The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.

Not sure if Lith is going to get back to me. Perhaps he, too, follows the "be on offense at all times, never give an INCH" school of debate.

Anyway, I might as well start picking apart his last post, yeah?



Lith: "How do you know Stewarts work doesn't lead to harassment Tan?"

I don't know that. It's possible his work does lead to spikes in harassment. We should be able to tell based on how much of that harassment mentions Jon by name and how much of it coincides with the release of his Palin skits. If that's the case (which you claim), then that shows that there are people looking for reasons to harass and they will use Jon Stewart's comedy as justification for their own shitty behavior. I find that a little hard to swallow, but you're saying that's what the evidence shows so I guess I'll take your word for it.

That in and of itself in no way implies that Stewart is harassing Palin. I don't know why you ignored me the first time I pointed this out, but Stewart is a famous comedian who performed satire as part of his comedy show. His purpose was, like South Park, to get laughs. That doesn't mean he can't draw attention to actual issues or take jabs at real people, but it certainly offers him protection from being accused of harassment, since in the end he was just making jokes.

You talk about threats to Sarkeesian and I'm not sure why. While threats certainly count as harassment, harassment need not be threat-based, and her claim was that the harassment she receives increases exponentially after popular YouTubers create attack pieces about her. I would imagine this is backed up both by how closely these spikes occur to when the attack pieces are released and by references made by the harassers to the Youtubers in question (which I have seen many examples of).




Lith: "We are both offering a media personality, lampooning someone who is being critical of something else (Sark video games and now even politics, and Palin on Politics.) and then a claim that harassment rises during that time."

No. You're intentionally being vague here to draw a false equivalency. Thunderf00t is not a comedian. What he does is not satire. He makes sincere and mean-spirited personal attacks and, unlike Stewart, doesn't even base these attacks on facts. Stop trying to pretend a comedian making jokes and an angry provocateur making attack pieces are the same thing because they are both "discussing celebrities". TF is not "poking fun", he's trying to destroy someone professionally by taking an active role in a smear campaign that happens to feed into the desires of angry morons looking for justification for their witch hunt. They are not in the same category, as much as you'd like to pretend they are.




Lith: "In every metric, John Stewart harassed Palin, according to you. You can't admit how retarded that is, because you're a troll. Really all there is to it."

This is an idiotic statement. You should be ashamed for saying shit like this with a straight face, especially since you're so quick to toss out the "troll" label. How about the "metric" that HE'S A COMEDIAN MAKING JOKES FOR A COMEDY PROGRAM and there is nothing hateful or provocative about his work? That's a pretty fucking important metric, and it directly contradicts your asinine statement.

We're talking about a man who goes on hateful, angry rants based on misinformation designed to villainize someone, which leads to a direct increase in real-world harassment suffered by his target, and you keep trying to scale it back to "discussing a celebrity", "poking fun", "criticism", etc. I know what you're doing. You keep trying to apply my stance to situations where it doesn't fit so you can claim I'm pro-censorship or anti-criticism or something but that's bullshit. Sarkeesian gets harassed regularly by people who hate her. When some click-baity opportunists release attack pieces designed to destroy her reputation, that harassment increases. That's the idea behind the statement she was making in the original post I responded to, which I only responded to in the first place to point out that yes, that is indeed harassment (which at least 9 definitions support). No need to straw man me with your "square peg into round hole" awkward rationalizations. Your conclusions are not logical and do not draw from the actual discussion at hand. You're more interested in being "right" than having an actual discussion, so you're literally arguing against stuff I've never said in order to score points. Grow up, man. At least acknowledge that there was nothing wrong with the definitions I found, and that what Sarkeesian describes IS harassment. At least have the moral integrity to do that, before you make another snark-filled post that ignores the actual point to set up yet another awkward straw man.

Quaid: "Guys, Palin is an acceptable target for personal attack & discrediting because she's a conservatard. Stewart's pieces on her fall under the umbrella of 'legitimate criticism' because he is a liberal approved satirist.

This isn't that difficult to understand."

Is this supposed to be related to the discussion at hand? For the life of me, I can't make any connection between this and anything that's been said so far. Did you post in the wrong thread?

Cad: "You know he's not going to respond to you guys. A coherent response that doesn't reverse himself is pretty much impossible. So he's working out of the playbook: ignore, pretend it didn't happen, couple weeks later, claim victory and continue on."

I have literally no idea what you're talking about.

Lith and I were having a discussion about harassment. This started when I confirmed that a Sarkeesian quote he linked does actually describe harassment. He questioned the validity of "my" definition and then attempted to draw a false equivalence between Jon Stewart (!) and Thunderf00t. That's pretty much all that happened.

Whatever Hodj and Khalid are jerking each other off about will not get a response from me because I don't read their posts. I'm sorry if this offends you but I'm not going to subject myself to that garbage. A few other posters made bizarre comments about "legitimate criticism" despite that having absolutely nothing to do with this discussion about harassment. Your'e going to blame me for not engaging trolls?

There's nothing for me to "reverse" here, Cad. I have also never, never just "pretended something didn't happen", which is a LOT more than I can say about the guys you're supporting (again, this is why we have an ignore list). And what exactly am I going to "claim victory" about? Providing acceptable definitions of "harassment"? What the fuck are you even talking about? Go back to dog-grooming, poseur.