Octopus Overlords

As frequently happens, has articulated beautifully what I was trying to convey.

Blackhawk wrote:

McNutt wrote:I don't think ID has anything to do with a desire to do harm to others in this case. What I was trying to say is that for a 12 year old to not understand that a) what they were doing was wrong, b) it would not make them welcome in a fantasy character's mansion, and c) death is permanent, seemed to indicate a severe lack of mental capacity. I don't buy their excuse. The fact that they actually stabbed the girl was just pure evil, not innocent kids getting caught up in fantasy.

How many twelve-year-old children who have not experienced death first hand can really comprehend what 'permanent' and 'forever' really mean? They know what the word means, but truly comprehending it is something that takes life experience.

Likewise, 'right' and 'wrong' as moral (rather than legal/'get in trouble') concepts are based off of compassion and empathy, something we develop early, but which is defined and strengthened, again, through life experience. I dislike watching people suffer loss, as I have suffered loss and understand the pain that it causes. Had I never suffered loss, my understanding would be greatly diminished.

Most twelve-year-old children do, in a way, have a 'severe lack of mental capacity' - their brains aren't fully developed, they lack the physical structures that adults use for informed decision making. They also don't have the experience in life that is necessary to really understand the impact of certain things.

Yet most (like 99.999%) 12-year olds do not attempt to stab their friends to death. Why?

I wasn't arguing this precise case. I was arguing that point that 12 year olds in general have a full understanding of the meaning of death, an innate understanding of right and wrong, and a developed decision making ability.

Something absolutely went wrong somewhere in this case. Something somewhere broke. Without a lot more information (and a psychology degree), I don't think we're going to guess what it was until and unless that information is released.

Toe wrote: Yet most (like 99.999%) 12-year olds do not attempt to stab their friends to death. Why?

Because knowing what you are going to get into trouble for and knowing the more complex implications of "right and wrong" are vastly different.

My father died when I was 12 from leukemia. I was told of his condition years before his death and knew full well what it would mean when my father died. Nobody had to explain to me what it meant to die, even when I was nine. I was well aware of that. There are things that 12 year old kids don't fully understand, but the wrongness of repeatedly stabbing a person isn't one of them.

funnygirl wrote:

Toe wrote: Yet most (like 99.999%) 12-year olds do not attempt to stab their friends to death. Why?

Because knowing what you are going to get into trouble for and knowing the more complex implications of "right and wrong" are vastly different.

And yet, kids get into trouble all the time, so clearly they are making some judgment about what is right and wrong.

I'm totally fine with a sliding scale of adult punishment. I think it's pretty clear that right and wrong is malleable and people learn at different ages. But it's also pretty clear that stabbing someone (hell, even stabbing an animal) 19 times is wrong is learned long before 12. There's a reason that young children who engage in animal cruelty are considered disturbed. Normal people learn very early that it's wrong.

Yeah, I agree that something is haywire somewhere. It is just the trying them as adults that I can't see. But truthfully, I don't know what that entails. I have heard possible sentence of 65 years in prison if found guilty, but what does that mean? Do they keep them in a juvenile facility until they reach 18? Keep them in an adult prison but away from the general population? I just don't know enough about it to make an informed opinion. It is just so sad on so many levels.

It's great that some of us can provide anecdotes as to why you were different. That's all it is, though - anecdotes. Single experiences.

My anecdote: My mother died of cancer when I was eight. I was told in advance that it would happen, and I knew what death meant. I still had no understanding of death until after she died and I woke up the next morning an realized that my mother simply didn't exist anymore.

My other anecdote: When I was 11, I was screwing around and did a bit of damage to my grandmother's house. She found out, and told me she was going to tell my father. I was so afraid of getting into trouble that I packed a bag full of maps, granola bars, and a toy gun and took off with the intention of walking back to Nevada - from Indiana. I knew that it was a couple of thousand miles, and I knew that it was a 'bad' thing to do, but I did it anyway. When I chickened out a few hours and miles away, I came back to find my house surrounded by police cars. Once I had made up my mind that I was leaving, I quit thinking it through. I didn't analyze whether it made sense, whether it was actually achievable, or what the consequences would be. I simply acted - because I was an 11 year old child and wasn't yet capable of really thinking things through.

Now, I never said that kids don't have a sense of right and wrong. I said that A) that sense is underdeveloped until they have some first hand experience in the world, which is why we supplement kids morality with so many rules. I said that B) this is in general and not an attempt to explain two girls sacrificing another child to Slenderman.

Moliere wrote:Christopher Titus, The Word Retard

I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove, other than Titus can use specious justification to continue using a word he wants to use. His whole spiel there is exactly why the word is problematic. It takes a term that people associate with people who have an intellectual disability and applies it to some of the worst (or at least stupidest) elements of society. It doesn't address at all how hurtful that word is to people with an ID or their families.

Look, I'm not trying to force anyone to stop using the word. I say stupid, possibly hurtful things on a daily basis. I do make an effort to stop, though, when I know that something is particularly hurtful to some people to stop. It's a matter of common courtesy, if nothing else. This is so particularly when the word is an insult to those who are among the least able to defend themselves. I'll also continue to call out egregious uses of the word in an effort to educate people on its hurtful nature. Sometimes it helps. Sometimes it doesn't.

ImLawBoy wrote:

Moliere wrote:Christopher Titus, The Word Retard

I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove, other than Titus can use specious justification to continue using a word he wants to use. His whole spiel there is exactly why the word is problematic. It takes a term that people associate with people who have an intellectual disability and applies it to some of the worst (or at least stupidest) elements of society. It doesn't address at all how hurtful that word is to people with an ID or their families.

Look, I'm not trying to force anyone to stop using the word. I say stupid, possibly hurtful things on a daily basis. I do make an effort to stop, though, when I know that something is particularly hurtful to some people to stop. It's a matter of common courtesy, if nothing else. This is so particularly when the word is an insult to those who are among the least able to defend themselves. I'll also continue to call out egregious uses of the word in an effort to educate people on its hurtful nature. Sometimes it helps. Sometimes it doesn't.

Do you equate this to people who say things like "that's gay" about something that has nothing to do with homosexuals?

I don't like to equate things in that manner, because there are myriad differences in the two usages, but at a high level it's in a generally similar category.

Blackhawk wrote: Now, I never said that kids don't have a sense of right and wrong. I said that A) that sense is underdeveloped until they have some first hand experience in the world, which is why we supplement kids morality with so many rules. I said that B) this is in general and not an attempt to explain two girls sacrificing another child to Slenderman.

Agreed.

ImLawBoy wrote:I don't like to equate things in that manner, because there are myriad differences in the two usages, but at a high level it's in a generally similar category.

It is hurtful to people who are gay in pretty much the same manner.

ImLawBoy wrote:

Moliere wrote:Christopher Titus, The Word Retard

I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove, other than Titus can use specious justification to continue using a word he wants to use. His whole spiel there is exactly why the word is problematic. It takes a term that people associate with people who have an intellectual disability and applies it to some of the worst (or at least stupidest) elements of society. It doesn't address at all how hurtful that word is to people with an ID or their families.

Not exactly the same thing, but analogous: Very NSFW

silverjon wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:I don't like to equate things in that manner, because there are myriad differences in the two usages, but at a high level it's in a generally similar category.

It is hurtful to people who are gay in pretty much the same manner.

I don't disagree that the hurt is quite similar, but when you start "equating" things, it's all to easy to start finding differences in the situations (e.g., homosexuals are, generally speaking, better able to defend themselves and advocate for their positions than are people with an ID). Same reason I try to not to use too many analogies - it's easy to pick apart the differences between the case at hand and the analogy, and then the discussion turns into some kind of semantics debate instead of discussing the real issues.

So please don't take my declining to equate the two situations as somehow trying to lessen the impact of the casual use of "that's so gay" to homosexuals. I just think that both issues stand on their own, and I'm not sure why they would need to be equated to each be valid.

Of course, Moliere may explain why he asked the question and why he believes it's germaine to the discussion, but I'm just going on the short question he asked for now.

Moliere wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:

Moliere wrote:Christopher Titus, The Word Retard

I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove, other than Titus can use specious justification to continue using a word he wants to use. His whole spiel there is exactly why the word is problematic. It takes a term that people associate with people who have an intellectual disability and applies it to some of the worst (or at least stupidest) elements of society. It doesn't address at all how hurtful that word is to people with an ID or their families.

Look, I'm not trying to force anyone to stop using the word. I say stupid, possibly hurtful things on a daily basis. I do make an effort to stop, though, when I know that something is particularly hurtful to some people to stop. It's a matter of common courtesy, if nothing else. This is so particularly when the word is an insult to those who are among the least able to defend themselves. I'll also continue to call out egregious uses of the word in an effort to educate people on its hurtful nature. Sometimes it helps. Sometimes it doesn't.

Do you equate this to people who say things like "that's gay" about something that has nothing to do with homosexuals?

That was the first thing I thought of. I don't see any meaningful difference in this context.

I agree, and I'm not sure why the question was raised except possibly to try to catch you in hypocrisy.

Yes, an adult who is gay is likely to be better equipped for their own advocacy. Struggling gay kids who hear who and what they are used as a mocking or derogatory term can be hurt very badly by it.

Anyway, I don't want to waylay the conversation further.

Moliere wrote: Do you equate this to people who say things like "that's gay" about something that has nothing to do with homosexuals?

You can't say something is "gay" in a derogatory manner that has "nothing to do with homosexuals." The reason you are able to convey your derogatory meaning with the word is because it's meaning is rooted in the hurtful connotations it has. Being ignorant of those connotations is no excuse.

Statement: The new Corvette design is so gay.
Intended meaning: The new Corvette design is so terrible.
Defense of statement: It has nothing to do with homosexuals, it's about a car.
Truth about statement: The statement relies on, and reinforces, a negative connotation of being gay as well as gay stereotypes and decades of hateful anti-gay speech.

Will be 50 on friday, never heard of or knew what a Slenderman was until this incident.

I still haven't researched what Slenderman is. Maybe I should just think of him as a very health conscience gentleman who's very
concerned about his weight.

JSHAW wrote:Will be 50 on friday, never heard of or knew what a Slenderman was until this incident.

I still haven't researched what Slenderman is. Maybe I should just think of him as a very health conscience gentleman who's very
concerned about his weight.

When The Mothman Chronicles came out, I thought it was about some guy with the last name of Mothman. Pronounced like "MOTH-min." Like Zimmerman or Rothman. Not a superhero or monster name like "moth-MAN."

So now whenever I see a reference Slenderman, I think the same way. Some guy last name of Slenderman, pronounced "SLEN-der-min." Makes me think of someone in HR or payroll. Morris Slenderman, CPA.

Dan Savage, who is gay, condemned for using the word "tranny" while holding a discussion about hurtful words.

Moliere wrote:Dan Savage, who is gay, condemned for using the word "tranny" while holding a discussion about hurtful words.

Your point?

Dan Savage has accomplished many things. He is also cruel and arrogant towards anyone who he disagrees with.

ImLawBoy wrote:

Moliere wrote:Dan Savage, who is gay, condemned for using the word "tranny" while holding a discussion about hurtful words.

Your point?

Irony? College PC gone too far?

Moliere wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:

Moliere wrote:Dan Savage, who is gay, condemned for using the word "tranny" while holding a discussion about hurtful words.

Your point?

Irony? College PC gone too far?

Dan Savage is an asshole?

None of which have much to do with this thread or the use/misuse of the word "retarded."

Moliere wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:

Moliere wrote:Dan Savage, who is gay, condemned for using the word "tranny" while holding a discussion about hurtful words.

Your point?

Irony? College PC gone too far?

I don't see the relevance to this discussion. I didn't "condemn" McNutt for what he wrote - I called it horrible and explained why. He in turn didn't act like a jerk about it, as it sounds like Savage might have done based on silverjon's comments. He offered a sincere apology and explained what he really meant. I'm good with him, and I think he's good with me. It's a pretty far cry from the Savage dust up.

Look, if you want to call me the PC police, come out and say it. No need to dance around the issue here. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Since the term "mentally retarded" was introduced to this thread, you've posted four times by my count. First was a link to a Christopher Titus video without any commentary. I addressed it. Your second post was a response to me where you asked whether I equated the issue to using the phrase "that's gay". I answered that. Your third post was a link to a petition to ban Dan Savage from UofC for using the word "tranny", with commentary coming in the form of a rolly-eyes emoticon. I asked what the point was, and you said it's either irony or college PC gone too far, but didn't explain what that had to do with the discussion at hand.

So are you building to something here? Just looking for a reaction? Leading me down a path where you'll eventually have some grand reveal? Whatever it is, just come out and say it already.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Moliere wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:

Moliere wrote:Dan Savage, who is gay, condemned for using the word "tranny" while holding a discussion about hurtful words.

Your point?

Irony? College PC gone too far?

Dan Savage is an asshole?

None of which have much to do with this thread or the use/misuse of the word "retarded."

It does if you have an axe to grind with perceived political correctness gone wild. It doesn't if you've got a terrific son who happens to also have an ID (or are someone who has happened to spend some time — heck, any amount of time — around said wonderful son).

The appropriateness of such commentary in a thread populated by people of both categories is left as an exercise for the reader. It's a classic case of a hypothetical theoretical ideal vs. reality.

There is a happy middle ground between over-the-top political correctness and no attempt to moderate language at all.

Blackhawk wrote:There is a happy middle ground between over-the-top political correctness and no attempt to moderate language at all.

And somehow I find myself a lot farther over to the moderation side of the road. I don't see using hurtful slurs as the free speech hill I want to die on.

And the exchange between ImLawBoy and McNutt was a great example of how to "moderate".

The exchange between Dan Savage and a college student who tried to stand up to him was not.

JSHAW wrote:Will be 50 on friday, never heard of or knew what a Slenderman was until this incident.

I still haven't researched what Slenderman is. Maybe I should just think of him as a very health conscience gentleman who's very
concerned about his weight.

Slenderman is a pretty awesome "scary guy" that I first saw in a cheap (I mean, super cheap. Like mod for an existing game type thing) video game that involved finding a set of cards before Slenderman "got" you. The mechanic, and I think defining scary aspect of slenderman is that if you are looking at him he doesn't move. In the game, if you turned away from him to move, then turned back around to look at him, he would have teleported closer while your back was turned, but looking at him he is perfectly still again. I never actually played it (saw a video of the gameplay) so I'm not sure how you get away once he finds you, but it's pretty eerie to turn your back to him to run away only to look over your shoulder to find he's within arm's reach of you.

I'm sure there's a whole lore associated with him but that's the little I know. He's obviously popular as I said, my son showed me a video of a sonic game that had slender man in the background who teleported closer and closer while sonic ran along the foreground.

I had a little chat with my sons (my daughter doesn't know who slenderman is) last night. I think it is highly unlikely that they will act in the real world based on this fantasy character, but we discussed it anyway. My oldest does get a little scared of the dark and Slenderman does show up in those fears occasionally. I used to suffer ungodly fear of the dark as a kid so I am understanding and he's allowed to come join me in bed if he gets really scared. Once he's calmed down he usually goes back to bed on his own.

Anyway, Slenderman is a horror figure that is more about being chased in an eerie way, than any sort of action/gory way. It is disturbing purely from his complete stillness when viewed combined with his "closer and closer" mode of movement, just out of view.

He looks like a humanoid with extended limbs and torso. Take a normally proportioned body and stretch him taller and his limbs longer. And thin, obviously. Details of his face were sketchy when I saw him, but ghostly white. He appears to be wearing a black suit so that only his face (white) and hands (also white) stand out from the darkness of his clothes. Not sure why I typed that out, you can do an image search in less time than it takes to read it.

So no knives, axes or chainsaws, no anything, really. No horrible visage, no mutilated face, no eyeballs hanging out. Nothing overtly shocking. He just "gets you!". Still, I can see why young children are afraid of him.

Sounds like the weeping angels.

I don't think ILB was moderating in an official capacity. He was asking people not to use the term as a general forum member. Any forum member has the right to do the same thing.

Hell, I woke up last night after about an hour and freaked out with the thoughts of him standing over the bed. It's the first time I've had a nightmare about something other than usual adult panics in I don't know how long.

msteelers wrote:Sounds like the weeping angels.

That could be. You triggered a memory of my son starting to tell me about them (I think) but the conversation never finished and I have no idea what they are or where they are from.

As with everything these days, there's a wiki.

ImLawBoy wrote: So are you building to something here? Just looking for a reaction? Leading me down a path where you'll eventually have some grand reveal? Whatever it is, just come out and say it already.

We may not always see eye to eye ILB, but well done. Well done.

As for me, I prefer to not use terms that are inherently hurtful to someone OTHER than the target. It's not about being PC. it's about not being a dick to people that aren't even involved in the conversation. As Lawbeef points out, "that's gay" is absolutely hurtful to homosexuals, because it takes the very existence of homosexuality and makes it a negative, which is then used to criticize something else. "that's retarded" is obviously hurtful as it takes down's syndrome (a condition that is beyond a person's control) and makes it a negative (which it is, clearly, but hardly a reasonable issue to criticize) and uses it in a cavalier and critical way to all sorts of situations.

If people want to call it overly PC, well that's their prerogative, but that doesn't mean they are right. I think it's only civilized to try to avoid insulting/denigrating people, unless they've shown themselves to deserve it.

Isgrimnur wrote:As with everything these days, there's a wiki.

Yep. Hadn't entered my consciousness enough to warrant an internet search. Until now, I guess.

edit:Ah...right. He did mention it in relation to Doctor Who, now that I think of it. I started him off on the original Doctor Who's in the hopes that we could watch them all the way through, but he got bored in about the second season (all black and white, shoe-string budget. We did get to witness the origins of the Daleks though, which was cool). We never made it to the modern seasons, of which I have seen none.

edit2: Wow, what a disjointed and random entity. I hope their on screen implementation was more interesting than the jumble of randomness the wiki describes.

Has nobody played Minecraft?

What do you think the inspiration for the Enderman was?

Blackhawk wrote:Has nobody played Minecraft?

What do you think the inspiration for the Enderman was?

Notch is one of them eur-o-peans right? Who knows where they get their inspiration.