To forestall a MeFiesque 328-comment shitstorm of a thread, can I just say that this is clearly a collaborative sociological experiment cooked up between "Nate" and "Laura", akin to those "who behaved worst?" personality tests, that are less about the absolute ethics of a situation than about revealing the personality of those interpreting the events? Be warned: the first person who says "his behaviour was so much worse than hers" is playing right into their grubby little SoSci major hands...
What flashboy said.
EXCEPT FOR THAT FUCKING CHEATING HARPY LAURA, WHO IS CLEARLY GOING TO ROT IN HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY, MAY HER SKIN BE FLAYED BY DEMONIC GOPHERS WHO SHOVE JELLY BELLIES IN HER HOO-HA AND TURN HER TONGUE INTO A TONGUE TACO I HATE YOU LAURA GAHHHH...
cynics. in any case, i posted this to engender discussion, not an immediate "forestalling." i found the comments on the post to be far more interesting than the actual issue.
I figure, as someone said, she's writing a paper on getting people to write papers.
(Although I looked at the google-cached link someone else posted and that claimed Laura is in the College of Education... Hmm, which makes it equally feasible that she is indeed "researching".)
That's fabulous. (I hope it's real.) I get an average of 1-2 plaigarized papers a year (and I'm a grad student, so I only teach 1-2 sections per semester). I have no sympathy for people who steal work.
'Twas a lighthearted comment, es el Queso, not a serious attempt to shut everybody up. I think there's plenty of interesting issues here (although the relative ethics of the participants is, to me, just about the least interesting).
Suggested other issues. I want to see 5 pages on each by the time I wake up tomorrow:
* The utility/sadism inherent in public shaming of miscreants - discuss
* Most commentators exhibit a powerful belief that defaming someone's name to Google is tantamount to ruining their life. Is this accurate? How strong is Google's memory, anyhow? Will this still show amongst the top results if she's applying for jobs four, five years from now? Must she resort to Googlebombing herself back to respectability?
* Users' personal confessions of similar cheating behaviour in the past. Are there any other behaviours which we know to be wrong when we carry them out, and yet would feel unfairly treated if we were to be exposed or judged over them?
* Can true statements be defamatory? (Legally, the answer is yes, by the way - but ethically?)
* The concept of plagiarism, how it can be defined, and how its borders shift across different subjects (please quote sources).
* What assumptions have all parties made about each other during this affair, and from what evidence? How does each assumption affect their actions? What lessons can we draw from this about online discourse?
* A comedic analysis - how could he have made this funnier? More Dharma & Greg references?
* What would Jesus do?
(please quote sources)
Well, that wouldn't be any fun, would it?
I bet Laura K. Pahl will be the next Naomi Wolf and Nate Kushner the next David Spade.
*Shudders at both thoughts*
MonkeyFilter: The next David Spade.
You're a comedy writer?
What follows is a tortured setup for a joke is not especially funny. I wanted people to come to my lame website and laugh at a girl who is either a) totally fictional or b) a victim of me being a total asshole. I think I'm a comedy writer, but if I was I would know likeability is key to comedy and writing "Bitch didn’t know she was fucking with a comedy writer" makes me sound arrogant, misoyginistic, and just plain not funny, and loses the audience in the first paragraph.
Oh and incidentally, our high and mighty man Nate is a copyright violator.
Anyone want to start a blog about getting Elvis Costello to slap a C&D on him?
Write something funny.
Is there any proof that this isn't just some elaborate 'comedy' piece dreamed up by this 'Nathan' character? I didn't have the stomach to read that 300-some comment thread on MeFi (I rarely have the stomach to read MeFi comments these days) so I might have missed a discussion of this point. Thanks in advance.
A couple of people have voiced their suspicions, fuyu. Likewise on the blog itself, where Nate and his friend have conveniently inserted comments advertising their act. Very impressive viral marketing if so, considering it's a couple of not-very-funny comedians with a weblog. It's on all the major 'filters.
Thanks, Tracy.
Unrelatedly, I've taught a few classes and graded a ton of papers in my time. (I will be doing a lot more of the former in the near future, I hope.) In my experience, cheating is a fact of life. I have seen some incident or other of cheating in every class I've been involved in, including one immensely horrible case that resulted in multiple expulsions. We warn the students about the futility of cheating, but I think realistically the warning sounds hollow. It is just as much a fact of life that the majority of highly successful people in modern American society have achieved their success by unethical means. Corruption is so prevalent that one finds the concept of an honest lawyer, an honest businessman, an honest politician, even an honestly wealthy person to be quaint and idealistic.
As an educator, I don't think it is my job to be on the constant lookout for cheating. Even if it were my job, I would be terrible at it. If my students don't use their time in the university to learn, despite my good faith efforts to teach them, it is their loss.
Check the Cheese's profile,
Dislikes: proselytizing, deception...
Disclaimer: I've had my code plagiarized (without my prior knowledge) in school, and went through a shit storm because of it. Luckily, no permanent damage was done, but I still bear no good will towards plagiarists.
That being said, Nate Kushner is a pinheaded jerk. His motives were to hurt. Cheaters are their own victims, but Nate Kushner's fraud hurts others. Despite the fact the he is willing to commit plagairism himself (he says he planned on plagairizing the whole paper to teach her a lesson, I've no idea if he carried through on this threat), he maliciously frauded her on a commisioned work. Nate Kushner's actions are reminiscent of Daisy_Mae, except Daisy_Mae had more cause for her shitty actions than Nate does for his.
He recently changed it from her real name to "Krishna", so I'll give him that. But it goes to show that Nate Kushner knows how much of a pinheaded jerk he was for doing what he did.
Oh, and "bitch didn't know show was fucking with a comedy writer" for two reasons: she wasn't fucking with anyone, and Nate Kushner is not a comedy writer, despite his belief otherwise.
drjimmy11, she wouldn't be a victim if she wasn't a cheat and a liar. Assuming the story is true, her shaming is as richly deserved as drunk drivers whose names appear in the paper.
In my experience every single thing ever that features a "hilarious IM transcript" is fake.
and your point is, lucifurby? your profile is as empty as your juvenile comments. considering how wet you are behind the ears around here in proportion to the number of times you feel your voice needs to be heard, chances are that you're nothing more than a troll.
i have nothing to do with this link/story/clusterfuck other than happening across it and marvelling at its ability to spark all kinds of tinfoil hat-based reactions.
i am not supporting either side of the discussion other than to agree that plagiarism is bad, mmkay?
Nobody likes a cheat, but nobody likes a dobber either. They're both in the wrong. End of story.
I do have to wonder, as someone mentioned on Mefi, what the outcry would have been if the genders had been switched.
Lucas K. Whatever: omg d00d can u rite me a ppr plz real fast kthx
Natalie Iforgetalready: Hmm. Perhaps I can parlay this into a witty entry on my weblog. *steeples fingers*
Lucas K. Whatever: omg liek gr8 me give u $$ ok?
Natalie Iforgetalready: Yeah yeah, whatever.
Internet: OH MY GOD YOU ARE A GODDESS OF WIT. THAT DUMB BASTARD. OH MY GOD. NATALIE. LOVE ME. PLEASE.
...I don't have much of a stance all around; I just have to wonder how much was damsel-in-distress-ism.
Cheaters are their own victims
Oh, bollocks. Cheaters undermine the whole system they're ostensibly involved in. Everyone working toward the same degrees, the same accreditation, is undermined. Teachers' time is wasted. Other people who might actually make an effort miss out.
When we accept cheating, we create the moral environment where the Ken Lays of this world flourish.
I was pretty amazed at the number of comments on the mefi thread, considering that there's not a lot to say beyond Bondurant's statement.
But it did remind me of a job I did for a student at a teaching college years ago: She needed a board game with an Australian theme, assumedly as a teaching aid. So I whipped up this fabulous 3D Monopoly-style game based on The Songlines, with a ton of research behind it. A week after the thing was done and paid for, she told me that she'd used it as her final project for a class, and thanked me for helping her pass. I was pretty alarmed, especially since this woman wasn't too bright, to realize that my work-for-hire might've been the difference between her teaching, or doing her coursework over.
Is it ever really excusable for a student to hire someone to do courework for them? Are they 'just hurting themselves"? The teacher might be too obvious an example, but I've met some MBAs that have contracted out thier term-papers, too...
Nevermind, rodgerd answered my question.
Bullshit. Bingo players love their dobbers.
Other than that, you're right, Bondurant.
Well, I thought it was funny, but that's because I kinda glossed over the extortion part. And since they were comedians, I thought the discussion would hinge on whether or not the story was funny. Good Lord, was I wrong. ^^;;
Also, am I blind or did "her" name just change?
Hey cheesey, say something funny.
If this is real, then the girl should face whatever the maximum punishment is from her college. If everybody cheats and you get caught, guess who gets to be the new scapegoat? Not that I believe everybody cheats. I'm fairly certain most of my friends haven't, and I haven't. It bothers me a little that everyone assumes that all the degrees earned are being earned by cheaters. Yes, the guy is a jerk. The fact that he's a jerk doesn't change the fact that the girl is a horrible cheat.
When we accept cheating, we create the moral environment where the Ken Lays of this world flourish.
Huh, since Ken Lay is guilty of fraud, not cheating on his homework, I think a better constructed sentence would read: "When we accept fraud, we create the moral environment where the Ken Lays of this world flourish."
If you want to start comparing either of these two to Ken Lay, Nate Kushner is a lot closer. But it's a bullshit comparison to make, because they're both small beans compared to Ken Lay. You trivialize Ken Lay's crimes when you compare his fraud to cheating on a homework asssignment, or to scamming someone for 75 bucks.
I do have to wonder, as someone mentioned on Mefi, what the outcry would have been if the genders had been switched.
It's just my opinion, and it's really more of a guess than an opinion, but if the genders were switched, I think people would be calling Natalie a whore, bitch, lying cunt, etc... People are more tolerant of men being jerks than of women doing the same (or lesser) actions. Maybe it's due to lower expectations, I don't know. But notice how Martha Stewart has done jail time for a crime more minor than Ken Lay's crime, and Ken Lay himself hasn't even been charged, and his happened way before Martha's. (I'm sorry for bringing up the Ken Lay comparison again. It's just fresh on my mind, that's all.)
Nate Kushner should be reported to the Comedy Police.
Seriously.
According to the BoingBoing update, which is available through the trackback on the link posted here, this is an April Fool's joke pulled by a bloke who can't even read the fucking calendar.
But I thought we'd already established that the point of this wasn't its truth or otherwise?
The point was that, somehow, a painfully under-talented would-be comedian has stumbled upon the perfect moral fable, dividing the group of readers perfectly in half - about their interpretation of the morality of, not the tale's supposed moral subject, but of the writer himself! Seriously, by being a deeply mediocre writer with a pretty big ego, he's not just guaranteed himself a place on the syllabi of ethics courses for years to come, but on literature courses as well!
Regardless - and I do suspect it's a joke gone horribly boring, or at least dressed up a good deal - the Boing Boing update that it's an April Fool's joke is itself full of poo. "The student doesn't exist, that school is a Christian school (that doesn't teach a course on Hinduism)". Google cache shows that a Laura Pahl did attend Lewis last year, and Lewis does indeed teach courses on non-Christian religion (15-325 Philosophies of Asia, Africa and Native America, to be precise).
rodgerd: Cheaters undermine the whole system they're ostensibly involved in. Everyone working toward the same degrees, the same accreditation, is undermined. Teachers' time is wasted. Other people who might actually make an effort miss out.
Cheaters cheapen the degree, certainly, but they are hardly the underminers of the system. The system, at least in the USA, is being undermined to a far greater degree every day by increasing radicalism, vanishing grants, growing corporate and military sponsorships, the immense power and popularity of the religious right-wing, and perhaps most subversively, a progressing metamorphosis of higher education from a pursuit of enlightenment to vocational training. Cheaters prosper because in this environment cheating is a winning strategy. They get away because modern academia places such outrageous demands on the teachers' time that they have nothing left for their monastic obligations. They get away because paper mills are effective at avoiding detection, which is a testament both to their professionalism and to the stagnation in the methods and material of university classes. They get away because they are treated like customers by the university.
Which is not to say that cheaters ought to be excused. I personally favour drastic punishments--probation at the first offence, expulsion at the second--for convicted cheaters. Yet, cheating is only a symptom of a deeper rot.
I agree that a large part of the cheating problem is that universities are treating students like customers instead of scholars. Because of the way their funding has been slashed by the state (for any number of reasons), many public schools have to keep their eyes firmly on the bottom line. This means enrolling too many students for the available resources, and then doing whatever it takes to award them a degree.
That said, I'm not going to excuse cheating in my class. Cheating is a form of fraud. It says "I did this work" when "I" did not. When a student does not use a papermill or the like, it's also intellectual theft, since the original author did not grant permission to use their work. Cheating tells me that particular student has no respect for me or my class, that I'm not worth their time or effort. I work my butt off when I teach, and I do everything I can to assist students so they can learn the material. Cheaters waste my time and their own, because when I catch them I prosecute.
Actually, its being fake is an easy excuse for me to keep on being ridiculously hypothetical. Yay.
People are more tolerant of men being jerks than of women doing the same (or lesser) actions.
I would agree if it's a legal situation, but I was thinking about public opinion. I've seen quite a bit of "Martha is a self-made millionaire and that rocks!" in public opinion. I can't help but think that public opinion (particularly somewhere like Metafilter or here - male, youngish, tech-savvy) would fawn over a girl who pulled even a cruel stunt of this sort. They might call her "snarky" and "incisive" and "possessed of biting wit." If she were a Cute Glasses Girl? It'd be all over. All. Over.
But who knows, maybe it would reach Ann Coulter-like levels of spite. It could happen. I doubt it, that's all. Some of what I'm reading reeks of "mean mean bully teasing the poor girl, wahh!"
The girl (real or fake) reads like a dumbass, so I am finding it hard to drum up sympathy for either side. Stupid or unfunny? Stupid or unfunny? Hmmm. ;)
This is the Terri Schiavo circus of the internets... Someone pull my feedling tube... please?
(and for the record... yours truly was the first (on MeFi anyway) to call this a hoax... though after reading Nate's That dick's new comments, I do have to say I'm on the fence again... but... meh...) :)
There are many updates on the original blog - I recommend reading to the end. (The comments on the blog, while occasionally amusing, have little of content - all of the updates are in the blog entries). Suffice it to say, if it were a hoax, it would be one with a complex and not very funny end that rather resembles reality.
Boy does this take me back. In high school, I remember cutting and pasting an entire entry from an Encyclopedia Brittanica CD-ROM, minus headers, and turning it in. I think that may have been the last time I cheated (academically). I guess the realization that I could do anything short of photocopying the book and not get caught took the thrill out of it. Also, I liked being able to back up my know-it-all demeanor.
This story leads me to believe it probably is real. Sad. According to Nate's most recent entry she admitted to turning in the paper unedited. Sadder.
Nate'sThat dick's new comments, I do have to say I'm on the fence again... but... meh...) :)