....to spend too much time abusing other internet identities.
But it has to be said - I've been wanting to say it here for so long - Catallaxy has the largest collection of obnoxious, immature, misogynistic, unreasonable, dishonest, disingenuous, lazy, dumb, gullible, un-insightful, self absorbed, uncharitable, childish, abusive, detached from reality, unpleasant, unscientific, selfish, tribal, repetitive, hypocritical, pedantic, tedious, psychologically unbalanced, and flat out wrong collection of commenters in all of the Australian blogosphere.
They are free to choose which adjective goes with which of them. Most there deserve more than one epithet. This is no shock to them - most have been told at their own blog many times.
Now, to resume normal blogging....
Update: some mis-spellings corrected, although epitaph for epithet might be explained as a Freudian slip.
17 comments:
Steve
You are welcome back at the Cat as soon as you pay your damn taxes and get right with the Commish.
While I don't totally disagree with your assessment of many catallaxy commenters, and its whyI comment there less often now. I can't believe that you stormed out over the bullied kid who quite justifiably retailiated.
The smaller kid is almost certainly trying to provoke the bullied kid into swinging at him as they probably know he doesn't know how to throw a punch and they can run away and keep taunting. You are being entirely unrealistic.
Beisdes a hit to the head from someone 70 kgs heavier than you that knocks him back onto the concrete could also kill. Bullies have no right ot be treated with kids gloves.
Steve - virtually no one would blame the big kid for making some response. But the problem with encouraging any response - which is clearly what the immature cheering of Catallaxy is about - is the unintended consequence of causing serious injury or death.
Catallaxy commenters have a history of holding absurd opinions on matters of self defence/provocation. A couple of weeks ago, several said they couldn't see a problem with the American who had been the subject of an attempted hold up in Pakistan not only shooting the crim/spy who pointed a gun a him, but also run down the street shooting at his accomplice who was trying to escape.
This is just fantasy movie justice.
But back to the kid: my immediate reaction was that the bullying victim was being taunted (there is no sign that he was being seriously hurt by the bully - despite Fisk's ludicrous suggestion this morning,) but his response came incredibly close to causing serious injury to the bully, possibly death.
Here is what the law of provocation says in Queensland:
"A person is not criminally responsible for an assault committed upon a person who gives the person provocation for the assault, if the person is in fact deprived by the provocation of the power of self-control, and acts upon it on the sudden and before there is time for the person’s
passion to cool, and if the force used is not disproportionate to the
provocation and is not intended, and is not such as is likely, to cause death or grievous bodily harm."
As I said yesterday, if the bully had suffered serious injury or permanent disability, there is every reason to believe that his parents would be pressing the police to seriously consider charging the kid and letting a jury decide if his response was proportionate. For all we know, there may be a legal case out of the incident as it is. Is it worth getting into the legal system by giving in to the strong temptation to respond? No, it's not.
You and the commenters at Catallaxy think it self evident that the response was "proportionate". I say: slamming a kid down onto concrete runs a very real risk of not being considered proportion for taunts which were not physically hurting you. As I said, it appears only by good luck that more serious injury was avoided.
It is not in this kids interest - or in the interest of any other bullied kid - to cheer on a violent response.
That Catallaxians dismiss such argument with their immature and facile way just appalled me.
I was punched a lot as a fat kid. thank goodness i've lost weight since than and am down to 120 kg. but leftist bastards like you want people like me dead, steve
Yeah, sure, Graeme. I know you're under the special protection of the star people, though, so I know better than to mess with you.
Steve
I can see you are a family man. You have done nothing viscous yet but spread bedwetting lies and disinformation. Repent and all will be forgiven, even this bloodlust you seem to have for fat kids.
Repent and all will be forgiven. But its gotsa to be genuine.
Don't be a girl. The world would be a better place if more people stood up to bullies. Some people really do need punch in the face and stupid laws don't change that.
Graeme, you may have taken a few too many hits to the head when you were younger. I'm sorry about that.
I see that Hot Air is running with the story now, with an overwhelming number of comments in favour of the victim's actions.
There's a sprinkling of comments from people noting that a body slam on concrete is a dangerous thing, and that if the bully had been injured, it may have "pay up parents" time.
These comments are immediately swamped by the ludicrous bile of the same kind that you and Catallaxy are giving about "leftists" and how complaint about celebrating the incident is a feminine response.
Why should I be surprised? The right wing of politics here and in America is currently showing no sign of common sense over climate change. It is fundamentally showing an immaturity and foolhardiness in response to the issue.
So, no I shouldn't expect them to not watch such an incident and cheer. It matches the collective mentality perfectly - no brains with which to see danger. (My own present company excepted.)
1. If the fat kid hurt or killed the dickhead then his parents cannot be sued. Torts Law 101. don't talk about what you don't know about.
2. Suing the kid is a waste of time.
3. The fat kid was not being taunted he was being punched in the head. Good on him for defending himself.
4. You would typically defend the bully, stuff the underdog.Sound like socialism.
"You would typically defend the bully, stuff the underdog.Sound like socialism."
What a maroon, as Bugs would say.
I can't quite work out what's going on at Hot Air. Allahpundit has not a follow up post in which he calls the first post about the video "moronic" (even though he posted it) and criticises the fact that it was so popular.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/16/bully-body-slam-ii-apology-demanded-by-bullys-mother/comment-page-1/#comments
But then he notes the update information - the mother of the bully says her son didn't deserve the body slam, even though she was shocked by his behaviour - and seemingly says she is the reason why her son's a bully.?
Many Hot Air commentators renew call for bully to have been more injured that he evidentally was.
Does this make any sense at all?
No, it does not.
Well, some commentary I can agree with:
Adolescent psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg has applauded the decision to suspend both boys.
He says people who have defended the youth who hit back are "troglodytes".
"It's just moronic to say, hit back. When you hit back and a kid falls over and basically bangs their head and is either dead or brain damaged, is that a really clever solution?" he said.
www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/16/3165182.htm
My decision to call Catallaxians "morons" over this is thereby endorsed.
Okay Steve, so you were a bully at school and you got what was coming. Sorry.
Pathetic. Go watch some more old Clint Eastwood.
Sorry mate I didn't realise that the injuries you suffered were related to personality and sodomy
Yadda yadda. The reason adults don't applaud the video is because it showed how close it came to death or permanent injury - and the one who would have worn the legal consequences of that (being, at the very least, a criminal investigation and a protracted wait while a decision was made whether to prosecute) would have been the bullying victim and his family.
yawn
Post a Comment