The end of FHRITP in Toronto?

[AlvinofDiaspar]

What, you mean the reporter? The phrase, while vulgar and offensive, is not directed at the reporter. The "joke" is that the person being interviewed works the phrase casually into an unrelated sentence.

You missed it - since when is the phrase acceptable in public - regardless of who it is directed to? When should we accept that saying FHRITP, out loud, in public, in the presence of women is not grounds for reaction of some kind? It's not directed at her doesn't mean she isn't a prop of the "joke".

AoD

 

[TOareaFan]

.. have you ever seen a really crude stand-up routine, or heard of "The Aristocrats"??? That is the whole point.

And hockey players punch each other....but outside of that specific arena, with the consents involved with stepping on the ice or buying a ticket to watch, we don't consider it appropriate outside behaviour either.

 

[doug]

A good precedent has been set by this, now finally, when a bunch of yahoos drive up church street yelling faggot, we can get the licence number, find out who they are, submit it to police, have them fined and hopefully they'll all lose their jobs...if they have them.

Or when we get photographic evidence of a politician reading while driving on the highway, the police will go after them and they will also lose their job, being a danger to the general public.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The verbal gymnastics going on here are so predictable. What this comes down to is really just a sad, post-modern rape joke (look, the women are just too uptight or hysterical to "get it" and the man-boy who yells aggressive obscenities at total strangers is just terribly misunderstood) plays itself out in a very disappointing and familiar way.

That's why I propose the mother/wife/girlfriend/daughter test for men who think it is a joke - how would they feel if it is their forementioned subjected to the FHRITP crowd. Would they be so quick to think that it's funny or harmless? I suspect not.

A good precedent has been set by this, now finally, when a bunch of yahoos drive up church street yelling faggot, we can get the licence number, find out who they are, submit it to police, have them fined and hopefully they'll all lose their jobs...if they have them.

Or when we get photographic evidence of a politician reading while driving on the highway, the police will go after them and they will also lose their job, being a danger to the general public.

I think we need to be aware of the limits of this approach - it's really not something you'd want to have to police on a day to day basis. What you want to achieve is an increased awareness of acceptable public behaviour, the expectation that it will be followed and consequences for flagrant violation of such.

AoD

 

[Videodrome]

The tone deaf Sun's cartoon basically blamed the reporters for it happening. Donato is incredibly sexist.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

A good precedent has been set by this, now finally, when a bunch of yahoos drive up church street yelling faggot, we can get the licence number, find out who they are, submit it to police, have them fined and hopefully they'll all lose their jobs...if they have them.

Or when we get photographic evidence of a politician reading while driving on the highway, the police will go after them and they will also lose their job, being a danger to the general public.

I hope you never do anything deemed offensive by someone else and have your life destroyed in the process.

 

[Tewder]

Few, if anyone, is contemplating jail term as an appropriate response (IMO, it isn't) to this incident, so I am not sure what that red herring is about.

We agree. I was reacting to posters like Nfitz and Rat who equate tasteless sophomoric hijinks to physical assault and criminal actions:

... I'd think that criminal action should be taken against such misogyny.

No, someone was verbally assaulted.

Let's be clear, I agree with the public outcry/censure, it's important to have this discussion in society. I also agree with whatever actions an employer or anyone else takes in reaction to behaviour such as this, whether it's a reaction to inappropriate social media postings or whatever. People have to understand there are consequences to their actions...

The overreaction arises from a lack of context, a 'let's pillory those obviously privileged, white, sexist pigs' knee-jerk reaction that refuses any wider perspective. In a sense, this knee-jerk reaction is in itself actually fairly bigoted, it pegs these guys as dumb jock heteros and then ascribes attitudes and motivations to them because of it.

I do agree that the behaviour is reprehensible but there is some evidence to suggest the comments were taken out of context, not directed at the reporter herself etc. From the Star article:

Are these Toronto men misogynistic cretins, as most people seem to believe? Or were they merely parroting a catchphrase and taking part in a running cultural gag? They never did use the phrase, we should remember. They merely defended it.
We should also remember Hunt didn’t set out to crucify these men, which explains why they may now feel like collateral damage in the war on FHRITP. In fact, even as Internet sleuths set out to unmask the men on Monday, Hunt already knew their identities because they gave her their names.
Hunt says CityNews never released the names because, “Our intention from the start was to shed light on a much bigger issue.â€

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/2015/05/13/how-that-vulgar-phrase-was-born-menon.html

So yes:

Pshaw. There are 'cultural layers'? Not allowing a Sikh to wear a turban in the RCMP is a cultural debate. Not being allowed to harass journalists by being a knob is not exactly going to be a complaint to the Human Rights Commission.

This is very much a cultural discussion and should be. Some here just want blood though, to scapegoat these goofs for all the ills committed in our testosterone-driven, sports-obsessed patriarchal society. It is indeed an overreaction.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The overreaction arises from a lack of context, a 'let's pillory those obviously privileged, white, sexist pigs' knee-jerk reaction that refuses any wider perspective. In a sense, this knee-jerk reaction is in itself actually fairly bigoted, it pegs these guys as dumb jock heteros and then ascribes attitudes and motivations to them because of it.

I do agree that the behaviour is reprehensible but there is some evidence to suggest the comments were taken out of context, not directed at the reporter herself etc. From the Star article:

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/2015/05/13/how-that-vulgar-phrase-was-born-menon.html

This is very much a cultural discussion and should be. Some here just want blood though, to scapegoat these goofs for all the ills committed in our testosterone-driven, sports-obsessed patriarchal society. It is indeed an overreaction.

That's not the point - the point is how something as offensive as said phrase can be used so causally and without regard to the meaning of the phrase itself, much less its' impact on others. Words have meaning - and it isn't that of the meme being put forth as a defense (i.e. it's a simple, harmless joke). Did they not think about what it really meant? I highly doubt that - the very value of the phrase is its' ability to offend. One set out to do so, one reap what it sows.

AoD

 

[doug]

I hope you never do anything deemed offensive by someone else and have your life destroyed in the process.

you too....or post anything online deemed offensive by your employer, or the news media, or some random stranger.

So many in this thread are overjoyed by this precedent, I guess I should have put sarcasm tags around my post, since many here are completely missing the point.

Quote Originally Posted by Riverdale Rink Rat View Post
No, someone was verbally assaulted.

many are verbally assaulted in these fora every day

 

[doug]

Whatever happened to the three Toronto cops charged with sexual assault, and then suspended, not fired, form their jobs?
Where's the outcry?

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

you too....or post anything online deemed offensive by your employer, or the news media, or some random stranger.

That was my point; some people are so easily offended and quick to rush to judgment these days.

 

[nfitz]

We agree. I was reacting to posters like Nfitz and Rat who equate tasteless sophomoric hijinks to physical assault and criminal actions:

No one mentioned physical assault. My recollection of university, many tasteless sophomoric hijinks were criminal ... though I don't recall anyone daft enough to do one with a TV camera already rolling ... or one that potentially violates either the criminal harassment or uttering sections of the Criminal Code, which can carry severe penalties.

I am surprised that there are people defending such actions that perpetuate rape culture.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Many are verbally assaulted in these fora every day

Between y'all and Tewder, this whole 'free speech' and 'blown out of proportion' and such is kind of getting fun...

If you and your friends want to access YouTube videos of The Aristocrats or the comic who started this, or watch Johnny Knoxville be an ass, fill your boots. But arguing strenuously an argument I object to is 'free speech'. Screaming in my ear obscenities THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY AIMED AT MY GENDER is no more 'free speech' than you having to turn down your music at 3am in your condo, despite your need to play loud music.

And no one is verbally assaulted on these fora. The mods are very good at policing that (I have been put in the sin bin myself on occasion for overstepping decorum) and that's what's happening here -- the world is policing itself.

And to pick up on AoD's argument, why haven't we seen a big, burly guy targeted for this inanity? Because the 'joke' -- and if you thought it was funny to begin with, The Aristocrats will really appeal to you -- is no longer about a guy saying something stupid on air about a missing girl. It's now about trying to get an on air reaction from a young, female reporter by saying something shocking that, if you said to her in a bar/restaurant/school room/office, threw into your normal speech at a party, or in any other context, would be way beyond social norms. So now we're supposed to 'not overreact' because the cretin received 'permission' to do this by a shock jock's comic piece on YouTube?

Anyway, I'll stop. I'm obviously singing to the choir at this point. But I'll say this: my daughter's 18. If someone did this to her while she was filming a school project or some such, my reaction would probably be uncontrollable. So, for all of you 'don't overreact, it's funny' types -- you're right. I'd react very, very negatively.

 

[doug]

And no one is verbally assaulted on these fora. The mods are very good at policing that (I have been put in the sin bin myself on occasion for overstepping decorum)

No one? but you've bee slapped for it?
you can't seem to make up your mind.

Thanks for painting us all with the same general brush, by the way, you obviously don't understand the points anyone else is trying to make.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Last time I checked being an obnoxious cretin was not illegal, and no charges have been pressed against any of these guys. If what they did was so bad I'm sure the police would have no trouble making a case given that everything was recorded on video. It may offend good taste but it ain't assault unless the courts say so.