Every time I see someone calling this 13 year old a “slut” it makes me cringe.
Actually, every time I see someone calling anyone a “slut”, it makes me cringe, but in the case of a 13 year old I find it particularly offensive. A 13 year old can’t even legally consent to sexual activity. Implying that she’s some sort of Lolita out seducing poor hapless men or breaking up marriages/relationships (which is what “slut” implies to me) is absurd.
It’s a shame that she was murdered, and it’s a shame that she was promiscuous before her death. It’s a bigger shame that people seem to be suggesting that she somehow deserved or was asking for what happened to her.
And Sinyster1, you really have to work on your timing.
Demise, I love thee like a brother, and it grieves me to bring you bad tidings. But woe! the dark days are already upon us. Here is the story, as was told to me by a wandering tinker, whilst we were feasting on canary pies and a sack of malmsey one winter evening at the Green Hart Inn, with the wind whistling around the eaves…
At one time, this was an abode of merriment and laughter, where you would see lusty lads wrestling together, long bouts with the quarterstaff, and swordplay amongst the greenwood, with all this joy being washed down by a quaff of ale, savory meats, and venison from the King’s forest. On a sunny morning one could meet and wink at a fair damsel strolling the sunlight paths, and a song was in every heart and on every lip. Every St. Swithen’s eve would see the start of our famous three-day fair, with all manners of crafts being displayed, and stout yeomen plucking their bows with the winning arrow bringing the prize of two fat steers.
Until one day, one of the sheriff’s men-at-arms soundly drubbed the pate of a villein who had troubled the peace of the glen. There was a hush; one could see a pallor invading every cheek; the sweet notes from the harp of the minstrel stopped as if struck dead; and then from the trees one heard a loud wailing and lamentation. Women threw themselves on the ground weeping, and grown men tore at their beards and cried ‘alack-a-day!’ The oatmeal cakes turned to ashes in our mouths, and all joy was clouded. Slowly a group of mourners, clad in black, bore away the body of the unfortunate soul, who was laid to rest near a babbling book that was once his favourite haunt. And since then, this place hath never been the same.
Reprise & Co.
I don’t believe anyone is suggesting that this girl “deserved” to get killed. The point is that these unsavory details are critical to understanding the story. The “not pretty” comment, while not, perhaps, sensitively presented, called attention to the fact that the writer was not simply reporting the facts.
Whatever you may think about teen sexuality, I’m sure you will agree that the story of a maniacal sex killer using chat rooms to lure innocent thirteen-year-old girls to their death is a completely different story than that of a thirteen-year-old girl who, for whatever reason, uses chat rooms to actively hunt down numerous men twice her age so that she can have sex with them in mall parking lots.
The first story is a cautionary tale for all parents. Protect your children! Keep those young girls away from the computer! The second story is a Jerry Springer show. It doesn’t describe a general threat to teen-age girls, it describes pathological behavior. Moreover, it’s a tragedy in which the Internet was, at most, a bit player.
** Until one day, a champion arose! Clad in a William Tell, Robin Hood or, perhaps, Spiderman costume (it’s hard to tell online) he battled the forces of darkness and, once again, brought peace and joy to a corner of cyberspace that had known it not these many a year, not, indeed, since neo-nazis discovered usenet!
I know you think reversing the logic looks really clever.
But it isn’t.
I said that an inexperienced poster behaving like an ass might see the light when someone points out his behaviour to him - and a relative position of authority might facilitate the process. That’s rather a far cry from “time served can insulate a poster from the whims of the moderators”, which sounds like you’ve already made your mind up about our impartiality, or lack thereof.
So, Coldfire, being a mod, can’t point out what he thought was bad timing and tactlessness? I thought the purpose of the Admins and Mods were to help guide posters (along with the single rule of “Don’t be a jerk.”)
I’ve never seen any other of Sinyster1’s posts before this. From seeing that particular one, however, it would lead me to conclude that he is a jerk.
Quite a few of us lowly non-moderator types (myself included) pointed out he was being a jerk also.
…and to suggest that Sinyster1’s tactless comment was to call “attention to the fact that the reporter was not reporting the facts” is really pushing it. How one considers the girl’s appearance is not a fact, it’s an opinion. An opinion that should have just stayed in his/her mind. I highly doubt that when he posted it, that it was to point out that the writer was portraying the girl as sweet as sugar. IMHO it was to elicit a laugh.
No, it is not a cautionary tale at all. There’s not one damned thing which can be gleaned from the media reports of this young woman’s death which will help us - as parents - protect our children.
My objection to the POST referred to in the OP (and indeed to the characterisations in some of the news items which have reported this story) is that the scrutiny is not being placed firmly on the person who committed this crime but on the person who lost her life as a result of it. Young males who lose their lives in tragic circumstances are quite often referred to as “athletic” or “handsome” or “popular”, but I’ve yet to see a post in which someone says “oh well he looked fat, or unfit,or like a nerd to me”.
Please don’t attribute anti-net sentiments to me. I agree entirely that the net was - at best - an incidental player in this situation. If you can find a post in which I insinuated that the internet was in some way “responsible” for this young woman’s death, please quote it here.
Actually it was because i was really drunk at the time. That’s still no exscuse, just a fact. I happened to state what others were thinking. I will try very hard to not post while intoxicated any more, as I don’t really want anymore uprisings over alcohol induced gibberish. I have said several times that maybe I should have not said what I did. My whole argument is with Coldfire’s response. Did it make me “learn”, no. Did it make me upset that a lowly noob can’t post his opinion in the category so marked, yes. Basically everyone is saying that because I do not have a high post count that I cannot post what I am thinking. What amount of post counts must you have before you can start thinking for yourself?
I don’t think that ‘…people say offensive stuff here all the time…’ is a lame excuse; I think it is a description of Sinyster’s understanding of the board’s culture.
And what is wrong with pointing out that a person does not confirm to a certain standard of beauty? Perhaps the insistence in our society that our worth depends so heavily on our conformance to such standards led to the unphotogenic young womans alleged self-destructive behavior.
The melodramatic cries of outrage over “hypocrisy” and “free speech” are near laughably absurd. It’s a weak argument to say something boorish and then throw up the tattered free-speech shield when deservedly pummeled for it.
Remember Straight Dope rule #1:Don’t be a jerk. Sinyster wasn’t being a complete ass, but the tasteless post deservedly sent up red flags. Did Coldfire overreact? Bah! He didn’t ban the guy, he warned him. Relax, pick up the shield and broken pieces of huffy-puffy indignation, and move on.
BTW, I believe blur had the best reaction in the original thread:
Did it make you learn? Well, I think it has, since you just said:
Coldfire didn’t ban you, all he said was to watch what you say. Timing, intent, etc. Why can’t you just accept it? Everyone else who had an issue with what you said probably would have said the same thing. The whole issue with the “noob” thing is probably because he wants you to get a vibe of what is or isn’t acceptable here.
I am a lowly noob, but I haven’t had anyone say (yet) that they were offended by my posts. Could it be because I check myself before I wreck myself? Like blur, I have a pretty sick and dark sense of humor, but I like to know my audience before blurting out shit like that. I also haven’t had anyone here make me feel that because I am new, what I say doesn’t count.
Posted by j66
Nothing is wrong with that, it’s been said time and again…it was Sinyster’s timing, along with the fact that he isn’t commenting on, say, a commercial with some unwholesome looking chick, but on a young girl who was murdered.
Um. Really? As we say around these parts…cite? You know what “others” were thinking…how?
**
You posted drunken gibberish. Coldy warned you about it. This was inappropriate…how?
**
You made a self-admittted drunken, uncouth post. That happens sometimes. And got warned. Not the end of the world. Just cause and reaction.
**
No, you were just told you’re responsible for what you post here, drunk or sober. The only way we have to know you is by what you write. Fair’s fair. NO reader can magically intuit your mental state. Hint: Make a boo-boo? Say “oops”.
‘henceforth’? I disagree. I think that we judge most people by current standards of beauty in most situations.
I was trying to make the point in my earlier post that the strong social prejudice against plain people, which i suspect is still suffered more by women, may have undermined the young woman’s sense of self-worth, and contributed to her risk.
I think getting up in arms about an unflattering comment on her appearance demonstrates and even supports this social prejudice.
Or is it a cultural prejudice?
And is there a spell-check on this board?
I don’t think I had any more attitude than TV did. And some people are just not gonna click. And I am really sick and tired of arguing over this. We got nowhere, and now it is turning into an elementary playground with the name calling.
