Beavis Is Alive And Well...

[wesmorris]

tiassa:

is it your opinion, that chalaco, gendy and meph have no point? you don't think that ortho's being a little over-sensitive? it was a funny picture, dude looks like beavis. chuckle, move on. does that necessarily mean he is less that human, or than I have implied that he is less that human? i spend half my life getting laughed at, mostly because I like to point out my flaws and make fun of them. should I think myself abusive of me?

 

[Mephura]

Tiassa,

Perhaps you could clarify somethign for me. I'm a bit confused on where this bit came from:

It's real simple:

• Calling someone "Beavis" ain't exactly a kindness.
• This mocking lack of kindness is based on a physical aspect that, as some have pointed out, is related to birth.
• Is anybody here mocking him because of his superiority?
• It rather seems that the source of this mockery is his apparent stupidity combined with his resemblance to a cartoon character.

I would agree that calling some one "Beavis" isn't a kindness (at least not in most circumstances). However, the only people specifically speaking about his appearance were bells and orthogonal. So I fail to see how the generalization that everyone here is mocking him here due to such or even that anyone, other than those two, are mocking him period.

I said once that I felt the guy looks funny. I find that I have now looked at this picture enough times (all of 5 or so) that I am forced to retract that statement. When I look at that guy, I don't laugh. When I see his face next to Beavis's, that is when the laughter starts to bubble up inside of me. It is the similarities between the two that are amusing. Remove either side of the equation and it ceases to be so.

However, I don't view this man as inferior. The only two people I see here saying the man is inferior in any way are you and orthogonal. I don't know about his intelligence, so I can't comment on that as you have chosen to.
I suppose I could make assumptions about it, but I really don't see the point.

But I suppose Orthogonal owes an apology. Heck, I do, too. I hadn't realized that the mockery was all praise to this man's superiority.

Interesting...
The only people active in this discussion that are mocking the man's forehead are you and orthogonal. I think it is large, but not so large as to be called a birth defect. Others would seem to agree with me as well.

his big forehead is not a defect, there are plenty people with big foreheads.

The issue at hand, that you seem to have missed, is exactly as Gendanken pointed out.

Lastly, Orthogonoal- your reasoning was null and voided the second you wrote the word "defect".

How can someone chasten others for being uncompassionate and mocking this man, when his compassion is based on seeing him as something defective? How can you speak of fairness and equality when you start off by making one less than another?

There's a bit in Eco's Foucault's Pendulum where Jacopo and Pow discuss the difference between doing the right thing for the wrong reasons and the wrong thing for the right.

Perhaps then, the two sides of this discussion are at opposite ends of the spectrum. I would see orthogonal's 'compassion' as the right thing for the wrong reason. Perhaps he and you would see my actions as the wrong for the right?

I find it quite odd that you would bear the message you do while defending the mockery--or, rather, attacking the defense against mockery--of someone's physical aspect inasmuch as that physical aspect is not a chosen style.

Is that really what you see her as doing? If anything, the only one I have seen saying laughing is acceptable is me. She has only questioned the moral ground from which his chastisements were handed down.

 

[orthogonal]

Mephura wrote:

A birth defect? The guy has a large forehead and you label it a birth defect? I see a guy that bares a resemblance to a cartoon character...

I understand, you see a cartoon character where I see an unfortunate physiological anomaly. An abnormally prominent forehead is an indicator for a wide variety of congenital and inherited anomalies. Zellweger’s Syndrome comes first to mind. It’s a condition brought on by an absence of normal peroxisomes (the long-fatty chemical chains that you and I break down are poisonous to someone without them). Apert’s Syndrome is a result of premature craniosynostosis. Fragile X Syndrome is an inherited disorder. Acrocallosal Syndrome is a rare genetic disorder. Cardiofaciocutaneous (CFC) Syndrome is another genetic disorder that results in the craniofacial abnormality presented by your “cartoon character.” Next there’s Mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS); those suffering from this disease are said to actually resemble human gargoyles. Of course the “cartoon characters” suffering from this condition generally die before the age of 14, so we can probably count this one out. The only non-congenital, non-inherited, cause that I can think of for an abnormally high cranial-index is hyperpituitarism. Doubtless, a neurologist would suggest more possibilities. You wrote:

The man has a large forehead, not a tenticle growing out of it. You presume the man is unfortunate why?

Because his prominent forehead might be his most benign physiological symptom.

Where you see a “cartoon character” I see a man who most likely has been dealt a rough hand of cards. His condition was probably congenital; a birth defect. I think it’s odd that you and some of the others find that term pejorative. Would you be insulted if a physician told you that your child has a birth defect? I don’t think so. But what if he told you and then bent over laughing? I won’t answer that one for you.

Perhaps if I removed all the joy and laughter from my life I might be virtuous in your eyes?

Damn straight; if your joy and laughter comes at the expense of others then you haven’t the first clue what the virtue of compassion is about.

First you 'suggest' that we change what we find funny, then you tell us that we can't control what we feel.

It can’t help what you think you’ve read, but that’s not what I wrote. I said that no one can tell you what to feel. How you act is a different matter altogether. Laughing at another person’s misfortune isn’t against the law, neither is picking your nose in a restaurant. Such behavior won’t get you locked up; but you will be ostracized for it.

Mephura, what I’ll charitably characterize as your “argument,” rests on the mistaken assumption that I’ve demeaned the man by suggesting he has a birth defect. In any case, it was quite a stretch to try to turn the tables on me; which is, of course, the oldest trick in the book; to show the moralizer is secretly a hypocrite. Here, I’ve tried to explain that a craniofacial abnormality can be an indicator of any number of congenital diseases. I’ve told you that I think it’s unworthy of a good man to laugh at another man’s misfortune. I’ve also said that it’s not possible to argue someone into feeling compassion for another. If you can’t see the dishonor in ridiculing the face a man was born with, then nothing I can say would make you think otherwise. All I ask is that you think about it.

Michael

 

[Xev]

*Laughs*
This is good.

From the man who once left the forum in a huff because people were "not nice" to him:

Doubtless, a neurologist would suggest more possibilities.

You use google to find possible birth defects the man may suffer from, and this shows that he is - congenitally deformed?
Ockham's razor would suggest that he has a naturally broad forehead (common in those of German descent, I have one as well) accentuated by his hair.
That's funny. But it gets even more hilarious - orthogonal, besides being a coward, is a hypocrite:

Right, and now I’m supposed to say what most of us here already know about Xev; that she’s a lonely, bitter and vindictive middle-aged hag with an ass the size of a Lazy-Boy recliner.

Ah! So it seems ortho, whose heart bleeds for the unattractive, is quick to use that as an insult.

Wait! It's even funnier:

Who of us would have thought that Xev rejects men? Far more likely, it’s men that reject Xev.

You see, ortho - under that hypocritical shell of goodness and sweetness and "ohpleasedon'thurtmeI'msonice" - is a vicious, misogynistic, ill-mannered pig who thinks that women have no value outside their possible use as objects for sexual pleasure.

Under all that politically correct goodness, what is there? A weak man who takes the disappointments of his life out on others by attempting to make them feel - bad - about themselves. If it's not that they are "ugly" - it's that their sense of humor is "bad".

Because he cannot attack directly, being afraid of the actual confrontation involved, he prefers to take a high moral tone in order to ruin the honest amusement of others.

Is it a birth defect we are laughing at?
Hardly.
It is the resemblence to a popular cartoon character combined with the offbeat nature of the man's crime. Anyone can tell this.

But this resentful killjoy (who probably spent most of childhood and adolescence being beaten up, cannot get over it and cannot forgive anything "unfriendly" in others) refuses to see the obvious. Why? It would ruin his joy, which is probably one of the few joys he has in his petty, limited world.

Edit:
So limited, indeed, that he is relegated to using the internet as a tool to meet others:

If you're over the age of 21 and of sound mind, will you tell me why we shouldn't meet? I see that you live in Toronto. I'm planning a trip to Montreal in the coming weeks so it would be no problem to meet you in, say, Cornwall, right off 401. Take a look at the picture I posted in the "Picture Thread" just so you can recognize me. I'll be waiting to hear from you.

But why? Why would such a stunningly ethical man with such good interpersonal skills be - lonely?

 

[Mephura]

I understand, you see a cartoon character where I see an unfortunate physiological anomaly.

...

The only non-congenital, non-inherited, cause that I can think of for an abnormally high cranial-index is hyperpituitarism. Doubtless, a neurologist would suggest more possibilities.

Do yourself a favor. Click on that link, wait for the pictures to load, adn then realize that when i say cartoon character, I am talking about the animated one named beavis, drawn by mike judge, from the animated cartoon "beavis and buthead". Being as that is the case, I doubt he suffers from any of teh above mentioned conditions because HE IS A CARTOON.

I said the man resembles a cartoon character. That doesn't make him one anymore than saying a piece of green rope resembles a snake allows it to slither. It is that resemblance that this thread gets it's name from.

If that is the first thoughts you have upon looking at the picture of either the man or the cartoon, you need ot get out more. I have several friends with large foreheads. They are all quite heathy. Perhaps you are suggesting that Jay Leno has a birth defect due to his large chin?

Because his prominent forehead might be his most benign physiological symptom.

And it might be just a large forehead. Basically you are telling us all that if a man or woman looks slightly odd to you, the first conclusion you come to is that they must have a brith defect?

Where you see a “cartoon character” I see a man who most likely has been dealt a rough hand of cards.

Try looking at the right picture.

His condition was probably congenital; a birth defect. I think it’s odd that you and some of the others find that term pejorative.

And what condition would that be exactly? The one that they failed to mention in any of the articles? The one that you have no evidence of existing?

Would you be insulted if a physician told you that your child has a birth defect? I don’t think so. But what if he told you and then bent over laughing? I won’t answer that one for you.

Children got brought into this how? To answer your questions:
If the doctor said my child had a birth defect based solely on his/her appearance, then yes, I would get rather pissed off. That is, in essence, what you are doing here. You have nothing but his appearance and your oppinion to go off of. Now then, if the doctor told me my child had a birth defect and actually had something to base it off of, i would be concerned.
The second question: Again, with nothing but his/her appearance was being addressed, i would be pissed. If it was something serious, i would still be pissed.

Damn straight; if your joy and laughter comes at the expense of others then you haven’t the first clue what the virtue of compassion is about.

And I said my joy and laughter came at the expense of others where? In fact, who am I hurting If i find the similarities between the man and the cartoon character funny? Who am I hurting by laughing in my own home?

It can’t help what you think you’ve read, but that’s not what I wrote. I said that no one can tell you what to feel. How you act is a different matter altogether. Laughing at another person’s misfortune isn’t against the law, neither is picking your nose in a restaurant. Such behavior won’t get you locked up; but you will be ostracized for it.

Interesting...Being driven out by the majority because you disagree with them? Great values there. Let us all be clones!
Bah..
You are a piece of work.. Honestly.
Show me where I laugh at anothers misfortune. In fact, show me evidence of any of the nurmerous claims that you've laid down.

WHen you are done with that, look at the numbers here. The only one even close to being 'ostracized' is you.

Mephura, what I’ll charitably characterize as your “argument,” rests on the mistaken assumption that I’ve demeaned the man by suggesting he has a birth defect.

You mean you wouldn't find it demeaning if it was said that you have a birth defect when none exists, or that you have evidence of this birth defect. Which is it?

In any case, it was quite a stretch to try to turn the tables on me; which is, of course, the oldest trick in the book; to show the moralizer is secretly a hypocrite.

In this case, it isn't much of a secret. Others see the same thing I do in your 'argument'. Considering the ways you have attempted to twist my words and libel me here, you only make the image of yourself a hypocrite more vivid.

Here, I’ve tried to explain that a craniofacial abnormality can be an indicator of any number of congenital diseases.

That is wonderful to know. The simple fact is this: When I look at the man I see a normal, fully functional, human being. You see some one deformed/defective.
I find the similarities between him and the cartoon character shown in the original link humorous.
You contest that I am somehow a monster because of this and that through my actions I am not only hurting this mans feelings, but making him less of a man.

What you have done here is attempted to pull your ass out of the fire, and nothing more.

I’ve told you that I think it’s unworthy of a good man to laugh at another man’s misfortune.

And i've told you i don't see and misfortune in looking different from other people.

I’ve also said that it’s not possible to argue someone into feeling compassion for another.

True its not, but you sure as hell have tried to shame people into guilt at feeling humor.

If you can’t see the dishonor in ridiculing the face a man was born with, then nothing I can say would make you think otherwise. All I ask is that you think about it.

And all I ask is that you actually bother to read what i've written instead of making outlandish accusations.
I find the similarity between this man and the pictured cartoon character funny.
That is it.
Nothing about the sie of his forehead, nothign about deformities on him or babies, nothing about seeing the man as a cartoon.

 

[orthogonal]

From the man who once left the forum in a huff because people were "not nice" to him:

Wrong, from a man who left because people were not being nice to each other.

You use google to find possible birth defects the man may suffer from, and this shows that he is - congenitally deformed?

Wrong again. I spent four years designing intracranial pressure measuring systems. These post-operative neurological devices are used to detect elevated cerebral pressures most significantly in cases of infant hydrocephalus (see a connection?). Before this I worked on ophthalmic ultrasonic sensors for two years and prior to that I spent four years at the biomedical laboratory of Washington University Medical School in St. Louis, Missouri.

Ah! So it seems ortho, whose heart bleeds for the unattractive, is quick to use that as an insult.

I said this is what I’m supposed to say to play your game. You conveniently forgot to quote the next two sentences where I not once, but twice refuse to say this. You can’t win this argument Xev. It’s been constructed so that you can’t win. I’m saying that your primary interest for being here is to hurt people. When you lash out in hate you simply drive home my point, over and over.

... who probably spent most of childhood and adolescence being beaten up...

You’ve gotten it so wrong that I can’t resist correcting you. My father returned from Southeast Asia in the 1960’s as a basket-case. He physically abused me from then, until I was strong enough to overcome him (I think I was 16). I have a nasty scar from where he stabbed and nearly killed me (he went to jail briefly for it). The point of all this is that I came to hate everyone. I also began reading philosophy to try and make sense out of a senseless existence. I took up body building and got into boxing when I was 18. I spent the next year boxing and weightlifting while studying philosophy on the side. After that didn’t work I joined the service. I was thrown out of bars from Maine to Rhode Island for starting fights and I finally got arrested in Yarmouth, Mass for smacking a bouncer (the captain was none too pleased with me).

My about-face came slowly and with the help of a wonderful person. It took years of concentrated effort to learn to control my rage and my hair-trigger temper. Still, I know who I am. Taunting me is like pouring vodka into an alcoholic’s mineral water. I’m glad to hear that you think I’m a sweet person because I’m doing my level best to be a decent human being. When I see people like you I go the other way, not because I’m afraid of them because I’m afraid of myself. So, Xev, I won’t be playing your game. Take it somewhere else.

Michael

 

[Xev]

ortho:

Wrong, from a man who left because people were not being nice to each other.

Same difference, a narcissist thinks everything does or should pertain to him.

Wrong again. I spent four years designing intracranial pressure measuring systems.

Or you claim to.
In any case Ockham's razor stands. As Mephura pointed out, you have no legitimate reason to suspect a birth defect when there's no obvious abnormality.
But you do. And how quickly you squeal that we should pity the poor man.
Of course your pity is worse than the dubious cruelty of smirking at his resemblence to Beavis, but you know that.

I said this is what I’m supposed to say to play your game. You conveniently forgot to quote the next two sentences where I not once, but twice refuse to say this.

You, being a coward, imply it.
It does not matter whether you said it or not - the fact is, you who feign such compassion think that "you're ugly! you can't find a man!" is a character flaw.
Did daddy also teach you about women? I bet he did.

You can’t win this argument Xev. It’s been constructed so that you can’t win.

One does not "win" on the internet.

I’m saying that your primary interest for being here is to hurt people.

And you know nothing. I seek stimulation and amusement.

When you lash out in hate you simply drive home my point, over and over.

Yet I have never "lashed out in hate", so your point remains limp.

You’ve gotten it so wrong that I can’t resist correcting you. My father returned from Southeast Asia in the 1960’s as a basket-case. He physically abused me from then, until I was strong enough to overcome him (I think I was 16).

In other words, you spent childhood being beaten up and now find your best pleasure in ruining the honest amusements of others.
I think I got it perfectly right. If you only knew why.

I have a nasty scar from where he stabbed and nearly killed me (he went to jail briefly for it). The point of all this is that I came to hate everyone. I also began reading philosophy to try and make sense out of a senseless existence. I took up body building and got into boxing when I was 18. I spent the next year boxing and weightlifting while studying philosophy on the side. After that didn’t work I joined the service. I was thrown out of bars from Maine to Rhode Island for starting fights and I finally got arrested in Yarmouth, Mass for smacking a bouncer (the captain was none too pleased with me).

Oh take me now, you macho stud you.
Please.

I’m glad to hear that you think I’m a sweet person because I’m doing my level best to be a decent human being.

I don't think you're a sweet person. I think you're a revengeful, bitter man who is too weak to take his aggression out physically and instead tries to manipulate those he resents into feeling bad about themselves.
F.W Nietzsche described it as the genesis of Christianity.
You amuse me - you remind me of a weaker version of myself. Perhaps if I'd been male I'd have gone down the same route.
It is what worries me about Nietzsche's observation.
Only unlike you, I don't deny that I am acerbic or angry - hypocrisy was never my thing. And unlike you, I take no pleasure in causing others to think badly of themselves - yet if I did, it would be unconcealed.
And that in the end is what makes honor - not playing a role but being honest to yourself about what you are.
You chatter about it - live it.

When I see people like you I go the other way, not because I’m afraid of them because I’m afraid of myself. So, Xev, I won’t be playing your game. Take it somewhere else.

There's no game here, other than my shaking out your insides so that those you attack can see where you're coming from.
I abhor bullies and the pleasure of stripping one down to the bones and muscle is second only to love and sex and really, really good death metal.

 

[orthogonal]

orthognal wrote:

When you lash out in hate you simply drive home my point, over and over.

Touchdown.

Michael

 

[Xev]

Refuted.
I feel no hate for you or anyone else here - I have hated maybe two people in my twenty years of life and for reasons more profound than seeing their words.
Don't project onto me your own hate and inadequecy.
You may be able to make others feel low in order to compensate for your own sense of lowness, but it will not work with me.

 

[gendanken]

Tessie:

A nickel's worth of free advice: Don't overspend that point, Gendanken.

And here's a dollar's: keep your dirty money.

What in the world are you going on about?

This:

Gendanken said: Much the same as it takes seconds to find a face attractive or fuckable, its in the human pedigree to feel repulsion and mockery, quiet or not, at other's ..........~unpleasentness~.

There's a reason for pathology musuems and medical curiosities. There's a reason why one laughs at the absurd. There's a reason why we feel those things we shackle and put away in a closet the second we feel them and deny they were ever there in the first place. There's a reason why something as simple as a huge German forhead pickled with scars is just fucking funny.

And if you must insist with your namedrippings, I invite you to look back on your copy of "Focault's Pendulum" since you brought it up. Page 64 of the 1989 Ballentine Book International Edition talks about the art of Tetrapyloctomy.

Read up on that and then come back to realize why it is I find you so boring.


Xev:

*Laughs*
This is good.

...........
You see, ortho - under that hypocritical shell of goodness and sweetness and "ohpleasedon'thurtmeI'msonice" - is a vicious, misogynistic, ill-mannered pig who thinks that women have no value outside their possible use as objects for sexual pleasure.

*funeral grin*

*conniptions*

You're kidding, right? He's a just like Tessie it seems....but more of a middle man. He wrote all that? Oh?

So Orthogonal, if I told you either me or Xev were sitting here the size of refrigerators and fallopian tubes as fucked as your logic........you'd gloat, cry, or rub it in? How long would it take for you to decide what card to play is what I'm wondering.

And please Oh pretty please Xev- do tell me where this came from:

If you're over the age of 21 and of sound mind, will you tell me why we shouldn't meet? I see that you live in Toronto. I'm planning a trip to Montreal in the coming weeks so it would be no problem to meet you in, say, Cornwall, right off 401. Take a look at the picture I posted in the "Picture Thread" just so you can recognize me. I'll be waiting to hear from you.

This has suddenly gotten murderously interesting.

 

[Xev]

gendanken:
Of course, and all women who say anything more intelligent than "wee! Look at my tits!" are ugly and - gasp - can't get a man!
Of course they find it more useful to simply insinuate, since ortho can't really engage someone directly.
Look at his pathetic attempts to seem "tuff".

And please Oh pretty please Xev- do tell me where this came from:

He wrote it to Chaleco then deleted it when I quoted it.


*It's easy to get men, you just drag them off the street and throw them in the cellar next to your white supremicist literature and gun collection. Wee!

 

[gendanken]

Xev:

gendanken:
Of course, and all women who say anything more intelligent than "wee! Look at my tits!" are ugly and - gasp - can't get a man!

Never mind that those who cry loudest curse that you beat them to punch lines, write better, think broader, look, speak and act brilliantly better.

It keeps his prison cell nice and comfortable if he can tell himself over and over that you can only be what you *are* because the price is being that androgynous Medusa chocking on chip oil he keeps in his mind as security.

Of course they find it more useful to simply insinuate, since ortho can't really engage someone directly.
Look at his pathetic attempts to seem "tuff".

Indeed.

*It's easy to get men, you just drag them off the street and throw them in the cellar next to your white supremicist literature and gun collection. Wee!

And when you're feeling cute you can braid his testicles and play Barbie.

 

[Tiassa]

This I gotta see . . . .

The only people active in this discussion that are mocking the man's forehead are you and orthogonal.

Amazing. Just for sport, Mephura, back that one up.

I think it is large, but not so large as to be called a birth defect. Others would seem to agree with me as well.

If it is enough to inspire in you such self-superiority as to laugh?

Look at the discussion you stepped into, Mephura, and look closely at where you chose to stand.

• I'm just asking all of us to reconsider what it is that we're giggling at. (Orthogonal)

• There is such a thing as being too sensitive. Personally, I think the guy looks funny as hell. I feel totally comfortable saying so. (Mephura)

Convince me that this is complementary. Since you seem to take exception to the phrase birth defect, please explain to me how the attention to the physiological aspect is supposed to be complementary?

Did you miss this part?

And while I hate to call people ugly, that was one ugly man. How is it possible that his head be that large? (Bells)

Now, let's just take a look at this:

defect n.

(1) The lack of something necessary or desirable for completion or perfection; a deficiency: a visual defect.
(2) An imperfection that causes inadequacy or failure; a shortcoming. See Synonyms at blemish.

(see Dictionary.com)

The reason I raise this definition here is because, while someone might have chosen to make a technical dissection of the words, "birth defect," nobody chose to undertake that aspect.

Rather, the argument now seems afoot that the problem comes in Orthogonal choosing to use the word "defect" to describe the object of people's humor or dissatisfaction.

And so I ask again, are we going to call this man's forehead an example of beauty, of perfection, a testament to evolutionary strength?

You could show me a picture of someone who looked like Beavis any day of the week, and the only thing about this story that's worth a chuckle to me is that the man, Chris Kemp, rounds out the bit by breaking into someone's house wearing a woman's clothing and listening to tunes. As I noted earlier, the Arnold Layne aspect plays on my mind more than the Beavis bit.

Let's add it up? Who would like to tell me what, exactly, is the joke about this guy? There are thousands of closet transvestites out there every day doing things that might make us ... wonder. There are thousands, if not millions of ugly people in the world. The aesthetics are part of what makes this particular fellow remarkable in the first place, and that's kind of the point.

That I agree with Bells that what we have here is one ugly fellow is a matter of aesthetics. You're welcome to laugh derisively at his beauty--I can't possibly interfere with your conscience and opinion and heart's contentment. But ... you know ... I do admit, that's one unfortunately ugly individual.

Says me.

Which brings us up to my focus on "birth defect". I think the term is fair, given the context of the topic. I find it odd that the one standing against ridicule based on physical appearance is at once being addressed as oversensitive (Mephura, Wesmorris, or rendered null and void (Gendanken).

Both you and Gendanken seem to argue a similar position:

• A birth defect? The guy has a large forehead and you label it a birth defect? I see a guy that bares a resemblance to a cartoon character, but is nevertheless, a normal human being. (Mephura)

• The man's equated a deviance from what he sees as norm to a "defect" . . . . (Gendanken)

I find this a very curious turn of ideas. In other words, in order to license one insensitivity, we are to make a contextual twist of Orthogonal's words in order to criticize him as insensitive?

You wrote, to Orthogonal:

I see a guy that bares a resemblance to a cartoon character, but is nevertheless, a normal human being. You see someone that is defected, subhuman. Is that the nature of your compassion? To judge anyone that doesn't conform to your narrow view of what is 'normal' as defected? Look at your own words, and speak to me about the nature of your heart. (Mephura)

What if it wasn't Beavis, but Li'l Black Sambo? I think of this cartoon in Hustler (I think) years ago that showed a shark "fishing" on the pier with a slice of watermelon as a "classic nigger" with massive lips, huge teeth, &c, enthusiastically chases the watermelon toward his doom. It was a funny cartoon, but definitely cruel.

Orthogonal quoted Andre Compte-Sponville; I recommend Neil Simon's Broadway Bound, in which Stan and Eugene discuss the presence of conflict in comedy. Often, the only difference between a good joke and its piss-poor mutation is the mechanism of conflict motivating the basis of humor. It's why people have been upset at "feminist" humor, especially since the rise of Claire Huxtable and other intolerable "TV women." I mean, the battle of the sexes even makes for comedy on a show about gay people (e.g. Will & Grace). Where and how the conflict is invested is a vital consideration in comedy; hence our laughter can often be cruel.

Our tears? Well, we've all seen Eric Cartman weep with joy, haven't we?

How can someone chasten others for being uncompassionate and mocking this man, when his compassion is based on seeing him as something defective? How can you speak of fairness and equality when you start off by making one less than another?

I don't see the issue.

If I had to guess, I'd start by wondering why you chose to read so shallowly. I'd say the man's appearance was already being treated as a defect, especially in light of the dictionary reference above. As such, I reiterate here that I consider Orthogonal's use of the word "defect" to be within the context of the discussion, and I find an inappropriate assignation in accusations set forth against his use of the word.

I would see orthogonal's 'compassion' as the right thing for the wrong reason.

If I agree with your interpretation of Orthogonal's words, I would agree with you. However, as I find fault in your interpretation, I do not concur.

Perhaps he and you would see my actions as the wrong for the right?

I, personally, see your actions as wrong for the wrong reasons.

Is that really what you see her as doing? If anything, the only one I have seen saying laughing is acceptable is me. She has only questioned the moral ground from which his chastisements were handed down.

Questioned? Presumed inaccurately, and based her response on that.

Ask anyone who's been called "Kunta Kinte" because they have black skin. Or any woman presumed to be a slut for the size of her breasts. Or anyone called "Charlie Chan" for being Asian.

Oversensitive?

Let me guess, people just need to chill out tune out the idiocy in the world?

Ignore the situation ... that will bring a solution, won't it? Just like it has throughout human history.

Don't get me wrong, though, Mephura. I sympathize insofar as I am aware of a context in which I would have taken Orthogonal's words much as you or Gendanken have, but I would have to be looking for a something to pick a fight about before I came across that perspective.

See also: My next post, to Wes.

 

[gendanken]

Tessie, I love you darling, but please shutup.

 

[Xev]

gendanken:

Never mind that those who cry loudest curse that you beat them to punch lines, write better, think broader, look, speak and act brilliantly better.

To themselves, always. Publically, never.

It keeps his prison cell nice and comfortable if he can tell himself over and over that you can only be what you *are* because the price is being that androgynous Medusa chocking on chip oil he keeps in his mind as security.

Of course. One doesn't treat them gently, they do not treat others gently. Beneath it all lingers that knowledge that they are less. The characterizations quickly become vulgar and frightened, betraying only the depth of their knowledge of what they are.

 

[Tiassa]

Wes

is it your opinion, that chalaco, gendy and meph have no point?

No. Although I disagree with him, Mephura seems to be trying to argue certain points.

you don't think that ortho's being a little over-sensitive?

Would we have heard about this if he looked, for instance, like Wesley Snipes in Demolition Man, or R. Kelly?

Yeah, I laughed at the whole thing. But the fact that the guy looks like Beavis is of itself nothing to cause me to chuckle.

Where I really find myself confused by this topic is the sleight of phrases leading to the odd distraction accusing Orthogonal of being hypocritically insensitive.

it was a funny picture, dude looks like beavis. chuckle, move on. does that necessarily mean he is less that human, or than I have implied that he is less that human? i spend half my life getting laughed at, mostly because I like to point out my flaws and make fun of them. should I think myself abusive of me?

All of this is well and fine; I argue against none of it.

But from oversensitive to insensitive, the transition is one that doesn't make much sense to me.

And here is where we can get caught up in all sorts of issues about presumption and thinking for one another, as both arguments, that Orthogonal is oversensitive, and that Orthogonal is insensitive, make perfect sense to me if I presume from the outset that human beings are utterly incapable of existing in progressive harmony and are destined to fracture and fester around subjective silliness for all our future history.

For analogy, it's a bit like a capitalist/socialist sort of argument. Capitalism makes sense to me if I admit a number of things at the outset: that humanity is forever in competition with itself above all else, that capital is the ultimate influence over my person, that human life is nothing more than service to an abstract system. While I admit that the last of those, especially, can be argued against, that's not my purpose today. So if that bit about Capitalism isn't quite clear, compare it to Catholicism.

Catholicism makes a good deal of sense to me, if I accept three presuppositions: (A) God exists, (B) biblical inerrancy, (C) humankind is naturally predisposed to evil.

Thus, in considerations of social structure, I don't happen to agree with either capitalism or Catholicism.

Likewise, while I see routes that lead me to the oversensitive or insensitive issues, I don't agree with what I perceive to be the necessary presuppositions to move me from one side of the coin to the other.

And you're welcome to think of yourself as self-abusive; I'm constantly undertaking such examinations, which prove to be self-abusive in themselves after a while. What's the phrase? "It's a vicious cycle."

But you have every right to be abusive of yourself. I have every right to be abusive to myself. We do not, however, have the right to abuse other people.

And as to where we draw the line ...? Well, that's long been an issue at Sciforums. If you look at my A-B-C paragraph about Catholicism, there was a time at Sciforums when I could have expected two theistic responses, one Catholic and picking on the word "presuppositions," and the other anti-Catholic to remind me that the Pope is the Devil, or some such.

Oversensitive? In Sciforums terms, it will be ages before we scale back the degrees of offense where such a consideration isn't laughable to so many people, but if we invoke the pure abstraction here instead of the convoluted reality, the principle that shows through most apparently suggests that humor based on involuntary physical aspects is inappropriate.

And I point out here that only Goofy--with his topic post link--and myself have really given any attention to what I'm calling the Arnold Layne aspect. The appearance aspect so totally dominates the discussion that I think the point is made. I see a round joke here in someone who resembles a cartoon character behaving notoriously like the cartoon character, just as there would be an absurd moment for me to check myself in the event of a suicide: imagine someone plummeting thirty stories in an angel or Superman costume--I admit that certain factors would flash through my mind that probably wouldn't if the person was dressed to look like a hooker. But all of that is a different consideration than whether or not the earth shook any harder because the suicidal was obese.

Or, to look at this topic and put it another way, sometimes people write, "You presume I don't feel compassion for others ...?" Well, if you don't show it ...?

 

[wesmorris]

It is funny that he looks like beavis. That you think it distasteful is no one's problem but your own.

 

[wesmorris]

Is it a birth defect we are laughing at?
Hardly.
It is the resemblence to a popular cartoon character combined with the offbeat nature of the man's crime. Anyone can tell this.

If you cannot see the truth in this, then your eyes are not open.

 

[orthogonal]

My invitation to meet Chalaco was posted some ten seconds before I decided to remove it. I’ve already said that I have a quick temper; I’ve also said that I try to control it. If I were in the same room with Chalaco then I woundn’t have had those ten seconds to reconsider. It’s lucky for me that my only insults come via the Internet. I have to remind myself the reason for Internet insults is that the antagonist is protected by anonimity. When people meet face-to-face it’s generally true that “the only substitute for good manners is fast reflexes.” No one here would insult me to my face. This reminds me of the “courage” some people summon to flip-off a pedestrian before they apply their foot to the gas pedal of their SUV.

It’s particularly odd that some of you have expressed outrage that I would ask the question, “What are we laughing at?” in an Ethics, Morality and Justice Forum. If you went to Skydiving Club meeting would it drive you crazy that I wanted to talk about parachutes? I mean, really, who does this orthogonal think he is, asking us to question our notion of ethics in a forum devoted to Ethics?

Suppose you went over to a new girl friend’s house for dinner, and suppose that just as the meal begins your friend’s sister comes from her room to take her place at the table; only you notice that she has several trace indicators of Down’s Syndrome: microcephaly, flattened nose and low-set ears. Now suppose when you look at her you start to laugh your ass off. Now, what do you think would happen? If the old man were present he might just come across the table at you. If he’s a bit less hot-headed than me he’d probably just ask you to leave and never return. When your, now, ex-girlfriend asks you what you were thinking, I can just hear you saying, “But how could I have known for sure that she suffers from a mild case of Down’s Syndrome? It’s possible that a person just looks like that, you know, funny, cartoon like.”

It’s the same with the man with the extended forehead. Do we really have to see a physician’s report of his health history in order not to laugh at him? And leaving aside his possible birth defect, do you really think he wants to have an unusually prominent forehead? Given that most of you are already laughing at his face, do you think it helps him to meet women? Jesus, we run to have surgery if we think our own nose is a bit too large. Don’t you think he might do the same if there were some corrective proceedure available?

There’s yet another aspect of this example that I want to discuss. Tiassa alluded to the issue in his mention of Lil’ Black Sambo. By prefacing his picture with the story which described his off-beat offence, the moral street was effectively cleared to heap-on the ridicule. What if the story showed a instead a man with a disfigured face along with the headline, “Wounded Soldier Returns From Iraq.” Even if his face were comical, would you split a gut laughing at a horribly burned face of a wounded soldier? No one except small children would do that. But why not?

I’m reminded of a story from a few years ago; one that I’m sure you’ll all remember. A woman sliced off her husband’s penis (his name was Bobick, or something like that). Her defense was that he cheated on her and possibly even abused her (I don’t remember the details). What I do remember is how it was instantly seized by the American public and comedians as the funniest story to come along in years. Yet whenever I heard the jokes I simply asked people to imagine making that same joke with the genders reversed. That is, imagine it was the husband who had taken a butcher’s knife from the kitchen and sexually mutilated his cheating and abusive wife? Oh, well, that’s not so funny. But why not?

As I said, it’s the oldest trick to try and show that the moralizer is a hypocrite. But what you forget is that even if I were a closet monster, how would that fact bear on the argument that I’m making? If Ted Bundy himself said that it was unworthy of a man to laugh at those who are less fortunate, would the fact that he is saying it make it somehow less true? Moral arguments rise or fall on their own merits; not on the personal merits of those making the argument.

I haven’t budged an inch from my orginal contention. I think we ought to ask ourselves what we’re laughing at. And I’m telling you that laughing at another person’s misfortune is unworthy of a man. And this is precisely the place (An Ethics, Morality and Justice Forum) to make this claim. I don’t have to be Mother Theresa in order to point out a deficiency; even a convicted killer can prompt a thinking man to reconsider the way that he behaves. I suppose if some of you saw me in a church pew (wouldn’t happen) kneeling in prayer, you’d likewise would poke the person next to you, saying, “Just look at him acting so holy!” This, despite my having repeatedly said that I’m an imperfect human. Which of you have been equally as candid or displayed a similar humility?

Once the two bottom-feeders of Sciforums moved in this thread was effectively finished. Babelina went a few weeks ago, EI_Sparks and Chris went last week. I’m going away again for my second and last time. Like Sparks said, it’s just not worth it. Best wishes to you, Tiassa and Goofy. Disagree or not, I’ve always enjoyed your posts.

”There is nothing in which people more betray their character than in what they laugh at." Goethe

Michael

 

[Mephura]

Tiassa

Amazing. Just for sport, Mephura, back that one up.

WOuld you have me quote every post before my last one? How exactly would you have me show you that something isn't there? It would make more sense for you to show me where one of the people active in this discussion (myself, you, gendanken, wess, orthogonal, xev, and chaleco) other than you or orthogonal have said anything mocking about the guy's forehead. The closest is me saying in my first post here that it is "strangely large".
Since that time the emphasis has been on how this man is a normal human being as opposed to poor pitiful soul with a birth defect.

If it is enough to inspire in you such self-superiority as to laugh?

Self-superiority? That I find the similarity ammusing means I feel superior?
So if I am startled by that piece of green rope I mentioned earlier that happens to look like a snake, that means I feel inferior to the rope? Does it mean that I am afraid of the rope?
To cut it to the bone of the matter:
I find the similarity amusing, not the man.
I don't find anythign amusing about what he did or, now upon reflection on the issue, he himself.

Look at the discussion you stepped into, Mephura, and look closely at where you chose to stand. Convince me that this is complementary. Since you seem to take exception to the phrase birth defect, please explain to me how the attention to the physiological aspect is supposed to be complementary?

I will do so as soon as you show me where anyone said it was. And where do you continue to get this "attention to the physiological aspect"? What are arguing? The only attention to the "physiological aspect" is one of two things:
His similarity to a cartoon character or orthogonal's calling it a birth defect.
I would say one is far more "attention to the physiological aspect" than the other.

I'm arguing against the casual tagging of derogitory labels on people based on nothing more than there physical appearance. (There is a large difference between finding someone funny looking and finding them deformed.)
Orthogonal, meanwhile, is telling us all that we are cold, calloused individuals because we don't view him as deformed.
You tell me who's view is the less 'complementary'.

Did you miss this part?

Note that i said active in the discussion.

The reason I raise this definition here is because, while someone might have chosen to make a technical dissection of the words, "birth defect," nobody chose to undertake that aspect.

Most of us made the choice to take the words at face value and use the connotation that we are all well aware of. The same connotation that orthogonal reinforced by introducing the list of birth defects, some of whcih fatal.

The reason being this: If you choose to make issue over the semantics, you are forced into explaining what exactly qualifies as a defective human being.
Since you seem to want to make that point, why don't you tell us what standards we should use to discern these defective individuals from the norm. What is the acceptable limits (to remain non-defective) of human physiology?

Rather, the argument now seems afoot that the problem comes in Orthogonal choosing to use the word "defect" to describe the object of people's humor or dissatisfaction.

No. The argument comes in because orthogonal's "compassion" is based upon his veiw of the man as 'defective'.

And so I ask again, are we going to call this man's forehead an example of beauty, of perfection, a testament to evolutionary strength?

Again I ask, where did this come from? Are you implying that if it isn't an "example of beauty, of perfection, a testament to evolutionary strength", it must, by default, be deformed, defected and a testament to evolutionary weakness?

You could show me a picture of someone who looked like Beavis any day of the week, and the only thing about this story that's worth a chuckle to me is that the man, Chris Kemp, rounds out the bit by breaking into someone's house wearing a woman's clothing and listening to tunes. As I noted earlier, the Arnold Layne aspect plays on my mind more than the Beavis bit.

And that is nothign more than a difference in our senses of humor.

Let's add it up? Who would like to tell me what, exactly, is the joke about this guy? There are thousands of closet transvestites out there every day doing things that might make us ... wonder. There are thousands, if not millions of ugly people in the world. The aesthetics are part of what makes this particular fellow remarkable in the first place, and that's kind of the point.

Thousands of tranvestites:
Yes, and i don't, generally, find them amusing, nor did I find that aspect of this story amusing.
Millions of ugly people:
That is all a case of beauty in the eye... and the point of other threads. Reguardless, agreed, and again not what I found amusing. (though I don't see being ugly as a state that requires pity)
The aesthetics:
The only thing I found "remarkable" in the least or amusing here was his similarity to beavis. Show me another man that bears the similarity, and I will probably find it just as amusing.

That I agree with Bells that what we have here is one ugly fellow is a matter of aesthetics.

True enough.

You're welcome to laugh derisively at his beauty--I can't possibly interfere with your conscience and opinion and heart's contentment.

I don't recall anyone saying he was beautiful.

But ... you know ... I do admit, that's one unfortunately ugly individual.

I wouldn't go so far as to say unfortunately ugly, but..yes.. he's not a beauty queen.

Which brings us up to my focus on "birth defect". I think the term is fair, given the context of the topic.

That say much about you.

I find it odd that the one standing against ridicule based on physical appearance is at once being addressed as oversensitive (Mephura, Wesmorris, or rendered null and void (Gendanken).[/qoute]

I find it odd that you can't see that throwing around terms like "birth defect" merely because you find the way someone looks a bit out of your usual is a form of ridicule based solely on physical appearance. Perhaps then you wouldn't take offense to someone saying you are deformed becuase they think you look odd?

Both you and Gendanken seem to argue a similar position:I find this a very curious turn of ideas.

How so?

In other words, in order to license one insensitivity, we are to make a contextual twist of Orthogonal's words in order to criticize him as insensitive?

What? I've read that about three times and am still trying to make sense of it.
The basic idea is this (again): We see someone who is not defected. Someone that could be anyone of us. There is no superiority. We laugh because the similarity is ammusing.
Orthogonal see some one who is deformed. That implies superiority. From that position of superiority, he chastens us for not having it.
No twisting nessecary.

What if it wasn't Beavis, but Li'l Black Sambo? I think of this cartoon in Hustler (I think) years ago that showed a shark "fishing" on the pier with a slice of watermelon as a "classic nigger" with massive lips, huge teeth, &c, enthusiastically chases the watermelon toward his doom. It was a funny cartoon, but definitely cruel.

I would have to see it to tell you if I find it funny or not. Since we are changing the subject, would it still be cruel if it was a white guy in a suit going after a $20 bill? Just wondering.

It's why people have been upset at "feminist" humor, especially since the rise of Claire Huxtable and other intolerable "TV women."

Claire Huxtable and other intolerable "TV women"? That, by itself, is a very interesting statement.

Personally, the only 'femenist' anything that I get upset over is of the same variety as the oversensitivity that Orthogonal presents. That is, when some random innocent act of laughter or somethign said is dissected, inspected, and infected with meaning that I hadn't put there for the sole intention of saying I'm sexist.

I mean, the battle of the sexes even makes for comedy on a show about gay people (e.g. Will & Grace). Where and how the conflict is invested is a vital consideration in comedy; hence our laughter can often be cruel.

Especially when one sets out to make it so.

Our tears? Well, we've all seen Eric Cartman weep with joy, haven't we?

What the...?

I don't see the issue.

If I had to guess, I'd start by wondering why you chose to read so shallowly.

I hadn't realized I was. If taking what is presented and coming to the obvious conclusion isn't what one is supposed to do with a written message, I'm amazed mankind has made it this far.

*Man #1 reads a message*
Man#2:what's it say?
Man#1: "send help."
Man#2: I wonder what that means...

I'd say the man's appearance was already being treated as a defect, especially in light of the dictionary reference above.

Considering this:
The word defect frist came into this conversation in the term 'birth defect'. That term was introduced as the reason orthogonal felt compassion for this man and the reason we shouldn't laugh.
If you are going to claim that his appearance was already being treated as a defect, I am going to continue to wait for that list of standards that we should judge them by.

As such, I reiterate here that I consider Orthogonal's use of the word "defect" to be within the context of the discussion, and I find an inappropriate assignation in accusations set forth against his use of the word.

And that is your choice. You can chose to see his use of the word as identical in meaning to definition you have showed us, or you can keep the word coupled with 'birth' and use see it in the conotation that is obvious to everyone else; the conotation that orthogonal has since supported by introducing his long list of them (birth defects).

If I agree with your interpretation of Orthogonal's words, I would agree with you.

Good to hear.

However, as I find fault in your interpretation, I do not concur.

Personally,I find fault in yours. It would appear that we are at an impasse.

I, personally, see your actions as wrong for the wrong reasons.

Surprise, surprise...

Questioned? Presumed inaccurately, and based her response on that.

So you are saying that you have presumed his moral ground more acurately than others?
I am wondering what makes you so sure of that? Have you proof?

Ask anyone who's been called "Kunta Kinte" because they have black skin. Or any woman presumed to be a slut for the size of her breasts. Or anyone called "Charlie Chan" for being Asian.

How about we add 'anyone who has been called deformed due to the size of their forehead' to that list? I know it just doesn't have the same ring, the same flow as the rest of them, but that is the heart of the issue.
How can you raise those examples in defense of a man who is doing the same damn thing?

Oversensitive?

Let me guess, people just need to chill out tune out the idiocy in the world?

Or perhaps quit making assumption about people based on how they look.

You want to defend actions that are, in essence, analogous to stereotyping, be my guest. Just don't try to throw the blame on me for it.

Ignore the situation ... that will bring a solution, won't it? Just like it has throughout human history.

So I shouldn't ignore what orthogonal is doing?
Thanks for your approval.

Don't get me wrong, though, Mephura. I sympathize insofar as I am aware of a context in which I would have taken Orthogonal's words much as you or Gendanken have, but I would have to be looking for a something to pick a fight about before I came across that perspective.

Strange, it was blatantly obvious to me. If I wanted to pick a fight, I would've probably said somethign about a superiority complex concering his percieved wisdom (hence the quoting and the 'understanding' he has on all thing philosophical), or what makes him think his morals are so much better than anyone else's, or even how his very posting style seems to reek of arogance; like he is constantly talking down to everyone and should be respected as a voice of wisdom.
No, Tiassa, I'm not just looking to "pick a fight".

See also: My next post, to Wes.

Should I take this as an invitation to remark on things there if I see fit?