1. I accept that I am under the control of a higher power (Muppet).

I really dont get it.  overreacting idiots on the internet.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/07/a_new_low.html#more


so whats the big deal?  even in my non-anonymous internet presence I wouldn't take that kind of insane idiotic ranting seriously.  Is the overreacting just an opportunity to be self-righteous, or are these people all idiots?
Permalink Send private email zestyZucchini 
March 29th, 2007 2:47am
Welcome to the Internet; the cesspool of humanity.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 29th, 2007 3:00am
It's weird to say the least.
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 29th, 2007 3:01am
I guess it's an disagreement over where a line is crossed, intentionally or not.

For a professor, the behaviour is pure arrogance. She must think she can get away with stupid remarks since she's tenured.

BTW, please stop calling others who are unlike yourselves idiot :)
Permalink Rick Zeng/Tseng 
March 29th, 2007 3:03am
Finding out where she works and trying to get her fired is a little retarded, for sure.

Her comments aren't particularly inventive or amusing.  It's the typical sort of ham-fisted shit you get from dumb bitches who think they're being clever but aren't.

Anyway it's all smoke and anyone who isn't an idiot would realize that.  Let's stop criminalizing speech, already.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 29th, 2007 7:43am
IOW:

Dear World,

If you choose to participate in the grand project known as the intarwebs, you will, from time to time, encounter people with wholly different worldviews and hence wholly different ways of expressing themselves.  Unsurprisingly, these people will have different ideas about tact, where unmarked lines are "drawn", and so forth.

Get the fuck over it, or stay off the internet.  It's very simple.

You don't walk into a Klu Klux Klan meeting and start fillibustering for the NAACP unless you want, at the very least, a good talking to.

The internet is the ubiquitous KKK meeting.  There are MILLIONS of people LYING IN WAIT to not only disagree with you, but to make you cry for your mommy.

Man up.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 29th, 2007 7:45am
You just wait, mister -- The influential blogosphere is going to clean this shithole up!

One of the most hilarious elements of this -- speaking specifically to the Kathy Sierra post -- are the people linking to it with disclaimers like "WARNING: Images will gross you out". Uh, yeah -- seeing some photoshopped panties on a woman's face just put me over the top. Now I'm going to have horrifying flashbacks of face-hugging panty monsters.

Geez.

Did these people just get their first connection or something? Maybe I'm just a little too shell shocked, dulled by exposure to tub girl, goatse, and countless others (like the video of the Russian soldier getting his head cut off while he screamed for mercy -- a "friend" sent me that, and even though I stopped it 2 seconds in, the rest of the story was so evident that it burned in my consciousness), that the idea that someone finds anything indicated in the Kathy story even measurable remarkable. Then again, because she provided nothing of real scariness, the brave blogosphere has just invented all sorts of proof  that is completely unproven, and actually disproven by its absence.

If anything, the civility of the Internet is absolutely baffling to me. Any asshat anywhere in the world, completely untouchable, and supported by a virtually infinite number of anonymizer methods, could mass threaten and attack everyone every day. Yet remarkably it is still a rare event given the gross amount of time billions of people spend on this medium. I'm infinitely more likely to get in a serious altercation on the highway than I am on the internet.
Permalink DF 
March 29th, 2007 9:59am
Good lord, I'm still reading the comments.

Somebody let soccer moms onto the internet.  This will not end well.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 29th, 2007 10:14am
As far as Debbie Fleisch goes, she can probably clean up with lawsuits for tortious interference.
Permalink Send private email Stephen Jones 
March 29th, 2007 11:22am
> Man up.

This is what it means to be on the Internet ... being a man. No room for other emotional configurations.
Permalink Send private email blahty heartsheep 
March 29th, 2007 12:20pm
Sure there is, but those other configurations should stick to their comfort zone.  Obviously blogs are too crazy for them.  Maybe the moderator of the blog should remove objectionable posts instead of allowing an issue like this to escalate.  That way they can have their candy-coated unicorn utopia website and nobody has to lose their job due to misguided people who think speech should be criminalized.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 29th, 2007 12:27pm
"Maybe I'm just a little too shell shocked"

Probably.  We've come to expect a pretty low amount of discourse pretty much everywhere on the net.  Online gaming is filled with people calling each other all kinds of shit in explicit detail.  Swearing, insults, graphic details is all common place.

"Then again, because she provided nothing of real scariness"

I think it really depends on the amount of effort someone puts in.  A random comment on a blog isn't much effort.  Going through the effort to fire up photoshop and make a bunch of pictures of you might point to a more serious issue.

"If anything, the civility of the Internet is absolutely baffling to me."

The measure of the civility of the Internet is far lower than in real life.  Civility in real life is someone holding the door open for you.  Civility on the Internet is going one day without being called a fucktard.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 29th, 2007 12:41pm
Your analogy is somewhat slanted.  Civility on the internet can be measured in lots of ways.  In the responses to technical questions on this forum, for exa...

oh nevermind.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 29th, 2007 12:43pm
I think there is a difference between thinking speech should be criminalized and thinking that making rape threats against 2 yr olds should be criminalized.
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 29th, 2007 12:44pm
"candy-coated unicorn utopia"

Oh wait, you're talking about Sierra now.
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 29th, 2007 12:45pm
But she didn't make rape threats against a 2 year old.  She told him that if his two year old was raped, she wouldn't care much.  There's a canyon-wide difference.

And it was in response to some pretty venomous statements and threats made towards her.  She was offering a taste of their own medicine in order to bring some perspective to the discussion.  She wasn't posting the guy's address and reserving plane tickets.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 29th, 2007 12:46pm
Why must someone always bring up "criminalize" as if desiring greater civility on the Internet somehow requires it.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 29th, 2007 12:46pm
Wayne,

I brought up "criminalize" because fully 2/3 of the response on the site linked in the OP to Whatsername's comments are "We should be able to do something about this legally" and "Where does she work?  Let's call her employer."

Desiring real world, physical consequences for speech like criminal charges or loss of employment qualifies as criminalizing speech, if you ask me.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 29th, 2007 12:48pm
It's important to note that some people involved in this farce of a controversy did, indeed, manage to get her fired from the University where she taught. 

OK, really she "resigned".
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 29th, 2007 12:49pm
Good point Wayne.

I'm thinking people should ask themselves how their posting history on the internet looks to other people. Let's say you are out on a date with a nice girl. The waiter brings... a transcript of your recent posting history. Are you proud and feel your activities speak for themselves, or do you start trying to explain, justify or deny your words.

This is getting into the idea that your words are your own and you should own them.

If you don't want to own them, why say them at all?
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 29th, 2007 12:50pm
"it was in response to some pretty venomous statements and threats made towards her"

I still have not been able to find these statements. Can you post them, or post a link to the specific things Goldstein said to her that made her response justified?
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 29th, 2007 12:52pm
"This is getting into the idea that your words are your own and you should own them. "

You should also own what you do in your bedroom, in college, with 3 frosh and a mule, but there's no reason your employer needs a transcript of it.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 29th, 2007 12:52pm
P.E. -

Unfortunately I think that they've been conveniently edited out.  Granted this leaves me without evidence and makes the argument somewhat tenuous but it's hardly outside of the character of some more rabidly right-leaning people to censor things they "didn't really mean" since they therefore weren't ever real.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 29th, 2007 12:53pm
"Desiring real world, physical consequences for speech like criminal charges or loss of employment qualifies as criminalizing speech, if you ask me."

I'm against criminalizing speech *but* I don't speech can or should be entirely without consequences.  If you say something and it gets you fired (or forced to resign) then so what.  I don't see a problem with that.  Unless you believe speech is entirely meaningless then consequences are inevitable (and sometimes desirable).

My reply wasn't directed at you -- it was directed at anyone who immediately goes from condemning speech to criminalizing it either as their argument or as the strawman.  There are lots of ways to deal with inappropriate speech (including ignoring it) that doesn't involve the law.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 29th, 2007 12:54pm
"You should also own what you do in your bedroom, in college, with 3 frosh and a mule"

If you get that published you shouldn't be surprised if it falls into the wrong hands.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 29th, 2007 12:56pm
Here are some of hers:

"if I woke up tomorrow and learned that someone else had shot you and your “tyke” it wouldn’t slow me down one iota.  You aren’t “human” to me.

"So if you could just tell me the AGE and SEX of your “tyke,” I’d be stoked!"

"Ooh. Two year old boy. Sounds hot.  You live in Colorado, I see. Hope no one Jon-Benets your baby."

"Give your pathetic progeny (I sure hope that mofo got good genes from his mama!) a big fat tongue-filled kiss from me!  LOTS AND LOTS OF SALIVA from Auntie MOONBAT, if you don’t mind!"

I find these comments pretty threatening. Anyone saying this to me, I would not hesitate to report to the FBI.

Of course in her case she was already some kind of consultant with the FBI, so who knows.
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 29th, 2007 12:57pm
"I'm against criminalizing speech *but* I don't speech can or should be entirely without consequences.  If you say something and it gets you fired (or forced to resign) then so what.  I don't see a problem with that.  Unless you believe speech is entirely meaningless then consequences are inevitable (and sometimes desirable). "

If you say things while ON THE JOB or UNDER THE AUSPICES of your position that you are fired for, great.

If you're fired because you called somebody a nigger while on vacation in Spain, then no, not cool.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 29th, 2007 12:57pm
"If you're fired because you called somebody a nigger while on vacation in Spain, then no, not cool."

Why not?  If you're the type of person who calls people niggers maybe I don't want to employ you.  That doesn't mean that somebody else doesn't care and won't hire you.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 29th, 2007 1:00pm
And maybe you don't want women working for you, or Republicans.

If it doesn't affect how I do my job, and I keep my personal feelings personal while operating under the auspices of my position, who the fuck are you to fire me for what I do in my personal life?
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 29th, 2007 1:01pm
And if you threaten people on the Internet I might have to question your sanity.  Again, I might simply not want to hire emotionally unstable people -- it's bad for business.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 29th, 2007 1:01pm
"and I keep my personal feelings personal"

If your personal feelings are personal then I won't even know  about it.  Good job.  You are hired.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 29th, 2007 1:02pm
In Dr. Frisch's case though, she was posting using her real name and a link to her website where she talked prominently about her job as a professor at U of A.

In the end, she chose to resign herself, they didn't fire her.

There were reasonable concerns that her employer should be aware of her activities of making public sexual threats against toddlers. Personally, if I was the head of a psych department where she was teaching, I would want to know about this.

By your argument, NASA was wrong to dismiss Lisa Novak because her stalking and abduction activities did not happen on NASA property, but were done in her private time.
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 29th, 2007 1:11pm
"If your personal feelings are personal then I won't even know  about it.  Good job.  You are hired."

If you go out of your way to follow me home or Google my personal blog, I should be liable for your overzealous and unnecessary behavior?
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 29th, 2007 1:46pm
Lisa Novak committed actual crimes.  She fully intended to commit assault and murder.

This is not the same as simple speech.

But nice try.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 29th, 2007 1:47pm
"I should be liable for your overzealous and unnecessary behavior?"

You published your private thoughts -- by definition, they aren't private anymore.  If you are Neo Nazi, a company might not want to have anything to do with you.  That's the consequences of being a Neo Nazi.  Tough shit.  If you don't want the consequences, don't publish your private thoughts.

I'll argue day and night that you shouldn't be criminalized for your writings but if nobody wants to have anything to do with you because of it that's something else entirely.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 29th, 2007 1:50pm
My ideals and opinions don't affect my ability to thread bolts.  You shouldn't be allowed to fire me from my bolt-threading job for being a Nazi anymore than you should be able to because I'm a woman, a black, a Mexican, or whatever.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 29th, 2007 1:52pm
>>> You shouldn't be allowed to fire me from my bolt-threading job for being a Nazi anymore than you should be able to because I'm a woman, a black, a Mexican, or whatever.

I should be.  If I'm running a corner grocery store and hire you as a cashier, I should be able to dump you for something totally unrelated to the job, e.g. I don't like the type of car you drive.  AND I should be able to pay you $2/hour - assuming you're willing to work for that little.  If I tell you up front what the conditions are and you agree to them, there should be no problem.

I'm not sure how to scale this to the case when I'm Wal-Mart and I'm the only retailer in town, or when I own the only factory in town and want to say up front, "no, my equipment doesn't have any safety features, if you don't like it, don't work here."
Permalink Send private email Ward 
March 29th, 2007 2:03pm
I think here you are confusing what is criminal according to the law with private business transactions.

A business can refuse to serve you a meal because you are a Nazi, or for any other reason other than a small number that are protected by law (like your race).

Although they didn't do it in this case, the University of Arizona can fire an adjunct professor for lots of reasons, not just criminal behavior. Smart companies will have in a contract that you maintain decorum when in public if you are making clear your association with your employer, but this is not necessary. Companies can fire at will, and their rights to fire when there is no contract are usually greater. Disney will certainly fire you if you mention on your blog that you are a Disney employee and that you hate (insert group here) or want to kill (this or that). And they are within their rights to do so.

Of course in this case, the Dr.'s actions were criminal. She could have been indicted with multiple charges, many serious. The victims chose not to since they thought she was acting because of a mental illness. Her next victim may not be so forgiving.
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 29th, 2007 2:04pm
Ah, so now you're a free market libertarian.  The invisible hand will surely protect the minorities... somehow.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 29th, 2007 2:04pm
>Online gaming is filled with people calling each other all kinds of shit in explicit detail.  Swearing, insults, graphic details is all common place.

Online gaming is predominately populated by male teenagers. How do you think male teenagers act anywhere else?

>The measure of the civility of the Internet is far lower than in real life.  Civility in real life is someone holding the door open for you.  Civility on the Internet is going one day without being called a fucktard.

I could not disagree with you more.
Permalink DF 
March 29th, 2007 2:05pm
Muppet, protected minorities are a straw man in this debate - it is illegal to discriminate against them in business, housing, employment, heath care, pretty much everything. You can't refuse to serve Eskimos. But yes, you CAN refuse to serve Nazis.
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 29th, 2007 2:09pm
Hey, if I've had nothing but bad experiences with eskimos (Philo was mean to me!) and am willing to forego the business of the many very pleasant eskimos and possible eskimo-supporters, I should be quite free to tell them "Sorry, we don't serve your kind."
Permalink Send private email Ward 
March 29th, 2007 2:13pm
Why?  Why should you be able to do that?  Because Nazis are unpopular and blacks aren't anymore?

What does being a Nazi have to do with a job cutting tape measures?
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 29th, 2007 2:13pm
"I could not disagree with you more."

I'm convinced!
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 29th, 2007 2:13pm
"Because Nazis are unpopular and blacks aren't anymore?"

Being black or a women isn't a moral issue.  Being lazy, a neo nazi, a nose picker, or a wife beater are choices and moral issues.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 29th, 2007 2:15pm
OK, so it's ok not to hire Republicans, or Libertarians?
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 29th, 2007 2:16pm
Yes.  I can also not hire you because you were a snotty ass in the Interview.  You want to remove all preference from the hiring process entirely?
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 29th, 2007 2:19pm
Ultimately, it would be my loss if I didn't hire you because you are a good worker but Republican.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 29th, 2007 2:20pm
I'm Lorbing here:  It's a gray issue involving morals.  Am I morally incorrect for not hiring you because your Republican?  Are you morally incorrect for being a Neo Nazi?  The answer to both is probably yes.  Am I morally incorrect for not hiring you because you are a Neo Nazi is the question.  You probably say yes, I say no.  What's the point in having morals if you don't/can't do something about it.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 29th, 2007 2:22pm
Just as it would be if I were a good worker but a skinhead.

But really, being a woman has all sorts of disadvantages in the workplace that can be measured objectively.  Women take maternity leave while men usually do not, or at least take less.  Women have PMS which affects their attitude and coping ability once a month.  Women are physically weaker than men.  Women tend to gossip more than men and can be damagingly competitive with one another.

Nazi's just think all Jews should die, but that doesn't effect how well they lathe a table leg.  Trying to beat your coworker with said leg because you're having a hot-flash is obviously more disruptive than thinking about beating Jews with a similiar implement later on.

Why should blacks (lazy) and women (crazy) be protected under law when Nazis (good, hard workers) are not?
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 29th, 2007 2:23pm
It doesn't have to be a moral thing, I only mention Nazis because muppet brought them up as an example.

You can refuse to serve people who wear green shoes and/or wear too much cologne. The key is that:

1. It's your business. Yours. Not the governments.
2. Cologne and green shoes aren't among the legally protected classes.
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 29th, 2007 2:23pm
"It's ok not to hire Republicans, or Libertarians?"

Yes, it's OK to refuse to hire someone based on their political leanings if you choose.
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 29th, 2007 2:24pm
"Just as it would be if I were a good worker but a skinhead."

But maybe as an employer I don't want to support Neo Nazism.  Are you saying I shouldn't have that choice?

"But really, being a woman has all sorts of disadvantages in the workplace that can be measured objectively."

Absolutely, but it's not their fault that they are women!  It's just a biological fact that society has to work with.  If we didn't prevent discrimination against women then women could never progress in the workplace.  As for a skin head, he can either change his mind or shut up about it and the problem is solved.

"Why should blacks (lazy) and women (crazy) be protected under law when Nazis (good, hard workers) are not?"

Lazy people and crazy people are not protected under the law.  Blacks and Women are.  I'm sure you know the difference.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 29th, 2007 2:28pm
"Absolutely, but it's not their fault that they are women!  It's just a biological fact that society has to work with.  If we didn't prevent discrimination against women then women could never progress in the workplace.  As for a skin head, he can either change his mind or shut up about it and the problem is solved. "

Well, gays are protected in many states now against such discrimination.  In fact, it can be prosecuted under hate-crime laws.

Why?  Gays can easily choose to just be straight.  And really, when you get down to it, in our evolved society, women can now choose to be men.  Michael Jackson chose to be white!

It's ALL choice, Wayne.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
March 29th, 2007 2:29pm
>>> Absolutely, but it's not their fault that they are women!  It's just a biological fact that society has to work with. 

It's not their fault that many thalidomide babies are now armless and/or legless adults.  If I feel that my customers would be uncomfortable being served by thalidomide victims, why can't I refuse to hire them?
Permalink Send private email Ward 
March 29th, 2007 2:41pm
The law makes a choice that being gay is not something you can discriminate against.  Why didn't they just say you can't discriminate for any reason?  Isn't that what you are going for.  You want everything to be equivalent.  Being gay is no better or worse than being a Neo Nazi?  That's not a world I want to live in.

Some things are right and some things are wrong.  Sure people have disagreements over those things (especially wrt homosexuality) but overall we have some kind of consensus.  Opinions change over time and I hope they mostly move towards being better for everyone.  That's just the way the world works.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 29th, 2007 2:45pm
>I'm convinced!

While there wasn't much more to say about it. All factors included, I think the internet is better behaved than the meat world.
Permalink DF 
March 29th, 2007 2:46pm
A more realistic example: If I'm Catholic and send my kids to a Catholic school, can the school insist that the teachers all be Catholic, and that they live by Catholic values?
Permalink Send private email Ward 
March 29th, 2007 2:48pm
I have no idea what the solution is, but I think that if I want to start a club and restrict it to men, what's wrong with that?  Why can't our club say, "We happen to only want to have men in the club... no reason why women couldn't be, but (e.g.) our club is for married men who want to go out and shoot pool w/ a couple buddies.  So, sorry, no women allowed."

What's wrong with that?
Permalink Send private email Ward 
March 29th, 2007 2:51pm
Is a hotel that won't rent to gay bad?
http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=48201

But a hotels that services only gay's be good?
http://gaytravel.com/aboutus/gayhotels.cfm

I'm leaning towards yes on both of those even though they are contradictory.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
March 29th, 2007 2:54pm
Both hotels are discriminating according to sexual orientation. Whether that is illegal or not depends on the state since there is no federal right to temporary lodgings free from sex orientation discrimination.
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 29th, 2007 3:37pm
PE is correct on this; it depends on the legislation. In the UK it only became illegal to discriminate in the provision of goods and services (including temporary accomodation) on grounds of sexual orientation a few weeks ago, after a long campaign to amend the bill.
Permalink Send private email Stephen Jones 
March 30th, 2007 10:55am

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: March, 2007 Other topics: March, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics