The regressive left needs to stop, the Colin Moriarty controversy.

[mage21]

Of course, of course. It's those unreasonable fucks who are to blame for getting offended and being crybaby SJWs or whatever. You're nothing like them. You're not offended, just righteously indignant over the injustice of seeing someone mistreated at the hands of ignorant people. Don't they know their words and actions can hurt others????

I don't think those two things are the same. It's reasonable to say that we shouldn't completely dismantle someone's life over an acerbic tweet, while the people who are calling for the destruction of those people's lives are very much unreasonable, in my opinion.

[PosPosPos]

And yet it's OK for women to be sexist towards men....

Do you have some kind of persecutory complex that you make up strawmen to victimize yourself?

[mage21]

He quit his job because a bunch of tryhard crybabies were going after his company and their advertisers over a fucking joke. Grow up and learn some nuance.

I do have a sneaking suspicion that there was some pressure put on him.

[May90]

rofl. All you 5 have done is spooge over one another in agreement.

It only appears that way because you are so far into your fake outrage, everything those disagreeing with you say blurs for you into one messy tone.

[mage21]

It's not reasonable to characterize it as dismantling someone's life in the first place.

Well, try to. The mob couldn't quite pull off a Justine Sacco on him.

[Mistame]

This is nothing more than you trying to play arbiter of importance based on your own predilections. Logic has little, if anything, to do with it.

What determines if something is "offensive"? Some being offended by it. That is the determining factor. The statement "offense is taken" merely points out that offense only exists when someone takes offense. That's how that dynamic works. I wasn't implying that people are or should be capable of deflecting anything directed at them. Of course people have varying degrees of sensitivity and are offended by different things. However, there has to be a cut-off point to when taking offense becomes absurd and irrelevant. Being offended due to discrimination, etc, is one thing. Being offended because someone told a joke about your gender is stupid.

And while there certainly is an expected level of civility to taking part in a modern society, coddling the idiosyncrasies of random strangers is not part of that obligation. I'm not going to go around intentionally insulting people but at the same time, I'm not going to listen to bat-shit ramblings of an ideologue about what is or isn't acceptable language, etc, when I'm not even talking to them. The OP here is a perfect example. A satirical comment about peace and quiet when the women are away does not justify a bunch of random people on the internet "taking offense".

But you said explicitly that you had an issue with it.

"The only "issue" here is random people being "offended" by something some other random person said."

You seem to be confused. There is nothing in that statement, "explicit" or otherwise, that implies *I* have an issue with it. I merely clarified the supposed "issue" (indicated by quotes). And if you were paying attention, you'd have noted the sarcasm.

[Theodarzna]

Notice how everyone here - me, Nixx, Bapestar, Endus, thepersona, Torgent and others - is absolutely calm and is having a mature discussion. You are the one throwing a tantrum over a story you haven't even understood. I wonder why!

Watching a bunch of people with clone opinions of one another dogpile and then high five each other, especially when one of them is a mod, isn't exactly a glorious achievement.

[Klaiden Potugye]

No Endus, your shitty "stop being triggered by people being triggered" comment you make in every thread like this doesn't work here. He made a simple joke.

The thread is a comment on how rabid, crazy people will take a simple joke like this and harass people into quitting jobs and stuff. Its really immature and obviously insane.

It is EVIL.

[mage21]

It wasn't some objection based on a pedantic technicality to begin with. The attempt to frame it as some sort of attack on the person, instead of a perfectly legitimate exercise of individual rights, is nothing more than a pitiful attempt to shift blame for the person's actions on to others. He did a thing. They didn't like it so they said a thing. He resigned, but in other situations perhaps the employer decides they're no longer worth having as an employee. These are all pretty fundamental rights in play and this modern day insistence that any response to someone's actions that negatively impacts them is just the worst thing ever is utterly bizarre and self-contradictory. It's a fundamentally anti-liberty approach to the issue dressed up to look like a defense of the very rights it attacks.

Once the mob mentality takes over, I don't think the consequences fit the crime. That's fine if you want to exercise liberty, but in many cases these people become what could be described as bloodthirsty. Over a tweet. They direct their anger over social injustice at this one person's tweet, and all the pent up anger from those issues comes down on their heads, and it's really quite disproportionate.

I like what Jon Ronson says about it:

"If a newspaper ran some racist or homophobic column, we realized we could do something about it. We could get them. We could hit them with a weapon that we understood but they didn't — a social media shaming. Advertisers would withdraw their advertising. When powerful people misused their privilege, we were going to get them. This was like the democratization of justice.

...I think some people were genuinely upset, but I think for other people, it's because Twitter is basically a mutual approval machine. We surround ourselves with people who feel the same way we do, and we approve each other, and that's a really good feeling. And if somebody gets in the way, we screen them out. And do you know what that's the opposite of? It's the opposite of democracy. We wanted to show that we cared about people dying of AIDS in Africa. Our desire to be seen as compassionate is what led us to commit this profoundly un-compassionate act."

[Chickat]

Colin Moriarty?



Anyway trying to not sound like I'm blaming the victim, he could have apologized and explained himself a bit but obviously that wouldn't work on the more rabid of his "critics".

He didn't need to apologize. Im all for equal rights, and am a male feminist, but some go to far, like femfreq etc. He made an obvious joke. It wasn't funny, but anyone that was offended should just admit themselves in a mental institution.

[elaina]

A satirical comment about peace and quiet when the women are away does not justify a bunch of random people on the internet "taking offense".

??? Why?

He can decide himself whether or not their reactions matter to him. His right / decision to tweet some garbage with his RL name attached to it in a 100% public forum is no more justified than the responses of those who reacted to it. He said something publicly on Twitter and people are suddenly confused why there might be consequences. Why?

This is a classic example of freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequences from your speech argument.

People in this country are free to keep whatever shitty views they want, just as others are free to dissent against that person's viewpoint and disassociate themselves from him/her for having them.

[Moratori]

??? Why?

He can decide himself whether or not their reactions matter to him. His right / decision to tweet some garbage with his RL name attached to it in a 100% public forum is no more justified than the responses of those who reacted to it. He said something publicly on Twitter and people are suddenly confused why there might be consequences. Why?

This is a classic example of freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequences from your speech argument.

People in this country are free to keep whatever shitty views they want, just as others are free to dissent against that person's viewpoint and disassociate themselves from him/her for having them.

Is this really what you want to defend? This means that people who don't follow the mainstream thoughts should be social pariahs. There's a huge difference between fucking peoples lives up and not wanting to be around them. Consequences for what you do should be proportional to harm done, in this case there was no harm. Heavily disproportional reactions from people over a harmless joke isn't something you should be defending.

[Zyster]

Sexist jokes are;
A> only funny to sexists, and
B> still sexist.



Because his "joke" was obviously sexist? It literally demeans women. That's the whole "joke", making fun of women. Sorry, I don't see the humor. It's like making a joke about "how greedy Jews are", or "how dumb black people are". Those are just racist statements. People who aren't prejudiced don't find them funny in the first place.

Where did you receive your education? Have a masters in fallacies?

[May90]

You seem to be confused. There is nothing in that statement, "explicit" or otherwise, that implies *I* have an issue with it. I merely clarified the supposed "issue" (indicated by quotes). And if you were paying attention, you'd have noted the sarcasm.

Okay, fair enough.

Is this really what you want to defend? This means that people who don't follow the mainstream thoughts should be social pariahs. There's a huge difference between fucking peoples lives up and not wanting to be around them. Consequences for what you do should be proportional to harm done, in this case there was no harm. Heavily disproportional reactions from people over a harmless joke isn't something you should be defending.

Calling someone sexist on Twitter under their post is not "fucking peoples lives up", it is expressing an opinion - as silly as the opinion might be.

[Moratori]

Calling someone sexist on Twitter under their post is not "fucking peoples lives up", it is expressing an opinion - as silly as the opinion might be.

That's not all that happened though. Why are you ignoring this?

[May90]

That's not all that happened though. Why are you ignoring this?

That's all people you are criticizing did.

[mage21]

You all need to go the fuck outside.

I dunno, I think it's a conversation worth having.

[Moratori]

That's all people you are criticizing did.

Nope.

10chars

[elaina]

Is this really what you want to defend?

Yes, sure.

And yes they should absolutely be proportional and I think they were. What exactly was done here to justify calling it witch hunting? Perhaps my understanding of the situation is not at 100%. He said something sexist on Twitter. Some people on Twitter got mad. His job released a statement apologizing in order to save face and divorce themselves from the comment, and then he left without ever apologizing. Even if a few people angrily emailed his employer... whatever, I don't care. He apparently thought it was a good idea to tweet that in the first place. From what likely doubles as his business Twitter account. He can deal. He said opportunities abound for him just the same.

BTW the IBT article that called him "racist" rescinded that remark as clearly it made no sense and was either made in error or utter stupidity. Checking the source again will show the change and their half assed "apology" for adding that word for some unknown reason.

[Theodarzna]

Once the mob mentality takes over, I don't think the consequences fit the crime. That's fine if you want to exercise liberty, but in many cases these people become what could be described as bloodthirsty. Over a tweet. They direct their anger over social injustice at this one person's tweet, and all the pent up anger from those issues comes down on their heads, and it's really quite disproportionate.

I like what Jon Ronson says about it:

"If a newspaper ran some racist or homophobic column, we realized we could do something about it. We could get them. We could hit them with a weapon that we understood but they didn't — a social media shaming. Advertisers would withdraw their advertising. When powerful people misused their privilege, we were going to get them. This was like the democratization of justice.

...I think some people were genuinely upset, but I think for other people, it's because Twitter is basically a mutual approval machine. We surround ourselves with people who feel the same way we do, and we approve each other, and that's a really good feeling. And if somebody gets in the way, we screen them out. And do you know what that's the opposite of? It's the opposite of democracy. We wanted to show that we cared about people dying of AIDS in Africa. Our desire to be seen as compassionate is what led us to commit this profoundly un-compassionate act."

No see, some people are proud warriors of social justice, so when they do stuff that seems evil and objectively would be evil it becomes not evil because reasons. /s

I think the guy hit the nail on the head when he describe a sort of person who values Ideology over People. The clique of self-congratulating jackals fit the bill.