6 ms·

overgard: > if you think you have a better grip on funny and appropriateness If you find rape jokes funny, then yes: I and most people would believe that I ha

by sheetjs 13y ago

overgard: > if you think you have a better grip on funny and appropriateness If you find rape jokes funny, then yes: I and most people would believe that I have a better grip on appropriateness than you. > But is anyone welcome to try to ruin someone's reputation just because you happen to disagree on something as ephemeral as a one-off joke? It was a tweet. Tweets are public and the internet won't magically forget, especially when others have discussed the matter. First google search result for "rap genius rape joke" is http://valleywag.gawker.com/rap-genius-imma-rape-you-in-your-mouth-1177584961 http://valleywag.gawker.com/rap-genius-imma-rape-you-in-your... with a screenshot http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18xpcvut8ka32png/ku-xlarge.png http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18xpcvut8ka32png/ku-xlarge.p... And if truly believe that a tweet is ephemeral, then I've got a bridge to sell you :) And to be clear, RG brought it upon themselves. RG ruined their own reputations by making the tweet. This email reminded us of a previous event, but Kyle was not at all responsible for original tweet. > Do we really want to be THAT sensitive that even kidding about something is entirely verboten or you'll ruin your reputation forever? That thought process is what gives the tech community a bad name. There are certain things that a decent human being does not think to joke about, and rape is one of those things. I recommend you look into Todd Akin, who made some comments about "legitimate rape". Or Richard Mourdock, who claimed that a rape victim's pregnance is something "God intended". Guess what? Those guys probably thought the comments weren't offensive either. > You've seriously never said something in the moment that you thought was funny at the time that you wish you could have a take back on? I'm not stupid enough to joke about rape. And I'm certainly not stupid enough to make any off-color joke in a public tweet

recuter 13y ago
As the late great George Carlin said: It all depends on how you construct the joke. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2a5-RrwWZ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2a5-RrwWZ8 You're not funny enough to joke about rape is all. The problem is, neither are these rapgenius guys. Don't get me wrong, I'm also grossly offended - not as a feminist, or a decent human being, just as a comedian. :)
- Crito 13y ago
  Are you really offended "as a comedian"? Let's be real, if you are offended by a joke, it almost certainly has something to do with the content of the joke. Poor joke delivery, or just unfunny jokes, are not in and of themselves offensive, nobody is "offended" by "Why did the chicken cross the road?" Bad jokes aren't offensive, bad jokes that are also tackless may be however.
overgard 13y ago
You know, I've made a point in my life of avoiding people that are actively looking to be "offended", because they always find a way to do so. RG said something publicly that's probably been uttered a million times between friends bantering. I've heard things that are a thousand times worse. It's unfortunate that they chose the wrong channel for that sort of utterance, but frankly the only people "hurt" by what they said were the people that chose to be "hurt" by it. Let's be clear, being "offended" is always a choice. There's 7 billion people on the planet, you'll never be able to avoid things you dislike, but you have a choice in how you deal with it. I choose to respect other people's freedom of expression, and interact with people I think add value. I don't have to throw a public temper tantrum if someone has wildly different values. (I view posting private correspondence publicly to try to shame someone as being equivalent to a temper tantrum) I hear people say a lot of things I think are /stupid/, but I never feel a need to tell them that they're "offensive", I just don't deal with those people when I realize our values don't align. So I find the idea that RG broke some obvious "code" that "everyone" agrees to is laughable. Clearly, not "everyone" agrees with your very sensitive sense of humor. The way I see it: they pissed off a bunch of people actively looking to be pissed off. My level of caring about that is pretty much zero.
- sheetjs 13y ago
  overgard: there are two internally consistent ways to interpret the matter: 1) "they [only] pissed off a bunch of people actively looking to be pissed off" including this fellow who posted the email. If you truly believe that they only pissed off people actively looking to be pissed off, then only those people will be pissed off now. No one else. There would be no real change in RG's reputation, and all this post does is take up a spot on the front page. 2) they pissed off a lot of people, including those that aren't "actively looking to be pissed off". In that case, dredging up the past actually does affect them even more. You can't have it both ways. You want to believe that only people actively looking to be offended would be bothered by the remark and that somehow discussing the past is actually hurting them more, but they are inconsistent beliefs. > I choose to respect other people's freedom of expression Right, which is why you should respect other people's rights to discuss the matter at hand. You shouldn't get upset because this conversation is happening. > I don't have to throw a public temper tantrum if someone has wildly different values. (I view posting private correspondence publicly to try to shame someone as being equivalent to a temper tantrum) RG's tweet was public and so is this discussion. The email reminded us of the original tweet. There was no rape joke in the email. I think you are missing that part -- the actual offense that we are talking about happened long before this email in a public forum (twitter). RG apologized, true. But that doesn't magically mean that the internet forgets that the event happened. And it sounds like you wish for everyone to forget. > The way I see it: they pissed off a bunch of people actively looking to be pissed off. My level of caring about that is pretty much zero. But your level of caring about the fact that history is being rehashed is almost surely nonzero.
xmonkee 13y ago
So someone tweeted a "rape joke" from their account. The deleted the joke and apologized pretty much immediately. But now it's fair game to release their private emails and generally insult them all over the internet? What's wrong with you? For someone pretending to be a sensitive person you're sure lacking in empathy. >There are certain things that a decent human being does not think to joke about, and rape is one of those things. So, you don't know a single person in your life who is actually a very decent human being but made an "unacceptable" joke some time? You don't believe people can be just ignorant about a certain issue without being horrible people?
- sheetjs 13y ago
  > The deleted the joke and apologized pretty much immediately. But now it's fair game to release their private emails and generally insult them all over the internet? Given that there is no confidentiality notice in the email, I don't see how either party could expect that the conversation was private. More generally, if they didn't think it was offensive in the first place, why did they delete the joke? Why not stand behind it? Own up to it? Do you expect some sort of mental erasure where everyone magically forgets that this happened in the first place? > What's wrong with you? For someone pretending to be a sensitive person you're sure lacking in empathy. Please tell me where Kyle signed a confidentiality agreement with Tom. If you point it out, I would agree that releasing the email is inappropriate. > So, you don't know a single person in your life who is actually a very decent human being but made an "unacceptable" joke some time? You don't believe people can be just ignorant about a certain issue without being horrible people? I fail to see how you can be ignorant about rape in the same way that I fail to see how you can be ignorant about murder or genocide. BTW: Note that I didn't use the word "unacceptable" in any of my responses here. You are touching upon a key point, namely the long-term memory of the Internet. That's a much longer discussion, and I intentionally avoided judgment statements regarding the nature of the memory, but it would be to your benefit to act as if statements made on the Internet are in the public record
  - gametheoretic 13y ago
    >Please tell me where Kyle signed a confidentiality agreement with Tom. If you point it out, I would agree that releasing the email is inappropriate. Statements of this category are not going to persuade anyone to your side in a debate over social tact.

by sheetjs 13y ago

recuter 13y ago

As the late great George Carlin said: It all depends on how you construct the joke. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2a5-RrwWZ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2a5-RrwWZ8 You're not funny enough to joke about rape is all. The problem is, neither are these rapgenius guys. Don't get me wrong, I'm also grossly offended - not as a feminist, or a decent human being, just as a comedian. :)

Crito 13y ago
Are you really offended "as a comedian"? Let's be real, if you are offended by a joke, it almost certainly has something to do with the content of the joke. Poor joke delivery, or just unfunny jokes, are not in and of themselves offensive, nobody is "offended" by "Why did the chicken cross the road?" Bad jokes aren't offensive, bad jokes that are also tackless may be however.

overgard 13y ago

You know, I've made a point in my life of avoiding people that are actively looking to be "offended", because they always find a way to do so. RG said something publicly that's probably been uttered a million times between friends bantering. I've heard things that are a thousand times worse. It's unfortunate that they chose the wrong channel for that sort of utterance, but frankly the only people "hurt" by what they said were the people that chose to be "hurt" by it. Let's be clear, being "offended" is always a choice. There's 7 billion people on the planet, you'll never be able to avoid things you dislike, but you have a choice in how you deal with it. I choose to respect other people's freedom of expression, and interact with people I think add value. I don't have to throw a public temper tantrum if someone has wildly different values. (I view posting private correspondence publicly to try to shame someone as being equivalent to a temper tantrum) I hear people say a lot of things I think are /stupid/, but I never feel a need to tell them that they're "offensive", I just don't deal with those people when I realize our values don't align. So I find the idea that RG broke some obvious "code" that "everyone" agrees to is laughable. Clearly, not "everyone" agrees with your very sensitive sense of humor. The way I see it: they pissed off a bunch of people actively looking to be pissed off. My level of caring about that is pretty much zero.

sheetjs 13y ago
overgard: there are two internally consistent ways to interpret the matter: 1) "they [only] pissed off a bunch of people actively looking to be pissed off" including this fellow who posted the email. If you truly believe that they only pissed off people actively looking to be pissed off, then only those people will be pissed off now. No one else. There would be no real change in RG's reputation, and all this post does is take up a spot on the front page. 2) they pissed off a lot of people, including those that aren't "actively looking to be pissed off". In that case, dredging up the past actually does affect them even more. You can't have it both ways. You want to believe that only people actively looking to be offended would be bothered by the remark and that somehow discussing the past is actually hurting them more, but they are inconsistent beliefs. > I choose to respect other people's freedom of expression Right, which is why you should respect other people's rights to discuss the matter at hand. You shouldn't get upset because this conversation is happening. > I don't have to throw a public temper tantrum if someone has wildly different values. (I view posting private correspondence publicly to try to shame someone as being equivalent to a temper tantrum) RG's tweet was public and so is this discussion. The email reminded us of the original tweet. There was no rape joke in the email. I think you are missing that part -- the actual offense that we are talking about happened long before this email in a public forum (twitter). RG apologized, true. But that doesn't magically mean that the internet forgets that the event happened. And it sounds like you wish for everyone to forget. > The way I see it: they pissed off a bunch of people actively looking to be pissed off. My level of caring about that is pretty much zero. But your level of caring about the fact that history is being rehashed is almost surely nonzero.

xmonkee 13y ago

So someone tweeted a "rape joke" from their account. The deleted the joke and apologized pretty much immediately. But now it's fair game to release their private emails and generally insult them all over the internet? What's wrong with you? For someone pretending to be a sensitive person you're sure lacking in empathy. >There are certain things that a decent human being does not think to joke about, and rape is one of those things. So, you don't know a single person in your life who is actually a very decent human being but made an "unacceptable" joke some time? You don't believe people can be just ignorant about a certain issue without being horrible people?

sheetjs 13y ago
> The deleted the joke and apologized pretty much immediately. But now it's fair game to release their private emails and generally insult them all over the internet? Given that there is no confidentiality notice in the email, I don't see how either party could expect that the conversation was private. More generally, if they didn't think it was offensive in the first place, why did they delete the joke? Why not stand behind it? Own up to it? Do you expect some sort of mental erasure where everyone magically forgets that this happened in the first place? > What's wrong with you? For someone pretending to be a sensitive person you're sure lacking in empathy. Please tell me where Kyle signed a confidentiality agreement with Tom. If you point it out, I would agree that releasing the email is inappropriate. > So, you don't know a single person in your life who is actually a very decent human being but made an "unacceptable" joke some time? You don't believe people can be just ignorant about a certain issue without being horrible people? I fail to see how you can be ignorant about rape in the same way that I fail to see how you can be ignorant about murder or genocide. BTW: Note that I didn't use the word "unacceptable" in any of my responses here. You are touching upon a key point, namely the long-term memory of the Internet. That's a much longer discussion, and I intentionally avoided judgment statements regarding the nature of the memory, but it would be to your benefit to act as if statements made on the Internet are in the public record
- gametheoretic 13y ago
  >Please tell me where Kyle signed a confidentiality agreement with Tom. If you point it out, I would agree that releasing the email is inappropriate. Statements of this category are not going to persuade anyone to your side in a debate over social tact.