People are screaming at me over on ERV blog about not making a formal announcement that Richard Dawkins is god-like because he’s donated a bunch of foundation money to a child care project. That’s wonderful that he did that, but I’m not a member of JREF, was not at TAM, do not get newsletters from any of these people and the last time I had a conversation with Dawkins it was at a memorial service of a shared fallen colleague which had nothing to do with atheism or skepticism. So, I was never sent anything about this, didn’t hear about it anywhere except from ERV, and officially I don’t know nothin’ about this but you are welcome to read about it here.
Speaking of there, John C. Welch, IT tech who claims to be a writer and analyst, a boy who likes his toys, hates me. Vitriolically. I haven’t seen this level of hate since Salty Crackergate or the Brian Pesta Follies. This guy has one serious bug up his back side. But his vitriol will not stop me from awarding him the coveted Best Worst Comment of the Day Award, usually provided on my facebook feed but in this case double posted:
“…”correct” feminist compatriots, Greg-Fucking-Laden” … “
The rest was inarticulate. Sorry.
John C. Welch is looking for a job, by the way. Here’s his web site. I hope he gets a position at a place with either no elevators or no women, or both. Because he reserves his right to follow women onto elevators and make them uncomfortable and gets VERY mad at anyone who disagrees with him. I also hope his prospective employers don’t check the internet to get a bead on what kind of guy he is. Hell, I’m thinking of taking out a bloggy restraining order on him myself if necessary.
(John C. Welch is also famous for an ill fated botched attempt at a primitive sort of denial of service attack (not to be confused with a DDOS attack) on my blog, which is funny because as an IT professional that makes him bot unethical and incompetent. Oh and his book
I already pointed to Rebecca Watson’s interview on Point of Inquiry. Here I just want to remind you that there is a “comment section” for that podcast in the form of a forum.
And finally … watch your back:
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Is that what happens in the otterman empire?
Don’t get any exaggerated notions of your importance, Greg — this Welch guy hates EVERYONE vitriolically. And incoherently. (Although, to be fair, I’ve only seen him repaste of an entire thread on your thread. So far.) He’s also demanded that PZ praise Dawkins for his childcare donation, after PZ had already called it commendable — and after lashing out at PZ with a paragraph full of insults that had nothing to do with any subject of any blog post.
Short answer: he’s nucking futs. Or maybe an alcoholic.
Non sequitur: In what way would I perceive his vitriol as a measure of my importance? A guy like that probably beats his dog too.
He even beats up his own visitors on his own web site.
Greg, I was kidding. Sorry if that didn’t come through the ‘tubes.
Hi Greg.
How’s the knee? How is steph (I saw her IQ post on american scientist…lol).
B
I’m disappointed the CFI forum is continuing the Rebecca bashing. I’ve weighed in, but I fear I am the overwhelming minority.
Raging Bee: I know.
Gwen: Probably not a minority of people who are watching. Sexist and racist voices tend to be loud and screechy and multiply in other ways.
Whoever the Minnesota Zoo has doing its PR is doing great. Love this video. I passed a billboard on 494 today that shows penguins, and just says, “it’s all about the waddle.”
I’m responsible for a DOS attack on your site?
As that is actually, not technically, but actually a real crime you’re accusing me of, you best have some proof I did what you’re accusing me of.
That is as serious as me accusing you of falsifying data on a paper you wrote.
What?? A post upholding otter privilege??? You obviously haven’t read up on otter rape culture!!
http://blogfishx.blogspot.com/2008/05/sea-otters-worse-than-seals-in-some.html
You are probably anti-seal…
What next, a post about Ann Sexton????
John, I’ll leave the technical details to you, being all expert in this area and all, but the multi-megabyte file you uploaded into a comment caused us some problems and I do not appreciate that at all. Your comments from here on are in moderation and you are on notice. Behave or you are out of here.
Also, I would appreciate it if you would instruct your minions to not bother sending me nasty emails. No biggie, I do have a spam filter, but it will do them no good when I publish them on my blog as per our policy.
And never, ever again use phrases such as “you’d best have” and and other accusatory lingo with me, in this forum.
“the multi-megabyte file you uploaded”
So, since you don’t know what the Hell you are talking about, you can accuse John of a crime? You should probably have a bit more to go on than ignorance before you start leveling accusations.
Hey Greg, can I have the IP from this guy? I would love to see it, and spider it.
Nope, that’s all I have to go on. I’m the first to admit that I’m not an expert on these things. John Welsh, however, is an expert on these things. Perhaps he can explain his motivation for doing what he did, or alternatively he can let us know that it was just a stupid rookie mistake.
I’m responsible for a DOS attack on your site?
Posting an unusually large comment that contains absolutely nothing of substance — just a re-paste of the entire thread really — does kind of go toward DOS territory. Also, at least one commenter complained of slow loading of the page due to said spam comment of yours. So yes, your spam-dump kinda did what DOS attacks are known to do. As someone who calls himself a “tech geek,” you should know better than to do something like this, intentionally or not. IANAE, but I think Greg can stand by his words here, and safely ignore your defensive bluster. You’re either an idiot or a childish sore spammer.
If it quacks like spam…
I would just like to state right out front that I refuse to touch any quacking spam.
Also, boo to unexamined privilege.
I’m sorry, what exactly is your proof that anyone at all tried a DOS attack on your site?
@Alan Baker: It’s a limited form of DOS, but uploading multiple megabytes worth of text through a comment form is not a normal usage of the form, and can be reasonably assumed to cause some problems on the server. Some blog software may limit this automatically, but apparently the ScienceBlogs CMS — is it Moveable Type? — doesn’t.
I AM an engineer, though not privy to the details here (just basing this on Greg’s comments above); with that caveat, I’d consider that knowingly malicious, though probably not nearly enough to get into legal trouble. It’s more like putting a dog turd into the neighbor’s mailbox than putting an M80 through a mail slot.
Snerk.
Greg, you had me going there. Good one, point to you sir.
As far as the “multi-megabyte file” i uploaded? Lolz. Watching you play with computer tech terms is as funny as watching Chopra abuse “quantum”. I mean, you use the words, but you have no clue as to the mechanics behind them. The fact that SB still uses, for some bizarre reason, one of the most fragile comment engines in blogging, (the whole damned thing should have been outsourced to Disqus ages ago), doesn’t make my own normal verbosity a “DoS” attack. Not even close.
But then, as an IT person, you’re good anthropologist.
Awesome ignorance dude. Also, love the continued misspelling of the name. Not as funny as “twatson” mind you. You should go for the better bon mots I heard as a kind. “Belch” was a particular fave of some of the kids.
Rob W @19
Dude, I’d no more risk my professional career and livelihood with DoS attacks on some dippy anthropologist I *don’t even know* than he would fake data in a paper just to get back at some random asshole on the internet. Besides, given the particular comment CGI SB seems to be using, it’s happy to fall down on its own because the day ended in a “y”.
Ah, I haven’t had the joy of dealing with scientists misconceptions about IT since…wow, 2000 or so. Nice to know some things haven’t changed.
As far as the “multi-megabyte file” i uploaded? Lolz. Watching you play with computer tech terms is as funny as watching Chopra abuse “quantum”. I mean, you use the words, but you have no clue as to the mechanics behind them. The fact that SB still uses, for some bizarre reason, one of the most fragile comment engines in blogging, (the whole damned thing should have been outsourced to Disqus ages ago), doesn’t make my own normal verbosity a “DoS” attack. Not even close.
So you’re not actually denying you did anything wrong…just hiding behind a superior attitude and blaming others for not being dilligent enough. (Oh, and it wasn’t YOUR verbosity, it was, as I already pointed out, an indiscriminate copy&paste of an entire very long web page.)
Word-usage quibbles aside, the fact is that you deliberately posted a large amount of what any reasonable person would call SPAM, and that resulted in at least some degradation of performance. And now, instead of denying it or apologizing, you’re playing word-games and making excuses. You’re an arrogant childish twit, and even by “tech geek” standards, you ain’t all that. I’ve known and worked with “tech geeks” for decades, and very few of them are as immature as you.
You say you’re looknig for a “new gig?” I wonder what sort of work you’d find if employers found the rubbish — and, yes, malicious spam — you’ve posted on this blog over your name.
@Greg Laden & Raging Bee (and others of your ilk): Dear Sirs, as a frequent reader of Tech and Science blogs and someone familiar, not personally aquainted, with him: I can tell you that John Welch is opinionated and not afraid to use all sorts of words. You seem similarly opinionated (with different opinions obviously) and unfraid to use lots of, though perhaps more “civilized”, words.
He expressed verbose opinions on a comment forum that overloaded the system, yours not his, and you ascribed malicious intent. He was simply communcating in his normal manner.
So, other than your choice (I’m comfortable assigning it to subconcious) to address him with an incorrect but more british rendering of his last name, how exactly are you two particularly different?
Well, one way we are different from each other is that we are not sock puppets.
He expressed verbose opinions on a comment forum that overloaded the system…
No, he did not express an opinion; he posted an indiscriminate copy&paste of an entire blog post plus comments plus side-notes, linked text, and every other bit of text one finds on a web page like this. Practically none of the words in that comment were his own. It was not a verbose argument, it was spam, plain and simple(minded). If that’s his “normal manner” of “communication,” then he’s an extremely immature asshole who needs remedial manners training. What sort of “tech geek” is unfamiliar with one of the most basic principles of netiquette?
bradisrj is a Welch sock-puppet? Are you sure? He/it certainly sounds like one — pompously coming to the defense of his “acquaintance” without offering any new information to prove his/its/their case. He/it is either a sock-puppet or a sycophant — his blog shows plenty of the latter.
Actually, the bit that particularly makes me wonder in someone looking for a job is in a different comment. In a post on behavior that makes women comfortable versus uncomfortable, who asks a woman who says she’s going out of her way to explain things nicely to hop into an email discussion with him instead of talking things out publicly??? I mean, really, who would hire someone with that kind of social “judgment”?
Can’t say for sure whether that comment was sock puppetry. There’s someone out there of that description who uses that handle, but his comments tend more toward this: http://www.theangrydrunk.com/2011/05/31/fuck/
…who asks a woman who says she’s going out of her way to explain things nicely to hop into an email discussion with him instead of talking things out publicly???
That’s a standard tactic of people like Sal “Wormtongue” Cordova when they find themselves losing a public argument: invite one of his adversaries — probably the one whose arguments sound weakest of most conciliatory — and invite him/her to continue the debate in a forum the dishonest loser can control, isolated from others who are most effectively disproving his arguments.
I also notice that the comment functions no longer work on Welch’s blog. Wonder why…? Kinda surprising after all his knowledgeable “tech geek” snide remarks about SB’s primitive technology…
@Greg – I am my own sock puppet, not John Welch’s. I assume you moderate your own comment forum so you are welcome to email me (as email addresses are required to post) and I’ll respond from there if there is any point. Or is your remark not an actual inquiry?
@Raging Bee – I will agree that John posted a bunch of content he was “quoting” so while he was expressing opinions – intentionally in context – his actual comments were a small part of his actual post. Regarding your “clever” quips, I am a “he” and I think your remarks demonstrate more pretentiousness than mine – imho.
@Stephanie – I think the comment of mine that you linked to was not particularly representative. I was trying to be funny in a purposely juvenile manner, but I’ll leave the judgement of success or failure to others. http://disqus.com/bradisrj/
And to all: my initial post was intend to be neutral, pointing out how, though your styles differ widely, you and John seemed uninhibited in expressing strong opinions. John’s are nearly always profane and commonly (but not always) dismissive of other perspectives – when he feels someone is outside their expertise and yet speaking authoritatively. (You know, this last graph does sound kind of “pompous” when I read it so I give on that. I’m only trying to be precise…)
Restated: I was trying to be a voice of reason, by noting that, while you use nicer words, you and John both seem to go right at insulting anyone you think doesn’t get your point or doesn’t seem to know what they are talking about. That was my observation … in a nut.
I will agree that John posted a bunch of content he was “quoting” so while he was expressing opinions – intentionally in context – his actual comments were a small part of his actual post.
Bullshit. AS I SAID MORE THAN ONCE BEFORE, he re-pasted the ENTIRE PAGE indiscriminately, including all the irrelevant and peripheral side-notes and linked text. That’s not quoting (which is a selective action), it’s spamming, and can lead to denial-of-service.
I was trying to be a voice of reason…
No, you were LYING about the facts of the incident. I must repeat the crucial word here: LYING.
I also notice that the comment functions no longer work on Welch’s blog. Wonder why…?
Comments on his blog seem to be working fine. Are you not logged in to Disqus?
I was not “LYING”, mistaken perhaps… Please link to John’s post that you are so mad about as to be screaming – at me. If I’m just mistaken and nothing in his post is his words, then I’m sorry and will admit to being wrong. If I’m not mistaken then I’m not sorry.
Either way, I’m not lying…
You repeated a falsehood, after ignoring the facts when I pointed them out TWICE. Looks like lying to me.
Dave: still no comments. The number of comments does not appear in the parentheses, and the commnents themselves don’t appear when you click on a post. And no, logging in isn’t the issue — I wasn’t logged in before either.
Yeah…still no response from you about that rapist sea otter…I mean if one is a rapist sea otter, they all are–they have a switch.
“The evidence against Morgan is circumstantial – no one has witnessed an actual seal killing. Unlike many rehabitated otters, he does not carry a radio transmitter and is identifiable only by his distinct flipper tag. But researchers report he has been observed assuming a mating position with a seal and then been seen roughing it up. Soon thereafter, Morgan has been spotted floating with the dead seal in his grip or nonchalantly grooming himself alongside its body
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/e/a/2000/09/03/NEWS674.dtl#ixzz1Spjv77vd
@ Raging: I didn’t repeat a “falsehood” I restated (repeated if you prefer) an opinion. I actually haven’t seen the post that is the source of the whole fight and stated (and restated) and opinion regarding it. Then when you went all “reasonable” (yeh, snarky) on me, I asked you to post a link so I could read for myself weather I was wrong or not.
Since lying is deliberately stating something you know is not true, I am by definition NOT lying. Clearly, you are sure I am wrong so I’d like to see the evidence and as stated before (there I go again restating like a madman) I’ll admit I’m wrong, if I am.
Oh and by the by, I just posted on http://www.bynkii.com/archives/2011/07/holy_shit_1.html#comment so whatever is going on, it ain’t closed for posts. I guess I’m saying you’re mistaken, while not accusing you of lying.
“weather” is a joke. Okay?!
bradisrj, what John did is copy an entire blog post, its 250+ comments, and all of the sidebar material including the blogroll into a comment in order to say something about one comment just prior to his. It could be an honest mistake, but it’s not an easy one to make without noticing. If it isn’t a mistake, it is a dick move that created hellish load times for the page (which is enough of a hot topic to have gotten that many comments even before John posted and flounced), reasonably construed as Greg described it. I dunno which it is, since John can’t even own up to having done it.
You didn’t even know what was being described, which made it pretty dumb to be telling those of us who were there what happened.
Raging Bee, I’m seeing blustery, stupid comments on John’s site, as well as yours, so the problem isn’t universal.
You repeated your “opinion” as a factual assertion, without regard to the facts as already stated by others. And you didn’t label it an “opinion” until after you were called on it. Making a false statement, with certainty, and without regard to easily available information that it might be false, kinda looks like lying to me.
As for a link, the offending comment has been removed. I can, however, quote a comment of Greg’s in response to it:
John, I think you accidentally posted the entire internet into that comment. How about if you post a clean version of what you meant to post as a new comment, then I’ll delete that misfired missive! Thanks.
another thing, bradisrj: why is this brave, verbose, blustering “not afraid to use all sorts of words” tech geek suddenly silent, absent, and letting his friends take the heat for him?
Also, I’m still not seeing comments on Welch’s blog, even when I use your link. There may be something wonky about the particular PC I’m using, which isn’t (IIRC) the same as the one from which I posted my last comment. I’ll look again from a different station.
Stephanie: I don’t see how re-pasting an entire page could be done by msitake. There’s at least four steps here: select all; copy; paste in comment text box; post. It’s theoretically possible to do all that unknowingly, but not bloody likely. At the very least, the sudden highlighting of everything on the page you’re looking at should be a tip-off.
been on and off reading JCW for some time now, and whilst the vitriol is there, it’s what he does, does well, and with a large amount of value – his essays are peppered with “profanities” (slack word that, freighted with too many years of balderdash). But at no point has he ever been disingenuous, mealy-mouthed or fake offended. (and don’t be so self important to think I’m accusing the frocks here of the opposite).
Absolutely no way he would stoop to basement script kiddie tactics to make a point, that’d be following a cannon with a pea shooter.
As pointed out, you’re using a poorly implemented comment system that rolls over when it gets landed on by an anaemic mosquito.
And, good move, the medium gets blamed when the message can’t be defended.
So, whether or not your argument has substance, you banned marathons because you couldn’t go the distance.
Trite and glib. I win double bonus.
Absolutely no way he would stoop to basement script kiddie tactics to make a point…
Except once, he did. And AFAIK, he still has yet to own up to it.
So, whether or not your argument has substance, you banned marathons because you couldn’t go the distance.
Excuse me, who banned what, exactly?
@Stephanie (#40) thanks for the full description. I wrote something more clever in response to you and Raging Bee, but I deleted it (by accident). It wasn’t so clever as to be worth reconstruction so I’ll just sum up with this:
Lacking some context, I attempted to explain what I know of John and roused more ire. John can certainly be a dick, he is even a named “owner” of a blog where the trio call themselves angry mac bastards. John posting exactly what you describe without any additional explanation seems like a dick move to me. Was there nothing else there in his point?
@Raging Bee – I have no idea why John is silent, bored with it I suspect. My continuing responses are focused strictly on what I’ve written.
As pointed out, you’re using a poorly implemented comment system that rolls over when it gets landed on by an anaemic mosquito.
If the system is at fault, how come we’ve only seen this sort of malfunction ONCE?
I do. I think I don’t count as a friend of somebody I have on my killfile 😉
So there seems to be a problem that may be technical.
Well, Raging Bee, I won’t rule out blind drunk, but that’s all I could think of.
bradisrj, I think his only real point in the text he added was that he though Raging Bee was pussy whipped. As for being bored, I wouldn’t count on that either. After he flounced here last time, he post normally voluminous comments on the topic on a friendlier site for quite a while. I think he just doesn’t like having to deal with people who tell him why he’s wrong in a way he can’t effectively laugh off.
@ Stephanie – bored could be a poor choice of words. I doubt he is concerned about “…doesn’t like having to deal with people who tell him why he’s wrong in a way he can’t effectively laugh off.” I’d be more inclined to say that he and Greg (and Raging Bee and maybe you) are at am impasse. The sides don’t even agree on the terms of the dispute and he’s gone to other “friendlier” environs, out of a different sort of frustration. The sides are metaphorically speaking Gaelic vs Navaho; fwiw: I’m placing no intrinsic value on one over the other.
That is my opinion, okay Raging Bee ;-), for which I have no evidence, only gut.
Speaking of ‘crackergate’, all this kerfuffle about R. Watson reminds me a bit of that. All she did was say something like “hey guys, don’t do that – it’s creepy” and suddenly folks act like she was Osama Bin Laden or something. Then Dawkins steps in the shit and you get the nuts who say Dawkins is the devil and then the folks who can never see Dawkins do wrong. I disagree with ERV on a lot of her opinions on the matter. For one, if Dawkins were making donations to show what a good guy he is, folks would simply say he’s trying to buy people off. Dawkins and his foundation fund many things; what he does fund doesn’t necessarily have anything whatsoever to do with his inappropriate comment on PZ’s blog.
I was able to see comments on Welch’s blog from another PC last night (but still not from here). Welch’s latest idiotic excuse for the spam mega-comment is (IIRC) that he re-pasted the entire bloody blog page back onto the blog page to avoid “quote mining.” Really? Welch is the only tech geek on Earth who isn’t skilled enough to avoid quote-mining any other way?
This Welch guy is an ignorant self-important hothead who did something stupid (and probably malicious), and is now doubling down on the hotheadedness while offering weaselesque excuses to cover for a mistake he can’t bear to admit he made. He may have mad tech skills, but his manners are crap.
For one, if Dawkins were making donations to show what a good guy he is, folks would simply say he’s trying to buy people off.
The problem here is not Dawkins’ motivations. I think the facts pretty clearly prove he’s donating money to meet a need that he, RW, and many other prominent atheists have been acknowledging for a long time; and I think everyone agrees he deserves unequivocal credit for it. I still think Dawkins is a dick and a piss-poor “leader,” but there’s ZERO evidence to imply any nefarious ulterior motive behind his institute’s latest donation. The problem now is that Dawkins’ more rabid and hateful fans (including ERV in her last post on the matter) have seized on Dawkins’ perfectly sensible and useful action as an excuse to shout down his critics and pretend his good deeds trump everyone else’s right to criticize him. Which is, sadly, exactly how the Catholic Church’s apologists have been responding to the clerical-child-rape scandal. Dawks did the right thing here, but his fans just threw shit all over it in their blind desperation to bash RW. This whole thing made the atheist “community” look like shit even before the “men’s rights” scumbags brought their sad, repulsive agenda into the pile-on.
I think his only real point in the text he added was that he though Raging Bee was pussy whipped.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAH!!!1!1!11!!
I definitely have my issues with Raging Bee, some rather strong ones actually. But the thought that Raging Bee is “pussy whipped” or otherwise controlled by someone else is just too fucking hilarious for words. That is more absurd than the notion that I am a rather mild mannered, sweet and cuddly teddy bear.
You’re not?
DuWayne = Sweetums. It’s totally true.
Oh, and it’s not “tech skills” to be able to press Ctrl-A, Ctrl-C, click, Ctrl-V, click post. Just saying.
I see Raging Bee is as much an idiot here as he is on Welch’s blog.
Look. Dimwits. Copying and pasting text is not a DoS attack. No matter Laden’s subsequent backpedaling on the matter, the original criminal accusation (and what Laden is accusing Welch of is a crime) was based on absolutely nothing more than laden’s ignorance. Continuing to discuss Welch’s personal motives for an act that is based purely on Laden’s ignorance and imagination is to essentially admit you are too stupid to grasp the fact that Laden’s claim is bluster without merit.
Continuing to blither about the imagined DoS attack as an indication of Welch’s low character or malicious intent is merely histrionics. Unless you are seriously going to continue to assert that “Ctrl-V” is now a form of network attack.
“His Shadow?” Sounds like the title of a pretentious piece of BDSM erotica. Somehow I’m thinking a better handle might be “His Sockpuppet.”
“Shadow,” The facts of this incident, as already described by me and others, prove you’re being dishonest and evasive. Splitting hairs about whether Welch’s act was a chargeable offense, doesn’t change the fact that it was an indiscriminate spam-post that did indeed have the effect, intended or not, of slowing operation — which is how denial-of-service attacks deny service. Nor does it change the fact that it was a pointless thing to do, and could only have been done by ignorance or malice, not as a valid means of communicating on the Web.
Continuing to blither about the imagined DoS attack as an indication of Welch’s low character or malicious intent is merely histrionics.
Continuing to ignore specific facts is indeed an indication of low character. If Welch had posted that hunk of spam by mistake, why can’t he just admit it and move on?
I don’t believe there was malice in Welch’s actions (which, yes, when you repeat ~250 posts in a thread as a single comment, doubles the bandwidth of that thread and makes it slower to render). I do, however, believe there was inattention bordering on stupidity that does not behoove a technological prodigy such as Welch evidently has a reputation for being.
Or, as Stephanie says, possibly booze.
As far as I can tell, Welsh is nothing but malace. That particular comment was probably him being an idiot, but his commentary in general pure shit. And, he has no clue as to what anthropology is. I’m confident that I could do his job with only moderate training but he coudn’t even conceive of mine.
When I get a chance, I’ll post the email he sent me. Pure malice spiced with ignorant ranting. No, he should never be hired anyplace where humans work. That’s my personal opinion, but a very supportable one and one that he is more than welcome to sue me for stating publicly, as has been threatened.
The Golden Rule is the tool rational people use to determine the morality of our actions. “How would I feel if that happened to me?” It’s a good tool, and serves us well in most cases. We see the problems when other criteria are used instead. Among the poor alternatives are scripture or tradition, etc.
But the Golden Rule is NOT directly helpful in this case. Because as males, when we ask ourselves “Would I feel offended if someone offered a casual complement of my physical attributes?”, the answer is almost always No.
I’m talking in normal setting, amongst adults. Locked in a violent prison is NOT a normal setting, and would be handled differently. No other similar situations occur to me. But in a normal setting on the street, on the job, on campus…if someone told me ‘you got a nice ass’, the response of any man wouldn’t be anything other than amusement and perhaps feeling a little flattered. When men apply the Golden Rule here, the answer is “I would not be offended if someone treated me this way.”
In fact, it leads us to opposite conclusions. “I would feel amused or flattered if I received this type of comment.” And also, “Having offered such a complement, I would not enjoy being chastened — those women are failing to apply the Golden Rule in their response.”
So what is being asked here id for men to ignore the Golden Rule, and instead, take it as given that the behavior is bad, without further evaluation. Rationalists are not good at that.
Using the golden rule is only rational if one assumes that everyone is in the same situation and wants the same things. How rational is that?
Because as males, when we ask ourselves “Would I feel offended if someone offered a casual complement of my physical attributes?”, the answer is almost always No.
Actually, that’s not an answer you can routinely expect from men. Yes, I’d be flattered, in the abstract, but I’d also be a little disconcerted, for a variety of reasons: if it’s a guy, he could be gay and I’d have to find a tactful way to preempt any further advances (I’d want to say no without sounding mean or insulting, and I’d wonder what I was doing to make him think I was gay, because I’m NOT GAY GODDAMMIT!!!); or he could be implying I’m a pretty-boy or otherwise less than fully masculine, which could mean some kind of threat or intimidation in the offing. And if it’s a woman making the comment out of the blue, with no words or flattering attention from me prompting it, then I may have to worry about some desperate or possibly crazy woman bothering me — the kind I would not want close to me, no matter how hot she was.
So no, a rational application of the Golden Rule would NOT necesarily lead to a conclusion that a woman would welcome unprovoked compliments on her appearance; for the simple reason that it’s not that simple for men either.
Because as males, when we ask ourselves “Would I feel offended if someone offered a casual complement of my physical attributes?”, the answer is almost always No.
Actually, that’s not an answer you can routinely expect from men. Yes, I’d be flattered, in the abstract, but I’d also be a little disconcerted, for a variety of reasons: if it’s a guy, he could be gay and I’d have to find a tactful way to preempt any further advances (I’d want to say no without sounding mean or insulting, and I’d wonder what I was doing to make him think I was gay, because I’m NOT GAY GODDAMMIT!!!); or he could be implying I’m a pretty-boy or otherwise less than fully masculine, which could mean some kind of threat or intimidation in the offing. And if it’s a woman making the comment out of the blue, with no words or flattering attention from me prompting it, then I may have to worry about some desperate or possibly crazy woman bothering me — the kind I would not want close to me, no matter how hot she was.
So no, a rational application of the Golden Rule would NOT necesarily lead to a conclusion that a woman would welcome unprovoked compliments on her appearance; for the simple reason that it’s not that simple for men either.
@RB
“And if it’s a woman making the comment out of the blue, with no words or flattering attention from me prompting it, then I may have to worry about some desperate or possibly crazy woman bothering me”
What’s your evidence for that? Men are notoriously more violent than women. What evidence can you provide that a woman would be desperate, or crazy for saying a nice thing?
That is incredibly thinly disguised sexism, and denies women a voice that men have had for all of time. You must think women should shut up–be seen and not heard.
That is incredibly thinly disguised sexism…
No, it’s undisguised abstract speculation. Go to bed, you stupid troll.
That is incredibly thinly disguised sexism…
No, it’s undisguised abstract speculation. Go to bed, you stupid troll.
Greg, when are you going to post that email from Welch? You got us in suspense after telling us about his pathological anger toward…stuff. C’mon, we need a good laugh…
Greg, when are you going to post that email from Welch? You got us in suspense after telling us about his pathological anger toward…stuff. C’mon, we need a good laugh…
Well, in fairness, a woman making a comment like this out of the blue would strike me as pretty creepy. How do you know the woman making such a comment was definitely desperate or crazy? Well, you don’t know. And that’s the point — all you *do* know is that it’s a socially inappropriate comment, and that makes the motive and/or judgment of the other individual immediately suspect. Maybe they just have a case of foot-in-mouth disease, but we’re talking about a first impression here; who’s going to stick around to find out if they’re actually a decent person or someone who is clueless about social boundaries or a stalker or worse?
I didn’t get anything in RagingBee’s comment that would imply he thinks women should shut up. I got that he thinks the Golden Rule isn’t always as easy to apply as one might think, and we should all be sensitive to that before approaching strangers. A compliment you’d like to receive isn’t necessarily one that they’d like to receive.
The Golden Rule doesn’t really mean do to others EXACTLY as you’d want done to you. It means that if you want to be treated as you like, you should also treat others as *they* like, insofar as that is practical. Go beneath the superficial level. Don’t just think about whether you’d like the compliment (though that’s a good place to start). Think about how they might interpret it, and how it might make them feel (not just how it would make *you* feel), and evaluate the action in that context. Yeah, you’ll crash and burn sometimes; people aren’t always easy to read, especially strangers. But it’s worth the effort. If you genuinely think the compliment will be well-received, go ahead and present it! But if it flops, move on. If the flop bothers you, maybe consider why it flopped and incorporate your findings into future situations.
Yeah, I’d like to see the email from Welch too. You… DO have an “I publish stupid emails” policy, right?
Welch is a wacko nutjob with the maturity of a 7th grader. He’s into defamation and other illegal activities, but he doesn’t care. He lives in Kansas City because he can’t hold down a real job in Silicon Valley. He thinks AppleScript is a real programming language and is a wannabe programmer. No one in their right mind would want this sewer-mouthed moron in their workplace.
I don’t know–the guy sure is windy, but he has that good old post-top secret clearance and all.
And, RB, just because you are an old, unemployable relic of 80’s cocaine addiction,wannabe Blow style personal fantasies of power, and still a toddering closet queen, doesn’t make Welch any more of a blowhard than you.
I laugh, ans laugh, and laugh every time I read one of your circle jerking comments desperately prating on and on in the party line–with the closeted hope that “gosh I might get a talk to a gurl’
Your no doubt one of those pot bellied old ponytail types cruising around Phoenix in a Speedo like a terrier off-leash; a reeking, squeaking, prating droid–go buy a sexbot or something, and save us all from your useless comments.
Greg Laden:
but the multi-megabyte file you uploaded into a comment
I’m extremely curious about this. I just checked, and the text of the entire front page of the Timecube site (which works out to nearly 2,000 lines of text) is only about 73 kilobytes… that is, about 7% of a megabyte. For plain text to be more than a megabyte, it would have to be about 28,500 lines.
Woden, are you defending what he did or seriously asking the question?
I have no idea how many bytes there were. It was not my job to measure it. The point is, John C. Welch piled enough crap into a single comment to cause the page to fail/crash or load slowly for many users. Which I called a “primitive form of denial of service attack” which Welch then turned into a “Felonious distributed denial of service attack,” an absurd lie that he and his winged monkey (or is he the winged monkey, can’t remember) took to new heights of intertubual brethlessness and glenbeckosity in public, and in private have threatened legal access over.
So you see, if your just asking, I don’t know and I don’t need o know. If you’re defending him do go away. Thank you very much.
Woden: Welch’s spam post could easily have amounted to that many lines. It was, as I said before, an indiscriminate copy-paste of all of the text in the entire blog post, including all the top-notes, side-notes, bottom-notes, and several hundred comments.
Great seeing I’m not the only one who has had an unpleasant experience with Mr. Welch. I am working with him to undo some of the damage his writing and prominence in Google causes me.
I may take this baby to court. Anyone want to join a class action suit? Mine is for slander and libel with damage to my business. If you have a similar issue with John and his cyber-terrorism, let me know.
Apparently Welch never grew out of his bullying habit. See the recent Angry Mac Bastards fiasco, where he and a self-proclaimed drunk insulted and bullied a random man for half an hour on their podcast. The guy is a sociopath.