11 ms·

Right? Reading the second response by his wife was particularly disturbing. "...Just look at their cartoons. They like to kill. They think it's fun to kill. Th

by gms7777 14y ago

Right? Reading the second response by his wife was particularly disturbing. "...Just look at their cartoons. They like to kill. They think it's fun to kill. They think their friends will admire them if they kill. Without mercy! ...They are stupid, silent people, who are absolutely worthless to our society. Really, what good is their life, but a burden to the planet?" She is accusing "these people" of being murderers? Honestly, from the following comments, I'm quite a bit more concerned that this whole story will end with her going on a killing spree. I'm slowly becoming more and more convinced that this is one majorly elaborate practical joke, concocted by the oatmeal and funnyjunk to raise tons of money for charity. Because I'd rather believe that than believe that people this dense actually exist.

edwardy20 14y ago
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein
vibrunazo 14y ago
> Because I'd rather believe that than believe that people this dense actually exist. Oh, just ask any hardcore religious right-winger why they think women should have no birth control or why gays shouldn't marry. The world is filled with these brain dead crazies who can't put 1 + 1 together if their life depend on it. We just don't see them too much during our day-to-day, if we're too busy inside our work routine on our little tech bubble. That we tend to forget about them. But they're all over the place.
- gms7777 14y ago
  Haha, you raise a valid point. And as an lgbt female, I can't say that I ever forget about them. And yes, its that same exact feeling of complete disbelief when someone that closed-minded speaks to me. However, its a bit more difficult to write it off as an elaborate hoax.
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  Sadly, even those these people are outliers, they still exist. One need only visit the topix message boards or the anonymous comments section of a national web site to see it. It is one of the less useful aspects of the Internet that it amplifies the small crazy voices along with the small useful ones.
- cookiecaper 14y ago
  I don't believe gay persons should marry and I can put 1+1 together even when my life doesn't depend on it. I'm not really sure what social conservatism has to do with launching flagrantly frivolous legal complaints and comparing satirical writers to Jared Loughner, though...
  - urbanjunkie 14y ago
    Then you should be both embarrassed and ashamed of yourself. It's not social conservatism, it's bigotry.
    - lightyrs 14y ago
      Seems like the intolerance of ideas you disagree with is something you struggle with as well.
      - urbanjunkie 14y ago
        Would you have said that it's acceptable for black people to be forced to ride the back of a bus? Or perhaps that women should not be allowed to vote. The idea that all ideas have merit is complete shite. Some ideas and attitudes are reprehensible - the more so when being cloaked in language like "social conservatism"
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        > "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." -Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945)
        14y ago
freehunter 14y ago
I'm actually wondering what the legal ramifications of this type of behavior is. The Oatmeal can clearly be described as parody/satire. It never once purports to be serious. However, this woman is dead serious, and is making quite defamatory remarks about Inman. She's directly and unashamedly calling him a murderer, a Nazi, the man who shot Giffords et al, and a criminal. I would love to see a defamation of character lawsuit from Inman against Tara. She's given no hint that she is playing satire or making a joke (no matter how distasteful). Even going so far to make veiled threats against his life!
- danielweber 14y ago
  In order to be actionable, someone would need to believe what Tara is saying. And no one believes a thing she says.
  - runamok 14y ago
    I would be willing to go on record that I believe her in support of any possible future lawsuits. :-)
    - epaga 14y ago
      Your user name definitely would help strengthen said lawsuit...
drostie 14y ago
As I recall, the same thing happened with a lawyer named Jack Thompson. I think it's just something about Law as a discipline that it attracts people who can be very literal-minded and who at least in their own mind are moral crusaders. (Disclaimer: I don't know whether Carreon's wife actually does anything legal herself or whether she just married a lawyer.) I think when you mix that sort of mentality with modern entertainment, you get quotes like these. Sure, we say, "any normal person" understands the difference between cartoons and real life. Perhaps Mrs. Carreon would even agree that she understands the difference. But she is somehow not convinced that we understand the difference. Jack Thomson was the same way; he referred to games as "murder simulators" and assumed that anyone attracted to them was merely 'in the closet' about actions that they secretly intensely wanted to do. Since indulging a normal addiction usually makes it worse and not better, it's easy from this screwed-up perspective to imagine that The Youth will fail to be satisfied one day with the latest violent media -- and will turn to violence itself in their craving. There is another aspect here which is: the things that disturb us about others are usually things which disturb us about ourselves. It's about resonance. Normally if someone is being stupid people say "to hell with him, he's stupid." But let us all endeavor, when we find ourselves outraged, to ask not only "what is wrong with THEM?!" but also "why does this bug me so much? What resonates here?" If we apply that to Mrs. Carreon, I think we'll all see that we've all been on the wrong side of a dispute, that we've all been wronged before and wanted to "get back," etc.
- theorique 14y ago
  Disclaimer: I don't know whether Carreon's wife actually does anything legal herself or whether she just married a lawyer. In one of her article or message board comments (assuming it was actually her), she claims to have worked as a legal secretary for 20 years.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    Yes, for her husband when he opened his solo practice. (There's nothing bad or incompetent about this.)
- JackC 14y ago
chmike 14y ago
Isn't it defamatory to assert that they like to kill with sole argument a questionable interpretation of some comic art ? It's not only defamatory, it's promoting hate to a level one could feel against a killer and which could put peoples life really in danger. This is disinformation which is not to be confused with liberty of expression. This just strenghten the global impression that it's a lawyer who can't even control and properly deal with it's own affairs. I guess this is what a lose canon lawyer looks like. As an european I would add that it contributes to give a very bad image of the USA.
- danielweber 14y ago
  As an American, we hold free speech to be much more important. We don't put arrest people for making racists Tweets. We don't put people in jail for denying the Holocaust. We don't have censors for people who dare to say that homeopathy doesn't work. (Or, for that matter, who say that it does, unless they are trying to defraud customers.) To find Tara guilty of defamation, a target of her batshit insanity would need to meet specific burdens of proof. They would need to prove to the court that they don't like to kill, and that Tara knew (or ought to have known) that that wasn't true. Free speech is damn messy.
  - chmike 14y ago
    In France, it would be Tara's responsibility to prove her claims. It makes more sense than the opposite. One of the rationale of this principle is that setting up a trial to contest defamatory claims is reproducing the defamatory action. Beside, if someone claims you are a pedophile, a human body eater or like to kill for instance, how could you objectively prove you're not ? Those who claim things should logically have the burden of proof, especially if it is defamatory. This is surprising because it seem to me like a common sense limit to free speech. It is also why I feel much safer in France.
    - danielweber 14y ago
      "Common sense limit to free speech" is why you are French, not American. There's no freedom to not be offended. There's a reason the Church of Scientology loves suing people in England.

by gms7777 14y ago

edwardy20 14y ago

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein

vibrunazo 14y ago

> Because I'd rather believe that than believe that people this dense actually exist. Oh, just ask any hardcore religious right-winger why they think women should have no birth control or why gays shouldn't marry. The world is filled with these brain dead crazies who can't put 1 + 1 together if their life depend on it. We just don't see them too much during our day-to-day, if we're too busy inside our work routine on our little tech bubble. That we tend to forget about them. But they're all over the place.

gms7777 14y ago
Haha, you raise a valid point. And as an lgbt female, I can't say that I ever forget about them. And yes, its that same exact feeling of complete disbelief when someone that closed-minded speaks to me. However, its a bit more difficult to write it off as an elaborate hoax.
ChuckMcM 14y ago
Sadly, even those these people are outliers, they still exist. One need only visit the topix message boards or the anonymous comments section of a national web site to see it. It is one of the less useful aspects of the Internet that it amplifies the small crazy voices along with the small useful ones.
cookiecaper 14y ago
I don't believe gay persons should marry and I can put 1+1 together even when my life doesn't depend on it. I'm not really sure what social conservatism has to do with launching flagrantly frivolous legal complaints and comparing satirical writers to Jared Loughner, though...
- urbanjunkie 14y ago
  Then you should be both embarrassed and ashamed of yourself. It's not social conservatism, it's bigotry.
  - lightyrs 14y ago
    Seems like the intolerance of ideas you disagree with is something you struggle with as well.
    - urbanjunkie 14y ago
      Would you have said that it's acceptable for black people to be forced to ride the back of a bus? Or perhaps that women should not be allowed to vote. The idea that all ideas have merit is complete shite. Some ideas and attitudes are reprehensible - the more so when being cloaked in language like "social conservatism"
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      > "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." -Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945)
      - 14y ago

freehunter 14y ago

I'm actually wondering what the legal ramifications of this type of behavior is. The Oatmeal can clearly be described as parody/satire. It never once purports to be serious. However, this woman is dead serious, and is making quite defamatory remarks about Inman. She's directly and unashamedly calling him a murderer, a Nazi, the man who shot Giffords et al, and a criminal. I would love to see a defamation of character lawsuit from Inman against Tara. She's given no hint that she is playing satire or making a joke (no matter how distasteful). Even going so far to make veiled threats against his life!

danielweber 14y ago
In order to be actionable, someone would need to believe what Tara is saying. And no one believes a thing she says.
- runamok 14y ago
  I would be willing to go on record that I believe her in support of any possible future lawsuits. :-)
  - epaga 14y ago
    Your user name definitely would help strengthen said lawsuit...

drostie 14y ago

As I recall, the same thing happened with a lawyer named Jack Thompson. I think it's just something about Law as a discipline that it attracts people who can be very literal-minded and who at least in their own mind are moral crusaders. (Disclaimer: I don't know whether Carreon's wife actually does anything legal herself or whether she just married a lawyer.) I think when you mix that sort of mentality with modern entertainment, you get quotes like these. Sure, we say, "any normal person" understands the difference between cartoons and real life. Perhaps Mrs. Carreon would even agree that she understands the difference. But she is somehow not convinced that we understand the difference. Jack Thomson was the same way; he referred to games as "murder simulators" and assumed that anyone attracted to them was merely 'in the closet' about actions that they secretly intensely wanted to do. Since indulging a normal addiction usually makes it worse and not better, it's easy from this screwed-up perspective to imagine that The Youth will fail to be satisfied one day with the latest violent media -- and will turn to violence itself in their craving. There is another aspect here which is: the things that disturb us about others are usually things which disturb us about ourselves. It's about resonance. Normally if someone is being stupid people say "to hell with him, he's stupid." But let us all endeavor, when we find ourselves outraged, to ask not only "what is wrong with THEM?!" but also "why does this bug me so much? What resonates here?" If we apply that to Mrs. Carreon, I think we'll all see that we've all been on the wrong side of a dispute, that we've all been wronged before and wanted to "get back," etc.

theorique 14y ago
Disclaimer: I don't know whether Carreon's wife actually does anything legal herself or whether she just married a lawyer. In one of her article or message board comments (assuming it was actually her), she claims to have worked as a legal secretary for 20 years.
- danielweber 14y ago
  Yes, for her husband when he opened his solo practice. (There's nothing bad or incompetent about this.)
JackC 14y ago

chmike 14y ago

Isn't it defamatory to assert that they like to kill with sole argument a questionable interpretation of some comic art ? It's not only defamatory, it's promoting hate to a level one could feel against a killer and which could put peoples life really in danger. This is disinformation which is not to be confused with liberty of expression. This just strenghten the global impression that it's a lawyer who can't even control and properly deal with it's own affairs. I guess this is what a lose canon lawyer looks like. As an european I would add that it contributes to give a very bad image of the USA.

danielweber 14y ago
As an American, we hold free speech to be much more important. We don't put arrest people for making racists Tweets. We don't put people in jail for denying the Holocaust. We don't have censors for people who dare to say that homeopathy doesn't work. (Or, for that matter, who say that it does, unless they are trying to defraud customers.) To find Tara guilty of defamation, a target of her batshit insanity would need to meet specific burdens of proof. They would need to prove to the court that they don't like to kill, and that Tara knew (or ought to have known) that that wasn't true. Free speech is damn messy.
- chmike 14y ago
  In France, it would be Tara's responsibility to prove her claims. It makes more sense than the opposite. One of the rationale of this principle is that setting up a trial to contest defamatory claims is reproducing the defamatory action. Beside, if someone claims you are a pedophile, a human body eater or like to kill for instance, how could you objectively prove you're not ? Those who claim things should logically have the burden of proof, especially if it is defamatory. This is surprising because it seem to me like a common sense limit to free speech. It is also why I feel much safer in France.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    "Common sense limit to free speech" is why you are French, not American. There's no freedom to not be offended. There's a reason the Church of Scientology loves suing people in England.