2144: The Waterboy
 

With Alex Edelman – #dancingman revisited; Alex’s cupcake water story revisited; Curt Schilling vs. The Internet; University of Oklahoma's Sigma Alpha Epsilon n-word chant; an all-male Ghostbusters reboot will follow the all-female Ghostbusters reboot; civilian calls 911 about stolen cocaine

Guest:
Alex Edelman
http://static-1.keithandthegirl.net/...an-100x100.jpg


Share this episode: Twitter, Facebook & email

Get the show: on iTunes, on Stitcher and RSS feed

This was a very thought provoking episode with the twitter/online speech accountability discussion. My initial reaction, and one I keep coming back to no matter how extreme the speech becomes, is that I don't think it's right to ruin someone's life over an otherwise throwaway sentence. Take the white woman at the start of the episode - is it right that she loses her job over a bad joke? Follow this through to the worst possible outcomes, what if she became unemployable, lost her house, ended up on the streets, what if she killed herself because of the shame? Is that a proportionate response to an off-colour joke that hurts nobody? Alex talks a lot about personal accountability but comes short of suggesting what that accountability would look like. Is the whole Twitter-sphere crashing down on you and calling you out enough of a response? If she went and volunteered with an AIDS charity would that be enough to un-ruin her life?

But then you bring up the tweets about Schilling's daughter and I'm obviously disgusted by them - what's the right kind of punishment for this kind of behaviour? And what's the appropriate response to a deluge of rape references? I find myself thinking that if these tweets did cause genuine distress to Miss Schilling then there probably is grounds for legal prosecution there because surely it counts as some kind of malicious harassment, like a modern version of heavy-breathing on a telephone.

Again, I come back to the idea of the offending tweeters and how easy it is to forget that there are human beings behind their disgusting words - is it right that these people should have their lives ruined because they hurt someone's feelings? Is that an appropriate or proportional response? In the back of my head I can hear Keith shouting "YES!" but I think that's bullshit. It's bloodthirsty and callous and lacks any kind of empathy. But then so did the people tweeting rape shit at a little girl. They're not rapists though - where's the line here?

As evidenced by my copious use of question marks, I don't even think I can come up with a satisfactory answer. Maybe the solution is simply to not be an asshole on the internet, and if you are then be prepared to have real consequences on your physical life beyond the keyboard, but then isn't that a kind of thought-crime concept? The mere act of taking a thought and publishing it is enough to end your current cozy life?

I think part of the problem is that 'the public' as an entity is utterly unable to think in a non-binary fashion. Something is either OK, or it's totally not OK and the offending person should be punished. There seems to be very little room for nuance in this emergent instant judiciary system and I think that's a problem that we as a society are going to face more and more as time goes on.

In before "you're goofy" :P

Its 2015 and people still don't seem to understand that the internet is a) public and b) never forgets.

Specifically if you post stupid shit on twitter in most cases it is openly accessible to everbody, with facebook you could at least hope that you managed the privacy settings correctly and your circle of friends won't rat you out but even that happens a lot.

There is even a browser extension to help with that:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/d...anefdpleabdmoa
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/VF...0-h400-e365-rw

Id like to turn your attention to my Bottoms Up Show thread: 'Beacause I Got High.'

https://www.keithandthegirl.com/foru...43/#post832267

Emmy breaks down frats.

John asks, "They're not rapists - where's the line here?"

The line is that we didn't put the offenders in jail for being rapists. They lost their jobs because it would be so hard to work with someone who made these continuous pro-rape comments.

"There seems to be very little room for nuance."

The guy wants her dad to, "Teach me your knuckleball technique so I can shove my fist in your daughter." That's some nuance. It's tough to judge such subtlety...

"A thought-crime concept?" Once you say your thought to someone, it's no longer just a thought - especially when you typed it out and then hit SEND. (Then did it again and again.)

You mentioned, "Maybe the solution is to not be an asshole on the Internet."

Maybe...

Can you imagine?

This episode reminded me of a quote by Stephen Fry;

"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."

Being offended is the new black.

I feel like there's a "Schilling's List" joke in there somewhere.

I can imagine, sure. I know that personally whenever I think about sexually abusing someone I'm able to restrain myself to not tweet it out to the whole world, but maybe I've just got really good self control?

We're all guilty of being assholey on the internet sometimes to varying degrees, but you and me, we're good people and we hope that if someone reads or hears us say something shocking they'll won't take it entirely seriously and will judge us as three dimensional people rather than as a 140 character sentence. I have a private group on whatsapp where some friends and I send the most heinous shit to each other, if that was ever made public we'd all be fired. We don't mean a word of it (I hope) but we're really just playing games with words, saying something horrific in the pursuit of a laugh. Does that same logic apply to the people tweeting at Schilling? Could they perhaps not really mean it but instead are taking part in this seemingly new pastime of wankers sending out half hearted rape threats since that seems to be an epidemic on Twitter these days.

I'm not trying to defend these people at all, I think they and their kind (like the Gamergate idiots) are making the internet a worse place and I wish they didn't exist. But they do, and we as a community need to learn how to deal with them in an appropriate manner. The psychology of the people writing this stuff is baffling to me and I don't doubt for a second that these people are utter cunts. But is being a cunt reason enough to be unemployable for a long time? Maybe being a cunt + not knowing when to shut your mouth and keep your cunty opinions to yourself is the key here? But again, is this worth ACTUALLY ruining their lives over?

This is why I'm conflicted, I recognise that punitive action is necessary but I wonder what form that could or should take.

Also you say ""A thought-crime concept?" Once you say your thought to someone, it's no longer just a thought - especially when you typed it out and then hit SEND. (Then did it again and again.) " - I think yes, it's still a thought - it's a concept, an image that you've implanted in someone's head through language. There's nothing physical involved in this, the threats are empty and you've only said two dozen words to someone. And as well, when someone is fired for online-misconduct there's no due process here, they're tried and convicted almost immediately through volume of public opinion. I think it's a bit much, really.

And then I heard the Curt Schilling story...

Okay, a little bit offended is okay.

How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/ma...ccos-life.html

Keith asked if Justine Sacco was a valued employee. She was "30 years old and the senior director of corporate communications at IAC". Thats not bad - of course a comms director should know how Twitter works.

Also, the last two paragraphs might help convince whether #dancingman is a good idea.

Damn, I was hoping Dean stuck with that stupid Stephen Fry quote. I had such plans.

Tear me a new one anyway Keith. Don't let a caveat spoil your fun.

Tear you a new one or tear your daugh -

Nevermind.

Fired!!

BUT WHERE'S THE LINE?! THERE'S NO WAY TO KNOW!

she's not a little girl. she's 18. she can legally get paid to do those things suggested to her ONLY so long as it's for public consumption.

i'd really love it if the men around here would quit infantalizing young women.

Only since you brought it up, she's 17 and a minor.

really? i read articles that had 18 in them. i could be wrong. in any event, a year away does not a little girl make.

At what age is it okay to publicly write, as well as add the @s of the dad and daughter, that you will rape them?

We can keep being a pussy like John Harvey above who says it's complicated, or we can solve some things.

I say no age, but if we're talking about age, let's discuss. Obviously everything is case by case, but in general, is 16 okay?

In regards to dancingdude and all that, Keith I agree with you on the point of this being more "slactivisim", quick retweets and UpVoting for ppl to make themselves feel better. I would rather these party people give the extra money to some food banks or women's shelters than "anti-bullying campaign." But I also gotta say that I am way more annoyed by the Fat Panic in all your comments than the insta-gratification, retweet generation-ness of the whole event.

"buy him a salad. How embarrassing that he'll have to buy two tickets! Ho! None of the ladies there will bone him, so what's the point!?"

eh

oh, i'm not devil's advocating the gross twittering. this time.

my beef's with ole John Harvey. this chick is for sure on the receiving end of some gross bullshit, but that isn't reason to see her as a child. she's a young woman being harassed, not a child. i know we like to say that to make it seem worse, but it takes away something from her as a person, i think.

being a legit victim doesn't strip you of your agency. let's not do it for her.

OK Sparrow I agree with you, sorry for using the 'little girl' phrase, it was poorly chosen. I work in a school and so to me, 17 year olds still look like kids to me but that's no real excuse.

Was talking about this with my wife tonight, she came up with the best solution I've heard - if someone is sending rape threats they're likely immature, so tell their mums on them.

C'Mon John - now you're infantilising young men

Here's a groundbreaking idea for anyone getting "harassed" on the internet - DON'T CHECK YOUR TWITTER FEED FOR A FEW DAYS. Or skim over the "offensive" posts, or go for a fucking walk and leave your smartphone at home.

By that time, it will have all blown over and there'll be someone else getting offended about something someone wrote.

It's just words on a screen. No one is up in her face screaming that they're going to rape her.

in our digital age, it's really silly to consider this manner of threat any less serious than face to face. the cowards that would like to, but wouldn't have the balls to have a screen to hide behind now. get with the times.

oh, for sure. and i totally get the impetus; this guy's a creeper weirdo adult going after someone's daughter out of the blue through twitter. it's extreme and our nature in dealing with these kinds of things is to extreme out all points. i'm a persnickety bitch about language anyway; the way in which we tell our stories is important. thanks for obliging.

Seriously???

You consider a tweet or FB post the same as a physical encounter?

Next time a guy twice your size corners you and says that he's gonna rape you, I suggest you block or unfriend him. Yeah, that oughta do it.

Next time you're walking alone down the street and a group of guys yell something at you and start following you, let me know if it feels the same as someone posting shit.

For anyone who reads something nasty OTI, please fill out the following form, paying particular attention to the very last checkbox

http://i.imgur.com/EDDcIjx.jpg

On the Internet they can keep attacking you and perhaps attack you in person.

Nevermind how everyone around you saw these attacks, and what do you say back to them about their safety?

A random in-person encounter is over the moment you leave them.

I think cyber-bullying is a real thing, and the comedian response, "then turn off your computer," isn't thought out in any way.

We know you're a flippant asshole, but I can tell when you're serious, and here you're very wrong.

I know, for instance, I'd rather have only meant you once than to keep hearing from you.

i said i take it as seriously.

the guy who confronts me, i have a physical description to give to the police. if i see him again, i can know to react. i have something on him. i can point and go, "YOU!" anything else goes wrong? i have a suspect handy.

the guy behind the screen? could be anyone. doesn't matter what size he is. could be stalking me. his ISP could be fake, so i don't even know where he is. how would i know? how much information does he have on me? does he know people i know? /is it/ someone i know? is he communicating with me on other sites with other screen names; are there more people involved? how many? did he google my address? does he know what my house looks like? does he have folders on his computer compiling pictures of me across the internet? is he doxxing me? are my pictures elsewhere? is he tracking my moves across the internet to plan a physical attack? how would i recognize the threat? my computer is in my home; he is now in my home. that is a violating feeling.

i'm an internet troll myself. i know how dangerous i can be when i don't have to worry about being physically able to do something or be known.

Stupid tweets are very different from a targeted cyber bullying attack

I can totally see that.


I'm not defending or condoning the actions of the real cyber stalkers/bullies, who IMO differ from trolls. Trolls are dicks (yeah, ikr) who make stupid comments and then move on. Cyber stalkers drop dox, post noodz, ruin people etc.

I'd hardly class a bunch of stupid inane tweets about periods and anal as cyber bullying.

those stupid inane tweets had many stupid inane followers. tweets are notorious to incite action.

keith is a sweet, reasonable person. on air and on twitter, he can be a slobbering jowl full of opinions on action he'd never do. he's not going to shoot someone for littering. he can't control the asshole mentally unstable person from taking him to heart. the guy who wrote those tweets knows he has followers and probably those of the ilk of our own who have been absolutely known to take action where action needn't have been appropriate.

have you never been on the internet before? they'd be fucking retarded not to take it seriously. especially with this much press.

Scenario 1: "i am gona raep ur dog and fist ur anus slut hore bithc"

Scenario 2: "I am outside your house at 123 Main St, and I can see you sitting at your table. Tonight, I'm going to visit you while you're sleeping..."

See the difference?

can you not really understand why someone might take something like this seriously? i think it demonstrates a severe lack of understanding of the digital community we've built for ourselves.

No, this is my first week. Honestly, I thought there'd be more cats from what I'd been told.

The sum total of my knowledge of this stupidity is what was on the show, so if there were other tweets actually calling for the girl to be raped etc, then that's different.

Tweets to that dickhead pitcher about meatballing his kid's arse are clearly not calls for the girl to be raped.

With all the rape threats that are hurled around the internet, I can't believe people take them seriously. What will cause them to become serious is when dickheads give them airtime by getting people fired or talking about them on podcasts/TV/Radio/etc. That's the sort of shit that fires up the arseholes, and causes shit to move from OTI to IRL.

Just don't feed the trolls. They'll get bored, and move on.

I can understand how people take it seriously.

I think they don't understand how not-serious (generally) the internet is.

People have taken shit I've said OTI very, very seriously at times. I've been threatened with legal action, v& etc, so I get it.

They don't get how non-serious dickheads like me are.

this is like you calling yourself a "good guy with a gun." there's no way to know who's fucking around and who's serious.

lolwut

Doesn't everyone in your neck of the (literal) woods carry? I would have thought you guys would be able to spot the difference between a run of the mill redneck and a whack job you should be legit scared of.

You generally can tell who's srs and who's not, although I'll grant you that stuff can escalate into stalking etc pretty fast.

It's a brave new world. The last thing we need is moar regulation.

AFIK, there was no damage done to the girl via twitter. There was real damage done to the lives of people who typed stupid tweets.

i'm not even talking about regulation. i'm saying her parents should take a direct rape threat against their daughter seriously and report it to the police. that's reasonable shit, bro.