Creepy? Yes! Criminal? Maybe.
April 2, 2005 5:27 PM Subscribe
Man who got others to strip convicted An Indianapolis man who posed as a disc jockey and tricked men into disrobing was convicted Wednesday of six felonies.
Now how dumb do you have to be to think this slag is a DJ?
posted by inchoate at 6:10 PM on April 2, 2005
Well, he does have a face made for radio.
Have you SEEN pictures of actual DJ's? Theres a reason most aren't on tv.
posted by jeffmik at 6:11 PM on April 2, 2005
Have you SEEN pictures of actual DJ's? Theres a reason most aren't on tv.
posted by jeffmik at 6:11 PM on April 2, 2005
It is shocking, because most people who work in front of a microphone are extraordinarily good looking.
posted by rcade at 6:13 PM on April 2, 2005
posted by rcade at 6:13 PM on April 2, 2005
It is shocking, because most people who work in front of a microphone are extraordinarily good looking.
My dream job is to be a radio disk jockey. Call it what you want.
posted by jonmc at 6:17 PM on April 2, 2005
My dream job is to be a radio disk jockey. Call it what you want.
posted by jonmc at 6:17 PM on April 2, 2005
Defense attorney Elizabeth Gabig likened Brown's actions to a fraternity prank and urged jurors to find him not guilty.
"Creepy? Absolutely -- but not criminal," Gabig said during closing arguments. "Are we going to start raiding the frat houses in America and charging those people with felonies?"
I sure hope so. That would be funny.
heh. That is a face made for radio...
posted by schyler523 at 6:17 PM on April 2, 2005
"Creepy? Absolutely -- but not criminal," Gabig said during closing arguments. "Are we going to start raiding the frat houses in America and charging those people with felonies?"
I sure hope so. That would be funny.
heh. That is a face made for radio...
posted by schyler523 at 6:17 PM on April 2, 2005
The endless diatribes against "fratboys," "jocks," "mulletheads," and "rednecks," around here are very revealing. and amusing.
posted by jonmc at 6:28 PM on April 2, 2005
posted by jonmc at 6:28 PM on April 2, 2005
item, it's ageneral trend I'm noticing.
This is the internet, a virtual place founded by people who were teased and excluded by some members of the aforementioned groups (none of which I've ever been a member of), and they've responded by being equally exclucionary and contemptuous of anyone who falls outside of their clique.
Now you can argue round and round about which clique is better, but a clique is a clique is a clique. And some of us are out of high school.
posted by jonmc at 6:34 PM on April 2, 2005
This is the internet, a virtual place founded by people who were teased and excluded by some members of the aforementioned groups (none of which I've ever been a member of), and they've responded by being equally exclucionary and contemptuous of anyone who falls outside of their clique.
Now you can argue round and round about which clique is better, but a clique is a clique is a clique. And some of us are out of high school.
posted by jonmc at 6:34 PM on April 2, 2005
I know jonmc, we aughta pummel some a these dweebs so they learn not to keep talking trash.
posted by TwelveTwo at 6:39 PM on April 2, 2005
posted by TwelveTwo at 6:39 PM on April 2, 2005
I'm just tired of all kinds of people who feel the need to deny others their humanity by pigeonholing them based on petty-assed reasons. And all kinds of people do it. The worst offenders are usually those who would deny they do it at all.
posted by jonmc at 6:41 PM on April 2, 2005
posted by jonmc at 6:41 PM on April 2, 2005
jonmc You'll find this trend wherever there are humans. Put distance, barrier or time between them, the more obvious it is. See all of the intergroup behavior studies of the social wing of psychological study for more details.
posted by TwelveTwo at 6:52 PM on April 2, 2005
posted by TwelveTwo at 6:52 PM on April 2, 2005
jonmc You'll find this trend wherever there are humans.
True. But that dosen't mean I can't call it what it is, or refuse to participate.
posted by jonmc at 6:53 PM on April 2, 2005
True. But that dosen't mean I can't call it what it is, or refuse to participate.
posted by jonmc at 6:53 PM on April 2, 2005
People who do stupid shit for radio DJs (even pretend ones) are to be ridiculed, not pitied.
Yeah! Fuck those McDonald employees! HA HA They're sooooo dumb! And greedy! They no get the 50,000 dollars! Har har! Retards!
posted by underer at 6:57 PM on April 2, 2005
Yeah! Fuck those McDonald employees! HA HA They're sooooo dumb! And greedy! They no get the 50,000 dollars! Har har! Retards!
posted by underer at 6:57 PM on April 2, 2005
An observation about the current job market: the youngest male emplyee at the local McDonalds was 31.
posted by mss at 6:58 PM on April 2, 2005
posted by mss at 6:58 PM on April 2, 2005
This is the internet, a virtual place founded by people who were teased and excluded by some members of the aforementioned groups (none of which I've ever been a member of), and they've responded by being equally exclucionary and contemptuous of anyone who falls outside of their clique.
Of all the ways you've banged that tired anti-elitist drum, this has to be the most mind-numbingly awful. You broke my brain.
Do you really think that in the '60s when Leonard Kleinrock and the other ARPANET pioneers were developing the network that became the Internet, they were motivated by bullies who kicked sand in their faces like the old Charles Atlas ads?
posted by rcade at 7:00 PM on April 2, 2005
Of all the ways you've banged that tired anti-elitist drum, this has to be the most mind-numbingly awful. You broke my brain.
Do you really think that in the '60s when Leonard Kleinrock and the other ARPANET pioneers were developing the network that became the Internet, they were motivated by bullies who kicked sand in their faces like the old Charles Atlas ads?
posted by rcade at 7:00 PM on April 2, 2005
Not to defend it. Even if it is arguably a few steps from vestigal. But it isn't unique to 'some people.' People naturally group themselves. We maintain groups at a managable and understandable state where all are following similar rules and norms (as predictability is comfortable, efficent, and safe.) The most you can really chastise without tripping over things is simply use of violence (emotional, economical, physical) to sharpen the natural social policing. And of course knock people over the head when they think they don't do it, and when they don't allow their views of the other groups to update and change.
posted by TwelveTwo at 7:01 PM on April 2, 2005
posted by TwelveTwo at 7:01 PM on April 2, 2005
(And to restate as it may be muddled. Chastise people FOR using violence to sharpen social policing.)
posted by TwelveTwo at 7:03 PM on April 2, 2005
posted by TwelveTwo at 7:03 PM on April 2, 2005
Get a load of the deal the prosecutor offered on the pending counts. 16 years? Damn, this culture takes wounded male pride seriously (no surprise the guy rejected the offer).
Oh, and MeTa.
posted by mediareport at 7:04 PM on April 2, 2005
Oh, and MeTa.
posted by mediareport at 7:04 PM on April 2, 2005
Do you really think that in the '60s when Leonard Kleinrock and the other ARPANET pioneers were developing the network that became the Internet, they were motivated by bullies who kicked sand in their faces like the old Charles Atlas ads?
Nope. But I do thing that a lot of self-proclaimed l33t geeks who were the arly particpants at least somewhat veiwed it as a refuge from such types. And that some of them are resentful that it's no longer their private playground.
Look every person I've ever met who has expressed contempt for a cultural subgroup (including myself) has always justified their contempt by saying "They think they're something special/better than us/shit don't stink etc"
Call it anti-elitism if you ant, but are you gonna dent that there's truth to what I just said. I don't denythat I do it too, rcade, but I at least recognize it for what it is and try not to.
posted by jonmc at 7:07 PM on April 2, 2005
Nope. But I do thing that a lot of self-proclaimed l33t geeks who were the arly particpants at least somewhat veiwed it as a refuge from such types. And that some of them are resentful that it's no longer their private playground.
Look every person I've ever met who has expressed contempt for a cultural subgroup (including myself) has always justified their contempt by saying "They think they're something special/better than us/shit don't stink etc"
Call it anti-elitism if you ant, but are you gonna dent that there's truth to what I just said. I don't denythat I do it too, rcade, but I at least recognize it for what it is and try not to.
posted by jonmc at 7:07 PM on April 2, 2005
This is sorta silly. Isn't it? I mean.. aren't you just doing the same thing jonmc?
posted by TwelveTwo at 7:09 PM on April 2, 2005
posted by TwelveTwo at 7:09 PM on April 2, 2005
aren't you just doing the same thing jonmc?
making an observation?
That people tend to hold those unlike themselves in ridicule and contempt, no matter who they are.
posted by jonmc at 7:11 PM on April 2, 2005
making an observation?
That people tend to hold those unlike themselves in ridicule and contempt, no matter who they are.
posted by jonmc at 7:11 PM on April 2, 2005
TwelveTwo, shhh. jonmc's righteous, holier-than-thou, elitist ritual railing against cliques and vanity is a Mefi tradition.
posted by nixerman at 7:14 PM on April 2, 2005
posted by nixerman at 7:14 PM on April 2, 2005
jonmc But you yourself are holding those that do what is arguably a natural tendency of people in groups, in contempt. People will rarely hold two groups equal if they are part of one of those two groups. You are holding that those void of elitist views are superior to those -with- elitist views, which is sort of mind boggling in the way a klein bottle is.
posted by TwelveTwo at 7:17 PM on April 2, 2005
posted by TwelveTwo at 7:17 PM on April 2, 2005
well, nixerman, now that you've made this personal, I'd ask you to tell me how decrying cliquishness is elitist.
On preview: sounds like you're trying to write yourself a free pass to do what you'd probably decry in others if you were the object of it.
just saying.
posted by jonmc at 7:20 PM on April 2, 2005
On preview: sounds like you're trying to write yourself a free pass to do what you'd probably decry in others if you were the object of it.
just saying.
posted by jonmc at 7:20 PM on April 2, 2005
While I agree that there is too much classification of people into pigeon holes, there are those that lean very far towards being shallow, living only in the moment, leading unexamined lives, preferring form over function, being more concerned over the car they drive or the clothes they wear than the kind of person they are. And those people do deserve ridicule. I've seen some of these people labelled "fratboys" and the like.
At the same time, there are people that fit the superficial "look and feel" if you will of "fratboys," "jocks," "mulletheads," and "rednecks," but are not that way underneath. You need to get to know someone up close and personal before you can truely come to despise them properly for such bad characteristics.
posted by Bort at 7:25 PM on April 2, 2005
At the same time, there are people that fit the superficial "look and feel" if you will of "fratboys," "jocks," "mulletheads," and "rednecks," but are not that way underneath. You need to get to know someone up close and personal before you can truely come to despise them properly for such bad characteristics.
posted by Bort at 7:25 PM on April 2, 2005
jonmc From my understanding what you are asking of humanity are self-depreciating social identities full of individuals comparable perhaps to a defeatist character devoid of self-esteem that perhaps a young Woody Allen would play. A world with a sense that all other groups are better than your own. On the upside of jonmc's world, there certainly wouldn't be any war.
posted by TwelveTwo at 7:27 PM on April 2, 2005
posted by TwelveTwo at 7:27 PM on April 2, 2005
If I am inadvertantly strawmaning your argument, it is my own misunderstanding.
posted by TwelveTwo at 7:31 PM on April 2, 2005
posted by TwelveTwo at 7:31 PM on April 2, 2005
No, I'm asking for a world where we form our opinions of people based on their characteristics as individuals rather than superficial group associations. And I say that as someone who's manged to alienate himself (at least somewhat) from every group he's ever encountered by voicing some version of these same sentiments.
posted by jonmc at 7:31 PM on April 2, 2005
posted by jonmc at 7:31 PM on April 2, 2005
How many felonies for persuading Congress to grant war powers, based on falsehood? Oh, that's right, no nakedness involved. Must be okay then.
posted by Goofyy at 7:33 PM on April 2, 2005
posted by Goofyy at 7:33 PM on April 2, 2005
comparable perhaps to a defeatist character devoid of self-esteem
and putting down others is not a sign of self-esteem. Quite the contrary.
posted by jonmc at 7:36 PM on April 2, 2005
and putting down others is not a sign of self-esteem. Quite the contrary.
posted by jonmc at 7:36 PM on April 2, 2005
jonmc There are billions of people in this world. I live in California, it is quite populous and jam packed, I assure you. It is not feasible here, nor in most populated areas to do everything on an individual level. So I must ask, how does one form an opinion of the 20 people at a bus stop in your view? That is without relying on existing sterotypes made through past experiences that are by and large broad strokes of brushes.
posted by TwelveTwo at 7:37 PM on April 2, 2005
posted by TwelveTwo at 7:37 PM on April 2, 2005
jonmc If you can answer that, I will raise the stakes, how does one form an opinion on each of the hundreds one passes when walking down a busy sidewalk without assuming scorn or distrust inapproriately?
I'm gonna take a nap cause I am trying to fight off the flu. Blargh.
posted by TwelveTwo at 7:39 PM on April 2, 2005
I'm gonna take a nap cause I am trying to fight off the flu. Blargh.
posted by TwelveTwo at 7:39 PM on April 2, 2005
I live in California, it is quite populous and jam packed, I assure you.
I live in NYC which is even more jam-packed. I still make it a point, when sizing up the guy next to me at the bar, not to judge his worthiness for conversation based on whether he strikes me as a "fratboy," or "geek," or a "goth."
And even if he does, who knows, maybe he's a good guy I can learn something from anyway.
posted by jonmc at 7:39 PM on April 2, 2005
I live in NYC which is even more jam-packed. I still make it a point, when sizing up the guy next to me at the bar, not to judge his worthiness for conversation based on whether he strikes me as a "fratboy," or "geek," or a "goth."
And even if he does, who knows, maybe he's a good guy I can learn something from anyway.
posted by jonmc at 7:39 PM on April 2, 2005
jonmc If you can answer that, I will raise the stakes, how does one form an opinion on each of the hundreds one passes when walking down a busy sidewalk without assuming scorn or distrust inapproriately?
Since when is it neccessary to form an opinion on everyone you pass by? I'm talking about people we actually interact with.
posted by jonmc at 7:45 PM on April 2, 2005
Since when is it neccessary to form an opinion on everyone you pass by? I'm talking about people we actually interact with.
posted by jonmc at 7:45 PM on April 2, 2005
Sometimes still water runs deepest, know what I mean?
posted by Dean Keaton at 7:46 PM on April 2, 2005
posted by Dean Keaton at 7:46 PM on April 2, 2005
This argument is an honest attempt to understand what you mean jonmc. Rage on my friend but we shall all leave cliques to high school. Whether you are connected to a social demographic or avoid them at all costs our human condition leads us to the people we share the most comfort with, and they are called friends. As you admit, the instinct to connect with your world has lead to the computer and our wonderful metafilter. And I do believe you enjoy a safe celebrity status here. You can't stop the cliques even with all of your stubbornness, so carry on and make yourself comfortable at your keyboard.
posted by Viomeda at 7:55 PM on April 2, 2005
posted by Viomeda at 7:55 PM on April 2, 2005
i must join in... stream of consciousness here...
One: "It's lucky no one was damaged any more than having to shed their clothes," Adams said.
is this the worst thing that happened to these guys that day? having someone ask them to take off all their clothes? that's it? no one died or got scarred? no one lost a limb or was shot at? just 'take off your clothes'? as my old friend andrew used to say, "puh-leeze."
B: I love how a thread can morph from 'anyone who can talk grown men into taking their pants off in public... is welcome to email me,' to 'The most you can really chastise without tripping over things is simply use of violence (emotional, economical, physical) to sharpen the natural social policing.'
love it, love it love it...
3rd: I don't know why, but the sum of the latter part of this so far has only made me think of Groucho Marx: "I don't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member."
then again, maybe it's the beer.
all in all, i agree with BoringPostcards...bring all the stupid willing to strip men to me. cheap entertainment is just that...and i'm not too cheap to admit i find it all entertaining.
posted by basis4insanity at 7:57 PM on April 2, 2005
One: "It's lucky no one was damaged any more than having to shed their clothes," Adams said.
is this the worst thing that happened to these guys that day? having someone ask them to take off all their clothes? that's it? no one died or got scarred? no one lost a limb or was shot at? just 'take off your clothes'? as my old friend andrew used to say, "puh-leeze."
B: I love how a thread can morph from 'anyone who can talk grown men into taking their pants off in public... is welcome to email me,' to 'The most you can really chastise without tripping over things is simply use of violence (emotional, economical, physical) to sharpen the natural social policing.'
love it, love it love it...
3rd: I don't know why, but the sum of the latter part of this so far has only made me think of Groucho Marx: "I don't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member."
then again, maybe it's the beer.
all in all, i agree with BoringPostcards...bring all the stupid willing to strip men to me. cheap entertainment is just that...and i'm not too cheap to admit i find it all entertaining.
posted by basis4insanity at 7:57 PM on April 2, 2005
And I do believe you enjoy a safe celebrity status here.
Safe? If anything being visible and vocal makes me more vulnerable, I would think.
You can't stop the cliques even with all of your stubbornness, so carry on and make yourself comfortable at your keyboard.
I know I can't stop diddley squat, but that dosen't mean I have to play ball.
posted by jonmc at 7:59 PM on April 2, 2005
Safe? If anything being visible and vocal makes me more vulnerable, I would think.
You can't stop the cliques even with all of your stubbornness, so carry on and make yourself comfortable at your keyboard.
I know I can't stop diddley squat, but that dosen't mean I have to play ball.
posted by jonmc at 7:59 PM on April 2, 2005
Oh jonmc, you remind me......I won't compare.
So play ball here, it has been quite entertaining for me! If you insist to loath certain people because their clique is not useful to you, is intimidating, or is just plain unattractive, I will often join you at the wallflower position. But frankly, "people are my species" and I will give them a chance before I let them disgust me. Do you take your coffee black?
posted by Viomeda at 8:12 PM on April 2, 2005
So play ball here, it has been quite entertaining for me! If you insist to loath certain people because their clique is not useful to you, is intimidating, or is just plain unattractive, I will often join you at the wallflower position. But frankly, "people are my species" and I will give them a chance before I let them disgust me. Do you take your coffee black?
posted by Viomeda at 8:12 PM on April 2, 2005
Dick Brown is a Hooligan, and also is a pervert. Next he will be turning over dustbins in ladies underwear in Shafsbrie.
posted by Viomeda at 8:21 PM on April 2, 2005
posted by Viomeda at 8:21 PM on April 2, 2005
If you insist to loath certain people because their clique is not useful to you, is intimidating, or is just plain unattractive,
Actually, I'm insisting the opposite, but thanks.
Do you take your coffee black?
Half & Half and lots of sugar actually.
posted by jonmc at 8:27 PM on April 2, 2005
Actually, I'm insisting the opposite, but thanks.
Do you take your coffee black?
Half & Half and lots of sugar actually.
posted by jonmc at 8:27 PM on April 2, 2005
Since when is it necessary to form an opinion on everyone you pass by? I'm talking about people we actually interact with.
Sorry, i'm f*ing confused. You hate cliques that is evident. All i'm trying to jokingly voice is they really fade away in the adult world, unless you make it your profession to be a gossip. Pax, for the topic, I'm glad our civil liberal views coincide.
posted by Viomeda at 8:42 PM on April 2, 2005
Sorry, i'm f*ing confused. You hate cliques that is evident. All i'm trying to jokingly voice is they really fade away in the adult world, unless you make it your profession to be a gossip. Pax, for the topic, I'm glad our civil liberal views coincide.
posted by Viomeda at 8:42 PM on April 2, 2005
I dunno. Frats (unlike, for example, rednecks) are formed not naturally or by upbringing, but by intentional joining. They have an image which has certain aspects that some people find to be horrible (beating up the weak, womanizing) while others view the same characteristics as positive (being powerful, getting laid). People whose view is, for example, that the powerful should be gentle and women should be respected are naturally going to dislike a group whose overall reality is a view that the powerful should use the power available to them, and that treating women fairly just reduces your chances for pleasure in life.
I don't think it's wrong, then, per se, for these cliques to be in opposition, any more than I think it's wrong for gays to bear animosity to fundamentalist Christians and the like.
The big breaker, as with anything, is when someone allows their views of a group to override the actual person they're dealing with. I hate frats, but I don't hate every frat member. I have known some very good people in frats. However, I have, as a result of knowing them, known their other frat brothers. As such, I can see that frat-boys are, on the whole, from my perspective, evil bastards, but that there are individual exceptions. To treat an individual based on what the other members of their group does is stupid, and cliquish, and not in any way good. Treating that group based on what the members of that group does, however, seems perfectly acceptable to me.
And, again, note that this is because it is because of voluntary membership. If we switch to something like race, for example, then all bets are off, because noone chooses to be in the race that they are born as.
posted by Bugbread at 8:44 PM on April 2, 2005
I don't think it's wrong, then, per se, for these cliques to be in opposition, any more than I think it's wrong for gays to bear animosity to fundamentalist Christians and the like.
The big breaker, as with anything, is when someone allows their views of a group to override the actual person they're dealing with. I hate frats, but I don't hate every frat member. I have known some very good people in frats. However, I have, as a result of knowing them, known their other frat brothers. As such, I can see that frat-boys are, on the whole, from my perspective, evil bastards, but that there are individual exceptions. To treat an individual based on what the other members of their group does is stupid, and cliquish, and not in any way good. Treating that group based on what the members of that group does, however, seems perfectly acceptable to me.
And, again, note that this is because it is because of voluntary membership. If we switch to something like race, for example, then all bets are off, because noone chooses to be in the race that they are born as.
posted by Bugbread at 8:44 PM on April 2, 2005
hey so did anybody here about that guy who got convicted for pretending to be a dj? ...
yeah, me neither.
posted by freudianslipper at 12:16 AM on April 3, 2005
yeah, me neither.
posted by freudianslipper at 12:16 AM on April 3, 2005
I wonder if there's a name - a philia, I suppose - for people who are compelled to 'play' other roles and humiliate people. (I wan't thinking dominatrix et al btw)
It's a very strange world inside Mr pseudo-DJ's head, I'd imagine.
[But is this a decent FPP? *sigh*]
posted by peacay at 1:12 AM on April 3, 2005
It's a very strange world inside Mr pseudo-DJ's head, I'd imagine.
[But is this a decent FPP? *sigh*]
posted by peacay at 1:12 AM on April 3, 2005
Apparently I planted the seed for this derail...sorry.
Bugbread: I too know individual fratboys that i both respect and consider friends...however I consider fratboys in general to be odious lame-os, just as i consider x-ian fundies to be odious lame-os (I've met far fewer fundies I respect or like though).
BTW, I thought that the acronym DA stood for District Attorney, the prosecutor. The Defense Attorney was the person I quoted from the article. /clarification
posted by schyler523 at 1:16 AM on April 3, 2005
Bugbread: I too know individual fratboys that i both respect and consider friends...however I consider fratboys in general to be odious lame-os, just as i consider x-ian fundies to be odious lame-os (I've met far fewer fundies I respect or like though).
BTW, I thought that the acronym DA stood for District Attorney, the prosecutor. The Defense Attorney was the person I quoted from the article. /clarification
posted by schyler523 at 1:16 AM on April 3, 2005
How did the DA likening this stunt to a fraternity prank become twisted into "endless diatribes against frat boys"?
(the word prank is probably being used by the DA instead of "hazing" which is illegal, to conjure up images of silly admission/joining rituals at a fraternity.)
posted by dabitch at 7:03 AM on April 3, 2005
(the word prank is probably being used by the DA instead of "hazing" which is illegal, to conjure up images of silly admission/joining rituals at a fraternity.)
posted by dabitch at 7:03 AM on April 3, 2005
Weren't any of these guys suspicious at all that they were going to the someone's house instead of a radio station?
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 7:56 AM on April 3, 2005
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 7:56 AM on April 3, 2005
Anti-elitism, or anti-stupidity?
I'm all for anti-stupidity. How fucking stupid do you have to be to strip naked for a stranger?
Tolerance for lack of common sense is not justifiable, except when dealing with teenagers.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:10 PM on April 3, 2005
I'm all for anti-stupidity. How fucking stupid do you have to be to strip naked for a stranger?
Tolerance for lack of common sense is not justifiable, except when dealing with teenagers.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:10 PM on April 3, 2005
They were offered 50,000 dollars. There are a lot of risks I'll take for 50 large, including being percieved as stupid by people on the Internet. I can't figure out why people want to hate these guys. Why? They work at McDonalds. Are things not bad enough?
posted by underer at 2:28 PM on April 3, 2005
posted by underer at 2:28 PM on April 3, 2005
I was pretty much responding to jonmc's lament: "I'm just tired of all kinds of people who feel the need to deny others their humanity by pigeonholing them based on petty-assed reasons."
I'm afraid I'm all for pigeonholing idiots as idiots... but I don't hate them. It's just that I think things should be called for what they are. I don't think it's exclusionary, -ist, or inappropriate.
And were I the one who had stripped naked for a stranger, I'd be perfectly okay with you all calling me an idiot for having done so.
Stupid is as stupid does. No need to protect people from that.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:38 PM on April 3, 2005
I'm afraid I'm all for pigeonholing idiots as idiots... but I don't hate them. It's just that I think things should be called for what they are. I don't think it's exclusionary, -ist, or inappropriate.
And were I the one who had stripped naked for a stranger, I'd be perfectly okay with you all calling me an idiot for having done so.
Stupid is as stupid does. No need to protect people from that.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:38 PM on April 3, 2005
fff, calling stupid people stupid I have no problem with. It's that the thread immediately seemed to want to pigeonhole stupid people as whatever subgroup they didn't like that got under my skin, since just about everybody's done some stupid shit in their time, probably without $50k as a motivation, either.
Also, I was half in the bag when I commented last night. So take it with however many grains of salt you wish.
posted by jonmc at 5:06 PM on April 3, 2005
Also, I was half in the bag when I commented last night. So take it with however many grains of salt you wish.
posted by jonmc at 5:06 PM on April 3, 2005
If it's any comfort, jonmc, half in the bag or not you were on firmer ground than the two individuals you were clashing with. It makes me a little uncomfortable to think that not dismissing strangers outright is such an inconceivable, apparently even indefensible notion to some.
posted by cortex at 9:42 PM on April 3, 2005
posted by cortex at 9:42 PM on April 3, 2005
Did some comments get deleted or something? Because there were no endless diatribes in this thread when I first read it. There was one single defense attorney likening Mr Brown's actions to a fraternity prank. It's not like she called Mr Brown a frat boy, she likened his prank to a frat prank. wtf?
posted by dabitch at 10:34 PM on April 3, 2005
posted by dabitch at 10:34 PM on April 3, 2005
This is the internet, a virtual place founded by people who were teased and excluded by some members of the aforementioned groups (none of which I've ever been a member of), and they've responded by being equally exclucionary and contemptuous of anyone who falls outside of their clique.
The internet as a whole, or metafilter?
True. But that dosen't mean I can't call it what it is, or refuse to participate.
Well, why don't you shut up then?
posted by delmoi at 2:01 PM on April 4, 2005
The internet as a whole, or metafilter?
True. But that dosen't mean I can't call it what it is, or refuse to participate.
Well, why don't you shut up then?
posted by delmoi at 2:01 PM on April 4, 2005
Oookay.
First of all, Jonmc you've totaly derailed this thread. But now that it is what it is, might as well discuss what you've said. I guess.
Fundamentally, you're doing the exact same thing you're complaining about, assigning a set of negative attributes to a group, in this case that "internet users" are elitist geeks. But Metafilter isn't full of geeks, and there are plenty of "rednecks" on fark.com, where I enjoy posting.
No, I'm asking for a world where we form our opinions of people based on their characteristics as individuals rather than superficial group associations.
Then start with yourself. You could have "called out" schyler523 as an individual rather then tarring the whole member base as a bunch of intolerant wankers.
And I say that as someone who's managed to alienate himself (at least somewhat) from every group he's ever encountered by voicing some version of these same sentiments.
Or maybe you just annoyed everyone with your off-topic and incessant bleating. As far as classificationalism (*cough*) around here goes you’re one of the most annoying posters. You’re always making sweeping generalizations and drives me nuts. And now you’re complaining about other people doing it?
ARG!!!
-----
Attempt at rethreading:
Anyway, this is a strange situation, if the victims were women, we'd all consider this to be pretty fucked up. But on the other hand, society generally considers men to be "tougher". Of course, the fact that this guy is a repeat offender means he probably can’t really control himself...
posted by delmoi at 2:18 PM on April 4, 2005
First of all, Jonmc you've totaly derailed this thread. But now that it is what it is, might as well discuss what you've said. I guess.
Fundamentally, you're doing the exact same thing you're complaining about, assigning a set of negative attributes to a group, in this case that "internet users" are elitist geeks. But Metafilter isn't full of geeks, and there are plenty of "rednecks" on fark.com, where I enjoy posting.
No, I'm asking for a world where we form our opinions of people based on their characteristics as individuals rather than superficial group associations.
Then start with yourself. You could have "called out" schyler523 as an individual rather then tarring the whole member base as a bunch of intolerant wankers.
And I say that as someone who's managed to alienate himself (at least somewhat) from every group he's ever encountered by voicing some version of these same sentiments.
Or maybe you just annoyed everyone with your off-topic and incessant bleating. As far as classificationalism (*cough*) around here goes you’re one of the most annoying posters. You’re always making sweeping generalizations and drives me nuts. And now you’re complaining about other people doing it?
ARG!!!
-----
Attempt at rethreading:
Anyway, this is a strange situation, if the victims were women, we'd all consider this to be pretty fucked up. But on the other hand, society generally considers men to be "tougher". Of course, the fact that this guy is a repeat offender means he probably can’t really control himself...
posted by delmoi at 2:18 PM on April 4, 2005
well, delmoi, guess we won't be exchanging Christmas cards.
There goes my night's sleep.
posted by jonmc at 1:18 PM on April 5, 2005
There goes my night's sleep.
posted by jonmc at 1:18 PM on April 5, 2005
« Older The Pentagon's Secret Stash | Which are the better hospitals? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
That said, anyone who can talk grown men into taking their pants off in public... is welcome to email me.
posted by BoringPostcards at 5:49 PM on April 2, 2005