[eDebate] (no subject)

Josh Hoe jbhdb8
Sun May 14 14:30:20 CDT 2006


The problem is one of familliarity Garrett...You and I can establish a level
of familliarity that lets you know that if I make fun of you for being a
former chattahoochee debater or whatever and you know I really accept you as
a person.  That doesnt translate to public statements.

Lindsey, for instance, turned on her computer and found out in shocking
fashion that someone had outed her for having plastic surgery done on her
breasts.  Not someone who she had familiarity with in the same safe sense.
In addition, and perhaps of more concern it was done in a public forum which
means had she wanted people not to know (for whatever reason) that would now
be impossible.  Outing people in any sense is not "good conduct."

Brett has also basically said "well they made fun of men too." Why is this a
defense of the conduct noted?  That seems either to mean you are saying:

a) relax, people should be able to say outrageous lies about you or expose
your secrets in a public forum (man or women) because thats just how comedy


b) there is no disparate effect in a community demonstrated repeatedly to
disproportionately favor straight men (which is the very good part of
Garretts posting).

or a and b.

The ultimate point is this.....yes, some things are funny and at the same
time can be hurtful and objectifying and unnecessary.

How would you have felt if you had been minding your own business and you
are reading your email...only to find that in a national forum you had been
singled out as having STDs.  Not in a funny conversation at a party with
your familliar drunk friends...In a national public forum.  Does that not
make sense?  Well, while I understand no harm was intended, I am a bit sad
that Brandi had to have that happen to her last week.  I would think you
would be too.  Same for Lindsey etc.

I have much love for all the writers involved...just saying,


On 5/14/06, Garrett Scott Abelkop <abelkopg at msu.edu> wrote:
> "In fairness this only means that both sexual orientation and gender are
> potentially suspect classes and that people should consider that when they
> make comments Garrett,
> Josh"
> The way it was framed by the "anonymous debater" was that men (which I am)
> are not targeted in the same way as women.
> The point of my response was merely to show that that is not true.
> Perhaps that individual's email should have been framed in the
> masculine/feminine dichotomy as opposed to the male/female one - although
> I
> STILL disagree with the overall message of the post.
> I do not think that Casey and Dave's DCA bio of Ryan unfairly targeted
> women
> nor do I believe it reflects a warrant for the overall lack of feminine*
> participation in debate.
> A lot of people are made fun of (in the bio and in debate as a whole) - it
> is something that both men and women, gay and straight confront - Straight
> women are called sluts, straight men are called queer, gay men are made
> fun
> of for their mannerisms, etc...
> While I certainly find jokes based off of poking fun at homosexuality
> offensive, I do not believe that this bio or this humor in general
> reflects
> a male/female division in debate - it is something that each and every one
> of us has to deal with.
> Garrett
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060514/f0a66c4a/attachment.html 

More information about the Mailman mailing list