Gimmicks are WRONG?

[KeoSilver]

But Scarecrow your missing the big picture of this entire thread. It proves that anything can offend or tick someone off. Be aware of that when you are yourself in front of clients, what yourself may find funny others may not.

Lets not start talking magic and start talking reality. They mix together believe it or not.

 

[Kris Deagle]

All I can say is get back on topic and stop talking about politics and racism. Do any of you really believe you can change someones opinion on an [size=+3]INTERNET FORUM!!![/size]. Get back on topic. Period. This is ridiculous and pathetic. (not talking about you RealityOne, I'm talking to some other guys) Put your big egos down and talk magic. MAGIC!!!! Geez....

Wanna see a magic trick? Watch me make this argument disappear...

 

[scarecrow1]

But Scarecrow your missing the big picture of this entire thread. It proves that anything can offend or tick someone off. Be aware of that when you are yourself in front of clients, what yourself may find funny others may not.

True, people can be quite sensitive (which is something I try to eliminate to a certain extent in my life). But I don't get why you said "Be aware of that when you are yourself in front of clients, what yourself may find funny others may not."
Could you explain?

Lets not start talking magic and start talking reality. They mix together believe it or not.

Again, true. But there is no reason to talk about politics and racism on a magic forum. If it's helping you magic then fine, but this is not.

 

[scarecrow1]

Wanna see a magic trick? Watch me make this argument disappear...

Nice. Nice.

 

[Steerpike]

Steerpike: Shut the hell up even more. Can't take you seriously without all of your cursing.

Finally. Somebody with some balls. Word of advice though... You may want to drop the preconceived notions about profanity. You don't want to underestimate someone based on their tendency toward four-letter words. From one who knows.

Although I normally don't quote Wikipedia....

So... you're saying that in not kicking Will in the nuts for making that joke, I'm somehow indirectly supporting a century-dead debate about bull**** science that was long ago discredited and a set of unconstitutional laws that could never actually happen in the modern world?

As a result, it was not humorous to me.

Didn't say you had to find it funny. Just don't get on a soapbox about it.

My original post on this topic was about how words influence opinions and opinions influence words. I don't think anyone is disagreeing about that.

No, we're just disagreeing with you blowing it so dramatically out of proportion.

However, I see no place for a joke denigrating people with disabilities in a magic forum.

Do you actually think they care? I've met disabled people before, physical and otherwise, and as long as you don't take their parking space they're cool with a few jokes.

I thought long and hard on this and came up with nothing.

Because you know as well as I do that there's a faction around here who will slit my throat the instant I show a sign of weakness.

 

[KeoSilver]

True, people can be quite sensitive (which is something I try to eliminate to a certain extent in my life). But I don't get why you said "Be aware of that when you are yourself in front of clients, what yourself may find funny others may not."
Could you explain?

Look at the generation now a day, have you ever told a joke that your mother didn't find hilarious say like "Winning an argument is like getting first place in the special olympics." but your friends and everyone in school found it to be the funniest thing in the world? That is what I mean, since people are inclined to be themselves when they perform they may make very non-tasteful jokes that don't fly far with certain crowds and get into trouble. Basically I am throwing back to that now buried thread where people decided to ask what yourself is.


PS

I am still waiting for a resume

PPS

*Brandishes his Rambo Bowie Knife*

 

[scarecrow1]

Look at the generation now a day, have you ever told a joke that your mother didn't find hilarious say like "Winning an argument is like getting first place in the special olympics." but your friends and everyone in school found it to be the funniest thing in the world? That is what I mean, since people are inclined to be themselves when they perform they may make very non-tasteful jokes that don't fly far with certain crowds and get into trouble. Basically I am throwing back to that now buried thread where people decided to ask what yourself is.

I totally see what you mean about humor. But when did I ever say anything about humor? Seems like you brought that up out of nowhere.

PS

I am still waiting for a resume

PPS

*Brandishes his Rambo Bowie Knife*

 

[Sir FansAlot]

I've always liked that guy "reality." He seems like a good guy. I got his back.

 

[KeoSilver]

I've always liked that guy "reality." He seems like a good guy. I got his back.

If that is so,

"I reject your reality, and substitute it with my own." -Adam Savage

 

[Randy]

This topic sucks and is now about pornstars.

Would you date one and would you have a problem with her job being that she is being railed by a different guy each day/week.

 

[Kris Deagle]

Would you date one and would you have a problem with her job being that she is being railed by a different guy each day/week.

No and obviously.

 

[RealityOne]

Don't be a smart ass now and condradict your professionalism, you don't want to soil your bronze star. *shines it for ya.*

I called you self righteous because you felt the need to insert your opinion on a harmless joke that has been said time and time again.

I guess that is where we disagree. I don't think the joke is harmless because it (intentionally or unintentionally) evidences an attitude that I think is harmful.

No I said they can stand up and defend themselves.

Not disagreeing there.

You know I was once considered mentally challenged and by some I probably still am, I have the meds to prove it. You are not challenged or have never been called by a doctor mentally impaired but you taking up a defense against retards like me voluntarily is so self righteous in my eyes. Did I ask you to defend me? Did I ask for your help? That is the misconception, mentally challenged people don't want your pity! We Value our independence, plus the ones who need help from day to day life probably can't read or comprehend the comment that this entire cluster **** was started with.

I did not know that about you and obviously, you did not ask for my help. Please do not misconstrue my comments as "pity" for the mentally disabled. My objection to the underlying sentiment of the "joke" was that it insinuated that regardless of what a mentally disabled person accomplished that they will be solely defined by their disability.

Tell me why shouldn't I be jealous? He is working for real audiences and getting paid. I am not. He has age (No offense) and knowledge that I don't have now. If you are basing your opinion of him off of what he posts, you are not only self-righteous but shallow.

I wasn't bashing Steerpike. I was just saying that jealousy isn't healty. I respect Steerpike and generally agree with him (granted that is based on what he posts, so I'm not sure if that makes me self-righteous).

 

[RealityOne]

So... you're saying that in not kicking Will in the nuts for making that joke, I'm somehow indirectly supporting a century-dead debate about bull**** science that was long ago discredited and a set of unconstitutional laws that could never actually happen in the modern world?

No need to kick Will in the nuts. I think Rev (who was the first person who posted about the "joke") got it right by saying "that's not cool." The reference to eugenics was to make people think. Would the "science" have taken hold if more people had said it was "bull****" or said "that's not cool"? Would it have been discredited if someone hadn't spoke up and said "that is wrong"?

No, we're just disagreeing with you blowing it so dramatically out of proportion.

Yes, but you and Silver are equally culpable for blowing things out of proportion. A simple response to my original post could have been, "Yeah, that joke was in poor taste, but I'm sure Will didn't mean to offend anyone" and I wouldn't have even responded.

Because you know as well as I do that there's a faction around here who will slit my throat the instant I show a sign of weakness.

Unfortunately, that is the nature of the forum.

 

[RealityOne]

Look at the generation now a day, have you ever told a joke that your mother didn't find hilarious say like "Winning an argument is like getting first place in the special olympics." but your friends and everyone in school found it to be the funniest thing in the world? That is what I mean, since people are inclined to be themselves when they perform they may make very non-tasteful jokes that don't fly far with certain crowds and get into trouble.

And that may explain a lot. I'm probably closer in age to your mother than to you.

 

[Steerpike]

Would it have been discredited if someone hadn't spoke up and said "that is wrong"?

Yes. As knowledge of genetics advanced, those studies were found to be incompatible with the discoveries made. They did not hold up to the evidence, and were thus dismissed as erroneous. That's science. It has nothing to do with people saying, "You can't do this."

The legislation itself was repealed because the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional anyway, so the scientific validity or lack thereof is ultimately a moot point.

Yes, but you and Silver are equally culpable for blowing things out of proportion. A simple response to my original post could have been, "Yeah, that joke was in poor taste, but I'm sure Will didn't mean to offend anyone" and I wouldn't have even responded.

Very easy to say that after the fact, isn't it?

 

[RealityOne]

Yes. As knowledge of genetics advanced, those studies were found to be incompatible with the discoveries made. They did not hold up to the evidence, and were thus dismissed as erroneous. That's science. It has nothing to do with people saying, "You can't do this."

The legislation itself was repealed because the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional anyway, so the scientific validity or lack thereof is ultimately a moot point.

Not exactly. I could spend two hours doing an in-depth analysis of Buck v. Bell and Skinner v. Oklahoma, but instead I'll rely on Wikipedia out of laziness (and better things to do):

Skinner v. Oklahoma is often erroneously credited with ending all compulsory sterilization in the United States. In reality however the only types of sterilization which the ruling immediately ended were punitive sterilizations—it did not directly comment on compulsory sterilization of the mentally disabled or mentally ill and was not a strict overturning of the Court's ruling in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927). Furthermore, most of the over 64,000 sterilizations performed in the USA under the aegis of eugenics legislation were not in prison institutions or performed on convicted criminals; punitive sterilizations made up only negligible amounts of the total operations performed, as most states and prison officials were nervous about their legal status (which were not affirmed in Buck v. Bell specifically) as possible violations of the Eighth ("cruel and unusual punishment") or Fourteenth Amendments ("Due Process" and "Equal Protection Clauses"). Compulsory sterilizations of the mentally disabled and mentally ill continued in the USA in significant numbers until the early 1960s. Though many of their laws stayed on the books for many years longer, the last known forced sterilization in the United States occurred in 1981 in Oregon. Over one-third of all compulsory sterilizationsin the United States (over 22,670) took place after Skinner v. Oklahoma.​

Very easy to say that after the fact, isn't it?

To paraphrase George Santayana, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[Steerpike]

Not exactly. I could spend two hours doing an in-depth analysis of Buck v. Bell and Skinner v. Oklahoma, but instead I'll rely on Wikipedia out of laziness (and better things to do):

Okay. I still don't how we are going to make the leap from lame joke to culling retarded people from the population.

To paraphrase George Santayana, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

And you think I am going to somehow be indirectly responsible for a mass segregation?

 

[RealityOne]

Okay. I still don't how we are going to make the leap from lame joke to culling retarded people from the population.

Eugenics was just a very extreme example of what has happened when it becomes acceptable to affix a label to a group of people and use that label to define and denigrate that group. I agree there is no causation in this instance.

And you think I am going to somehow be indirectly responsible for a mass segregation?

No, that was just me playing with double meanings. The learning from history was meant in a humorous way to apply to my slippery slope argument but more so it was meant to apply to taking this thread way off track.

 

[Steerpike]

Eugenics was just a very extreme example of what has happened when it becomes acceptable to affix a label to a group of people and use that label to define and denigrate that group. I agree there is no causation in this instance.

Well if we agree that there is no causation then we can agree that slippery slope arguments as a result are not particularly effective, nor are they very favorable to use.

 

[RealityOne]

Well if we agree that there is no causation then we can agree that slippery slope arguments as a result are not particularly effective, nor are they very favorable to use.

Agreed. However, my original reference to eugenics was as an example. I never said that would happen if Will keeps posting jokes. You transformed that reference into into a causal argument so that you could counter that example by characterizing it as a slipery slope (admittedly a well played move).