat? No. Not in the slightest. For a litany of reasons. Actually, given the language used, I can’t concretely even interpret it as a threat, but I could see how one might take it that way, particularly in the situation, so we’ll go with it.

Do I see it as something that anyone with the barest knowledge of stand-up comedy, Tosh’s material, Tosh’s show, etc., might have expected as a result of heckling/vocally interfering in an act? Yes.

I don’t care who you are, what sex you are, or how drunk you got during the pre-game at the frat, you’re there to sit and watch a show. It isn’t interactive. It isn’t a call and response sort of exercise. It is “you purchase/are given a ticket to the show, you sit and watch the show.” But, for whatever reason, people choose to ignore this/do not understand this and pipe up.

So, what happens when you pipe up to a comedian? Particularly one whose act you’ve been watching for several minutes, as they rip people/countries/things apart without the barest hint of reverence/respect/”PC?” One with a microphone, and a room full of people who (ostensibly) are there because they know and enjoy who/what they’re seeing? You get ripped on. Mercilessly. What the hell else would you expect to happen?

Now, again, Tosh responded to the heckler in an unfunny and potentially aggressive way. He should have done it more artfully, and might have been able to had he the talent (David Cross is a great example of trashing hecklers). And yes, I understand why the woman in question got scared and left.

I have to ask, though…interrupting a comedian’s act by telling them at the conclusion of a joke that they don’t find it funny…what is a satisfactory outcome for that situation? What exactly was the woman anticipating in response?

ReplyReply
mygif

Scott, the only irony is in your talking about how people should have thicker skin in a way that proves just how thin yours is.

ReplyReply
mygif

@Matt: I debated the points over 101 comments now in addition to the original post. You’re coming back to me with the same shit I already said wasn’t good enough before. I’ve already said why I don’t consider “But heckling is rude!” to be a defense, I’ve already said why I don’t consider, “But sometimes rape jokes can be funny!” to be a defense, and I’ve already said why I don’t consider, “But he has a right to free speech!” to be a defense. It’s all pretty well-documented by now. Why do you expect me to treat your arguments with respect and consideration when you can’t even take the time to read mine?

ReplyReply
mygif

“Why do you expect me to treat your arguments with respect and consideration when you can’t even take the time to read mine?”

I have read yours. Quite frankly, I see a lot of self-righteousness based entirely on opinion and “moral conviction” which pretty much eschews objectivity. I see you talking about a topic that pretty demonstrably fires you up. If that’s the case, then any further discussion with you is a waste of time.

“I’ve already said why I don’t consider “But heckling is rude!” to be a defense, I’ve already said why I don’t consider, “But sometimes rape jokes can be funny!” to be a defense, and I’ve already said why I don’t consider, “But he has a right to free speech!” to be a defense.”

Never really said any of those things.

What I DID say was “What the hell does one expect to happen in that situation?” I ask you again, out of curiosity more than anything else, what would have been a satisfactory resolution in this case?

But, again, “I don’t consider” renders this a complete waste of time. You’ve made your mind up, which is cool. You’re likely not going to budge, or acknowledge the opinions/questions/points of others who do not share your view, and hey, that’s valid. I could just do without the attitude, as it is unnecessary.

“You’re coming back to me with the same shit I already said wasn’t good enough before.”

Not really, but if that’s your perception, whatever. I’m not justifying what Tosh did, not defending what he said…hell, not even defending his right to say it (redundant, as it is implicit). And, if you read back, you’ll see that.

I AM saying that, just like the frat guy who screams “ABERDEEN RULES!” in the middle of a set, someone vocally disrupting a performance (particularly one delivered by a particularly abrasive/acerbic) shouldn’t be surprised to weather some verbal unpleasantness. Your ruminations on the “severity” of Tosh’s response are documented. Your assertion that it is a valid “threat” is documented. Got it.

I disagree with some of your assertions. If you need to resort to snark, sarcasm, or propping yourself on some pedestal of morality (funny how people who don’t agree with you in this instance are immoral pricks by association – ah, the glories of debate framing)to deal with that, whatever.

ReplyReply
mygif
highlyverbal said on July 18th, 2012 at 10:40 pm

@Matt: “…interrupting a comedian’s act by telling them at the conclusion of a joke that they don’t find it funny…”

Just like you claim Mr. Seavey has done to you, perhaps you are slightly mischaracterizing her position. I perceive her message as “that’s over the line” instead of “that joke bombed.” Surely she can count on you to be vigorous in avoiding a similar injustice.

========

I don’t want to distract you from that main concern, but furthermore: it is hard not to notice that you’re surprised and reluctant to weather some predictable verbal unpleasantness from Mr. Seavey but awfully cavalier in demanding that others strap in and do so, in other contexts. Perhaps it is a bit easier said than done, eh?

ReplyReply
mygif

@Matt: If you never said that “but heckling is rude” is a defense, who posted “Much of this sort of thing could be circumvented if club owners/staff would have the balls to toss hecklers out of the venue, zero-tolerance style” using your name?

ReplyReply
mygif

@Matt: And what amuses me most is that even your Stage Two Internet Flounce is composed of stuff I’ve already shot down. “I read everything you said and it was so self-evidently wrong I don’t even need to explain why,” “you just think that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and all because they think rape threats are pretty much okay under the right circumstances,” “I’m not really defending rape threats, I just happen to be making an intellectual point that just happens to be in support of a guy who makes rape threats,” “I don’t need to win this argument, so I’ll just point out how right I am and leave forever,” and the ever-popular, “If you really had a point to make, you’d make it dispassionately, without getting all sarcastic about how bad my arguments are.” You’re like a Greatest Hits Album of Internet trolls. 🙂

ReplyReply
mygif

@John Seavey: The only thing we’re missing out on is him claiming to be aware of all Internet traditions, really.

ReplyReply
mygif

“Stage Two Internet Flounce is composed of stuff I’ve already shot down.”

Yeah, but…you didn’t. Period. Like, at all. You stated your position. I stated mine, which wasn’t even in response to yours. You attacked me for it. What exactly am I missing here?

“I don’t need to win this argument, so I’ll just point out how right I am and leave forever,”

But…I’m here…so, what?

“If you really had a point to make, you’d make it dispassionately, without getting all sarcastic about how bad my arguments are”

If my arguments were bad, then I’d see your point. But, from what I can see, “bad” = “I hold a point different from yours, though I’ve puffed mine up with the fantastic addition of a moral high horse upon which I trot around an internet forum and take pot shots at people.”

On that note…

“it is hard not to notice that you’re surprised and reluctant to weather some predictable verbal unpleasantness from Mr. Seavey but awfully cavalier in demanding that others strap in and do so, in other contexts”

Hey, had Seavey just let my points lie, shrugged, and went on with his day, I wouldn’t be here right now. Instead he went the route of the smug attack (again, SO NOVEL ON t3h int4rw3bz!), and I responded in kind.

I work with what you give me.

Now, what I see here with me and John is a disagreement, one that likely will not be resolved. Me? I’m fine with saying “Alright, let’s agree to disagree.”

John, for whatever stupid reason, finds it preferable to say “I disagree, and I’m going to try to insult you because I disagree.”

ReplyReply
mygif

“@Matt: If you never said that “but heckling is rude” is a defense, who posted “Much of this sort of thing could be circumvented if club owners/staff would have the balls to toss hecklers out of the venue, zero-tolerance style” using your name?”

Misinterpretation. One does not mean the other.

Now, had I said something like “YEAH! F*CK THAT BITCH! SHE GOT WHAT SHE DESERVED!” or somesuch, you’d have a point.

Instead, I asked “What would one reasonably expect to happen in such a situation.”

And I stand by my point that if heclkers would simply be chucked from venues in which they are being disruptive, then issues like this, the Michael Richards incident, etc., wouldn’t even BE incidents.

And, yeah, I said I don’t have much sympathy for the heckler because…well…I don’t. And, again, I said I’d have sympathy had Tosh’s stupid remark led to something truly tragic/reprehensible. Sorry, I guess?

ReplyReply
mygif

“The only thing we’re missing out on is him claiming to be aware of all Internet traditions, really.”

If I’M the hallmark of all trolls, y’all haven’t been doing this internet thing very long.

::goes to look up the term for folks who attempt to stop arguments/discussions by calling folks trolls::

ReplyReply
mygif

“Just like you claim Mr. Seavey has done to you, perhaps you are slightly mischaracterizing her position. I perceive her message as “that’s over the line” instead of “that joke bombed.” Surely she can count on you to be vigorous in avoiding a similar injustice.”

Alright, if I’m mis-characterizing her position, let’s back up a bit. My overall point is that someone vocally disrupting a performance should expect some sort of response. When dealing with a stand-up comedian, said response is likely to be disproportionally vicious.

I’m not saying that’s right or wrong, I’m saying that just IS.

At this point, however, the discussion has been framed so that anyone who doesn’t think “ZOMG Tosh is an idiot/misogynist/guy SCREAMING for women to be raped” is some amoral troglodyte and a horrible human being. Is this perception off? If so, I’m glad to be proven wrong.

ReplyReply
mygif

“I read everything you said and it was so self-evidently wrong I don’t even need to explain why,”

Also, who said it is self-evidently wrong? I said, accurately, that you’ve framed the discussion in such a way that anyone who explains why IS wrong AUTOMATICALLY. Is that assertion wrong? Did I misread something?

Which, y’know, isn’t a discussion. Like, at all. But, hey, I’m pretty sure you already know that.

ReplyReply
mygif

So as to answer all of John’s points:

“On the one hand, I do believe that what Tosh said was a threat.”

I don’t.

“I don’t believe that any reasonable person could claim it wasn’t a threat to say, “I think it would be funny if you got gang-raped by the audience right now,” when standing up on stage while the woman being so threatened was down among the crowd.”

Enough of your framing crap with the “reasonable person” bit. It wasn’t a threat. It wasn’t a direct indication of an intent to actually do harm. It was not a clarion call for the audience to rape this woman, nor do I think that the venue supports that feeling of foreboding.

It WAS, however, a stupid, unfunny thing to say. No argument there. But a threat? No. Not in my eyes.

“That was a clear threat, made in an attempt to intimidate the heckler into silence.”

No, it wasn’t.

“Tosh might be trying to pass it off as a joke now, but it’s not particularly convincing. It’s like Henry II shouting, “Will no one rid me of that turbulent priest?” Sure, he could claim he was speaking rhetorically. But everyone who heard him knew better.”

So you’re saying that Tosh said what he said with the intent of causing a room full of men to sexually assault a woman in the audience? Tosh said this in an effort to whip up a mob and sexually assault someone at one of his shows?

Sorry, can’t go along with that. Because it makes no logical sense.

“However, as I quoted in my post, the test is that the speech be both “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action”, AND “likely to incite or produce such action”. Tosh’s counter-argument, then (or that of his lawyer) would be that yes, it was a threat, but it was an idle threat, and idle threats are protected speech.”

Agreed.

“However, usually when people talk about idle threats, they’re doing so in the context of abstracted violence. The Klan can say at their rallies that they want to “string up every Negro in these parts who tries to vote”, but since they don’t have access to that information and the effort involved would be prohibitive, it’s protected speech. But if the rally speaker pointed to a person in the crowd and said, “That man’s a Jew, exactly the kind of person that should be beaten to death whenever you see him,” that’s no idle threat, even if the words, “Beat that man to death” are never uttered.”

But…that’s not what happened.

“So Tosh’s defense would hinge on the fact that yes, he might have suggested it would be a good idea for someone to sexually assault that woman,”

He didn’t.

“but he never thought they’d actually do it.”

He likely didn’t.

“That said, if a drunken audience member had given her a shove or a trip on her way out of the club, and she’d broken her nose against a table (and thank goodness nothing like that happened), or if someone had followed her out of the club and assaulted her, I think that Daniel Tosh would have a hard time claiming protected speech.”

That I can agree with, as I said before.

“But again, if your primary defense was, “Well, I was pretty confident there were no mean drunks in the crowd when I said that,” you have fucked up beyond all measure and should follow Michael Richards’ example of quitting stand-up and trying to figure out what bad choices led you to that point. :)”

My defense would have been “I trusted that the audience members would not actually sexually assault a woman en masse in the middle of a crowded, downtown comedy club. Still, it was a stupid thing to say.”

ReplyReply
mygif
cole1114 said on July 19th, 2012 at 10:51 am

I think Matt is my new favorite person.

ReplyReply
mygif

I just think that Tosh should be called out for being a dumbass/hack comedian, not excoriated as if he were a guy just ITCHING to get some kind of rape fantasy started whilst in mid-routine.

For all I know, he could be, but the evidence doesn’t bear that out in my mind. What it DOES bear out is that he was heckled, mentally said “f*ck this” as many other performers are wont to do, and responded with something not only unfunny but just kind of…”Huh, you went with that?”

ReplyReply
mygif
highlyverbal said on July 19th, 2012 at 1:34 pm

@Matt: “Hey, had Seavey just let my points lie, shrugged, and went on with his day, I wouldn’t be here right now. Instead he went the route of the smug attack…”

Hey, had Tosh just let the heckler’s points lie, shrugged, and went on with his bit, WE ALL wouldn’t be here right now. Instead he went the route of the smug attack.

========

It seems you weren’t clever enough to notice that I was using your own language against you. So, here, let me do it in a way that is unmistakably obvious and bludgeons you over the head with it. Then, as an exercise, you might scroll up and pay more careful attention to our previous exchange.

ReplyReply
mygif

“It seems you weren’t clever enough to notice that I was using your own language against you.”

Nah, I caught that. I just didn’t care to take the bait. See how that works?

However, here ya go:

“I don’t want to distract you from that main concern, but furthermore: it is hard not to notice that you’re surprised and reluctant to weather some predictable verbal unpleasantness from Mr. Seavey but awfully cavalier in demanding that others strap in and do so, in other contexts.”

The “in other contexts” is the lynchpin here, because there IS a difference.

If I were a ticketholder to one of Mr. Seavey’s spoken word ramblings, piped up to say that I disagree (as if anyone else in the audience would give a sh*t), and then got rebuked, I’d expect said rebuke. Why? Because I would have broken the implicit contract between a performer and a ticket holder: you perform, I watch you perform and don’t interject my own ramblings into the proceedings.

That, however, as you may or may not be aware, didn’t happen.

What happened was that I weighed in on a topic in a public forum, with no such implicit contract, got jabbed at by Mr. Seaver with no provocation, and responded in kind. This situation is IN NO WAY analogous to the Tosh situation above. At all.

Can you see that? If not, there’s no point in continuing this.

Finally:

“Hey, had Tosh just let the heckler’s points lie, shrugged, and went on with his bit, WE ALL wouldn’t be here right now. Instead he went the route of the smug attack.”

I don’t know about you, but if I’m in a movie theatre, and I’m watching the show, and someone near me whips out their cell phone to talk/text, I’m going to tell them (and HAVE told them – pet peeve of mine) to put the f*cking thing away.

Now, had Tosh just ignored it, sure, one could think that the matter might have ended. Unless, of course, you’ve had ANY experience with hecklers in the past. Someone who is obnoxious enough to pipe up in the middle of a routine is probably willing to do so again, as they clearly don’t care about the nature/expectations of being a spectator. Go on YouTube and look up “heckler stand up” and see how well ignoring the heckler works out.

ReplyReply
mygif
highlyverbal said on July 19th, 2012 at 2:31 pm

@Matt: “This situation is IN NO WAY analogous to the Tosh situation above. At all.”

You missed the predictability part.

Of course, that is setting aside the trivially obvious ways in which they are analogous, like both involve speech acts, both involved perceived rudeness, neither involve violence, etc. Your saying “IN NO WAY” in all caps and following it with “At all.” do suggest you are right about this part:

“If not, there’s no point in continuing this.”

You are just a little too agitated to think clearly at this point. Resist the urge to be so hyperbolic, is my suggestion. Milder claims are more persuasive.

ReplyReply
mygif

“Of course, that is setting aside the trivially obvious ways in which they are analogous, like both involve speech acts, both involved perceived rudeness, neither involve violence, etc.”

Hey, I like semantics as much as the next guy, but I think you understood what I was driving at. Or “that at which I was driving,” whichever you’d prefer.

“Your saying “IN NO WAY” in all caps and following it with “At all.” do suggest you are right about this part:

“If not, there’s no point in continuing this.”

You are just a little too agitated to think clearly at this point. Resist the urge to be so hyperbolic, is my suggestion. Milder claims are more persuasive.”

Agitated? Nah, not really.

However, if you’d like to avoid agitating someone in the future, maybe avoid stuff like this:

“It seems you weren’t clever enough to notice that I was using your own language against you.”

But, hey, seems like you’re playing a little game here. If not, please correct me.

ReplyReply
mygif

@Matt:

Matt said: “But…I’m here…so, what?”

Yes, that’s the wonderful part about Stage Two of the Internet Flounce. It’s as predictable as the seasons. The commenter says, “Oh, you foolish poster, you. You’re just not interested in listening to how right I am! So I guess you’re not really interested in having a discussion, which makes me obviously right by default. I guess there’s no point in posting further, because why would I waste my time and energy arguing with wrongness?”

And then, like the inevitable budding of the leaves in springtime, the commenter invariably responds to the poster’s very next comment. 🙂 With redoubled energy and intensity, no less. It’s always hilarious to see.

But in among your repetition of old points, lack of self-awareness, and insistence that it’s somehow wrong of me to feel superior to people who think rape threats are okay (that’s right! It’s not them who’s wrong for defending a guy who makes rape threats! It’s me who’s wrong for judging them! …somehow, I feel less than chastened…) You do bring up something nobody has yet discussed. So let’s discuss it.

Your quote: “But a threat? No. Not in my eyes.”

The response: That’s exactly your problem. You are someone who has been privileged enough, simply by virtue of your race/gender/sexual identity/sexual orientation, not to have to live with rape threats on a daily basis. They are not a part of your world. You are aware that they exist as something that sometimes happens to other people, but the thought that someone could hear a person loudly and angrily saying, “I think it would be really funny if five or six guys raped that woman right now,” and actually believe it, does not occur to you. Because that’s the sort of thing that only happens to other people.

That woman in the crowd? She was one of the other people. If she’s a “normal” woman, odds are that she has experienced sexual harrassment in her life, and there’s a very real chance that she experienced sexual assault. What seems to you like impossible hyperbole is, to her, a very real possibility, and there’s someone threatening her with it right there and then. She did not have the luxury of assuming that was a joke. She had to treat that as a real threat. And for you to ignore that, to assume that the world works the same way for you that it does for everyone else and if it doesn’t, well, too bad, you’re not up for trying to change that because “I’m not saying that’s right or wrong, I’m saying that just IS,” well…yeah. That makes you a worse person. It’s not just that you disagree with me. It’s that you’re up for defending that kind of fuckery. And I’m not.

ReplyReply
mygif

Matt’s a pretty effective flamebaiter, because I am simultaneously aware that he’s doing this on purpose and wishing that I could open a pay-as-you-go account at dronestrikes.com.

ReplyReply
mygif
highlyverbal said on July 19th, 2012 at 9:53 pm

@Matt: “I like semantics as much as the next guy, but I think you understood what I was driving at.”

The pleasant thing about when one says “IN ANY WAY” in all caps, no one has to worry about guessing about semantics, or what someone is driving at. But at least we both now agree you were being foolishly hyperbolic. Hey, that’s progress! I’ll take it!

Honest dialogue requires you leave the hyperbole behind. Wanna take it from the top? My suggestion for a starting point for productive dialogue would be the “predictable” part of the analogy.

PS: I strongly doubt anyone likes semantics as much as me. Sexy!

ReplyReply
mygif

OK, I’m going to give this a shot. Maybe this will get through. I’m not betting on it, but maybe.

I am a woman who is lucky enough to never have been sexually assaulted. Nevertheless, daily I live the reality that because rapists don’t care about age, I will not be free of the risk of becoming one of those one in four until I die. This means being careful how I dress, where I am, who I am with, what I have to drink (and never leaving said drink unwatched), and who might be in the vicinity.

When I was at university, I worked the late shift. So did my then-husband, on different nights. Oddly, he never reported feeling unsafe on the way to the car post-shift. He was never followed. I, on the other hand, was occasionally followed and felt unsafe… and this was at a really nice school with frequent security patrols. Ditto leaving the library late.

I am one of the lucky ones. If you have not lived this reality, perhaps you genuinely cannot understand what Tosh said as a threat. But I instantly understood why that woman left immediately. She left because had she stayed, with the alcohol continuing to flow, there was a chance that one of the audience members (and remember, in one in three sexual assaults, the perpetrator has been drinking) would have assaulted her. At the very least, she risked being followed and harassed.

This isn’t about “don’t like rape jokes.” I don’t, but that’s totally beside the point. The fact is that while I can’t speak for all women, I instantly understood her take on the situation. She was threatened. And by saying “don’t like rape jokes, don’t go”/”do research on who you’re seeing before you go”/”she has no sense of humor”/”she shouldn’t have spoken up,” you are missing the point and also putting the burden on the woman instead of the guy whose job involves heckling and needs to learn how to react to it instead of making threats.

ReplyReply
mygif
cole1114 said on July 21st, 2012 at 3:54 pm

Since I’m fucking awful at expressing my opinions, here’s a video that helps me with that.

redlettermedia.com/fuck-bot-5000-has-an-important-message/#more-2073

ReplyReply
mygif

For those of you who might not watch the video, on account of how it’s not worksafe: Yet another fucking dimwit misses the point that it wasn’t the rape jokes that were the problem, it was the rape threats that followed them.

I’m actually impressed that after what has to be easily a dozen repetitions of that right here in this thread, you somehow thought that putting it in video form might make it more persuasive. Will you be following it up with the same already-debunked argument in semaphore?

ReplyReply
mygif
C. Carter said on July 22nd, 2012 at 7:40 am

@ Mr. Seavey

I perhaps should I have prefaced my first comment more carefully — yours is one of the few blogs I read so I am not looking for confrontation or sarcasm and am trying to not read that into any replies. I do indeed agree that his comment was crass and unfunny. But I think the disconnect I have is in my following questions:

When you say “threat,” as you alleging that Daniel Tosh actually wanted her to be raped?

Or, would he bear moral responsibility if someone had raped her after that shows, similar to how various parties have felt violence-extolling metal bands and hip-hop groups ought to bear some legal ramifications when folks inspired by their music go out and do horrid things?

ReplyReply
mygif

@C, Carter: To answer your questions:

1) Yes, absolutely. I think he’d have been horrified if it would have actually happened, but I think that in that moment, yes, he wanted her to be raped. It’s like a child saying, “I hate you, Daddy! I hope you die!” Of course, they’d feel terrible if it actually happened, but they are totally in the grip of their emotions at the moment and not thinking about the consequences of their desires. The person in question has made them feel bad, and so they deserve to suffer. (Yes, my comparison does suggest that Daniel Tosh has the emotional maturity of a petulant four-year old. I think the facts back me up on this. 🙂 )

Again, I feel that the Michael Richards situation is illuminative. Later, of course, when he realized what he said, he felt terrible. But at the time, he just saw red.

2) This isn’t “similar to how various parties have felt violence-extolling metal bands and hip-hop groups ought to bear some legal ramifications when folks inspired by their music go out and do horrid things”, because the sentiments in that music are not direct, immediate and specific threats to a single person. You could imagine a rap group being crass enough to record a song called “Rape Da Bitches”, but you couldn’t imagine them changing it at a concert to “Rape Da Bitch In Row 13, Seat C Who Booed When We Announced What Song We Were Playing Next”. Ozzy Osbourne might have written “Suicide Solution”, but he didn’t write “Suicide Is Totally the Solution of Jimmy Reynolds Because He’s a Useless Little Brat, And By the Way Your Dad Hides His Gun in the Hall Closet, Jimmy”.

Again, I don’t see how this is particularly complicated. Whether or not you feel that there are off-limits topics for jokes, you should be able to see the difference between a “joke” and a threat directed at an audience member. The former is a lot easier to defend, of course, which may be why people keep trying, but it’s the latter that makes this such an outrage even by the standards of “edgy” comedians.

ReplyReply
mygif
cole1114 said on July 23rd, 2012 at 8:03 pm

The problem is that I absolutely do not see it as a threat. I suppose that’s where the crux of it is.

ReplyReply
mygif

@cole1114: Yes, that is the crux of it. You can’t imagine what it would be like to be in that situation, because to do so would be to challenge your worldview that you don’t gain undeserved benefit in life solely by virtue of your unearned Y chromosome. If you accept that it was a threat, you have to actually start changing your behavior by first admitting that the world is a very horrible, fucked-up place for a lot of people and you’re not caring, and that’s a very harsh bit of introspection that a lot of people aren’t ready for. I hope that changes for you someday.

ReplyReply
mygif
cole1114 said on July 24th, 2012 at 4:13 pm

“This person disagrees with me, they’re privileged and let’s ignore their opinion entirely”

ReplyReply
mygif

“This person disagrees with me in a way that clearly demonstrates their blindspots due to privilege, let me try to educate them on…no, no, they’re just continuing to repeat ‘rape jokes can be funny’ long after the point where the words have lost all meaning to them. Maybe there’s just a point where I should write them off as too dumb to do much more than make fun of.”

ReplyReply
mygif
cole1114 said on July 25th, 2012 at 4:21 pm

“This guy is claiming to know about privilege of women, and his most likely claim to any sort of knowledge on this topic is “I read a book and know stuff about it” when talking to someone he neither knows nor seems to respect enough to come up with a decent argument beyond LOLYOUDUMBANDPRIVILEGED”

Come up with something beyond insults if you EVER want me to respect your opinions. You’re no MGK.

ReplyReply
mygif

I came up with decent arguments. They were in the initial post, and in the previous 133 comments. Your best response, after several attempts to deflect the issue, argue an entirely different point, or simply bluff things out by claiming I’m not paying attention to what you said, is to respond with, “Well, I just don’t see it that way.”

As I said at the beginning: Not being able to see it that way makes you a worse person. Defending a man who threatened someone with gang rape because his fee-fees were hurt, and shrugging off any counter-arguments by simply denying the validity of the other person’s point of view, makes you a worse human being. And if you feel insulted and shamed by that, then good. Because you deserve to be. That is a shameful and disgusting attitude to have, hence you should feel ashamed of it. See how that works?

ReplyReply
mygif
highlyverbal said on July 29th, 2012 at 11:28 am

cole1114 makes me miss Matt’s participation.

ReplyReply
mygif
cole1114 said on July 30th, 2012 at 11:28 pm

It WASN’T a threat though, and to say that it was is ludicrous! You’re saying that I’m a terrible human being for interpreting words differently from you. That’s horrendous!

Tell you what, rather than argue this with someone who prefers to insult me for having a different opinion, I’m just gonna say this: learn how to debate something before using nothing but ad hominems.

ReplyReply
mygif

Cole1114:

What John is trying to tell you, I think, is that it’s very nice for you that you do not have to interpret those words as a threat. But, you see, as a woman, I do. If someone says to a crowd around me, “Wouldn’t it be awesome if that woman [meaning me] was gang-raped right now,” I have to take that as a threat.

Try this thought experiement:
You have been put in jail for a minor offense you didn’t do, and you’re waiting for your lawyer to sort it out for you. You say something one of the other inmates doesn’t like. All of a sudden, he says “Wouldn’t it be funny if that dude was gang-raped right now?” And the rest of the crowd laughs appreciatively.

Now: Is that a threat?

Sure, she was in a comedy club. But you have, and she had, no way of knowing that there were not five actual rapists in the crowd. You and she have/had no way of knowing if there were five people who would not “normally” rape, but all liquored up and with their buddies egging them on would “push the boundaries of consent.” Which is also rape, but far more people will admit to “boundary pushing” than will willingly use the word “rape” as a description of their actions.

What bothers me about your continual assertions is that you are disregarding the lived experiences of women who say “Yes, that was a threat” because you can’t imagine how it could be. For me, it is the utter disregard of these words that is the major, major problem.

ReplyReply
mygif

@cole1114: What she said. 🙂 I’m not insulting you “for having a different opinion”, I’m insulting you for having the specific opinion that threatening someone with gang rape is okay so long as you can plausibly claim later that you didn’t really mean it. Again and again, you try to equate this with something as innocuous as “liking Roger Moore better than Sean Connery”, or “thinking Hillary would have made a better President”, because it’s a lot easier to defend “having an opinion” than it is to defend “having an opinion that as long as it’s only a woman you say it to, rape threats don’t really ‘count’.”

Insulting you for that is not an ad hominem attack, because an ad hominem attack states that the opinion is bad because someone like you has it. It is, in fact, the exact opposite of an ad hominem attack–I think that you are bad because you hold an opinion like that. If you’re going to throw around terms to make yourself look smart, could you throw around ones that you understand?

ReplyReply
mygif

[…] Seavey, one of the writers on Mightygodking, wrote a response to what happened, titled “From the “How To Be A Decent Human Being” File….” In it he decried Tosh’s response to the woman, and basically lay down that freedom of […]

mygif

Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Mightygodking dot com » Post Topic » From the “How To Be A Decent Human Being” File…

mygif

PhenQ Discounts

[…]Seems like regular post[…]

mygif

Crazy Bulk Discount Coupon

[…]Seems like regular post[…]

mygif

Click Here to Buy Now

Loved it amazing product…

mygif

Click Here to Buy Now

Loved it amazing product…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please Note: Comment moderation may be active so there is no need to resubmit your comments