Conan makes a whoopsie

Zombie_Babies · Nov 12, 2013

Umbran said:
You, of course, are allowed your opinions.

I believe that this is more than an opinion - but you, of course, are allowed yours.

Where did I imply it was your fault? I am not trying to find fault or place blame. I'm merely noting some realities that may not be obvious to you, so you can make informed choices.

Yeah, the point is that it isn't my fault so there's no need for them to take whatever someone else did to them out on me. That's not civil.

No, it doesn't, at least not as we mean it here. We have moderators, not thought police. Behaving civilly is a lot easier if you have an open mind, but they can be close-minded pre-judging boneheads, so long as they keep what they say polite.

Fair enough.

There is a point where being exclusive isn't civil. But an individual choosing to not engage with you doesn't cross that line. Nor does reporting what they personally feel is inappropriate behavior.

Well I suppose that's technically accurate. However, that sort of behavior is something I'd not define as indicative of an environment where civil discourse is the goal. Shunning people is not civil.

And some rhetorical questions for you to ponder: How many people have actually done this? A handful? With the hundreds and thousands of other visitors to the boards each day, do these few really matter?

Interestingly enough, I have answers for you: Enough have done it, obviously, to have colored my perception of this place especially in light of what some of the members have said about their expectations of behavior as these two experiences are contradictory. I don't care about the other hundreds and thousands of people who visit this site as I have already explained that I do not interact with them. These few matter precisely because they are the few that I do interact with.

You've seen it. Tell me, does what you've seen strike you as civil?

If you feel it is outside the bounds, you can report the post - click the icon that is an exclamation point in a yellow triangle at the bottom of the post - and moderators will review it. If you don't report it, we'll generally take that to mean that you didn't feel it was particularly problematic.

Reporting posts isn't my style - and yes, I understand what that means for me. I'd much rather, I dunno, have a conversation about what's bugging whoever's got the problem. It is literally impossible to have civil discourse without the discourse, after all.

Dannyalcatraz · Nov 12, 2013

Zombie_Babies said:
It was a child. This wasn't a head of state or even a drunken frat boy - it was a child. Anyone thinking it was a genuine genocidal statement is a [redacted]. That or they're looking to be offended.

And that doesn't change the fact that the broadcaster and show producers aired an inflammatory clip in pursuit of ratings, without heed for the backlash that could occur on the (probably) innocent statement maker. They failed in their duties,

Irrelevant. I said it wouldn't be fair to judge this child and this is an example of unfair judgement.

Kids do unfair & idiotic things all the time. They're kids. I don't hold them to the same standards as adults. Correct them, yes, when needed.

Here, adults left the kid open to backlash because their thought it was cute/shocking and would get them ratings. That is wrong. IOW, I'm judging the adults, not the kid who made the statement, nor those kids who may initiate a fight with the kid over what he said.

Yeah, that's true. Oh wait, you meant Kimmel. See, I thought you meant all of the people protesting this. Whoops.

I don't think they're so much pissed at the kid as at Kimmel & the higher-ups, and I think justifiably so.

Meh, I do see it as unjust in this case. There wasn't any hate here and that's the disconnect. Overall we're on the same page about this, though.

Its not hate, but callousness and disregard for the child's well-being. IMHO, they acted irresponsibly in airing the clip.

This is a situation where it wasn't warranted. Again, they're calling him Hitler.

Again, I think the protest is justified, though not the vitriol in the rhetoric.

Thing is, it was harmless. I don't see even an apology as warranted here and, unfortunately, that'll hardly be enough for the people protesting.

I disagree that it was harmless or that apologies are not needed, but I do agree that you're probably right that- for a vocal minority at the very least- an apology will not be sufficient,

Janx · Nov 12, 2013

Zombie_Babies said:
h have done it, obviously, to have colored my perception of this place especially in light of what some of the members have said about their expectations of behavior as these two experiences are contradictory. I don't care about the other hundreds and thousands of people who visit this site as I have already explained that I do not interact with them. These few matter precisely because they are the few that I do interact with.

You've seen it. Tell me, does what you've seen strike you as civil?

Some things to consider as you have been working on improving relations:

while some people HAVE chosen to block all or some of the newcomers, take note of WHO is still talking to you. that says those people have not closed the door.

Now for folks who choose to not talk to others, being uncivil? I see it as choosing to remove oneself from recurring collisions of personality which would lead to more dramatic uncivility. I guess that's like changing the channel whenever that guy comes on the TV to talk about whatever thing you always disagree with that makes you mad.

From my own observation and personal practice, most folks only use Ignore for the people who they always get into bad arguments with. So having a very short or empty Ignore list is seen as a positive.

The danger of Ignore lists is that sometimes you do miss when an occupant actually does change their ways.

Zombie_Babies · Nov 12, 2013

Dannyalcatraz said:
And that doesn't change the fact that the broadcaster and show producers aired an inflammatory clip in pursuit of ratings, without heed for the backlash that could occur on the (probably) innocent statement maker. They failed in their duties,

I don't know that they honestly thought it would be so inflammatory. There's a real chance they could lose sponsors or may have to toss Kimmel - and he makes them a lot of money. The thought that they honestly believed people would take what a kid said in a joke bit this far seems a little too out there to me. I think they really felt that this would be nothing.

That said, we're both guessing. The odds are equal, IMO, that either one of us is right. Oh well, that's why it's so fun!

Kids do unfair & idiotic things all the time. They're kids. I don't hold them to the same standards as adults. Correct them, yes, when needed.

Here, adults left the kid open to backlash because their thought it was cute/shocking and would get them ratings. That is wrong. IOW, I'm judging the adults, not the kid who made the statement, nor those kids who may initiate a fight with the kid over what he said.

The kids being kids thing is fair. Where I disagree is that I don't think that adults left the kid open to the backlash. I fault the people who are giving the backlash because, as I've said, this was just a kid hamming it up for the camera. We need some perspective here and these folks refuse to take a step back and look.

I don't think they're so much pissed at the kid as at Kimmel, and I think justifiably so.

And I don't. I think it's selective outrage and that disgusts me. It's manufactured anger.

Its not hate, but callousness and disregard for the child's well-being. IMHO, they acted irresponsibly in airing the clip.

I don't think they thought anything would happen to the kid - as explained above. And we're both still guessing.

I also believe that anyone giving the kid any crap has far more callousness and disregard for the kid than Kimmel. After all, they're the ones who've decided to take something a kid said and go after him as though he were an adult saying it seriously.

Again, I think the protest is justified, though not the vitriol in the rhetoric.

Disagree but what-evs. One of them things we'll never agree on. Movin' on ...

I disagree that it was harmless or that apologies are not needed, but I do agree that you're probably right that- for a vocal minority at the very least- an apology will not be sufficient,

And that's a shame. Let's look at what happened: Nothing. That's an awful little to demand a man's job over.

Meh, I'm all sorts of for as free speech as possible. This kind of crap really gets on my nerves. He's an entertainer who was trying to entertain. If we can't separate that in our own minds we don't even deserve words at all. Context. Nobody cares about context anymore. It's all about whining as loudly as possible so someone out there will listen to us. BS. We want to matter so badly that we take things that don't matter as far as we can and then some in order to try and be heard. I'm sure that's indicative of something very dangerous sociologically but I can't say what.

Look, we've got news agencies lying to us. We've got them adding a 'super' in front of every damned thing in order to get ratings cuz they make their money the same way South Park does - ad revenue. And this is what we care about? A joke that fell flat? That's what's wrong with television today? Distraction. Pure and simple misdirection. And we'll eat it up, too.

Zombie_Babies · Nov 12, 2013

Janx said:
Some things to consider as you have been working on improving relations:

Thanks!

Er, for the compliment and for the notes.

while some people HAVE chosen to block all or some of the newcomers, take note of WHO is still talking to you. that says those people have not closed the door.

Right - and those people are folks I don't have any problem with for the most part. I appreciate that they have given at least me a chance and enjoy the conversations I've had with them so far. Whatever I say here is not about them. Not in the least.

Now for folks who choose to not talk to others, being uncivil? I see it as choosing to remove oneself from recurring collisions of personality which would lead to more dramatic uncivility. I guess that's like changing the channel whenever that guy comes on the TV to talk about whatever thing you always disagree with that makes you mad.

There's merit to that thought however I've also seen people make baseless assumptions, attack me because of those assumptions and then tell me they've placed me on Ignore. Now how can I defend myself? How was that fair or civil?

As for the folks that went to Ignore without engaging at all, well, I still see that as uncivil. You're not even giving me a chance. I'm 99% certain I had less than 50 posts here when I was told people were ignoring me. Yeah. And then there's that whole thing where I was told that people put me and the rest on Ignore in an attempt to get us to leave or isolate us so that we would attack each other, report and be booted. Not. Civil.

From my own observation and personal practice, most folks only use Ignore for the people who they always get into bad arguments with. So having a very short or empty Ignore list is seen as a positive.

The danger of Ignore lists is that sometimes you do miss when an occupant actually does change their ways.

Both fair points. I try not to put anyone on ignore. I don't need a forum function to help me keep myself in check. I appreciate that some do find benefit in it and, honestly, I'd rather be put on ignore than stalked and reported - not something that's happened here, of course, I do want to make that clear.

billd91 · Nov 12, 2013

Dannyalcatraz said:
And that doesn't change the fact that the broadcaster and show producers aired an inflammatory clip in pursuit of ratings, without heed for the backlash that could occur on the (probably) innocent statement maker. They failed in their duties,

Having seen the clip, it's not super-inflammatory. And I think Kimmel does a reasonable job of deflecting any appropriateness away from the suggestion. That said, they should have looked at the segment and said - "Yeah, not really a good result for the show" and moved on.

Now that they've run it and gotten the reaction, I think the apology was right in order. I also think that this article is correct that the ongoing hub-bub is overblown. Enough Is Enough

Lwaxy · Nov 12, 2013

Zombie_Babies said:
It's unfair that people would see fit to give a child any backlash about this at all.

"The world isn't fair, Calwin." - Calwin's Mom

Robin Hoodlum · Nov 12, 2013

Lwaxy said:
"The world isn't fair, Calwin." - Calwin's Mom

"And nor should it be."- Robin Hoodlum

billd91 · Nov 12, 2013

Zombie_Babies said:
The kids being kids thing is fair. Where I disagree is that I don't think that adults left the kid open to the backlash. I fault the people who are giving the backlash because, as I've said, this was just a kid hamming it up for the camera. We need some perspective here and these folks refuse to take a step back and look.

More on the kids topic... In today's computer media world, whatever is posted with a kid or by a kid sticks around. This applies to potentially embarrassing videos like Halloween candy pranks too. Parents and other adults really need to take more responsibility for the stuff that goes up with kids that may come back to haunt them, rightfully or not. How many of the Halloween candy kids will, as teens, feel mortified they bawled or otherwise list their :lol:

and now can't get those videos out of bully hands? Kids may say the darnedest things, but the adults are supposed to be the ones showing good judgment.

Lwaxy · Nov 12, 2013

billd91 said:
Having seen the clip, it's not super-inflammatory.

Certain types of media (or "interest groups") blow everything out of proportion if they can get higher ratings. This kid parroting what he heard somewhere, the noise people made about celebs or those who are considered such put on supposedly offensive Halloween costumes... etc etc. All designed to elicit a response from the masses. That's not going to change anytime soon.