This new alias* should remove me enough from being identified.
Thanks so much for posting. The link is broken. This is the post that prompted the question. He's since followed up with dishonesty and illogic, and a second-hand capture of the "offensive" video: she wishes there were more groceries and fewer potholes near her house. The most offensive thing is a mild complaint about handicapped neighbors being out in traffic, which I think is not every empathetic but not exactly expressed in harsh terms.
*No one would recognize the old one--I mostly lurk--but it did identify me by first name and last initial. On the off chance that someone else reports Turtle Boy (I have not) and he comes across this, I don't want to be blamed.
I basically agree with Heebie's take. I'm in favor of a pretty solid wall between professional and private life, mainly because it's our only protection against invasive employers.
If there was evidence that he hits on underage girls/boys, that would be different. But if he's just an asshole, I don't think it merits intervention as long as he behaves at work.
Christ, what an asshole.
But assholes like this aren't uncommon. The phrase "banality of awful"* comes to mind. I only skimmed the attached post and a followup, but I wonder if a school district would take any action. Have we actually reached the point where stalking and abusing a woman online is a disciplinary offense if there's no profanity involved? I'm almost inclined to support outing him just as a social experiment.
He certainly hasn't put himself in a position to complain about negative fallout from an ill-considered Internet post.
(More seriously, I'm close to an absolutist on Internet privacy, even for assholes, given my own wish to express obnoxious opinions with a pseud. But still.)
*Somehow, Google only returns 4 results for that.
This guy says, repeatedly, that he thinks that publicising everything you can find out about a person (except their phone number, admittedly) is an appropriate response to their posting something you find disagreeable. Take him at his word.
My preferred approach would be to take it up with him directly. Doxing and harassment is shitty behavior and he ought to be called out on it. Pointing out the possible repercussions of the school getting wind of his behavior is well within the limits of what he himself has set as acceptable. Hopefully he'll moderate his behavior under the implied threat. Whether or not to pull the trigger if he escalates is not clear to me. I guess it depends on what the escalation consists of.
I pretty much agree with 2.1 but I'm not sure there shouldn't be a higher standard for teachers and others who have authority over kids.
@4, 5: I guess I'm distinguishing between "make public" (maybe OK) and "contact employer" (bad). That might not be a very coherent distinction, however...
You didn't mention the racism! Or the threats to send "field reporters"!
DID SOMEONE SAY FUCKING DINOSAURS FROM JURASSIC PARK??
Man, Worcester really does suck, though.
10 was a joke based but should probably be removed in case of accidental accuracy.
"the fucking dinosaurs from Jurassic Park"
I missed that scene, was it in the director's cut?
2 and the OP get it right. Also I don't think that the linked post in 1 is likely to be a firing or disciplinary offense for a public hs teacher (indeed, especially if he's pseudonymous, there may be First Amendment issues involved that may make it illegal for the district to discipline him), so, while he's certainly invited "outing," it's unlikely to be effective in any sense, in addition to breaking the "not your problem" rule.
I've taken plenty of things up with him directly, most recently his question, "if transgender is real, aren't we bullying babies by giving them boy or girl names?" He doesn't believe that either transgender or bullying is real, which are a few of the reasons I doubt his professional suitability. But I am very reluctant to attack his work life in any real way. I did doxx him to Margee though. Turns out he made it really easy to find her in our company's directory.
16: No wonder the poor guy has a chip on his shoulder.
This guy says, repeatedly, that he thinks that publicising everything you can find out about a person (except their phone number, admittedly) is an appropriate response to their posting something you find disagreeable. Take him at his word.
Wow does that seem like a bad response. Just as an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, a public outing for a public outing makes strips the whole world of privacy and pseudonymity.
15: He doesn't believe bullying is real??? As in, it's something that doesn't actually happen? Or that it's just good clean fun, and that people should stop whining about it?
3 - Are you thinking of the phrase "the banality of evil" (Arendt)? Or is this a deliberate modification of it?
Mostly the latter. He's a "wussification of America type." Though he would dispute whether some things constitute bullying, e.g. the Miami Dolphins thing.
This post on his blog makes him seem to be not quite the monster that 15 implies. Still pretty bro-ish, but a not-unenlightend bro.
Maybe the problem is that people don't focus enough attention on the pain of people that live in places that other people insult all the time. People that live in sucky towns have feelings too!
||I guess this belongs on the defunct gentrification thread, but NMM to J&R Music World. Shuttered to make way for "an unprecedented retailing concept"!|>
The consensus confirms my bias: not worth reporting or doxxing. Thanks heebie & everyone!
20: Deliberate modification. Apparently that little joke wasn't as obvious as I thought.
22: Something something Hitler something dogs, etc.
Inside Hitler, it's too dark for a dog to read?
If he's an asshole online, he's probably an asshole at work, too. The people he works with probably know he's an asshole--unless they are assholes, too, in which case he's just their bro.
If he does something over the line at work, he'll probably get in trouble for it, and no one else needs to intervene. If he doesn't do anything over the line at work, he shouldn't get in trouble, so no one should intervene. This is a good argument against doxing in most cases.
So, yeah, doxing is bad.
I'm not sure about reporting him either, but if I knew any high school students that might know him, I'd probably help along the dinosaur-fence-testing.
In my ethics class we talk a little bit about whether virtues are context dependent. For instance, if a man is honest in his business dealings, is he more likely to be honest in his romantic relationships?
I have a strong instinct to say that virtues are context dependent. An honest businessman is no more or less likely to cheat on his wife. But i also have this strong instinct to say vices are not context dependent. If a man is an asshole online, he's an asshole at work.
I think it would take some work to reconcile these instincts.
I think it might make more sense to think of them as asymmetrically predictive.
32: Don't you think that there are probably a set of assholes online who are generally too timid to be assholes face-to-face?
32 is really interesting. That's my intuition, too, but I have no idea why.
I've never heard the word doxing before this thread.
I have a strong instinct to say that virtues are context dependent. An honest businessman is no more or less likely to cheat on his wife.
My instinct would be the other way, to be honest. If a man is violent towards his children, do you think he's no more likely to be violent towards other people? Or if a woman cheats on an essay at college, doesn't that make it more likely she'll lie on her resume? I would have thought so.
For instance, if a man is honest in his business dealings, is he more likely to be honest in his romantic relationships?
Random anecdata: the one person I knew personally who ended up being drummed out of science after getting caught in a reasonably high profile fraud case was also divorced with 2 years of getting married due to numerous affairs.
I don't know if he bullied anyone online, though.
A Mensch is a Mensch, no? But he opposite doesn't hold true. I wouldn't necessarily check my wallet when dealing with a known philanderer.
||
#CancelColbert worked, he won't be on Comedy Central any more!
#notwhatwemeant
|>
32, I dropped my freshman year ethics course, but I question whether "honesty" means the same thing in business and marriage. I think some people have strong principles around money, some people have strong principles around sex, and those people aren't necessarily the same.
I guess I agree with helpy-chalk but I would define "context" differently.
I know some people who are scrupulously honest in dealings with business associates but not so much with their spouses. I think the business honesty is a matter of reputation maintenance and the spouse problem is a matter of familiarity breeding contempt.
On the other hand, I would be circumspect of having a known cuckhold as a financial advisor. If he can be duped by her, what else is he not seeing?
||
My mother just posted this family photo to Facebook.
Hello, laydeez.
|>
45 is fantastic and I would wear the guy in the middle's shirt.
Ah, so OP is *not* about Al Sharpton.
I have a strong instinct to say that virtues are context dependent. An honest businessman is no more or less likely to cheat on his wife.
I would question whether a person's "honesty" has much predictive value in terms of their sexual fidelity. A person who is honest in business seems more likely to be honest in his personal life, it's just that "honesty" doesn't have a lot to do with marital fidelity. (Although honesty may have quite a bit to do with how long one keeps something like marital infidelity a secret from one's spouse.)
49: I love that all three of us are wearing earrings.
45: Wait, so apostropher is also Weird Al? That explains a lot.
45: Hottt. I'm just glad your mom isn't also sporting a mustache.
No, Weird Al is my younger brother, known to the internads as Mr. Sticky.
I, of course, am the one rocking the ginger mullet and unibrow.
32 is really interesting. That's my intuition, too, but I have no idea why.
Mine, too, but I suspect it's because we all know that when we fall short, that's just because of the particular situation we're in. Our vices don't really count - they're not really vices because we're such good people.
Furthermore, other people we know - the ones who seem decent, through-and-through - probably have vices we aren't aware of, or at least would if they were tested by circumstances.
But the assholes - the ones who behave badly but aren't us or our friends - they're just assholes. So virtue is context-dependent, but vice is not.
NMM to J&R Music World. Shuttered to make way for "an unprecedented retailing concept"
Until I hear otherwise, I will assume this means that there wasn't a Duane Read on that block yet.
The writing was on the wall for J&R since forever. It had that doomed relic feel, like the last automat. I think that does mean the last place you could buy classical music CDs in a (what are we supposed to call stores with locations you can walk into again? I know it's not "mortar and pestle") is now gone, or new ones anyway. When Academy closes, which also seems inevitable, that will be a sad day.
48: Al Sharpton was, however, the topic on the talk radio program I tried to tune out on my casual carpool ride this morning. Casual carpool has an unspoken but very much observed "don't speak unless the driver speaks to you" rule...I mean I wasn't going to get into some futile argument anyway but I felt subtly like I was having my incredulous groans stifled.
I read about automats and they sounded like something that was too bizarre to have ever existed, but then I remembered that there was a Horn and Hardart's (the original automat chain) near me when I was a kid. I was born in an era utterly different from the present.
I just this minute learned what an automat is, from wikipedia. What the fuck.
22: It's nice to know he's not on the wrong side of every issue. If not for that, I would have begun to wonder about kicking puppies.
I get that there's sometimes a fine line between outing and witchhunts and that's bad and stuff, but the Turtle guy was threatening the woman. This isn't misogynistic-but-maybe-at-an-acceptable-level, it's technically, you know, illegal. (I could be wrong about that, and I'm not saying I'd expect rigorous enforcement at this stage, but that's how it looks.) Clearly I'm outvoted about outing him to his boss, but I'm glad Dud let Margee know the important details, at least.
I think that does mean the last place you could buy classical music CDs in a (what are we supposed to call stores with locations you can walk into again? I know it's not "mortar and pestle") is now gone, or new ones anyway
And yet the area to which you have moved has like two places you can do that still. Where's the justice?!
It was supposed to be automats -> flying cars -> a brave new world!
But something happened along the way.
Academy might be niche enough that it survives, like Other Music. J&R Music was always so empty compared to the other J&R stores; it felt really uncool to browse there.
California's devotion to physical music media is surprising.
Either the sexual revolution, or Reagan-Thatcher.
JP and I are trying to have a private conversation here, Bave.
(what are we supposed to call stores with locations you can walk into again? I know it's not "mortar and pestle")
"Post and lintel"
It was supposed to be automats -> flying cars -> a brave new world!
But something happened along the way.
Something to do with Cary Grant's limo splashing mud on Doris Day's dress.
[imagine the pause / play thing here]
Problem:
Consider an uninsured person, late 30s, 25K yearly income, no assets, not much debt. Now, consider trying to convince said person to sign up under the ACA.
They feel that any plan they could afford would leave them with a deductible so high that they'd have to file for bankruptcy anyway if anything major happened, so why pour $200/month down the toilet?
I have no desire to exert bullshit middle-class "good citizen" social pressure. What other arguments do I have?
They're wrong about the filing for bankruptcy -- any plan that's legal under the ACA has a fairly low maximum out of pocket expense in any given year.
Here's the first link I found: looks like their max out of pocket costs as an individual should be about 6K -- not bankruptcy material.
Here's the same from healthcare.gov. Now, that's on top of premium costs, but it still gives a sense of how bad a worst case scenario is, and it's not all that bad.
6K might be bankruptcy material if you have no assets and make $25K/year. Is that out of pocket cost right? The calculator I just threw numbers into says more like $150. That's still a big enough chunk of income that they might be guessing correctly that their personal best interest is to pay the penalty this year and to but a policy next year. Depends on their health more than anything, I'd think.
Someone who really knows will be along shortly, but my rough understanding is that the ACA means that all deductibles for any insurance plan are capped at $6250/year.
I think your other argument, possibly an unpleasant one, is that they've arranged for the fine/taxes for not getting health insurance will be about the same as the cost of health insurance, so you might as well buy it.
But truly, I am not certain of either of those.
73-5--Losing 5-6K, to this person, would be a bigger deal than losing the theoretical right to do various middle-class things that they are very unlikely to want to do anyway within the next 3-7 years: so yeah, that would absolutely lead to bankruptcy.
77, 79--the fine, I've researched a little: it looks like two years down the road, it will have teeth, maybe. but not yet. So maybe time is my only persuasive ally here?
Is the person basically healthy? Maybe s/he'll skate through for a couple years.
No planned pregnancies for someone in her late thirties? No known condition lurking? Wait it out?
72: Your friend is also eligible for cost sharing subsidies that effectively lower the out of pocket maximum further below the statutory maximum (to about ~$5,000 in his case), provided he chooses a silver plan. He will also get his recognized preventive services covered at no cost (irrespective of the deductible). Depending on his exact age and health status, he has a pretty good chance of having health expenses in excess of the deductible. Being insured will "pay off" if he has expenses in excessive of about $3,000-4,000, depending on the specific situation. That's a single episode of accident or illness requiring hospitalization.
Finally, even if he does not go over the deductible, any out-of-pocket medical expenses he incurs will be dramatically cheaper because of the insurer's contract rates.
Generally, this is a case where the specifics are going to be more appealing than the general scare-mongering they've heard. (Although, I've lost track of deadlines. What's the deal with signing up on the exchanges if you haven't already? Assuming he can sign up now.) He should go look up his best deal on a specific actual plan, with any subsidies he's entitled to, and so on, and see what it looks like.
Also, there's the literal insurance aspect of insurance -- what's going to happen to him, healthcare-wise, if he has health expenses that go over the cap. If he's uninsured, he either scrambles for the money, scrounges charity care somehow, or dies. If he's insured, he gets care, 100% covered once he's over the cap.
That was me -- don't know where my name went.
it seems like one can fib about having been interrupted during the process and sign up still--a couple sources suggested mid-month would be the working deadline....
she's my wife's sister; and there may conceivably be conditions lurking I don't know about. anyway, the conversation looms: but I wanted to hear what people less emotionally in the particular situation had to say....
& thanks for what sounds very much like significant expertise, Kermit!
it seems like one can fib about having been interrupted during the process and sign up still--a couple sources suggested mid-month would be the working deadline....
she's my wife's sister; and there may conceivably be conditions lurking I don't know about. anyway, the conversation looms: but I wanted to hear what people less emotionally in the particular situation had to say....
& thanks for what sounds very much like significant expertise, Kermit!
I think stress is an argument - when you're sick, you don't want to be denied treatment because you can't pay. Maybe either way you're going bankrupt, but at least it seems like the bankrupcy doesn't prevent treatment in the insurance case.
I think I'd be sorely tempted to expose the miscreant in the OP under the "he is a colossal asshole" provision of Internet Law, but think better of it pretty soon and leave him to his inevitable fate. That would change if he or someone else at his abetting took a determined step toward harassing the poor woman in real life.
provided he chooses a silver plan.
I remarked on Facebook when I signed up in December that is aspect of Obamacare is one of the least clear/transparent. The effect of the tax credits on premiums for any given plan is clear. The fact that silver plans are the way to cut/cap out of pocket expenses--as well as the amount those expenses are being cut/capped at any given income level--is something you really have to discover through careful reading and research.
Even in a mythical world where opponents of the law don't have an interest in confusing the public about the cost of deductibles and such, the communications strategy around this aspect of healthcare reform has been woeful.
I failed at getting my brother signed up in time for the deadline... At christmas he still had filed his taxes from the previous year (he'd gotten some sort of extension) so I couldn't work out how much money he made. Also he hadn't done any of the things necessary to prove he actually lived in CA.
93 is a useful reminder that I should really do my taxes.
There's also the fact that bankruptcy itself costs a chunk of money, and AFAIK it's not a safe assumption that someone with income, even $25K, could get an outright discharge rather than an obligation to make payments at some level over some period of time. Without a formal bankruptcy, it's not just the statute of limitations on the claim but also how long a judgment lasts, which is going to be more than 3-7 years. Plus the hassle and the frustration and all of that, plus all of what's already been said about why having access to medical care is a Good Thing.
Thoughts for your SIL: one of the problems with declaring bankruptcy over $6K is that it doesn't just preclude various middle-class things over the next 3-7 years, it also precludes filing bankruptcy again for ~7 years if things get worse, IIRC. If you declare bankruptcy this year over a $6K expense, and then incur another $30K next year, you are well and truly screwed for a long time. So it might be a plan for dealing with a one-time hit, but if you come down with some sort of chronic illness that requires ongoing healthcare, you have a real problem. At least you can still get insurance next year with a preexisting condition.
Also, while a lot of interactions these days may be with faceless bureaucracies, if you ever run into a situation where someone has discretionary authority to help you, you're a lot more likely to get sympathy if you can show that you took reasonable steps to help yourself and got overwhelmed rather than being reckless and taking the first easy out when you ran into a problem.
Also a benefit is that it's a bit like income insurance, since if your income drops, the subsidies increase and you don't have to pay so much for premiums. (Although I'm still, maddeningly, unclear on what happens subsidy-wise if your income drops into Medicaid territory and you choose to keep the Exchange insurance until the next year starts. Kermit?)
||
Odd experience: someone called me on my desk line at work, said there had been a hang-up 911 call from the number, and asked if everything was all right. It seemed very unlikely such a call had been made, but I said yes, nothing was wrong. They asked me my name, I gave it, they thanked me and hung up. I looked at the last number dialed, which was not 911; now I'm pretty sure it was social engineering, some data outfit matching names to numbers. (I automatically conceived of them as some representative of authority and gave them my name without thinking; neat trick.)
|>
My argument as far as the SIL would be that insurance isn't just there to cover predictable costs. She may be healthy now, or have straightforward, non-burdensome health care costs. But tomorrow she could trip over something and break a bone or pick up salmonella or get hit by a bus. Shit happens and can get expensive fast.
97.2: We have quite a few accidental 911 call from my work (dialing 9 for outside line, then 1+area code for long distance, hand slips and it's 911, and even if you hang up right away, it often triggers a return call). The callback certainly is unsettling, and it's understandable you would have given your info. Judging from the e-mail I get, there is also a scam of callers identifying as calling from INS or the IRS, which also makes folks give out lots of personal info.
100: All local calls here now require the area code, which is 919. So dialing any local number from work starts out 91919. There have been many callbacks.
Kermit?
Above 100% FPL, the exchange subsidies are still available, even if you are Medicaid eligible. Below 100% FPL, you have to go on Medicaid or forfeit the subsidies. That's if you are lucky and your state has expanded Medicaid eligibility; otherwise, you are fucked.
Not a great system, obviously. I won't even try to defend it. It goes back to the totally bogus effort to placate red state Senators by keeping the ten-year cost to under a trillion dollars. You can cover a lot of people very cheaply with Medicaid.
101: Pretty sure that wasn't it. We don't dial 9 first. The call I had last made did actually start with 1-916, but that went through without any failed attempts.
102: Right, but that's prospective, when you're figuring out what to enroll in. What if you enroll in a plan in January when your expected income is 200% FPL, then in April you lose your job and your final income is actually 80%? Medicaid doesn't have an open enrollment period, so if you can't afford the private plan you can drop it and get Medicaid for free, but I bet a number of people in this position will prefer to keep their plan (continuity of care, etc.), and I can't imagine them being kicked off midyear on the basis of the income change, but what will the IRS calculate for subsidies at tax time? Subsidies aren't supposed to be available below 100% except for legal permanent residents in the five-year waiting period, but I very much hope that doesn't mean people in the above scenario get all their subsidy added back onto the tax bill.
Also I don't think people in the 100-133 range (ignoring the issue of income volatility) can get exchange subsidies in expansion states. As I read the ACA, one of the requirements for getting subsidies is that you not be eligible for Medicaid, so so the 100-133 range only opens up in non-expansion states. (Not that that was intended originally; I think I remember reading the fact that subsidies go down to 100 instead of 133 is an accidental leftover from an earlier draft.)
Speaking of the ACA, I haven't seen any mention here yet of the Sebelius resignation. My initial reaction was basically the same as Josh Marshall's take: she made sure to leave on a high note.
My *guess* is that actually, predicting/lying that your income will be in the subsidy range, and then dropping down to Medicaid range, but not going on Medicaid (either because of being in non-expansion state, or for continuity reasons) wouldn't hurt you much at all: on the face of it, it seems like you'd be in exactly the same situation as someone whose income turned out *higher* than predicted. Which is to say, you have to repay it ... except that there's an income-based cap on how much you need to repay, as follows:
Repayments are capped on a sliding scale for families whose annual income is under 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL): • If annual family income is under 200% FPL, repayment is capped at $600 ($300 for individuals). • If annual family income is at least 200% FPL but less than 300% FPL, repayment is capped at $1,500 ($750 for individuals). • If annual income is at least 300% but less than 400% FPL, repayment is capped at $2,500 ($1,250 for individuals). • If the final annual family income is 400% FPL or greater, the subsidy must be repaid in full.
Which is to say, if you're in the Medicaid range, you'd have to repay at most $300/600. Which is a hit, but not too bad if you think of it as your yearly health care expenses (and the premium/cost-sharing available at 100% FPL would make it practically that).
What if you enroll in a plan in January when your expected income is 200% FPL, then in April you lose your job and your final income is actually 80%? Medicaid doesn't have an open enrollment period, so if you can't afford the private plan you can drop it and get Medicaid for free, but I bet a number of people in this position will prefer to keep their plan (continuity of care, etc.), and I can't imagine them being kicked off midyear on the basis of the income change, but what will the IRS calculate for subsidies at tax time? Subsidies aren't supposed to be available below 100% except for legal permanent residents in the five-year waiting period, but I very much hope that doesn't mean people in the above scenario get all their subsidy added back onto the tax bill.
Much kludgeocracy. Many complex. (If Doge designed a healthcare system, it would be the NHS.)
The US healthcare system was designed by lolcats who are also accountants.
In other healthcare news, surely lab-grown vaginas will be of interest to the Mineshaft.
I don't think people in the 100-133 range (ignoring the issue of income volatility) can get exchange subsidies in expansion states. As I read the ACA, one of the requirements for getting subsidies is that you not be eligible for Medicaid, so so the 100-133 range only opens up in non-expansion states.
Quite right. My bad.
From 109,
The vaginas were carefully grown in a bioreactor until they were suitable to be surgically implanted into the patients.
"Hey, Steve, wanna go check and see if the vaginas are done? Wouldn't want to overcook 'em, gotta be careful."
Nice thread merge, ydnew. I wonder if they used a rice cooker.
Thanks! Sifu was saying in the other thread that rice cookers are great at keeping their contents warm and moist.
109. Am I a bad person because my first reaction was "Empress Theodora would have loved these!"
fwiw, my instincts are with Cyrus in 63: there's a line between asshole and threatening and thus guy crossed it. (Taking no position on whether it's a "true threat" or any legal position really. But "I know where you live and field reporters may come find you" is scary creepy.) I suppose identifying him to Margee was the right line to draw. She knows who to look at if she wants to pursue any further actions and can retire to anonymity if she feels comfortable that his loud-mouthed threats are just the idle ranting of an Internet blowhard.
105: Good point, I hadn't thought of that cap in relation to this scenario. So they might nominally add all the subsidies back onto the tax bill, but then reduce that to $600 due to the person's income. Not great, but not horrible.
106: For real.
63 and 115: I kept doubting that it was worth being bothered by, so thanks for confirming that TB went beyond "typical asshole" into "making threats" territory.
118: Dud Par,
I'm just curious why you read this person's blog if you are so offended by what they say. Why not just not click on it? Aren't you just giving him page views? Is there any evidence he has acted inappropriately towards students, or in his actions as a teacher? Because if not, who are we to condemn his constitutional right to free speech? Also, I'm wondering how you know who "Turtleboy" is. I clicked on the Facebook and Twitter links on the blog and they just lead me to pages named "Turtleboy" as well.
65: I know automats from The Big Book of Jewish Humor. "What's it to you if I keep winning?"
I just this minute learned what an automat is, from wikipedia. What the fuck.
Never been to the Netherlands then?
Oh, I'm with 63, dox the fucker.
122 I read the blog. I understand its offensive in many ways but I fail to see how doxing TB will help fix anything. Is he a threat to students? Is he inappropriate? I don't understand why teachers who earn 50k a year are able to have their free speech censored simply because we disagree with it. Does he have a family? Have you considered the detrimental effect your which hunt will have on him? And for what? Because you clicked on a blog and didnt like it? Why not just not read it??
Also, this didn't just happen recently. It's years old. Why an ATM about it now -- presenting the "problem" as if it is current?
There are exceptions, but as a general rule, we're not a timely bunch here.
123: Because he's making threats. That takes it from the realm of just being a dick to being a scary dick. His target has a right to know and the school has a right to know that he's a potential problem.
Man, Worcester really does suck, though.
Oh this is from Worcester? Explains everything. So glad not to go there five days a week anymore. Though I do miss Dalat and the patty melts at Lou Roc's diner. Really, their entire, heart-stopping menu.
124: Wait, what? Both of the posts linked in 1 were posted in the past few days.
The guy does have a point in saying that Main South is extra awful, though. I used to like a Salvadoran place there, but otherwise, ugh.
I just read them now for the first time and they were... not nearly as bad as I was expecting. Offensive, definitely, and a little creepily intense with the googling, but it didn't come across to me as actually threatening. From the second link it seems she did actually apologize to him and he didn't accept her apology, which certainly makes him seem like a dick.
His tone in the posts comes across to me as that of a blowhard who likes to say offensive things online, but not someone who's likely to be an actual threat to anyone. I suspect DP's reaction is based more on knowing him in real life, which of course would give a fuller picture of his personality and may make his online rants seem more sinister.
The best option for DP at this point might actually be to contact her and try to get a sense of how she feels about the whole thing.
130: I'm kinda with you, on the "not that bad" side of things. I don't see the threat -- in a different context, I might see the 'we don't encourage vigilante justice' and 'not looking for anyone to confront her' as backhanded plausible-deniability threats, but they didn't come across that way. Unless I missed something, he didn't put any personal information out other than the name she put on her video. Someone who thought it was unconscionable, walk me through it?
130/132: I was surprised a little in a pleasant way that folks here thought it was so completely unacceptable. It didn't seem especially unusual for an angry guy on the internet. Sad to say, I wouldn't be all that surprised to hear it out loud from acquaintances.
I haven't read any of the links or this thread before I happened on 124.
||
I hope I'm not hijacking the thread, but something weird happened to me and I'd kind of like other people's thoughts on it.
A couple of months ago, I started getting bombarded with "Welcome to your new house!" mailings, coupons, etc. I thought it was a bit odd since I've been in my current place for six years and haven't refinanced or anything, but I just ignored them.
Then today, I stopped by my p.o. box and found that someone had subscribed to several magazines in my name. The bills are now arriving. To be honest, I'm pretty creeped out by it. The magazines aren't X-rated or anything, but they are ones that I'd never subscribe to.
I have a distinctive name and I work on a controversial issue, so if I've made anyone mad, it's not that hard to track me down. OTOH, my p.o. box is not published anywhere and my home phone number is unlisted, so you'd pretty much have to go trolling through property records or something.
The strange thing of course is that my issue is probably *less* heated right now than any time in the past ten years. I can't even remember the last time I got an angry voicemail from a stranger, although I'm still quoted in the media pretty often.
And the last time I had a stranger look up my work e-mail to send me a defensive note was in response to my letter to the editor on a completely non-controversial issue. He wasn't even that angry, just annoyed at me for not understanding that he was Right and I was Wrong.
Ack, I dunno. Thoughts?
||>
It sounds like maybe a coworker or something.
Or some kid selling magazine subscriptions the easy way.
Very weird. What magazines? Like, is there anything about them that communicates anything particular?
One was Forbes. That doesn't communicate anything to me. I mean, I'm not interested in it, but it's mainstream enough that I don't think it signifies any statement or anything. The other I didn't recognize -- I think some kind of lifestyle/cooking magazine.
I would love 137 to be true. If it is, though, it's someone who has my rather complicated name almost completely correct.
I very rarely throw out any mail when I'm actually at the post office, but I do occasionally. So they could have picked up a label/envelope there. At home pretty everything gets torn or shredded.
Do you get packages left at your door?
Yes, occasionally -- but those come to my street address, and the magazines are coming to my p.o. box.
I live on a quiet street and my next-door neighbor is always home and pretty alert. If there was anybody lurking around my house it's a 50/50 shot he'd yell loudly at them, no matter how innocent.
Sorry. I forgot about the PO box part.
Could you contact the magazines themselves and see if they have any information on the circumstances under which you (were) subscribed? I don't know if magazines keep track of that stuff, but they might.
I'm thinking something like 137. I could even see a parent who knows you approving and paying for a few issues for the kid to meet a sales quota, and the bills you're getting are to continue the subscription, because magazine send so many. Seems not too sinister if the magazines are pretty benign.
Is the new house stuff coming to the PO box, too? That would make sense if the magazines sell their lists, but if that's going to your actual home and magazines to your PO box, I'm confused.
What would happen if somebody sent in a subscription for a street address to somebody who uses a PO box? That is, if some kid was going around putting down names and street address (that he read from a package or that he knew because he lives on the street), do the junk mail databases know enough to switch that to a PO box?
126: Who was he making threats to? Seems like an overreaction on the part of someone with a grudge against this teacher. Did DP have a son or daughter who had this person and was dissatisfied with their grade? I just don't understand where the outrage is coming from. So he outed a woman who went out of her way to belittle an entire community - that makes him a threat to children?
145: Yes, when I call to cancel the subscriptions, I plan to ask them about that.
146: I dunno. Anybody who knows me knows that I am guaranteed to support the kid's fundraiser if asked, and I find it hard to imagine that anyone would take it upon themselves to subscribe for me and a) not tell me, and b) pick magazines that I have no interest in.
The new house stuff is not coming to the PO box. I wasn't bothered by the new house stuff until I got the magazines today. Now I wonder if they are somehow related.
147: I did once have someone send something to my PO box via UPS. Since UPS doesn't deliver to PO boxes, it arrived at my house with a label on it correcting the address to my street address. I was pretty angry that UPS hadn't just refused to deliver, because it was an unsolicited "present" from my alumni relations office and I have worked fairly hard to make sure they don't have my street address. Point being, yes, there are databases that link PO boxes and street addresses.
(And on the OP, I haven't read enough to have really strong feelings, but my general reaction is that a person who repeatedly uses dehumanizing language such as "it" about another person, and is at pains to tell their readers "We're NOT telling you to track her down," is deeply unpleasant at a minimum.)
150: I agree, the language isn't for me either. I just have a major problem with the practice of going out of your way to dox someone simply because you find what they are writing to be unpleasant. What about the first amendment? Does it only apply when we agree with the author? How about just not reading it? Why is that not an acceptable alternative? If he's a teacher and doesn't have his name attached to the blog, then why would you want to expose who he is? It seems like DP (who apparently according to their email is a Dudley Parent), is an angry parent with an axe to grind against this teacher. I find this problematic.
151: Hi DM. I just raised the question. I said I was uncomfortable with the idea. TB's identity is safe with me. Note that I didn't consider anything TB didn't do himself.
You kind of did, unless I'm missing something. The video was posted under her real name, right? So all TurtleBoy did was respond online to stuff posted publicly online without adding additional private information. (In an asshole kind of way, certainly.) Again, unless I'm missing something, he didn't contact her employer or anyone in her life other than by publicly posting a response to a video she posted. You're talking about breaking through his pseudonym and contacting his employer. I'd think that was justified if I thought he was threatening or significantly harassing her, but in any case itnserms different than what he did to her.
151: But Dud Par, way back in 26, did say that this thread confirmed his conclusion that he shouldn't dox. So re-dredging this in such an aggressive manner is a little unnecessary.
As best as I can tell she didn't exactly post it under her own name. She used a YouTube handle that matches a Twitter @ handle, and then he found her Facebook page by searching for her Twitter display name. Again, she deleted the video long before he exposed her. But it was really the posting of the LinkedIn information ("I bet her boss would like to see this :(" ) and the phone number thing that creeped me out the most and seemed like borderline threats.
Yeah, I didn't look too closely but it sure seemed like he de-pseudonymized the video poster, in a particularly aggressive and obnoxious (and misogynistic) way. She might only have been "lightly" pseudonymous but still.
Also, everyone responding to this concern troll does realize that he's also a sock puppet, right?
I didn't. I mean, I got he was trolling, but I didn't know we knew him from another name.
157: Sorry, that's not what I meant by sock-puppeting. I'm saying he's the asshole blogger from the OP, defending himself with a sock puppet.
Ah. If there was ever a time for the fruit basket.
I suspect 158 is true. Only the original blogger would fail to get the irony of saying somebody should not be outed for outing somebody else.
158 -- That's the best thing about the whole thread.
153
Again, unless I'm missing something, he didn't contact her employer or anyone in her life other than by publicly posting a response to a video she posted.
Hasn't already contacted her or them, no, but threatened to. For example:
If you would like to clear the air, and defend your good name, then email me us at [email]. If not, then you may be hearing from some of our field reporters for an exclusive interview."
On a second look, it's probably not serious enough to rise to the level of a crime by itself. It still seems like more than the usual Internet assholery, though.
158: That was my impression, but I figured there was decent chance both that I was being paranoid and that it was too obvious to be worth mentioning.
Whoops, I missed that the original video wasn't under the poster's real name. At that point, yeah, while it still doesn't strike me as particularly threatening, an outing for an outing isn't disproportionate. Glass houses, stones.
|| Oh, great, we made the NYT again. |>
164: Wow, the county prosecutor sounds like a heck of a guy. "They [Holder/DOJ] don't care about individuals like me." Yes, let's make sure we remember who the real victims are here.
165 -- Ms. Boylan, quoted in the article, makes a pretty good argument that they're not uniquely bad at prosecuting sexual assault, that everyone everywhere else is failing too. (She spoke up at the Dem Central Committee meeting last week during the debate adopting a resolution telling the County Attorney to focus on the real real victims.)
The shoe that'll drop this week is DOJ's answer in the lawsuit.
166: All I see Boylan (or Gaynor) saying in that article is, basically, "nuh uh". Anyway, I'm certainly prepared to believe that the DOJ report might be in some sense unfair, but if so I think the appropriate response is to, I don't know, either lump it and start doing better than "not uniquely bad" because that's the actually important issue here, or I suppose publicly document how aggressively and impeccably you have in fact been prosecuting sexual assault. Complaining that DOJ isn't sufficiently concerned with your feelings, and filing a stupid federalism lawsuit (truly, where would we be as a nation if the states weren't free to experiment with underprosecuting rape without federal interference?) strikes me as ridiculous and obnoxious in this context. This is just not the kind of thing you take a defensive, petulant stand on unless you are truly far, far above reproach.
Boylan is more articulate in person. As you'd expect from an experienced trial lawyer.
I've never understood why Fred (it's quite common around town to refer to the County Attorney by his first name) has gone that route. He's actually a fairly decent guy, and nothing could be more obvious than that it's better to argue the merits of the various suggestions that DOJ made than to waste time, money, and public relations (including the confidence of victims considering whether to report an assault) on the DOJ's statutory authority issue.
The succession will be decided by the June primary, and both candidates have indicated they intend to drop the suit. An interesting situation for our federal (chief) judge, but in my opinion he's the kind of guy who will decide the case rather than stalling until January . . .
Sorry to bring up an old thread but found it googling. This guy ended up going after a student after all! https://turtleboysporks.wordpress.com/2015/04/29/turtleboy-aidan-kearney-sexually-harasses-ex-student-over-politics/
