The first one is here (13 comments in I get asked my opinion on the matter) and the second one is here. It's in the second one that you will see some very specific debate about who sees which behavior how.  I'll let you decide for yourself how appropriate the treatment of one another within the dialogue was.

The first mention of objectively and offensive (as opposed to objectively outrageous is here:

http://blog.cleveland.com/wideopen/2007/10/for_the_presidents_amusement.html

The third one is here.

Thanks for the response. Just one more question. I assume there's someone in particular who has said, "Certain behavior is objectively outrageous." Who would that be? (I'm guessing it's someone associated with SB 16, but–truth be told–I haven't really followed that discussion.)

The "57" refers to the 57 Reasons to Vote No on Issue 3 – which was the Ohio Learn and Earn constitutional amendment for legalizing casinos and a certain scholarship program.

Thanks again for the response.

Yeah – the win-lose thing – creeps me out to be honest. It's very very interesting though – I never grew up admiring winning per se.  Doing well – that's good.  Winning – not necessarily – not in ad of itself.  And I remember, a few years ago, I saw a kid in one of my kid's classes, who just liked collecting wins – didn't matter what it was.  And the parent thought it was cute.  I guess – I mean – that spirit can be used for some good stuff.

But I don't know – as an end in itself?  Just not something I ever really sought or seek.

I'm sure that says a lot about me – I'm not sure what it really says about anyone else – if anything.

As for the psychobabble – BRING IT ON!!!!!  Now that's my real passion.

That is exactly what part of my problem is with the pursuit of saying that certain behavior is "objectively outrageous."  It would be comforting to know that there are in fact some if not many shared definitions of such behavior – but there just aren't.  So to try to judge a person by whether they find something to BE objectively outrageous or not is, well, kind of outrageous to me.  But subjectively.

Ah – the 57.  I could say yes re: Heinz – Carolyn Heinz was a college classmate of mine, from that family.

But no.  The "57" refers to the 57 Reasons to Vote No on Issue 3 – which was the Ohio Learn and Earn constitutional amendment for legalizing casinos and a certain scholarship program.  It was 57 because the day I decided to do it was 57 days from election day in 11/07.  Several blogs had different countdowns on their blogs then, until the election day (for giving money or until some elected official was gone etc.) and I thought, hey! I can come up with at LEAST 57 reasons why that ballot issue stinks.

And, with some help, I did.  It was a WEIRD experience – but now, it's like an inside joke/threat/signal: if I'm going to do 57 of something, you better believe that I am SERIOUS.

Because you're in a very public forum and these guys have got to win.

And you know what – they're starting to get to me too. Its hard for me to believe these people think of the world the way they do – win-lose; kill or be killed; you or me. That one poster, JoeEC, is beyond the pale to put it mildly.

Oh, I agree; many of the other items are outrageous (or not) based on culture.

Your question does prompt one from me. In the phrase "objectively outrageous," what changes something from "outrageous" to "objectively outrageous?" What, exactly, does "objectively" mean in this context? Universally?

BTW, I'm curious about the significance of the "57s" (as in "57 whatevers") that have occasionally appeared in WLST. Are they allusions to Heinz 57, or something else?

As you know from Wide Open, the topic of objectively outrageous came up with Pete Stark.  I wanted to explore it further, and "57" has a significance between Tom Blumer and I – to some extent – because of writings we both posted related to defeating the Ohio Learn and Earn initiative last November.

I respect Tom and I respect people's upsetment over Stark's words – but I obviously feel very very differently about "calling out" other people to condemn something precisely as they would. I didn't call people out to condemn Coulter for example – I was asked to debate the situation around her, and I did that.

Why wasn't Stark's situation dealt with that way, rather than trying to browbeat out of me a specific label about his behavior?  I think that's wrong.

You wrote, "I'd suggest that the extent to which this is considered outrageous is largely cultural."

But really, when you look at some of the others, to what extent are many of them cultural??

Interesting which ones you consider objectively outrageous!  But see what I mean – it isn't so objective, is it??