Author Topic: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)  (Read 5629 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Isn't Barr the jewish cookies in oven whilst dressed as hitler person?

 
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
No, I haven't. But I have also not seen any of the "look at this guy, he was an asshole ALL THE TIME" posts in the drama threads that were made when this blew up; Knowing how these outrage storms work, I would've expected them to exist if Crooks had made such statements.

Expectations are not proof yet you're stating it as fact.   Do you know the time frame between these tweets becoming viral and his account being made private?  Do you know if any of the individuals who interacted with his account have a past history of the kind of behaviour you're describing?  A lot of your judgement comes down to the idea that "Roseanne deserved it, this guy didn't" but that judgement is made in the complete absence of information.

The one screenshot that everyone is sharing, his tweets have not been re-tweeted at all and every one of them has only one or two comments.  There is only one visible reply by another individual: ( https://archive.li/UuEJw )  So where are the screenshots from half an hour later after everyone started to go after him?


The one, real difference between Crooks and Roseanne beyond the fact Roseanne apologized, is that the tweet that got Crooks in trouble is also the tweet that made him famous while Roseanne was famous long before.  So for Roseanne, there's a public history of her past actions and opinions while for Crooks, absolutely nothing that I've seen.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2018, 08:26:05 am by Akalabeth Angel »

  

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Here's the problem with that approach, how many tweets defaming dead people does Crooks have to make that you'd decide he's a liability to his company? And why can't Bioware simply say "One is enough, we're not going to keep someone dumb enough to do this once on our books"

Or to reverse the situation, don't you think that ABC should have done something about Roseanne Barr earlier? If people were already posting articles about her a year back, why does it require twitter outrage before she is fired? And won't trying to hold back the floodgates on this issue mean that horrible people like her stay in place longer?
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Expectations are not proof yet you're stating it as fact.   Do you know the time frame between these tweets becoming viral and his account being made private?  Do you know if any of the individuals who interacted with his account have a past history of the kind of behaviour you're describing?  A lot of your judgement comes down to the idea that "Roseanne deserved it, this guy didn't" but that judgement is made in the complete absence of information.

I don't know why you're so willing to assume that Crooks was an individual who regularly made toxic and controversial statements based on nothing either.
I have exactly as much information as you do. As anyone has, to the best of my knowledge. I am basing my statements and opinions purely on that, while also assuming that an absence of information is not automatically damning evidence.
I mean, while we're at it: You don't know if Crooks has been fired or censured either, do you?

Quote
The one screenshot that everyone is sharing, his tweets have not been re-tweeted at all and every one of them has only one or two comments.  There is only one visible reply by another individual: ( https://archive.li/UuEJw )  So where are the screenshots from half an hour later after everyone started to go after him?

Why don't you ask the people who felt it necessary to take those snapshots?

The one, real difference between Crooks and Roseanne beyond the fact Roseanne apologized, is that the tweet that got Crooks in trouble is also the tweet that made him famous while Roseanne was famous long before.  So for Roseanne, there's a public history of her past actions and opinions while for Crooks, absolutely nothing that I've seen.

And shouldn't that make a difference in the way we talk about these things and what consequences these things should have? Crooks, as far as I can tell, made one misstep that blew up. Barr made many missteps that apparently became too hard for ABC and Disney to ignore; Even while making her apology, she was still retweeting attacks on Jarrett along racist or anti-islamic lines. As far as I am concerned, that renders her apology somewhat invalid. If Barr can have such a long and well-documented history of bad behaviour online without consequences, but Crooks needs to be fired right now for his one documented misstep, then there's an imbalance there that requires addressing.
If I'm just aching this can't go on
I came from chasing dreams to feel alone
There must be changes, miss to feel strong
I really need lifе to touch me
--Evergrey, Where August Mourns

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
I think there's a big difference at play here between Barr and Crooks, and conflating the two only to garner points to the tribalistic narrative (what about Barr, huhh?) is not a legal move in my book.

I think, contra karajorma, that the whole Barr situation was well handled. Yes, she had previously done ****ty things and said ****ty things, and thus we can conclude that there *was* a degree of tolerance given to her that wasn't given to Crooks, and enough time so that she could realise she shouldn't speak publicly in this manner before shutting her career down.

There's also the catch that Roseanne Barr is herself the name of a show about herself. She's the one who conflated her personal opinions with a marketable brand / show, so when one becomes untenable, so goes the other.

Which brings me to the point I am trying to express here, which is a bit pretentiously more general. I am deeply skeptical / concerned about the speed to which these social media tools are (prepare for marxist jargon now) turning social relations into relations between things or brands or corporations. Bygone is the era in which someone's opinions were personal and individualistic. No, they must conform to whatever the corporation that owns their ass wants to, or else they may well be fired.

If by any chance their personal thoughts on any matter kickstart some dumb twitter mob against them, there's this kind of green light for campaigns to fire a person, the corporation then duly fires the person arguing that they were some kind of "PR nuisance", which means that right now every single one of our personal opinions are amenable to corporative censorship. If you still believe that this is a "good thing", since it's a kind of a break that stops racist douchebags from dominating the public sphere, I could say "but Trump" (and win that argument by default), but I will not, I will wholeheartedly disagree with you in the very conceptual phase, because here the incentive is not to "be a responsible and upstanding person in society", but rather "how much your opinions are hurting Corporation X or Y".

This in turn changes the whole silly notion of a "marketplace of ideas" into a zombie nightmare of a phrase that becomes all too real. The commodification of personal thoughts and ideas, the worker's alienation not just of the product of their own work as Marx predicted, but of their own personas, their own identities themselves. No longer can anyone still pretend they can work for someone else so that they may live their personal lives with some wealth of their own, no, they also have to live their personal lives in the service of their bosses.

This will only get worse.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
The E's point speaks directly against yours though.

I mean, while we're at it: You don't know if Crooks has been fired or censured either, do you?

Taking that as a given, what harm has actually been done to Crooks that both of you have spent two pages complaining it was too much?
« Last Edit: May 30, 2018, 09:33:38 am by karajorma »
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Seriously? I don't know about you, but I would hate to lose my job because I made some stupid tweet. I'd actually panic over that.

The E's point speaks directly against yours though.

How so? He acknowledges the imbalance, I'm suggesting that if we are to address the imbalance, we should prefer to fail towards more tolerance, not less.

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
I mean, while we're at it: You don't know if Crooks has been fired or censured either, do you?

Taking that as a given, what harm has actually been done to Crooks that both of you have spent two pages complaining it was too much?

I would consider the fact that he now has a hatedom enough. I mean, we're talking about the kind of people who (and this is no joke) message me annually about a conversation I once had on twitter with Adrian Chmielarz in which I dared to opine that twitter conversations have a limited shelf-life....
If I'm just aching this can't go on
I came from chasing dreams to feel alone
There must be changes, miss to feel strong
I really need lifе to touch me
--Evergrey, Where August Mourns

 
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Expectations are not proof yet you're stating it as fact.   Do you know the time frame between these tweets becoming viral and his account being made private?  Do you know if any of the individuals who interacted with his account have a past history of the kind of behaviour you're describing?  A lot of your judgement comes down to the idea that "Roseanne deserved it, this guy didn't" but that judgement is made in the complete absence of information.

I don't know why you're so willing to assume that Crooks was an individual who regularly made toxic and controversial statements based on nothing either.
I have exactly as much information as you do. As anyone has, to the best of my knowledge. I am basing my statements and opinions purely on that, while also assuming that an absence of information is not automatically damning evidence.


I'm not assuming that Crooks was toxic in the past, I'm saying it's wrong for you to assume that he wasn't.  It would also be wrong for you to assume that he was.  If you are comparing two tweets, and for one person they have a long history and for the other there is nothing, then you can't consider that history in the comparison if you're actually trying to be objective.

I mean, while we're at it: You don't know if Crooks has been fired or censured either, do you?

Is it relevant to this discussion? In both cases, a company publicly distanced itself from an individual in reaction to one specific tweet.  For purposes of the comparison the distinction is unimportant.  The more unknown variables are present in a comparison, the harder that it is to make a basis for comparison, so to make a valid comparison you must eliminate as many unknown variables as possible. Crook's history compared to Barr's is a HUGE unknown variable and if disregarded, then so to would be Barr's.  The specific circumstances of Crook's relationship with Bioware at the time are not 100% known so, you simplify each incident until the reaction is the same - hence a company publicly distancing itself from an individual.


And shouldn't that make a difference in the way we talk about these things and what consequences these things should have? Crooks, as far as I can tell, made one misstep that blew up. Barr made many missteps that apparently became too hard for ABC and Disney to ignore; Even while making her apology, she was still retweeting attacks on Jarrett along racist or anti-islamic lines. As far as I am concerned, that renders her apology somewhat invalid. If Barr can have such a long and well-documented history of bad behaviour online without consequences, but Crooks needs to be fired right now for his one documented misstep, then there's an imbalance there that requires addressing.

Many of Barr's statements that you consider missteps pre-date the airing of her sitcom (including the article you linked), so how can you claim that those had any bearing on her firing?  Can you prove that ABC/Disney considered any other tweets when choosing to cancel her show?

As for Roseanne's tweet, yeah it was racist and racism is bad.  Ultimately if your opinion is that racism is bad and deriding the dead is meh then that's your opinion.   But inherently from a social standpoint, one can argue that racism is perceived as worse because that's what society has taught us.  When Kramer and Dog the Bounty Hunter used the N-Word, they got in ****, just two examples of people being reprimanded for white racism against a minority.  But deriding the dead? Is that a thing?  As one canadian comedian pointed out, when Michael Jackson was alive everyone said he was a big pedophile, when he died everyone celebrated his life (everyone being mainstream media).   Is there a history of people behaving as Crooks has done and have those people faced backlash or apathy for their comments? I don't know and I suspect other people in this discussion don't either.  But is our ignorance from a lack of derisive comments, or from a lack of reaction to comments that do exist?

And of course as I mentioned far earlier, another factor in the comparison is your view of the individual targeted by the offensive tweet.  From what I can tell you disliked TB, whereas the subject of Barr's tweet is . . . some old lady who advised Obama? Personally I've never heard of her but I would guess your opinion of that person was amicable.

Point is if you want to objectively compare two things, these are all variables and factors that need to be considered and expressed.  And if the number of variables is too large then you simply cannot compare the two to any meaningful degree.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2018, 08:28:27 pm by Akalabeth Angel »

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
I'm not assuming that Crooks was toxic in the past, I'm saying it's wrong for you to assume that he wasn't.  It would also be wrong for you to assume that he was.  If you are comparing two tweets, and for one person they have a long history and for the other there is nothing, then you can't consider that history in the comparison if you're actually trying to be objective.

The only thing I am assuming here is that Crooks was a normal Twitter user who was largely unremarkable.

Quote
Is it relevant to this discussion? In both cases, a company publicly distanced itself from an individual in reaction to one specific tweet.  For purposes of the comparison the distinction is unimportant.  The more unknown variables are present in a comparison, the harder that it is to make a basis for comparison, so to make a valid comparison you must eliminate as many unknown variables as possible. Crook's history compared to Barr's is a HUGE unknown variable and if disregarded, then so to would be Barr's.  The specific circumstances of Crook's relationship with Bioware at the time are not 100% known so, you simplify each incident until the reaction is the same - hence a company publicly distancing itself from an individual.

I would remind you that it wasn't me who brought Barr up. I was asked to compare the two. I did. That's all.

Quote
Many of Barr's statements that you consider missteps pre-date the airing of her sitcom (including the article you linked), so how can you claim that those had any bearing on her firing?  Can you prove that ABC/Disney considered any other tweets when choosing to cancel her show?

Where do you get this idea that Barr hasn't made offensive or questionable comments after her show started airing?
And of course ABC was aware of her Twitter persona. Unless you want to assume that that part of her persona was completely ignored when the show was in production and on air? I mean, you could, I just don't see that happening.

Quote
As for Roseanne's tweet, yeah it was racist and racism is bad.  Ultimately if your opinion is that racism is bad and deriding the dead is meh then that's your opinion.

Glad we got that cleared up.

Quote
But inherently from a social standpoint, one can argue that racism is perceived as worse because that's what society has taught us.  When Kramer and Dog the Bounty Hunter used the N-Word, they got in ****, just two examples of people being reprimanded for white racism against a minority.  But deriding the dead? Is that a thing?  As one canadian comedian pointed out, when Michael Jackson was alive everyone said he was a big pedophile, when he died everyone celebrated his life (everyone being mainstream media).   Is there a history of people behaving as Crooks has done and have those people faced backlash or apathy for their comments? I don't know and I suspect other people in this discussion don't either.  But is our ignorance from a lack of derisive comments, or from a lack of reaction to comments that do exist?

We used to live in a world where there were massive barriers between people doing outrageous things and others being able to find out that they did.

Quote
And of course as I mentioned far earlier, another factor in the comparison is your view of the individual targeted by the offensive tweet.  From what I can tell you disliked TB, whereas the subject of Barr's tweet is . . . some old lady who advised Obama? Personally I've never heard of her but I would guess your opinion of that person was amicable.

Why? All I know of her is that Barr made racist comments about her.
If I'm just aching this can't go on
I came from chasing dreams to feel alone
There must be changes, miss to feel strong
I really need lifе to touch me
--Evergrey, Where August Mourns

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
Seriously? I don't know about you, but I would hate to lose my job because I made some stupid tweet. I'd actually panic over that.

As I pointed out The E keeps saying that we don't know he lost his job.

Taking that as a given, what harm has actually been done to Crooks that both of you have spent two pages complaining it was too much?

I would consider the fact that he now has a hatedom enough. I mean, we're talking about the kind of people who (and this is no joke) message me annually about a conversation I once had on twitter with Adrian Chmielarz in which I dared to opine that twitter conversations have a limited shelf-life....

So conjecture about possible harm then? Play fair at least. If you've continually shot down conjecture from others you aren't allowed to use it yourself.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Turambar

  • Determined to inflict his entire social circle on us
  • 210
  • You can't spell Manslaughter without laughter
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
I could certainly lose my job over a tweet.  That's part of why I'm not on twitter and I don't run my dumbass mouth in some stupid tweets. 

Is it not up to each person to make that decision?
10:55:48   TurambarBlade: i've been selecting my generals based on how much i like their hats
10:55:55   HerraTohtori: me too!
10:56:01   HerraTohtori: :D

 
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
There are also people that have "doing Twitter" as their job, or at least as a central part of it.

 
Re: Internet Drama, part infinity+1 (Split from TotalBiscuit has died)
I'm not assuming that Crooks was toxic in the past, I'm saying it's wrong for you to assume that he wasn't.  It would also be wrong for you to assume that he was.  If you are comparing two tweets, and for one person they have a long history and for the other there is nothing, then you can't consider that history in the comparison if you're actually trying to be objective.

The only thing I am assuming here is that Crooks was a normal Twitter user who was largely unremarkable.

And what does "normal Twitter user" mean exactly?
If I were to say "normal Youtube user" that can mean a racist, sexist, homophobe.  (See Battlefield V Trailer)

Either way, you're still making a baseless assumption with zero proof to back it up.

Being an observer of human nature, I don't think that comments like those made by Crooks pop out of nowhere.  You don't go from nice, boring guy to defaming the dead in a 9-tweet rant the next day.  Usually it's a pattern of behaviour where you say offensive **** until the one day where someone takes particular exception.