Somebody had to do it...

Hysteria · Post by **Hysteria** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 10:34 am

Y'know, the whole thread about Rikk hitting Stu and proving things right that way reminds me of medeival times. If someone insulted you, the "proper" response was to challenge them to a duel, and whichever one of you lived was obviously in the right. If memory serves correctly, this was also the attitude commoners had concerning the War of the Roses. Whoever wins is obviously divinely chosen.

I personally think this is not the way things should be resolved. I'm extremely glad Rikk didn't hit Stu, and I think the current handling of it was the best possible way to go. I do respect all of you who think Stu should be in the club, but to be honest I've had enough of people who act like that. People like that WILL drive out the decent people who decide that enough is enough. I can recall two different groups that had a "Stu" in them, and each time the result was the same--some of the decent people left, until either the offending person was expelled, or the group disbanded. Much as I'd love to be open-minded, you can't be sympathetic to one person as he or she manages to offend every other member of the group. Besides, if you recall the procedure, it takes all three ranking officers for a vote of expulsion in the skiffy club. So Stu had three chances, and he blew all of them. Let me reiterate that--THREE chances. I think that's a pretty reasonable number, no?

Well, I think that's all I have to say on that. Again, I do respect the people who would vote to keep him in. All I can say is that you must be incredibly patient and open-minded (no sarcasm implied).

Chris

RalphP · Post by **RalphP** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 10:41 am

On 2002-04-02 07:03, Vitriol wrote:
Ah, this is why I love the Fans! board; interesting and sensible discussions with good points on both sides.

Still noting to make me change my mind though; I think Rikk calling for a vote at that time was wrong, and that many of the old members sided with him out of loyalty (I'm surprised at Shanna, actually). I don't think it's morally better than hitting him
for behind; it just feels more righteous.

<nod> I agree with you - the PROPER thing would have been for Rikk to say, "No, Will, I am MUCH to angry with Stu right now. This is NOT the time to take a vote, IMAO." Or, more accurately, words to that effect (there's a reason why I don't lead a crew like Rikk - I do NOT have his mastery of English!)

Obviously I can understand why Rikk did it, but in time he may well come to regret it (especially given whatever happened in today's comic). Maybe their charter needs some waiting period; a minimum space of time before a vote being called and the results taken.
[/quote/

That would take care of it.

RwP

Czhorat · Post by **Czhorat** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 10:54 am

Stu's taunting the mental patient is actually one of the worst things he did.

One could argue that the women's participation in the frat mixer was voluntary. Was the invitation misleading? A bit. Did several women show up knowing exactly what to expect? Apparently. His behavious was by no means honorable, but there is a certain way in which it fit the context.

Harassing mental patients is simply not excusable behaviour. One can no more hold someone who is mentally ill up to normal standards of behaviour than one can expect the victim of a spinal injury to walk it off.

In the best of all possible worlds, someone would sit down with Stu and try to teach him how to deal with people. I don't think that the person who Stu just called the luckiest guy in the world because his wife is dying would be the best candidate for this, however.

Shatteredtower · Post by **Shatteredtower** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 11:18 am

On 2002-04-02 10:34, Hysteria wrote: So Stu had three chances, and he blew all of them. Let me reiterate that--THREE chances. I think that's a pretty reasonable number, no?

It would be, if he'd actually been given them.

No, seriously, it's not a chance if you aren't told what you did wrong in the first place. And no one has ever been shown taking Stu to task for any of his wrongdoing. Kath came closest - but not close enough.

I've read a few people argue that Stu has no excuse for not knowing better. Tell me this: if no one has told him otherwise before this, how on earth would he know better, hmm?

There is no innate moral code in humans. So where do we learn correct behaviour, if not from our peers (even - or especially - if they have good reason to loathe us)?

Aris Katsaris · Post by **Aris Katsaris** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 11:50 am

First of all I'm sorry, Maccabee, for overreacting...

Secondly:

RalphP wrote:
<nod> I agree with you - the PROPER thing would have been for Rikk to say, "No, Will, I am MUCH to angry with Stu right now. This is NOT the time to take a vote, IMAO."

<sigh> So, Rikk should wait for a time when *noone* is angry with Stu, so that noone's vote is affected?

I really don't see what would change with a delayed vote. What would change if Rikk voted 'aye' at a later time vs voting 'aye' now? Or are you saying that Rikk *shouldn't* vote 'aye' regardless of time and place? That's a different matter, isn't it?

I think that you (and a couple other people with this opinion about Rikk 'railroading' the guy off the club) are in essense saying that Rikk must NEVER vote at all in any subject, because everyone will take his side. And that's a bit contemptuous about the other members' ability to have opinions of their own.

On 2002-04-02 11:18, Shatteredtower wrote:

I've read a few people argue that Stu has no excuse for not knowing better. Tell me this: if no one has told him otherwise before this, how on earth would he know better, hmm?

I'm sure that some of the people he bullied must have told him "Please, don't do that."

People live in a society. Soon each of us learns what things harm a fellow human being. And the only thing that remains is whether we *care*. Stu is not 5 years old, he's probably around 20.

SteveB · Post by **SteveB** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 12:09 pm

On 2002-04-02 11:50, Aris Katsaris wrote:
On 2002-04-02 11:18, Shatteredtower wrote:

I've read a few people argue that Stu has no excuse for not knowing better. Tell me this: if no one has told him otherwise before this, how on earth would he know better, hmm?
I'm sure that some of the people he bullied must have told him "Please, don't do that."

How can you be sure of this? We've certainly never seen it.

NO ONE has ever been shown telling Stu anything about his behavior. Even Guth was just saying "you're stupid and this is my refuge and you don't belong here so go away."

People live in a society. Soon each of us learns what things harm a fellow human being. And the only thing that remains is whether we *care*. Stu is not 5 years old, he's probably around 20.

Stu's behavior is not particularly reprehensible in certain social groups. Marginally disreputable at worst, and around some good ol' boys I've known Stu would be considered something of a hero if he'd managed to get into Jackie's pants, for instance.

It's apparent that he has spent most of his life in such groups. It's actually quite likely that he really, truly, simply doesn't know any better. I know that's hard for some folks here to believe, but it's true.

Does he know that some of his actions are "immoral," by the rules of our society? Well, probably -- but who here, either in the club or on the list, has never done something immoral?.

Does he believe that most people are as self-serving as himself? Abso-bloody-lutely. Does he think that most men think about women the way he does, even if they behave differently, and that if they behave differently it's mainly a ploy to get in the girl's pants? Yeah, he really does. He really, really does.

He was absolutely awestruck by the concept of a young man like Rikk having the primary benefit of marriage (daily sex) without the downside (chained to the same person for life). And he really does think that any guy would think that would be "lucky." The "hypocrites" charge might well be a claim that Rikk and the rest in fact think like him but pretend not to for the sake of the girls, although I'm betting it's the "I thought you accepted anybody here" meaning. But for Stu, both seem to be true.

He doesn't understand that they really do think differently, nor that their are limits even to tolerant people's willingness to put up with you.

Does he realize they think he's a jerk? Yes. Does he fully comprehend why? No.

He's ignorant. But ignorance can be cured. And no one has ever bothered to try.

He may also be malicious and evil. There have, in fact, been hints at this in his behavior. But there has also been at least one hint of possible nobility, too. Most of his behavior displayed neither, but merely his ignorance.

I'd say "We'll never know, now," but in fact I'm pretty certain that we haven't seen the last of Stu.

Steve Bolhafner

LordNicodareus · Post by **LordNicodareus** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 12:30 pm

There is a phrase, that once I actually realized what it meant, helped me get through a pretty tough time in my life,
"You can't measure your wheat against another mans bushel."
Stu looks at the world differently than most of us. He does what we all do, and assumes that everyone else thinks and acts like himself. I think its a maturity thing. He may be 20, and legally entitled to stuff, but maybe he has the thought process of a 5 year old, with the intelligence and hormones of a young male. So, Stu just looks at the world througha different pair of glasses than the average guy.
So there....thppbppbp

Dalben · Post by **Dalben** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 12:32 pm

Shatteredtower · Post by **Shatteredtower** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 12:38 pm

On 2002-04-02 11:50, Aris Katsaris wrote:
On 2002-04-02 11:18, Shatteredtower wrote:

I've read a few people argue that Stu has no excuse for not knowing better. Tell me this: if no one has told him otherwise before this, how on earth would he know better, hmm?
I'm sure that some of the people he bullied must have told him "Please, don't do that."

It's a natural assumption - and it's amazing how often the natural assumption is so very wrong.

I have seen evidence of people doing nothing about Stu's ignorance. I have not seen them doing anything about it aside from kicking him out for being ignorant.

People live in a society.

Sorry, but people live in societies - plural.

Soon each of us learns what things harm a fellow human being.

Oh, really? I've heard friends of mine argue for corporal punishment for children, because "I got smacked when I was a kid, and I turned out fine!"

My own experience is very different - but my cultural background is not. That should tell you why I can't see any way to agree with the statement you just made.

And the only thing that remains is whether we *care*.

Again, I disagree. If we do not understand, how can we truly care?

Stu is not 5 years old, he's probably around 20.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how this is a relevant argument. I really don't. It doesn't matter how old you are if you've never seen why or how what you do is wrong.

Is a thing wrong because people disapprove? Think about every martyr to every cause who was executed or arrested for just such a crime before you answer that.

And I hope you won't argue that we're better than the societies that did it to them.

Czhorat · Post by **Czhorat** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 1:04 pm

The arguments about Stu's needing to learn are good ones, as is the idea that he needs guidance. What I don't understand is why you think it's Rikk's responsibility to provide it to him.

So far he's offended almost every method of the science fiction club - a social group of friends. I don't think they should have to suffer to teach Stu a lesson.

Dalben · Post by **Dalben** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 1:16 pm

It really amazes me how seriously some people take Stu's comment about Alisin. They seem to think that Stu really thinks it would be a good thing for Alisin to die. The sad fact is that lots of people say all kinds of terribly insulting things without meaning them at all. If you people were in the locker room with my Highschool wrestling team you would have heard all sorts of insults and comments which would be horribly offensive if anyone took them seriously. I wasn't thrilled with this attitude because there is just no need to gratutously insult people EVER. But the fact is no one in the locker room took any of the comments at all seriously.
The difference is that my team mates most of my team mates acted perfectly normal and polite outside the locker room, and even the ones who were more inclined to get into trouble were no where near as carless of other people's reactions as Stu is. Stu acts like he's in a locker room all the time-not just at frat parties or in an informal setting with fellow members of his club, but in the asylum. He has to have a really poor understanding of social norms not to realize his behavior is innapropriate there.
In an ordinary club I could see asking him to leaver, because he just doesn't get along with almost anyone in the club and his presence would make the club unenjoyable for everyone. Having the officers privately ask him to leave would certainly be a lot less cruel than having him humiliatingly voted out, but if he refused to leave voting him out would be appropriate.
HOWEVER, getting rid of goes totally against the ideal of accepting everybody, especially outcasts which is part of the club's charter. Stu has been rude, and offensive, and shown that he is totally unaware of how to behave socially. This would definitely interfere with the club but is not the kind of heinous acts that the writers of the club charter probably had in mind.

Aris Katsaris · Post by **Aris Katsaris** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 1:31 pm

I'm sure that some of the people he bullied must have told him "Please, don't do that."
How can you be sure of this? We've certainly never seen it.

You think that bullies think their victims like it? You think that Stu thinks Guth doesn't mind being called "pencilneck"? His smile when he saw his cousin suggested that he liked seeing someone he could bully, aka *hurt*.

NO ONE has ever been shown telling Stu anything about his behavior.

Plain false. Both Kath and Jackie have told him about his behaviour. Jackie said "That's quite close enough, don't you think?"

It's apparent that he has spent most of his life in such groups. It's actually quite likely that he really, truly, simply doesn't know any better. I know that's hard for some folks here to believe, but it's true.

How many years do you think that the Club ought to devote to him just to teach him manners? And which kind of tools ought they to use?

He's ignorant. But ignorance can be cured. And no one has ever bothered to try.

You don't KNOW that noone has ever bothered to try. He is 20 years old. Stop treating with kiddie gloves. Any mass murderer and criminal could get the exact same excuse with this line of argument.

Racists are also 'ignorant'. So what? Do you think that racists have *never* heard of the idea that black people are humans too? They've heard it but they remain "ignorant".

It's a natural assumption - and it's amazing how often the natural assumption is so very wrong.

It's also very amazing how *more* often the natural assumption is right. Do you really think Stu thinks Guth doesn't mind being violently shoved and called names like 'faggot'? Is he "ignorant" that people don't like such things to be done to them?

Jackie definitely made it clear that she didn't like him so close. Was he "ignorant" of that? He responded by putting a hand over her breast. Possibly *on* her breast.

Oh, really? I've heard friends of mine argue for corporal punishment for children, because "I got smacked when I was a kid, and I turned out fine!"

Yes, they are idiots, but you still haven't made a good argument that Stu was doing this stuff for Guth's or Jackie's benefit, same as these misguided parents do for their children.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how this is a relevant argument. I really don't. It doesn't matter how old you are if you've never seen why or how what you do is wrong.

A younger person has still hope of being taught otherwise in a couple months. A 20-year old jerk will probably just grow up to be a 40-year old jerk. Unless something really dramatic and life-changing occurs, which the Club couldn't provide at will.

Is a thing wrong because people disapprove?

I'm not gonna restart the moral objectivity debate that I participated in the Clan of the Cats forum. I'll just say that some people have in the past suffered because they were *better* or just different than most of the rest of their society - and some have suffered because they *worse* than their society.

Stu is worse than most of the rest of the society he lives in. Not just different - *worse*.

On 2002-04-02 13:16, Dalben wrote:
Stu has been rude, and offensive, and shown that he is totally unaware of how to behave socially. This would definitely interfere with the club but is not the kind of heinous acts that the writers of the club charter probably had in mind.

Who do you think were the writers of the club charter? And would you accept *anything* as reason enough to expell him from the club which wouldn't also put him in jail?

Dalben · Post by **Dalben** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 1:35 pm

Oh, I forgot to mention that my votes is NAY, Stu stays in the club.

While I'm at it I'll add that Stu is no sadist. One of the marks of a sadist is that they are cowards, and Stu is no coward. Perhaps some people have forgotten that while the central members of the sci-fi club have had little fear of the many menaces they fight ordinary people are not so fearless. In the very first storyline the crowd at the sci-fi convention turns into a terrified mob at the sight of rather ordinary looking assailants (those laser guns looked just like normal hand guns and were certainly less threatening than machine guns). I doubt there's too many people out there willing to attack a gun weilding maniac with a knife--it's just that all of the original sci-fi club would probably be willing to do so. If Stu teased and tormented Katherine or Shanna's mom while not making any sudden moves I'd say yeah, maybe he's a sadist, but as it is I'd say he's more courageous than I am, and it makes me think a lot less of Katherine. As for my assertions that sadist are cowards, you can check that in psychology textbooks, but I can also cite many descriptions by my grandfather of my great-uncle (I think that's the relationship) and various less meaninful sources.

You should also keep in mind that Stu agreed to visit Shanna's mother with Katherine in the first place. He didn't know her--he barely knew Shanna or Katherine, but apparently the bonds that he thought were formed by his acceptance into the club were strong enough for him to agree to the really unpleasant task of visiting an asylum to meet some insane woman he doesn't even know. Then, either those bonds of loyalty or a willingness to protect utter strangers gets him to attack the well armed and dangerous looking general with a switchblade. In real life he'd be hailed as a hero.

Shatteredtower · Post by **Shatteredtower** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 1:36 pm

On 2002-04-02 13:04, Czhorat wrote:
The arguments about Stu's needing to learn are good ones, as is the idea that he needs guidance. What I don't understand is why you think it's Rikk's responsibility to provide it to him.

"Am I my brother's keeper?"

If not his responsibility, whose? Tossing him out without doing anything means that he just gets to create the problems elsewhere.

Or not even elsewhere. So long as Stu is on campus, he's easily able to pass those bad feelings on to other, simply because a few people decided to act quickly.

First misconception about good leaders: They make quick decisions. This was not something that Rikk couldn't have slept on.

So far he's offended almost every method...

I'll assume you mean member - if you actually meant method, then I don't understand.

... of the science fiction club - a social group of friends.

A social group of friends? You don't draft people into a social group of friends. You don't open your doors to the public for a social group of friends.

The core group became a social group of friends. It did not start out that way. And the newcomers aren't part of that group even now.

I don't think they should have to suffer to teach Stu a lesson.

Oh, of course not. Nobody has to do the right thing. But they have to live with the consequences. And not just in what this does to Stu.

(No, I don't think it will destroy him. But I do believe that it could destroy them.)

SteveB · Post by **SteveB** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 1:48 pm

On 2002-04-02 13:31, Aris Katsaris wrote:
NO ONE has ever been shown telling Stu anything about his behavior.
Plain false. Both Kath and Jackie have told him about his behaviour. Jackie said "That's quite close enough, don't you think?"

If you don't realize this is a different thing then taking someone aside and saying "Do you know you're obnoxious behavior is alienating people?" I just don't know what to say.

Racists are also 'ignorant'. So what? Do you think that racists have *never* heard of the idea that black people are humans too? They've heard it but they remain "ignorant".

I'll admit there are racists who do not learn from their mistakes, and who do not seem to be capable of learning. I also know that many former racists are never trusted as being "really" different, and people always assume their just hiding their true feelings. And it may often be true.

But let me tell you about my grandfather.

He grew up in rural Missouri, in a smallish town where, as a young boy, he was often paid a quarter by adult white folks to throw rocks at black folks hanging out by the train station to make sure they got on the train and were out of town by sundown. He grew up with only one word for colored people (as was the polite term back then), and it started with an "n."

He raised my mother to be so totally color blind that she was one of the generation of young white folks listening to black radio stations that created the initial market for rock 'n' roll, lived in mixed neighborhoods much of her life, and caused a neighborhood controversy when I was in Cub Scouts by kicking the Boy Scout liaison for our pack out of her house (she was our Den Mother) for using the word her father had once used casually and refusing to take it back. Nor did she bat an eye when her nine year old son became best friends with a black kid, and started going to an otherwise all black church because he liked it after visiting one Sunday morning after spending Saturday night with his friend.

Was my grandfather, as a boy, ignorant? Yes he was. Racist, even. And he learned how wrong he had been, and determined to bring his children up better, and did.

Does Stu have half the character my grandfather had? Not likely. But he's young, and his background is probably not much less backward than my grandfather's. I think it's just barely possible that he is capable of learning how to be a better human being.

Is it the skiffies responsibility to see that he does so? Heck, no. They have no responsibility to help make the world a better place, one person at a time. But it wouldn't be a bad idea to try.

Understand. I understand Rikk's anger, and everyone else's attitude, too. I can't honestly say that I'm sure if I'd been standing among them at that time I wouldn't have said "Aye."

But from where I sit, with the benefit of objectivity and calm, I think it was a mistake.

Steve Bolhafner

Steve Bolhafner

Khavren · Post by **Khavren** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 1:49 pm

And it came to pass in the town of Billberg that a crowd had found evidence that a man was rude, crude, socially unacceptable, callous and contemptous of others. And the mob did seize this man and were dragging him to the marketplace there to expel him from thier society when they met an old wise SMOF who was lecturing on Trek:TOS and it's biblicial parallels. And the SMOF did go to the mob and say "What do you do here?" And the mob did reply "This guys a jerk, we're booting him out cause we don't like him!" The SMOF stood by the man and faced the crowd, "Who among you has been declared a freak? A Geek? A dweeb? Who among you has been driven forth by others, looked down on and mocked as a lesser person?" The crowd all looked about themselves and saw that all hands were raised high and that many turned away in shame over memories past. The SMOF looked on the confused and upset crowd and spoke once more; "As others have judged you, so you now judge, drive him forth and you declare that all those who drove you were right and correct. Do as you will."

KingLeon · Post by **KingLeon** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 1:56 pm

Yeah, but how did the old, wise guy end up VOTING?

LordNicodareus · Post by **LordNicodareus** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 1:58 pm

Yes, but the geeks and freaks and nerds were not ostracized for insulting other people. They were ostracized for merely being different. Stu is the type that picks on geeks, and freeks, and nerds. Rikk and the gang were already being morally obliged by letting him in, they could have not let him in in the first place. No they gave him a chance, and he failed. They have every right to expell Stu. I would not have acted as good as Rikk. I would have pounded Stu to the ground, or as T so eloquently put it "Beat him until he stopped moving". Stu has been tried, and found wanting, to quote a fav movie of mine.

_________________
A man said to the Universe: "I Exist!", To which the Universe replied: "But that does not create in Me a sense of Obligation."
Stephen Crane

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LordNicodareus on 2002-04-02 14:03 ]</font>

Aris Katsaris · Post by **Aris Katsaris** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 1:59 pm

Plain false. Both Kath and Jackie have told him about his behaviour. Jackie said "That's quite close enough, don't you think?"
If you don't realize this is a different thing then taking someone aside and saying "Do you know you're obnoxious behavior is alienating people?" I just don't know what to say.

Of course it's different. So what? You guys pretty much claimed that noone had even told him "Don't do that."

Was my grandfather, as a boy, ignorant? Yes he was. Racist, even. And he learned how wrong he had been, and determined to bring his children up better, and did.

There are a couple things missing from all this story: Who taught him not be racist? How old was he when he first learned it?

If he was still a teenager when he learned it then the story is pointless - because I'm saying that Stu is too *old* not to have learned better if he was indeed willing to learn.

If nobody especially taught this to him and he just learned it himself, then the story is again pointless - because I'm saying that people *can* learn things by themselves from society in general and don't need others to teach things to them step-by-step.

Is it the skiffies responsibility to see that he does so? Heck, no. They have no responsibility to help make the world a better place, one person at a time. But it wouldn't be a bad idea to try.

And what makes you think that this expulsion isn't exactly the thing that Stu needs? It may be the first time somebody "punishes" him for this kind of behaviour.

And what makes you think that this expulsion isn't exactly what needs to be done for the sake of the *other* members of the club?

LordNicodareus · Post by **LordNicodareus** » Tue Apr 02, 2002 2:28 pm

14-13, in favor of him leaving.
Damn, it's gettin close. This is what being a fan is all about, you know. I bet T. is laughing his head off right now. Well, we have had well over 50 posts, but only 27 actual votes. This is great though. When are we going to realize that everyone has different views of the world? Stu looks at a girl and thinks "Damn I'd like to get into her pants!" Tim looks at a girl and thinks "Wow, shes cute, I bet she's even cuter when shes angry!" Rikk looks at a girl and thinks "Hmm, (insert fandom based thought here)!. Everyone looks at one thing, and see completly different things altogether. Poor Stu needs a perception check.

This list has no continuity whatsoever. Oh well.
_________________
A man said to the Universe: "I Exist!", To which the Universe replied: "But that does not create in Me a sense of Obligation."
Stephen Crane

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LordNicodareus on 2002-04-02 14:30 ]</font>