Motor mouth calling someone mouthy. Priceless.
Wasn’t this exact scenario an episode of The Brady Bunch? It was one of “those” episodes (with Sam).
ETA: apologies to those who do not consider “Sam” episodes canon.
If the shoe fits…
There was a Brady Bunch episode about a guy who wrote rapey hypotheticals, but people loved him anyway and handwaved away the rapey stuff? Sheesh, I should have watched that show more often! :eek:
All day long on the board I hear how great kayaker is at this or how wonderful kayaker did that! Kayaker, kayaker, kayaker!
I’m one of “y’all”. I’m guessing you’re a guy so you really have no reference point of how some women might view these threads. In other words, you’re mansplaining how I should feel about them. You have no right to do this and that’s true even if you’re a woman. Stop telling me, or Expecto, or anyone that our feelings are invalid.
I’ve been getting the creeps from Skald’s hypotheticals for awhile now, and no, Big T, I haven’t been holding some kind of grudge for years and years. No one else seemed to feel like I did which I didn’t understand. However, when I looked at Giraffe Boards, people DID understand. I wasn’t alone in feeling that they’re creepy and exploitive. And now I understand why no one posts objections here: Because they get piled on by his fan club. So call it some kind of mean girl gangbang, but the reality is that people have had enough of what’s viewed as abuse and exploitation in** Skald’s** hypotheticals. If you don’t see it that way, why doesn’t it matter to you that quite a few other people do? One person, ok, maybe “crazy”. But a group of people? Maybe there’s something there. I know it’s easier to label and dismiss.
I know nothing will change, but at least I’ll know I voiced my objections.
This board has gotten more sexist in general. Look at the demographics. From a lot of the polls, unless women aren’t voting in the “I’m a woman and…” or “I’m a man and…” type polls, women are outnumbered about ten to one. So if you only want to talk to a bunch of guys and a handful of women, you’re on your way.
I don’t get into sustained, pointless exchanges so I may or may not respond to any replies. Don’t take it that I’ve been owned.
All hail the mighty kayaker! (I say this as one of his admirers.)
A rather unfortunate metaphor.
Excellent post; I couldn’t have said it better.
My observations and experiences here are very similar. When I joined the board, I immediately noticed Skald—it was impossible not to. I thought he was tedious, frequently creepy, and way too invested in his status as a Dope celebrity. But I also noticed that he was very popular, so I figured it was just me. It was only when I found the GB that I realized I wasn’t the only non-fan of the revered Skald.
I also learned that things typically don’t go well for people who complain about him on the SDMB. Skald has been pitted several times, and each time his admirers rush in with a lot of how-dare-you, you’re-outta-line harrumphing. Well, I didn’t sign a Skald Loyalty Oath when I registered here, and neither did anybody else. The over-the-top defensive reactions in this thread baffle me; nobody on the Dope is, or should be, above criticism.
Fortunately for me, the mighty Skald rarely deigns to post in threads he didn’t start, so it’s easy enough to skip over his stuff. That doesn’t mean I can’t point out that his fixation on sexual abuse, and the dismissive attitude of his fans about that fixation, is creepy and repulsive.
There’s a lot to unpack here.
First, I don’t really consider you one of y’all. The “y’all are crazy” isn’t directed toward you; it’s directed toward Fenris, morgenstern*, penfeather, and a few others. Your posts are generally more thoughtful, and I weigh them more heavily.
Second, nowhere did I tell you how you should feel. Go back and check if you’d like. If you’re creeped out, okay. I no more expect you to apologize for that than I expect myself to apologize for not being creeped out. There’s shit that creeps me out and not other people.
But what I called crazy was the long list of links to “rape”, when several of them didn’t link to anything rapelike at all, and others mentioned rape only in passing, or hyperbolically. That’s not about feelings, that’s about facts. If you gotta call that mansplaining, you do you; I’ll have to roll my eyes, so I’ll do me.
I respect you. The stuff you (I think) brought up, about the PMing women a decade ago, is the most genuinely disturbing thing anyone in the thread has mentioned. But given everything else swirling around here, I’m withholding judgment on that part.
Yup.
I don’t think he’s fixated on sexual abuse. If you think it’s creepy and repulsive for me to draw a different conclusion than you, well, you do you.
- Y’all gotta fight between you for who gets to take their red crayon out for this special bonus passage: I I I I me me my I me I I me I my myself me I I I
I’m not trying to be dismissive, I just don’t get how people make the leap from what Skald writes to “OMG! Skald’s a sicko!”
I mean heck, there is (or was?) a long running show called: “Law and Order: Special Victims Unit” And they’re way worse than anything Skald does. Yet, I haven’t seen any outrage over what they do.
EXACTLY!
As I said before, there’s this modern cliche of describing villains not by any interesting new characterization, but simply as “rapist” or “pedophile” or “sex murderer” or “pedophile murderer” or whatever. Personally I don’t care for it at all (including in Skald’s hypotheticals by the way, which makes it weird to find myself described as part of his fan club), and I don’t watch SVU or read many modern thrillers for this reason.
But it’s lazy writing, just as it’d be lazy a half-century ago to write about commies, or three centuries ago to make all the villains be witches. It’s shorthand for evil, not interesting characterization.
Seeing someone who uses this cliche, and concluding that they’re some sort of pervert, is very akin to reading Steven King and concluding that he’s secretly a monster who kills children.
Maybe it’s easier for those who’ve had to contend with guys who were “a little off” who later revealed themselves to be sickos, rapists and child abusers to recognize another one when they see them. I mean, if you hail from some small tropical island nation where the largest predator is the size of a mongoose you won’t comprehend the steps you need to take when you move to bear country. People raised in bear country know all about bear scratches on trees, bear fur caught on a twig, bear tracks, bear shit and bear noises. None of that will be at all obvious to YOU, however, and you’re likely to think the natives are nuts for being so paranoid.
I think its official. Everybody hates everybody here.
You should really check out the Rule 34 Brady Bunch stuff floating around out there. 
Take a slightly different metaphor: people who have been in battle might be better at recognizing the sound of gunfire, but they’re also really bad at recognizing loud bangs that aren’t gunfire as not gunfire.
That’s a good analogy. It reminds me of the old Tootsie Roll commercial: ♪…Whatever it is I think I see, becomes a Tootsie Roll to me…♪
Well, since Skald admitted he used to frequent a humiliation porn website, before he “decided that porn was extremely bad for [him] and had to be abandoned”, I’d probably lean on the battle veteran’s side.
You and SHS have so much in common. Nearsighted, uninformed, mislead, baffled and confused. You make me fear getting old.
Huh.
Speaking only as a poster, I find his hypotheticals disturbing and believe they do reflect a pattern that gives me pause. I also don’t think the folks pointing that out are blowing it out of proportion or being creepy, themselves, by being aware of it.
That said, one can recognize the pattern and find less distasteful explanations, or not think there’s a pattern at all, and that doesn’t mean they’re blind to the problem, just that they view it differently. But you can count me among those who find it offputting and it makes me uncomfortable.