From: bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 93 06:22:38 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: anti-social behavior
In-Reply-To: <199310270240.AA20351@panix.com>
Message-ID: <CFK2JK.6rG@twwells.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


In article <199310270240.AA20351@panix.com>,
Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com> wrote:
: B >ASAR stands for "alt.sexual.abuse.recovery", a newsgroup I run an
: B >anonymous server for. This group actually has survivors of all
: B >sorts of abuse, including the verbal abuse that rjc perpetrated.
:
: "Sticks and stones" etc.

The old saw about sticks and stones is absolutely false and
typically is used (I'm not presuming this of you) as a cover for
behavior that is intended to cause harm. The vast majority of
abusive behavior, defined in terms of the harm it causes its
victims, is done with words, not by direct physical action.

Without getting into a long discussion, the thing is that
emotional responses are not chosen, they are automatic. One can
no more avoid responding with emotional pain, which is just as
real as physical pain, to a hurtful word, than one can avoid
responding with physical pain to a punch in the face.

True, what will cause pain to one person will not necessarily
cause pain to another. Also true, between adults there is no
absolute requirement to avoid causing one another pain.

Nonetheless, respect for one another implies that one avoids
doing so whenever one can, within limits. The other side of this
is that one should have a good reason to cause another pain, even
the emotional pain caused by words.

Rjc's sin is not failure of respect, though he has certainly has
shown that, but the intentional causing of harm to another. He
has claimed that "it was only a joke". "It was only a joke",
except in rare and limited circumstances (which this is not one
of), translates directly to "I knew it was going to hurt and
that's why I did it".

He might claim otherwise. But such a claim would only have been
taken seriously if it had been accompanied by evidence that he
was aware of what he did. If he'd said "It was only a joke and
I'm sorry that I didn't consider that it would hurt Detweiler",
that would have been one thing. But he said "It was only a joke
therefore it was OK". That was only a disclaimer of responsibility
and a bald assertion that he would do the same again.