D&D Media Spotting and Mild Rant

[Blue_Kryptonite]

I would let it slip without comment, because he wants people to comment. It draws attention to his column. A provoked response prolongs the milage he gets out of the subject. If it gets ignored, he moves on.

We have a local "personality" who gets fired every few years from various tv and radio stations and newspapers, and always ends up back on the main news radio station (one of the largest and most influential in the country). Incedentally, he looks and sounds eerily like Ned Flanders down to his theological bent. He tried his level best to get people fired up about Charter Schools opening when I was working at one.

Our fearless leader wisely advised us to feel free to speak to any media, including his station, but not to call his show or otherwise resond to him. After about three days, he was on to something else, and three weeks later, he was supporintg us.

 

[Kelleris]

What, you get to rant, and I don't? That's hardly fair. Eye for an eye, rant for for a rant, I say!

Curses! Foiled again! You're right, of course, and I should be happy my post touched a nerve. It's better than blank-eyed apathy, anyway.

How many people he targets at a time is relevant? Is it less of an insult if its only one person?

Not as a rule of thumb, but in this case I think so, yes. It would be hard to miss the fact that he's probably going to do something like this to you if you write in, and heck I'm sure some people do so just to see what it provokes. Either that or he's making the questions up, in which case he's not actually talking about anyone at all. In either case, nobody's likely to really be hurt, emotionally or otherwise, so it actually is less of an insult.

This is the first time I've seen something targeted at a group that didn't seem like simple parody or hyperbole. Granted, that might very well have been due to simply my emotional reaction. And I don't read this column very often (maybe once a month, if that), so it's possible I don't really know Dr. Bombay's style (such as it is).

Dr. Bombay is writing an advice column is response to reader's questions (I assume, he might be making the questions up, I know I'd never send something in, just to be be-littled and insulted), where he writes an opionion piece & also answers the readers question. The tech questions are mainly of the so simple a trained monkey can do it type. But, as I've found out, there are still people out there who lack the amount of training the monkey would have.

In his defense, I have gotten useful information from the column before, which is part of the reason I read it when I come across it. For instance, I have and run AdAware regularly because of one of the columns. But I'm not particularly computer-savvy, I admit.

What bothers me most is that people, Kelleris for example, enjoy this type of humor, which is fine if you like stuff like that, but then have the gall to rant when the insults hit too close to home. That's just idiotic.

Awww, that's not very nice.

I think "idiotic" is the wrong word, though. I am being neither foolish nor stupid, especially since I have rational (maybe not good) reasons for my reactions to the column in this case and in others. At least be more precise if you're going to insult me. "Hypocritical" or "blindly partial", or even "provincial" might be nice. I've never been called provincial before.

 

[reveal]

Awww, that's not very nice.

I think "idiotic" is the wrong word, though. I am being neither foolish nor stupid, especially since I have rational (maybe not good) reasons for my reactions to the column in this case and in others. At least be more precise if you're going to insult me. "Hypocritical" or "blindly partial", or even "provincial" might be nice. I've never been called provincial before.

I wasn't trying to be nice, just honest.

If you enjoy laughing at people and/or their importances that are put down, made fun of, belittled, etc and are suddenly offended when you, or something you find important, are made the butt of the joke, that's being idiotic, i.e. you're acting like an idiot. It's hypocritical, mean-spirited, and childish.

 

[Kelleris]

Wow, I'm hypocritical, mean-spirited, childish, and idiotic! And all for having an emotional rection to something and almost being inspired to write a polite letter to someone pointing out their inaccuracies. Gee whiz, the bar for being a horrible person just keeps dropping and dropping.

I freely admit to being somewhat hypocritical, though as I've said this guy (to my knowledge) has never been this inaccurate or broad in his comments before. It must be nice being so completely in control of yourself that you don't take your personal issues more, well, personally. Since I'm aware of the basis of my reaction and I haven't hurt anyone (possible readers of this thread excepted), I really don't think I'm doing anything wrong here. If this were a serious matter, then yes, my gut reaction would not be the way to go. Since it isn't serious, and my reaction has been to post to a message board where I fully expect people to disagree with me (I've been around here long enough to know that, at least), I think I'm doing okay.

 

[mojo1701]

If you enjoy laughing at people and/or their importances that are put down, made fun of, belittled, etc and are suddenly offended when you, or something you find important, are made the butt of the joke, that's being idiotic, i.e. you're acting like an idiot. It's hypocritical, mean-spirited, and childish.

Then define satire.

 

[Captain NeMo]

I wouldn't get worked up about it. He's a twit, so there's no point in getting riled up about it. Just go back to playing your little card game from a few years back!

Kane

Listen to this guy and you won't go wrong.

 

[reveal]

Then define satire.

I'm not trying to define what is funny and what is not. That was never my intent. What I'm saying is that if you laugh at other peoples misfortunes and cannot in return laugh at your own, then you're a hypocrite.

Here's an example: Let's say you watch America's Funniest Home Videos and laugh maniacally when people get hit in the crotch. 2 days later you're in the yard and something hits you in the crotch and your friends start laughing at you. Suddenly, you tell your friends to shut up and not laugh at you because "it really hurts." That's hypocritical.

This is the same principal. A person looks at another being belittled, or hurt in some way, and thinks it's funny. But when the tables are turned suddenly they're upset and the guy belittling them is a jerk. That's extremely hypocritical and mean-spirited.

That was my whole point.

 

[Merlion]

Well I've played both pen and paper RPGs, and Everquest and similiar games, and I find both parts insulting and angering.

First, because he's generalizing and saying everyone who plays such games gives up the rest of their life to do so. Second, because even in the case of those that do, its not the game thats the problem, its the person, not the game, and third because number 2 notwithstanding, some of those "losers" may have legitimate emotional or physchological problems.


I would be tempted to write a letter or some such about something like that

 

[Kelleris]

Here's an example: Let's say you watch America's Funniest Home Videos and laugh maniacally when people get hit in the crotch. 2 days later you're in the yard and something hits you in the crotch and your friends start laughing at you. Suddenly, you tell your friends to shut up and not laugh at you because "it really hurts." That's hypocritical.

This is the same principal. A person looks at another being belittled, or hurt in some way, and thinks it's funny. But when the tables are turned suddenly they're upset and the guy belittling them is a jerk. That's extremely hypocritical and mean-spirited.

See, I see this situation differently. Allow me to extend the example. Say it's been awhile since the Nut Incident, and there was no permanent damage (thankfully). I tell the story at a party, and I tell it for laughs. I laugh, they laugh, everybody laughs, because the Nut Incident is funny with a certain level of detachment. This may tell you something about my sense of humor, but does it make anyone involved a bad person (much less "extremely hypocritical and mean-spirited")? I don't think it does, and I don't think it's hypocritical at all to laugh at the funny home video, be angry at the people that laugh at me when the Nut Incident occurs, and then laugh about it with friends later.

Here's why: it's cruel to laugh at someone right in front of you who's just been hurt, because you're going to hurt their feelings and make the situation worse for them. If I laugh at the home video, it's not going to magically make the lives of the people involved worse, and if you don't laugh at the party, I'm going to at least wonder why you don't find something I find funny to be humorous. Heck, I may even be insulted in some corner cases, in which case it's actually kinder for you to laugh at the Nut Incident than not to do so.

I see the Bombay column in the same light. I laugh at some of his comments. That may mean my sense of humor is cruder than it should be (all too likely, I'm afraid), but it's not going to hurt anyone for me to do so. When he prints erroneous and insulting information about D&D players, I'm going to be offended. Because I was offended (harm has been doen to me), I have a right to do something minor, like sending a corrective e-mail or posting on a message board to vent. Maybe if I were a really saintly person, I'd be offended for everyone, and send nasty letters to Dr. Bombay every time he publishes a column. But I'm more cynical (or more reasonable) than that, and I try to only get my panties in a twist over things that might actually matter or lead to positive change, unless they get at me personally, through my emotional reactions. So I see the column, I get a cheap laugh out of it, and nobody gets hurt. I'm hurt later, by this D&D reference, and I consider taking some appropriate action to rectify the situation (minor, as befits the situation).

For that reason, I don't think I'm being very hypocritical at all. I'm just enjoying things that set off my sense of humor and not getting upset when I don't need to and can't help it (that last one was what happened here; I couldn't help getting all a-twitter, in one sense). As far as I'm concerned, you have no right to try to insult me and make me feel morally culpable in this situation, at least with this line of argument.

Now, and here's what your instinct might be getting stuck on, if reading this column makes me more likely to laugh at a person I know who gets addicted to EverQuest, then I have done myself and others a moral harm. Whether this is the case or not is frankly impossible for you to determine, though I can self-report that I'm as nice a guy as I ever was and think of EverQuest addiction as just as serious an affliction as I ever thought it was.

In this respect, I am being mildly hypocritical. However, I just don't think complaining much about something that has not personally offended me and lies outside my area of expertise will do much good. This guy will probably get the e-mail, read it like he reads however many of these he gets, and ignore it entirely. Because that's the reaction my offense will likely get, I think the rational choice is to get my cheap laugh most of the time, and take some mild action if I'm actually hurt by what happens. If Dr. Bombay were bombing Cambodia and ending the lives of thousands, that might be a different matter - I'd certainly be upset, and if I thought I could do something about it, I would. As it is, he's offending a few people, mainly those who write in and more-or-less ask for it, and it just doesn't seem a big deal to me. If I want to laugh, and it's not going to constitute an act of cruelty toward anyone, I'm going to do it, because I'm rather fond of laughing.

Besides all that, I think your (verging on personal)* attacks are obscuring some more interesting questions than whether or not I'm a hypocritical, mean-spirited, childish idiot. For instance, how much of this guy's comments are sarcasm and how much are his actual (stereotyped, no doubt) opinion? How likely are other people to read the column and think he's right on the money instead of taking him to be sometimes-funny jackass?

-- Kelleris, who's apparently feeling a bit like a Utilitarian today

* - In one sense, this is justified, since I've given you an action and you're judging it. On the other hand, there's no way to slice this situation such that it becomes a big deal. So even if I am acting hypocritically, I'm deeply offended if you judge me to be a true hypocrite based on this thread. Ditto for acting idiotically and being an idiot, and all those other imprecations.

 

[reveal]

See, I see this situation differently. Allow me to extend the example. Say it's been awhile since the Nut Incident, and there was no permanent damage (thankfully). I tell the story at a party, and I tell it for laughs. I laugh, they laugh, everybody laughs, because the Nut Incident is funny with a certain level of detachment. This may tell you something about my sense of humor, but does it make anyone involved a bad person (much less "extremely hypocritical and mean-spirited")? I don't think it does, and I don't think it's hypocritical at all to laugh at the funny home video, be angry at the people that laugh at me when the Nut Incident occurs, and then laugh about it with friends later.

That's where you and I differ. Just because someone's not in the room does not make it ok to ridicule them. Detachment is not an excuse.

And I'm not trying to attack you personally, even though I can definitely see how that can be construed. I apologize if I've come off too harsh.

And I'm judging you based upon this thread because that's all I have. You're judging this Bombay guy by his singular column and I am doing the same to you. In that we're no different.