Hypocrisy & Psychopaths

[btm805@btrtx9.hrz.uni-bayreuth.de (B. Gramlich)]

Maybe it's just me who got a little concerned about the way people are treating
each other here, but it looks like we have to put some things right before we
can jump into the next (Who or off-topic) argument.

Mark, Re:

> It's all because the blacks in this country are descended from slaves
> brought over to America by Europeans. I'm not one of those Europeans,
> however (in fact, along with my German blood I have some Cherokee and a bit
> of Dutch...that's right, I'm a mutt)...my ancestors were still in Germany
> (etc.) when slavery ended. Why then would I be the victim of some of the
> hatred, should I post a joke with them in it?
> And that pretty much shows where the hypocrisy is, I'd say.

I don't think that it matters where your ancestors are from or what your own
curriculum vitae looks like:  When you are posting a joke (or an anecdote, a
remark, or whatsoever) concerning a certain social group, then you are
responsible for its content.  There are two reasonable negative reactions you
might have to expect:

   (1)  Someone not belonging to that group says:  `I think your joke violates
   good taste.'

   (2)  A member of the group shouts:  `Ouch!  Your joke really hurts me.'

In case (1), you can discuss with the complainant whether he/she is right or
wrong, but it would be rather wise not to post any more jokes (derogatory
remarks, ...) on the same topic just to prove that they sound cool.  In case
(2), you should stop immediately and apologize.

However, if

   (3)  someone not belonging to the group shouts:  `Ouch!  Your joke really
   hurts me'

then this is a) ridiculous and, most likely, b) hypocrisy.  We saw this in our
recent analysis of Fang's scalper joke.  But by the same time, we also saw some
listers reasonably react like (1) - do you really think that they were also
hypocrites?

Fang, Re:

> Situation: Mark David Chapman, Ted Kaczinski & Jeffrey Dalmer (before he met
> his fate) are now on the list.
> 
> a) Do you care?
> 
> b) Would you like to know about it?
> 
> c) Do you think others should be informed?

I think it's too easy to just reduce the problem to these three questions.

First of all, we have read the advice `Get some help!' way too often on this
list.  By heavy use, this has turned into a blunt weapon, but it still hurts if
you are hit.

Secondly, we should not do wrong to RT by over-generalizing his case:  All we
know about him from within this list is that he

   - seriously overreacted in his crusade against off-topic postings,
   - refuses to apologize for having done so,
   - is lurking right now - neither willing to comment on his behaviour nor
     to join the current Who-related discussions.

Additionally, you and some other listers have told us about very strange
contents of his home page.  Altogether, this sums up to a weird picture.  But:
Do you really know why he has stopped distributing his harassing e-mail and why
he doesn't speak up in this forum anymore?  Is it just because you frightened
him with your threats?  Or couldn't it be that he saw his mistakes but doesn't
want to talk to us about them because he expects to be treated without mercy
here?  Concluding that he `needs to get some help' seems a little rash to me...

Now to your questions.  To answer them, I have to consider several cases.

   (1)  Suppose we have some psychopath on the list, but he/she is either
   lurking or participating in a reasonable fashion.

      a)  No.  b)  No.  c)  No.

   This is The Who mailing list.  We are (in the first place) discussing the
   band and not our personal moral values or social behaviour.  Anybody is
   welcome to participate - respectable fans as well as people with personal
   problems.  No one has to reveal more of his private identity than he/she
   wants to.  And I don't even care where people are connecting from - be it
   from at home, at work, a psychiatric hospital, a prison cell, or whatsoever.

   (2)  Suppose we have some psychopath on the list who has behaved once in a
   questionable manner here.

      a)  No.  b)  No.  c)  If they care.

   If someone misbehaves once, but acts reasonably or lurks thereafter, then I
   have no reason to treat him/her other than I treat anybody else.  Others may
   think differently (`Wasn't this the guy who...?'), though.

   (3)  Suppose we have some psychopath on the list who shows unreasonable
   aggression over and over again.

      a)  Yes.  b)  Yes.  c)  Yes.

   If someone obviously is a danger for society, everybody has to care.

In case (3), it is appropriate to publicly ask the person in question to `get
some help'.  In cases (1) and (2), however, this would rather be an insult than
a good advice, even if you knew for sure from other sources (with stronger
evidence than personal web pages) that said person is a psychopath.  If you
want to give the advice to `get some help' anyway, do so in private e-mail.

Scott, Re:

> 2. The "censorship" debate is one of the more entertaining non-Who topics
> I've read in quite a while. Unlike similar debates on other lists, almost
> everyone involved in the discussion has valid points.

Nice that you have enjoyed it so far.  But I think it's time to finish it now.
Other topics might be even more interesting and entertaining...

Cheers,

Bernd