Carreon's wife sounds even crazier than Carreon himself, apparently saying that there is a conspiracy of actual grammar Nazis killing Americans and that the Oatmeal is part of it.
Right? Reading the second response by his wife was particularly disturbing.
"...Just look at their cartoons. They like to kill. They think it's fun to kill. They think their friends will admire them if they kill. Without mercy!
...They are stupid, silent people, who are absolutely worthless to our society. Really, what good is their life, but a burden to the planet?"
She is accusing "these people" of being murderers? Honestly, from the following comments, I'm quite a bit more concerned that this whole story will end with her going on a killing spree.
I'm slowly becoming more and more convinced that this is one majorly elaborate practical joke, concocted by the oatmeal and funnyjunk to raise tons of money for charity. Because I'd rather believe that than believe that people this dense actually exist.
As I recall, the same thing happened with a lawyer named Jack Thompson. I think it's just something about Law as a discipline that it attracts people who can be very literal-minded and who at least in their own mind are moral crusaders. (Disclaimer: I don't know whether Carreon's wife actually does anything legal herself or whether she just married a lawyer.)
I think when you mix that sort of mentality with modern entertainment, you get quotes like these. Sure, we say, "any normal person" understands the difference between cartoons and real life. Perhaps Mrs. Carreon would even agree that she understands the difference. But she is somehow not convinced that we understand the difference. Jack Thomson was the same way; he referred to games as "murder simulators" and assumed that anyone attracted to them was merely 'in the closet' about actions that they secretly intensely wanted to do. Since indulging a normal addiction usually makes it worse and not better, it's easy from this screwed-up perspective to imagine that The Youth will fail to be satisfied one day with the latest violent media -- and will turn to violence itself in their craving.
There is another aspect here which is: the things that disturb us about others are usually things which disturb us about ourselves. It's about resonance. Normally if someone is being stupid people say "to hell with him, he's stupid." But let us all endeavor, when we find ourselves outraged, to ask not only "what is wrong with THEM?!" but also "why does this bug me so much? What resonates here?" If we apply that to Mrs. Carreon, I think we'll all see that we've all been on the wrong side of a dispute, that we've all been wronged before and wanted to "get back," etc.
I think it's just something about Law as a discipline that it attracts people who can be very literal-minded and who at least in their own mind are moral crusaders.
Since this whole case is, um, horribly embarrassing to my profession, I'll just respond here and move on. The huge majority of lawyers I know are much more like the EFF lawyers here than like Carreon. They're smart, creative, resilient, flexible, and more often than not they're honest and respectful. Some of them do it for moral reasons and some are just doing a job; some of them make the world a lot better in my opinion and some of them end up screwing it up. But there's not one lawyer I know who I can imagine acting anything like Carreon, let alone his wife. I mean, even the few jerks would at least make more effective choices.
In short: don't think of this guy as a typical lawyer. He's not. Think of him as a typical guy-screwing-up-his-career-with-a-weird,-paranoid-flameout,-in-an-unusually-public-way-thanks-to-the-internet. It's just too bad he happens to have a career that will let him waste a lot of other people's time in the process ...
Oh! I'm sorry, it occurs to me that my comment can indeed be read that way, and that's not what I intended.
I mean it as "they attract these people", not "they are mostly these people:" the tiny percentage of society which is A is much more likely to be L, but that does not mean that most L's are A. So for example I would guess that most programmers are pretty sociable people, but we have a nasty reputation as highly antisocial because we attract people who prefer programming to partying. The Catholic church can tell you all about their difficulties with this type of thing.
Hey, thanks for the clarification. That's a totally fair point. I was probably a little over-eager to reply here since this story so much invites the lawyers-are-evil thing and I've been looking for a chance to put it in context. Like, "yes OK lawyers are evil sometimes but this isn't that." :)
After thinking more about it, the literal-minded moral crusade is something I've definitely seen in the legal system, not from lawyers but from pro se parties -- non-lawyers who are representing themselves. There's a group of people who are absolutely sure that the world has wronged them and that they'll eventually be able to make everyone understand, but are unable to parse or accept the reality checks they're getting back from the system, so they go through a series of lawyers before striking out on their own. I bet any clerk's office you walked into, they could name a handful of people like that who they recognize by sight when they come in to file their next complaint (and then a complaint against the judge who handled the last complaint, and so on). They're sad situations.
I don't really know anything about Carreon or the rest of this mess, but assuming that's what's happening, maybe there's some observer bias here -- the reason we're hearing about this at all is that he is a lawyer, so he's able to navigate the system well enough to cause real trouble, at least for a while.
> I think when you mix that sort of mentality with modern entertainment, you get quotes like these. Sure, we say, "any normal person" understands the difference between cartoons and real life. Perhaps Mrs. Carreon would even agree that she understands the difference. But she is somehow not convinced that we understand the difference.
Time to burn some Karma.
Well, here's the disturbing truth of the matter: There is a small minority of gamers that don't understand the difference. Just like there's a small minority of moviegoers who "don't understand the difference" and novel readers and consumers and even producers of media of all sorts. Sturm und Drang novels precipitated suicides of young people across Europe. People who talk to the public at the Vatican had to deal with people who thought The DaVinci Code was real. (And I suspect they still do!)
Also, as in other media, some celebrities act in anti-social ways and are actually somehow excused or admired for it. Again, this is nothing new. There also comes a time when the majority of sane people need to come out and say -- "Okay, that's entertaining, but here's how real people act."
There are people out there who believe that all of society's rules are just hackable machines to and are out there to be exploited, and it's their right to get away with as much as they can, even to the point of throwing out basic human decency. (And if you're not aware of this, then just start some in-depth conversations at a con some time.) What disturbs me is that there seems to be considerable lionization of antisocial behavior on the Internet and in gaming culture -- to the point of there being entire ideologies to justify it.
I am not siding with the Carreons or Jack Thompson. Nor am I against the Oatmeal. It's just that they're not 2D villains in some black and white narrative contrivance. They're human beings, not NPCs. Subtract the stupidity and shortsightedness from their position and see what's left. If you're honest with yourself, you may not like what you see.
Please don't do this. It serves no purpose other than hostilizing your readers.
Well, here's the disturbing truth of the matter: There is a small minority of gamers that don't understand the difference. Just like there's a small minority of moviegoers who "don't understand the difference" and novel readers and consumers and even producers of media of all sorts. Sturm und Drang novels precipitated suicides of young people across Europe. People who talk to the public at the Vatican had to deal with people who thought The DaVinci Code was real. (And I suspect they still do!)
Sure, but that's not what she's saying; she's claiming that about everyone who likes The Oatmeal ("...just look at their cartoons. They like to kill"). Which would be absurd when said about someone who likes war movies, but is downright insane when applied to fans of the Oatmeal, which are comics mostly about cats, iPhone apps and annoying people.
It's more or less like treating kids playing Cowboys and Indians as dangerous schizophrenics.
There are people out there who believe that all of society's rules are just hackable machines to and are out there to be exploited, and it's their right to get away with as much as they can, even to the point of throwing out basic human decency. (And if you're not aware of this, then just start some in-depth conversations at a con some time.)
I don't get how is this related to the issue. Who is exploiting people here, exactly? Except maybe for FunnyJunk?
What disturbs me is that there seems to be considerable lionization of antisocial behavior on the Internet and in gaming culture -- to the point of there being entire ideologies to justify it.
There were entire ideologies to justify killing and raping. If the new are just to justify being a dick, it's a positive step! ;) Besides, in my experience, if you find behaviors on the Internet anti-social, you don't know many schools.
The Internet is just the perfect medium of communication for misfits, from the people with weird passions, to the non-socials (like me), to the anti-socials. And the gaming culture is worse because it's the zone of the Internet full of 14 year olds. I don't think there's any new worrying trend, compared to what I've seen before.
Then again, I come from a somewhat different culture, so maybe it's worse there in the US.
But! Getting back to the topic, we should consider if Mr. Carreon's initial actions weren't the really anti-social behaviors. Threatening to sue people for complaining that your (or in this case, your client's) business model rests in using content made by others without so much as a link is hardly a nice thing to do.
So yes, they're human beings. Human beings who starting all this with their own douche behavior.
> Please don't do this. It serves no purpose other than hostilizing your readers.
Thanks for the advice, but that's simply incorrect. (Unless you add "some of.")
> Sure, but that's not what she's saying; she's claiming that about everyone who likes The Oatmeal ("...just look at their cartoons. They like to kill"). Which would be absurd when said about someone who likes war movies, but is downright insane when applied to fans of the Oatmeal, which are comics mostly about cats, iPhone apps and annoying people.
Wow, are you really taking what I wrote as a defense of the Carreon's position? Sorry, but that's just wrong.
> I don't get how is this related to the issue. Who is exploiting people here, exactly? Except maybe for FunnyJunk?
No one is exploiting anyone here, except maybe for FunnyJunk. However, there is a red flag that should go up with uncivil behavior and disdain.
> The Internet is just the perfect medium of communication for misfits, from the people with weird passions, to the non-socials (like me), to the anti-socials. And the gaming culture is worse because it's the zone of the Internet full of 14 year olds. I don't think there's any new worrying trend, compared to what I've seen before.
I've met people like a 33 year old man who is taking the warped version of morality he learned from championship FPS tournaments and is applying it to taking over and running a community 501C3 non profit. The Internet is also the perfect medium for relatively consequence-free communication with people whose social distance is very far away. The lessons learned in such a medium are often very bad in other contexts.
> So yes, they're human beings. Human beings who starting all this with their own douche behavior.
You've completely missed my point. I'm not defending or demonizing anyone. I'm suggesting that the self-righteous urge to demonize someone is often the best time for self-examination. Re-read and try again.
Interesting little tidbit, Jack Thompson was disbarred permanently by the Florida Supreme Court for making up BS about ebil vidya games and how ebil the people who play/make them are.
Personally, I would be interested to know if the whole Jack Thompson thjng made legal headlines outside of the tech/videogame world, and what the reactions were.
> I think it's just something about Law as a discipline that it attracts people who can be very literal-minded and who at least in their own mind are moral crusaders.
Why do you think this is something that is unique to the law?
Should Hans Reiser be taken as an example of programmers?
Should Ted Kaczynski be taken as an example of mathematicians?
Should Amy Bishop be used as an example of disgruntled academics?
So, you see one or two prominent crazy lawyers (and the wife of one crazy lawyer), and decide that this is something unique to the law?
I'm actually wondering what the legal ramifications of this type of behavior is. The Oatmeal can clearly be described as parody/satire. It never once purports to be serious.
However, this woman is dead serious, and is making quite defamatory remarks about Inman. She's directly and unashamedly calling him a murderer, a Nazi, the man who shot Giffords et al, and a criminal. I would love to see a defamation of character lawsuit from Inman against Tara. She's given no hint that she is playing satire or making a joke (no matter how distasteful). Even going so far to make veiled threats against his life!
> Because I'd rather believe that than believe that people this dense actually exist.
Oh, just ask any hardcore religious right-winger why they think women should have no birth control or why gays shouldn't marry. The world is filled with these brain dead crazies who can't put 1 + 1 together if their life depend on it. We just don't see them too much during our day-to-day, if we're too busy inside our work routine on our little tech bubble. That we tend to forget about them. But they're all over the place.
Sadly, even those these people are outliers, they still exist. One need only visit the topix message boards or the anonymous comments section of a national web site to see it.
It is one of the less useful aspects of the Internet that it amplifies the small crazy voices along with the small useful ones.
Haha, you raise a valid point. And as an lgbt female, I can't say that I ever forget about them. And yes, its that same exact feeling of complete disbelief when someone that closed-minded speaks to me. However, its a bit more difficult to write it off as an elaborate hoax.
I don't believe gay persons should marry and I can put 1+1 together even when my life doesn't depend on it.
I'm not really sure what social conservatism has to do with launching flagrantly frivolous legal complaints and comparing satirical writers to Jared Loughner, though...
Because "social conservatism" is often just thinly veiled hate and bigotry and intolerance. I have yet to see a sound argument on why two consenting adults shouldn't have the right to marry. I'll eagerly and openly listen to what you have to say on the matter.
I am of the belief that the government should not be saying who is and isn't married. Marriage is a religious institution, and should be used for the religions that use that. That would also mean if a 'Church of Reformed Satanism' had a marriage, is to let them.
The problem is we have a system that looks towards 'ordained' religious positions for our tax record. So this country mixes up person rights with religious gunk.
The legal question then, after removing religious stuff: do GLBT people have the right to have a relationship respected for tax and governmental reasons? I see no justification for taking rights away because of their brain chemistry.
Isn't it defamatory to assert that they like to kill with sole argument a questionable interpretation of some comic art ? It's not only defamatory, it's promoting hate to a level one could feel against a killer and which could put peoples life really in danger. This is disinformation which is not to be confused with liberty of expression.
This just strenghten the global impression that it's a lawyer who can't even control and properly deal with it's own affairs. I guess this is what a lose canon lawyer looks like.
As an european I would add that it contributes to give a very bad image of the USA.
As an American, we hold free speech to be much more important. We don't put arrest people for making racists Tweets. We don't put people in jail for denying the Holocaust. We don't have censors for people who dare to say that homeopathy doesn't work. (Or, for that matter, who say that it does, unless they are trying to defraud customers.)
To find Tara guilty of defamation, a target of her batshit insanity would need to meet specific burdens of proof. They would need to prove to the court that they don't like to kill, and that Tara knew (or ought to have known) that that wasn't true.
>It's not only defamatory, it's promoting hate to a level one could feel against a killer and which could put peoples life really in danger.
Which is, ironically, exactly what Tara Carreon has accused Inman of doing:
>History is full of evidence of the connection between hate speech and hate action. We need go no further than the Nazi propaganda against the Jews…
>These Techdirt nazi scumbags are doing to Charles what they did to the Jewish lawyers in Nazi Germany. Accusing him of greed and being responsible for the entire economic mess that our country is in. I mean, that is crazy! No group of people deserves to be so wholesaledly condemned, unless they are a criminal organization like the Mafia. I don't even believe in groups! Give every individual identity, dignity, human rights, and freedom.
And now today,
>These children have been corrupted by a corrupt society. And everyone who fails to register an opinion and act in this matter is to blame. They are stupid, silent people, who are absolutely worthless to our society. Really, what good is their life, but a burden to the planet?
Um, I ventured on over to the bulletin board on her website, and she's basically the only poster on it, with loads and loads of posts in various discussion threads. Which are incidentally all about conspiracy theories.
For some reason, the tone and structure of the wife's writing reminds me of the LoseThos situation. [1]
Wow, I just read up on the LoseThos thing and it's heartbreaking.
Call me a bleeding heart killjoy if you must, but I've recently come to the conclusion that just like prison rape and developmental disabilities, mental illness just isn't something you can make tasteful jokes about.
What's even more heartbreaking is that he's quite active on HN even though he's banned.
If you read his comments there's something definitely wrong with him (I hesitate using that phrase, but I don't know how else to say it). He's a talented individual with a strong work ethic, hopefully he gets the help that he needs.
Yes, I've seen his [dead] comments before, and had a flash of recognition reading the article.
You're hesitant to use the phrase "something definitely wrong with him". That made me think of other terms, like "disturbed", "unhinged", "unbalanced" or the clinical "mentally ill" and I can't find anything that doesn't sound demeaning, judgmental, or moralistic. I think that says something about our ability to understand and help these people.
Somehow, the idea that a joke can be both tasteful and gut-bustingly funny is oxymoronic. As Lord Buckley was wont to say: "If you must tell the truth, be sure to leave them laughing. Remember what they did to Jesus."
"It's not the first time we've been targeted as sacrificial victims," Tara wrote. "We were targeted by the entire Buddhist community when I told them to go fuck themselves, for being nihilists, elitists, and authoritarians."
She -or someone claiming to be her- has directly linked Inman to real Nazis in Europe.
(The account joined in 2008, but web forum software is notoriously insecure and there are many ways to fake or hijack a profile. So it might not be her.)
> His mother is a psychic, who does palm reading, angel communication, tarot, channeling, psychometry, aura readings, and mediumship. She says she comes from "a line of readers, mystics in Europe." I wonder if her family associated with the Blavatsky Nazi crowd. Most of the medium/psychic whackos did. She studied with a Tibetan Shaman in Nepal. Wow. A totally crazy woman. Matt Inman has crazy parents on both sides. No wonder he's crazy, too.
I'm not sure what I expect from a thread titled "Charles Carreon vs. The Illuminati and Matt Inman".
Surely what his wife is saying could be classed as defamatory as well? Stupid move on her part, I hope she goes down as well and taints the case even further.
It is really hard to understand how Carreon and his wife don't realise that they are digging themselves into their own hole. They even went out and bought the shovels themselves. Getting involved in a battle which isn't yours and then stretching it this far is beyond belief.
It's as if they have never heard of the internet before, and expect everyone to side with them. It's pathological ignorance.
Shooting off your mouth about an ongoing case is just asking for trouble. All of this could be brought into the courtroom, with Tara being an associate of Charles. It wouldn't be the first time a judge has ruled on a case partially due to professional behavior outside the courtroom.
On the evening of June 14th, Carreon told Forbes that he didn't know what was wrong but he'd find something. “California code is just so long, but there’s something in there about this.” That evening around 9pm he donated $10, and then filed his suit the very next day claiming he had been misled.
Sadly, he's probably right. Many estimates suggest that the average American is unknowingly committing multiple felonies every day due to vague criminal statutes.
I didn't even realize until this article that Carreon had actually donated to the campaign, apparently expressly for the purpose of then claiming that Inman was going to use the funds in a different way than promised? Except I have no idea how he can possibly argue that taking the picture of the funds is somehow wrong, when that was kind of the main objective of the fundraising (with the secondary objective being to then distribute the funds to the 2 charities).
Once the originally-planned $20k had been exceeded, Inman suggested that he would find some more charities that might benefit from the cash. This thought was abandoned shortly after Carreon cried foul about the "different way than promised". So, good-good for the bears, they'll get a bigger money pit to roll around in.
I'm not sure what bearing that has on taking a picture of the cash. Nor do I see how this could be related to the current lawsuit if Inman abandoned that idea.
Entrapment is only illegal when performed by cops. Besides, it isn't entrapment. Carreon did not induce Inman to perform the activity which Carreon claims is wrong.
Given his previous attempt to drum up public outrage over Mattel's failure to take him up on his offer to represent them over another trademark dispute, there's a good chance that this whole thing was entirely Carreon's idea. "Hey, you should get a trademark, and then let me file a contingency suit against that guy who is more successful than you."
Seems like the Ars headline is inaccurate. Inman posts in his blog that the money is still with IndieGoGo pending a restraining order to have it transferred.
"Once the money is moved, I still plan on withdrawing $211k in cash and taking a photo to send to Charles Carreon and FunnyJunk, along with the drawing of Funnyjunk's mother."
It could be that Inman was unsure what he could legally say, and didn't want to make things worse. He'll get his 15 minutes and rushing things won't make any difference.
According to Inman's affidavit on PACER, he states "I still plan on sending a photograph of the money along with the satirical comic to FunnyJunk. However, in order to avoid having this lawsuit interfere with my expression and to avoid jeopardizing the funds from the campaign in any way, I withdrew funds from my own personal account and photographed those funds."
It's rather difficult for most of us to accept criticism but at some point most sane people would try to take a step back and conclude that if thousands upon thousands of people think you are behaving poorly it might be prudent to at least consider their viewpoint is valid.
Tara Carreon responded:
"There is now plenty of proof that Matt Inman is one
of a gang of people who promote the same type of ideas
that inspired Jared Loughner to try and kill Gabrielle
Giffords," she wrote. "Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty
Law Center, who studies hate groups and hate speech,
examined Loughner's sites and concluded that his material
on grammar, in particular, likely came from the writings of
far right activist David Wynn Miller. If you Google Matt
Inman + grammar, you will find a similar obsession. And
similar hate."
Citing SPLC suggests Tara Carreon is left leaning. But her misunderstanding / misuse of "hate speech" is very right wing.
Kind of like how trogs don't grok that Colbert is making fun of them.
Hate speech is wishing harm on your opponents for political reasons. Calling people names is not hate speech. Neither is making fun of people. That's just being a dick.
Alas, wingers don't get that distinction. I suspect the root cause (mental failing) also explains trogs rampant false equivalency (e.g. Clinton got a blow job == Bush allowing 9/11, illegally invading a foreign country, killing 100,000s of its citizens, making refugees out of a few million, and using depleted uranium to convert much of the formerly inhabited areas into Superfund sites).
I once had a winger tell me that the Rodney King riots in LA were an example of left wing hate speech. The stupid, it hurts. I honestly can't decide if trogs say ridiculous non sequiturs because they're thick or if it's merely to distract and enrage (a la Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter). I've decided to simply judge people by their actions, vs their intent.
The grandma having sex with a bear is obviously funny. To you and me. But the trogs can't see it that way. Any mocking is a direct personal attack demanding a defensive response.
Inman didn't know the Carreon's were mentally impaired. But for future, just know that trogs will misunderstand, misinterpret, twist, assume the worst, distort, etc. No one can control the audience's reaction. But in my mocking, I do try to avoid borderline humor which can be labeled "hate speech". No sense giving the trogs another chew toy. And there's no shortage of funny stuff to say.
You come close to smearing roughly half of all people with the comical stupidity of the worst within that half. All of what you say seems true, but even describing reality along those lines (even without your epithets) arouses passion+stupidity.
I had to read Tara Carreon's quote for myself. The "hate speech" reference jumped out. No one else had commented on it. Probably because few here are as political as me, so wouldn't know that it's a politically charged phrase.
Oh, I forgot to mention something.
Carreon's equating Inman to Jared Loughner is just sick. As in reprehensible. No different than invoking Hitler (Godwin's Law). And is a pretty good example of hateful (vs hate) speech.
Not to discount your point, but half of Americans is nowhere close to half of all people. (considering how much further right the American Right is compared to the European Right for example, I'd need some evidence to support half the worlds population having something in common with the American Right)
You can't make this stuff up, folks.
"...Just look at their cartoons. They like to kill. They think it's fun to kill. They think their friends will admire them if they kill. Without mercy!
...They are stupid, silent people, who are absolutely worthless to our society. Really, what good is their life, but a burden to the planet?"
She is accusing "these people" of being murderers? Honestly, from the following comments, I'm quite a bit more concerned that this whole story will end with her going on a killing spree.
I'm slowly becoming more and more convinced that this is one majorly elaborate practical joke, concocted by the oatmeal and funnyjunk to raise tons of money for charity. Because I'd rather believe that than believe that people this dense actually exist.
I think when you mix that sort of mentality with modern entertainment, you get quotes like these. Sure, we say, "any normal person" understands the difference between cartoons and real life. Perhaps Mrs. Carreon would even agree that she understands the difference. But she is somehow not convinced that we understand the difference. Jack Thomson was the same way; he referred to games as "murder simulators" and assumed that anyone attracted to them was merely 'in the closet' about actions that they secretly intensely wanted to do. Since indulging a normal addiction usually makes it worse and not better, it's easy from this screwed-up perspective to imagine that The Youth will fail to be satisfied one day with the latest violent media -- and will turn to violence itself in their craving.
There is another aspect here which is: the things that disturb us about others are usually things which disturb us about ourselves. It's about resonance. Normally if someone is being stupid people say "to hell with him, he's stupid." But let us all endeavor, when we find ourselves outraged, to ask not only "what is wrong with THEM?!" but also "why does this bug me so much? What resonates here?" If we apply that to Mrs. Carreon, I think we'll all see that we've all been on the wrong side of a dispute, that we've all been wronged before and wanted to "get back," etc.
Since this whole case is, um, horribly embarrassing to my profession, I'll just respond here and move on. The huge majority of lawyers I know are much more like the EFF lawyers here than like Carreon. They're smart, creative, resilient, flexible, and more often than not they're honest and respectful. Some of them do it for moral reasons and some are just doing a job; some of them make the world a lot better in my opinion and some of them end up screwing it up. But there's not one lawyer I know who I can imagine acting anything like Carreon, let alone his wife. I mean, even the few jerks would at least make more effective choices.
In short: don't think of this guy as a typical lawyer. He's not. Think of him as a typical guy-screwing-up-his-career-with-a-weird,-paranoid-flameout,-in-an-unusually-public-way-thanks-to-the-internet. It's just too bad he happens to have a career that will let him waste a lot of other people's time in the process ...
I mean it as "they attract these people", not "they are mostly these people:" the tiny percentage of society which is A is much more likely to be L, but that does not mean that most L's are A. So for example I would guess that most programmers are pretty sociable people, but we have a nasty reputation as highly antisocial because we attract people who prefer programming to partying. The Catholic church can tell you all about their difficulties with this type of thing.
After thinking more about it, the literal-minded moral crusade is something I've definitely seen in the legal system, not from lawyers but from pro se parties -- non-lawyers who are representing themselves. There's a group of people who are absolutely sure that the world has wronged them and that they'll eventually be able to make everyone understand, but are unable to parse or accept the reality checks they're getting back from the system, so they go through a series of lawyers before striking out on their own. I bet any clerk's office you walked into, they could name a handful of people like that who they recognize by sight when they come in to file their next complaint (and then a complaint against the judge who handled the last complaint, and so on). They're sad situations.
I don't really know anything about Carreon or the rest of this mess, but assuming that's what's happening, maybe there's some observer bias here -- the reason we're hearing about this at all is that he is a lawyer, so he's able to navigate the system well enough to cause real trouble, at least for a while.
Time to burn some Karma.
Well, here's the disturbing truth of the matter: There is a small minority of gamers that don't understand the difference. Just like there's a small minority of moviegoers who "don't understand the difference" and novel readers and consumers and even producers of media of all sorts. Sturm und Drang novels precipitated suicides of young people across Europe. People who talk to the public at the Vatican had to deal with people who thought The DaVinci Code was real. (And I suspect they still do!)
Also, as in other media, some celebrities act in anti-social ways and are actually somehow excused or admired for it. Again, this is nothing new. There also comes a time when the majority of sane people need to come out and say -- "Okay, that's entertaining, but here's how real people act."
There are people out there who believe that all of society's rules are just hackable machines to and are out there to be exploited, and it's their right to get away with as much as they can, even to the point of throwing out basic human decency. (And if you're not aware of this, then just start some in-depth conversations at a con some time.) What disturbs me is that there seems to be considerable lionization of antisocial behavior on the Internet and in gaming culture -- to the point of there being entire ideologies to justify it.
I am not siding with the Carreons or Jack Thompson. Nor am I against the Oatmeal. It's just that they're not 2D villains in some black and white narrative contrivance. They're human beings, not NPCs. Subtract the stupidity and shortsightedness from their position and see what's left. If you're honest with yourself, you may not like what you see.
Please don't do this. It serves no purpose other than hostilizing your readers.
Well, here's the disturbing truth of the matter: There is a small minority of gamers that don't understand the difference. Just like there's a small minority of moviegoers who "don't understand the difference" and novel readers and consumers and even producers of media of all sorts. Sturm und Drang novels precipitated suicides of young people across Europe. People who talk to the public at the Vatican had to deal with people who thought The DaVinci Code was real. (And I suspect they still do!)
Sure, but that's not what she's saying; she's claiming that about everyone who likes The Oatmeal ("...just look at their cartoons. They like to kill"). Which would be absurd when said about someone who likes war movies, but is downright insane when applied to fans of the Oatmeal, which are comics mostly about cats, iPhone apps and annoying people.
It's more or less like treating kids playing Cowboys and Indians as dangerous schizophrenics.
There are people out there who believe that all of society's rules are just hackable machines to and are out there to be exploited, and it's their right to get away with as much as they can, even to the point of throwing out basic human decency. (And if you're not aware of this, then just start some in-depth conversations at a con some time.)
I don't get how is this related to the issue. Who is exploiting people here, exactly? Except maybe for FunnyJunk?
What disturbs me is that there seems to be considerable lionization of antisocial behavior on the Internet and in gaming culture -- to the point of there being entire ideologies to justify it.
There were entire ideologies to justify killing and raping. If the new are just to justify being a dick, it's a positive step! ;) Besides, in my experience, if you find behaviors on the Internet anti-social, you don't know many schools.
The Internet is just the perfect medium of communication for misfits, from the people with weird passions, to the non-socials (like me), to the anti-socials. And the gaming culture is worse because it's the zone of the Internet full of 14 year olds. I don't think there's any new worrying trend, compared to what I've seen before.
Then again, I come from a somewhat different culture, so maybe it's worse there in the US.
But! Getting back to the topic, we should consider if Mr. Carreon's initial actions weren't the really anti-social behaviors. Threatening to sue people for complaining that your (or in this case, your client's) business model rests in using content made by others without so much as a link is hardly a nice thing to do.
So yes, they're human beings. Human beings who starting all this with their own douche behavior.
> Please don't do this. It serves no purpose other than hostilizing your readers.
Thanks for the advice, but that's simply incorrect. (Unless you add "some of.")
> Sure, but that's not what she's saying; she's claiming that about everyone who likes The Oatmeal ("...just look at their cartoons. They like to kill"). Which would be absurd when said about someone who likes war movies, but is downright insane when applied to fans of the Oatmeal, which are comics mostly about cats, iPhone apps and annoying people.
Wow, are you really taking what I wrote as a defense of the Carreon's position? Sorry, but that's just wrong.
> I don't get how is this related to the issue. Who is exploiting people here, exactly? Except maybe for FunnyJunk?
No one is exploiting anyone here, except maybe for FunnyJunk. However, there is a red flag that should go up with uncivil behavior and disdain.
> The Internet is just the perfect medium of communication for misfits, from the people with weird passions, to the non-socials (like me), to the anti-socials. And the gaming culture is worse because it's the zone of the Internet full of 14 year olds. I don't think there's any new worrying trend, compared to what I've seen before.
I've met people like a 33 year old man who is taking the warped version of morality he learned from championship FPS tournaments and is applying it to taking over and running a community 501C3 non profit. The Internet is also the perfect medium for relatively consequence-free communication with people whose social distance is very far away. The lessons learned in such a medium are often very bad in other contexts.
> So yes, they're human beings. Human beings who starting all this with their own douche behavior.
You've completely missed my point. I'm not defending or demonizing anyone. I'm suggesting that the self-righteous urge to demonize someone is often the best time for self-examination. Re-read and try again.
In one of her article or message board comments (assuming it was actually her), she claims to have worked as a legal secretary for 20 years.
(There's nothing bad or incompetent about this.)
Why do you think this is something that is unique to the law?
Should Hans Reiser be taken as an example of programmers?
Should Ted Kaczynski be taken as an example of mathematicians?
Should Amy Bishop be used as an example of disgruntled academics?
So, you see one or two prominent crazy lawyers (and the wife of one crazy lawyer), and decide that this is something unique to the law?
However, this woman is dead serious, and is making quite defamatory remarks about Inman. She's directly and unashamedly calling him a murderer, a Nazi, the man who shot Giffords et al, and a criminal. I would love to see a defamation of character lawsuit from Inman against Tara. She's given no hint that she is playing satire or making a joke (no matter how distasteful). Even going so far to make veiled threats against his life!
And no one believes a thing she says.
Oh, just ask any hardcore religious right-winger why they think women should have no birth control or why gays shouldn't marry. The world is filled with these brain dead crazies who can't put 1 + 1 together if their life depend on it. We just don't see them too much during our day-to-day, if we're too busy inside our work routine on our little tech bubble. That we tend to forget about them. But they're all over the place.
It is one of the less useful aspects of the Internet that it amplifies the small crazy voices along with the small useful ones.
I'm not really sure what social conservatism has to do with launching flagrantly frivolous legal complaints and comparing satirical writers to Jared Loughner, though...
The problem is we have a system that looks towards 'ordained' religious positions for our tax record. So this country mixes up person rights with religious gunk.
The legal question then, after removing religious stuff: do GLBT people have the right to have a relationship respected for tax and governmental reasons? I see no justification for taking rights away because of their brain chemistry.
It's not social conservatism, it's bigotry.
This just strenghten the global impression that it's a lawyer who can't even control and properly deal with it's own affairs. I guess this is what a lose canon lawyer looks like.
As an european I would add that it contributes to give a very bad image of the USA.
To find Tara guilty of defamation, a target of her batshit insanity would need to meet specific burdens of proof. They would need to prove to the court that they don't like to kill, and that Tara knew (or ought to have known) that that wasn't true.
Free speech is damn messy.
One of the rationale of this principle is that setting up a trial to contest defamatory claims is reproducing the defamatory action.
Beside, if someone claims you are a pedophile, a human body eater or like to kill for instance, how could you objectively prove you're not ?
Those who claim things should logically have the burden of proof, especially if it is defamatory.
This is surprising because it seem to me like a common sense limit to free speech. It is also why I feel much safer in France.
There's a reason the Church of Scientology loves suing people in England.
Which is, ironically, exactly what Tara Carreon has accused Inman of doing:
>History is full of evidence of the connection between hate speech and hate action. We need go no further than the Nazi propaganda against the Jews…
>These Techdirt nazi scumbags are doing to Charles what they did to the Jewish lawyers in Nazi Germany. Accusing him of greed and being responsible for the entire economic mess that our country is in. I mean, that is crazy! No group of people deserves to be so wholesaledly condemned, unless they are a criminal organization like the Mafia. I don't even believe in groups! Give every individual identity, dignity, human rights, and freedom.
And now today,
>These children have been corrupted by a corrupt society. And everyone who fails to register an opinion and act in this matter is to blame. They are stupid, silent people, who are absolutely worthless to our society. Really, what good is their life, but a burden to the planet?
Physician, heal thyself.
For some reason, the tone and structure of the wife's writing reminds me of the LoseThos situation. [1]
[1] http://qaa.ath.cx/LoseThos.html
Call me a bleeding heart killjoy if you must, but I've recently come to the conclusion that just like prison rape and developmental disabilities, mental illness just isn't something you can make tasteful jokes about.
If you read his comments there's something definitely wrong with him (I hesitate using that phrase, but I don't know how else to say it). He's a talented individual with a strong work ethic, hopefully he gets the help that he needs.
You're hesitant to use the phrase "something definitely wrong with him". That made me think of other terms, like "disturbed", "unhinged", "unbalanced" or the clinical "mentally ill" and I can't find anything that doesn't sound demeaning, judgmental, or moralistic. I think that says something about our ability to understand and help these people.
"It's not the first time we've been targeted as sacrificial victims," Tara wrote. "We were targeted by the entire Buddhist community when I told them to go fuck themselves, for being nihilists, elitists, and authoritarians."
[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/funnyjunk-lawyers...
(The account joined in 2008, but web forum software is notoriously insecure and there are many ways to fake or hijack a profile. So it might not be her.)
(http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_board/viewtopic.php?p=1...)
> His mother is a psychic, who does palm reading, angel communication, tarot, channeling, psychometry, aura readings, and mediumship. She says she comes from "a line of readers, mystics in Europe." I wonder if her family associated with the Blavatsky Nazi crowd. Most of the medium/psychic whackos did. She studied with a Tibetan Shaman in Nepal. Wow. A totally crazy woman. Matt Inman has crazy parents on both sides. No wonder he's crazy, too.
I'm not sure what I expect from a thread titled "Charles Carreon vs. The Illuminati and Matt Inman".
It's as if they have never heard of the internet before, and expect everyone to side with them. It's pathological ignorance.
Once the originally-planned $20k had been exceeded, Inman suggested that he would find some more charities that might benefit from the cash. This thought was abandoned shortly after Carreon cried foul about the "different way than promised". So, good-good for the bears, they'll get a bigger money pit to roll around in.
This is going into my quotes file.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California
I wonder if FunnyJunk is now just continuing this for the publicity.
"Once the money is moved, I still plan on withdrawing $211k in cash and taking a photo to send to Charles Carreon and FunnyJunk, along with the drawing of Funnyjunk's mother."
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/fundraiser_update
1. the money donated by PayPal was already in Inman's hands.
2. the money donated via credit card was already sent to the charities.
Oddly, Inman's blog isn't as up-to-date as the court filings. Inman's filing is here: https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/OatmealOppT...
Ars writes an entire article purportedly about the picture, yet they don't even have the picture.
Kind of like how trogs don't grok that Colbert is making fun of them.
Hate speech is wishing harm on your opponents for political reasons. Calling people names is not hate speech. Neither is making fun of people. That's just being a dick.
Alas, wingers don't get that distinction. I suspect the root cause (mental failing) also explains trogs rampant false equivalency (e.g. Clinton got a blow job == Bush allowing 9/11, illegally invading a foreign country, killing 100,000s of its citizens, making refugees out of a few million, and using depleted uranium to convert much of the formerly inhabited areas into Superfund sites).
I once had a winger tell me that the Rodney King riots in LA were an example of left wing hate speech. The stupid, it hurts. I honestly can't decide if trogs say ridiculous non sequiturs because they're thick or if it's merely to distract and enrage (a la Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter). I've decided to simply judge people by their actions, vs their intent.
The grandma having sex with a bear is obviously funny. To you and me. But the trogs can't see it that way. Any mocking is a direct personal attack demanding a defensive response.
Inman didn't know the Carreon's were mentally impaired. But for future, just know that trogs will misunderstand, misinterpret, twist, assume the worst, distort, etc. No one can control the audience's reaction. But in my mocking, I do try to avoid borderline humor which can be labeled "hate speech". No sense giving the trogs another chew toy. And there's no shortage of funny stuff to say.
I had to read Tara Carreon's quote for myself. The "hate speech" reference jumped out. No one else had commented on it. Probably because few here are as political as me, so wouldn't know that it's a politically charged phrase.
Oh, I forgot to mention something.
Carreon's equating Inman to Jared Loughner is just sick. As in reprehensible. No different than invoking Hitler (Godwin's Law). And is a pretty good example of hateful (vs hate) speech.