Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kelleris" data-source="post: 2488314" data-attributes="member: 19130">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.</blockquote>

Verification