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

[NED funded]

There's no need for him to apologize, so why would he? Anyways, "voluntarily resigned". I have to wonder if he still gets paid off of the youtube channel that he founded. Maybe he's just behind the scenes now, and not in front of the camera. Fuck these triggered bitches.

He could have just ignored them, instead of being the little bitch he is right now.

[Jinpachi]

He could have just ignored them, instead of being the little bitch he is right now.

They could have ignored him, instead of being the little bitches they are right now. There, i fixed it for ya.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is that the first has no negative societal consequences, the latter principle will ruin a society given time.

And those people should be told to grow up and get real, again, because the principle of coddling them will ruin a society given time.

Exactly. We need to start verbally slapping the shit out of them. They need to bend to society, NOT the other way around. The real world doesn't care about their feelings.

[Rennadrel]

??? 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.

Because freedom of speech gives him the right to make a fucking joke. He is not attacking any person individually, he is not slandering someone, there is no target for his Tweet that can be aimed at one person. Generalizations​ are usually in bad taste, but making a play on a rather stupidly named hashtag doesn't give anyone the right to start harassing him for it. For what it's worth, A Day Without Women is a dumb hashtag to use, because women still exist and were at home in many parts of the world.

[Spectral]

I make that kind of joke all the time. Thing is, I'm not an outspoken shitlord with an anti-feminist agenda, so when I say it it probably IS just a joke, not a shitty political statement. Context matters.

The spectacular hypocrisy of, "I can make that joke, I'm one of the good people" is almost too much to be believed.

[elaina]

Because freedom of speech gives him the right to make a fucking joke. He is not attacking any person individually, he is not slandering someone, there is no target for his Tweet that can be aimed at one person. Generalizations​ are usually in bad taste, but making a play on a rather stupidly named hashtag doesn't give anyone the right to start harassing him for it. For what it's worth, A Day Without Women is a dumb hashtag to use, because women still exist and were at home in many parts of the world.

Are you joking? Did you read what I wrote? Please do so again. You regressed the line of reasoning so that my quote is the perfect response to yours.

To clarify, no where in there do I contest his right to state his shitty joke about women. He is free to do so. Just as he is free to deal with the shit tide of consequences resulted from his posting something like that in public.

[NED funded]

They could have ignored him, instead of being the little bitches they are right now. There, i fixed it for ya.

- - - Updated - - -



Exactly. We need to start verbally slapping the shit out of them. They need to bend to society, NOT the other way around. The real world doesn't care about their feelings.

He is a public figure, his statements are hard to ignore. Its on him how to response to the situation. He chose the little bitch route.

[Leonora]

Wow, I read 29 pages and then skipped 20 and it still goes round and round. What I find remarkable is the lack of empathy for women in many of the responses. Do you truly, really, honestly find it funny when a man claims his peace is better off without women? I suspect that the 'funny' part is in the attempt at reversed psychology, because the remark without context is just demeaning.

- Jokes work on shock value. The shock can be done by belittling someone, and by not making others smaller. In this case the mans peace is created by removing women from him, so its belittling women. Which makes it a sexist joke by definition.

- Is this bad? Not per se, sexist jokes are of all ages and places.The joke could work in a private setting, though that still requires the females in your surroundings to accept this kind of joke. Just stating that 'feminists among your friends laugh about this joke' makes me wonder if they are really feminists. Turn it around: if women would claim their life was less good because of you in it, you might laugh it off the first time, but would you do that the 100th time? The 1000th time? I doubt it.
However, in a private setting this could be considered funny.

- However, that is not where this joke is played, its played in a public setting. Which allows the joke to be read outside the setting it was aimed at. Which can upset people, because those people (mostly women) have seen this kind of shock-value demeaning remarks hundreds of time. And at some point, the fun wears off and the impact of yet another person who - for whatever reason - finds it funny to demean women sets them off. And then it gets tough on the money making line of the company, and the company has to distance themself from this kind of remarks.

Have some empathy with women. Try to look beyond your little groups of friends. Imagine the joke being aimed at you for 1000 of times. Imagine the gender swapped. At some point you find the 'joke' just plain rude.

[Theodarzna]

That you think they need to get something out of it in order to think that way shows the flaw in your way of thinking about the subject. People stand up for their ideologies all the time simply because it is what they believe in. You might be doing that right now. Because someone is male you think it is somehow suspicious or he needs to have an ulterior motive. Why? Maybe it's just something a decent fucking human being should do in the case of some journalist making a sexist joke and people putting on blinders about it. In this case it's as easy as recognizing a text book definition. I hate having to spell this out for people but the joke made a clearly negative over-generalization strictly targeting a baseless stereotype against women. That is literally sexism. Could it be worse? Yes. But it is sexism.

For those who honestly think it wasn't sexist I'm curious why you think that. Because it was a joke? That's fine, then it was a sexist joke. The word sexist can modify joke rather than comment / tweet. Not sure how that excuses it from other modes of reality. Regardless of how overtly sexist he is as a person (or not), the fact that he felt it was okay to make that joke on such a public forum and refuses to relinquish at all speaks volumes about him as a person. And honestly, the idea that a "self-proclaimed Republican/Libertarian in [the] gaming community" said something sexist is not entirely surprising to me. But it is pretty disappointing, because that is, itself, quickly becoming a stereotype.

Thanks for the strongly worded two paragraphs of nonsense. People stand up for the ideologies by having a witch hunt, yes I see that very clearly from one specific subset of ideologies. One vary paranoid and delusional subset of ideologies that likes to attack and destroy people in the name of ideology. By the way, attacking humor doesn't make you a decent human being, it makes you an inquisitor.

[Grimreaper]

Wow, I read 29 pages and then skipped 20 and it still goes round and round. What I find remarkable is the lack of empathy for women in many of the responses. Do you truly, really, honestly find it funny when a man claims his peace is better off without women?

Yes, yes i do. Because it's true. And i wouldnt have it any other way. You wont find a single married man who wouldnt say he would like 1 day a year without his wife in the house.

And i do have empathy for women, on EQUAL terms of men.

[darkwarrior42]

Yes, yes i do. Because it's true. And i wouldnt have it any other way. You wont find a single married man who wouldnt say he would like 1 day a year without his wife in the house.

And i do have empathy for women, on EQUAL terms of men.

Hi, I am a married man, and I do everything in my power to spend as much time with my wife as possible, because I love her and actually enjoy spending time with her.

For you to say that I should like to spend a day without my wife makes you an arrogant, self-centered chauvanist, and that you have the unmitigated gall to claim that you have empathy for women on equal terms for men after so easily generalizing every single person makes you either stupid or ignorant as well. You have no right whatsoever to tell me that I should want to spend time without her, you have no right whatsoever to dictate the terms of my life, my relationship, or my time, and you have no right whatsoever to believe that you have any right to speak on my behalf, or to include me in your point of view.

Edit: And to stop the ever-so-predcitable "you've obviously just gotten married and haven't lived with her long enough for this to happen yet, but it will" bullshit I can just hear coming, we're coming up on 8 years of marriage this June.

[Deleted]

Wow, I read 29 pages and then skipped 20 and it still goes round and round. What I find remarkable is the lack of empathy for women in many of the responses. Do you truly, really, honestly find it funny when a man claims his peace is better off without women? I suspect that the 'funny' part is in the attempt at reversed psychology, because the remark without context is just demeaning.

- Jokes work on shock value. The shock can be done by belittling someone, and by not making others smaller. In this case the mans peace is created by removing women from him, so its belittling women. Which makes it a sexist joke by definition.

- Is this bad? Not per se, sexist jokes are of all ages and places.The joke could work in a private setting, though that still requires the females in your surroundings to accept this kind of joke. Just stating that 'feminists among your friends laugh about this joke' makes me wonder if they are really feminists. Turn it around: if women would claim their life was less good because of you in it, you might laugh it off the first time, but would you do that the 100th time? The 1000th time? I doubt it.
However, in a private setting this could be considered funny.

- However, that is not where this joke is played, its played in a public setting. Which allows the joke to be read outside the setting it was aimed at. Which can upset people, because those people (mostly women) have seen this kind of shock-value demeaning remarks hundreds of time. And at some point, the fun wears off and the impact of yet another person who - for whatever reason - finds it funny to demean women sets them off. And then it gets tough on the money making line of the company, and the company has to distance themself from this kind of remarks.

Have some empathy with women. Try to look beyond your little groups of friends. Imagine the joke being aimed at you for 1000 of times. Imagine the gender swapped. At some point you find the 'joke' just plain rude.

Think of the women - the post. This is just an appeal to emotion and has no real substance.

[Allybeboba]

I guess his day wasn't so "quite".

What would people do without Twitter and social networks to get upset over nothing, one has to wonder.

[Spectral]

You know what's kinda funny? The company name is Kinda Funny, Moriarty's comment was kinda funny, yet the outcome isn't really all that funny.

[melodramocracy]

Wow, I read 29 pages and then skipped 20 and it still goes round and round. What I find remarkable is the lack of empathy for women in many of the responses. Do you truly, really, honestly find it funny when a man claims his peace is better off without women? I suspect that the 'funny' part is in the attempt at reversed psychology, because the remark without context is just demeaning.

- Jokes work on shock value. The shock can be done by belittling someone, and by not making others smaller. In this case the mans peace is created by removing women from him, so its belittling women. Which makes it a sexist joke by definition.

- Is this bad? Not per se, sexist jokes are of all ages and places.The joke could work in a private setting, though that still requires the females in your surroundings to accept this kind of joke. Just stating that 'feminists among your friends laugh about this joke' makes me wonder if they are really feminists. Turn it around: if women would claim their life was less good because of you in it, you might laugh it off the first time, but would you do that the 100th time? The 1000th time? I doubt it.
However, in a private setting this could be considered funny.

- However, that is not where this joke is played, its played in a public setting. Which allows the joke to be read outside the setting it was aimed at. Which can upset people, because those people (mostly women) have seen this kind of shock-value demeaning remarks hundreds of time. And at some point, the fun wears off and the impact of yet another person who - for whatever reason - finds it funny to demean women sets them off. And then it gets tough on the money making line of the company, and the company has to distance themself from this kind of remarks.

Have some empathy with women. Try to look beyond your little groups of friends. Imagine the joke being aimed at you for 1000 of times. Imagine the gender swapped. At some point you find the 'joke' just plain rude.

I'll keep this in mind next time I see a parent write "School starts today, finally some peace and quiet", and rant about how anti-child and unfair it is.

- - - Updated - - -

You know what's kinda funny? The company name is Kinda Funny, Moriarty's comment was kinda funny, yet the outcome isn't really all that funny.

You admitting you found humor in it is going to offend folks here. Hopefully they don't know where you work.

[darkwarrior42]

Think of the women - the post. This is just an appeal to emotion and has no real substance.

Jokes are ultimately looking for an emotional response, so it's hard to completely avoid an appeal to emotion when discussing them.

Still, the entire point of the joke is that women are loud and obnoxious, and that men would enjoy a day without women around because it would give them a day of peace, free of the bother of women. It is clearly and unashamedly a sexist joke. We can debate all day long whether it's acceptable to make that kind of joke, but to claim it's not sexist completely misses the point or fails to understand what being sexist is in the first place.

Personally, I don't find the joke that offensive. It's sexist, but my natural reaction to the joke (outside a workplace or professional environment) would be to just shake my head and walk away. I'd lose respect for the person that told it, but unless someone was obviously hurt by it or it became more than a one-off joke I'd rather not give the joke-teller any more attention than necessary.

[Mehrunes]

Forgive him. He lacks any kind of creativity beyond "I know what you are but what am I derp!"

Admit it, it was beautiful in a way. A fucked up way, but still.

Well, I suppose ignorance is bliss, it's a free deflection against all insults. Carry on.

Claiming that one trait doesn't make someone decent isn't a statement about decency of that person itself and doesn't even cover other traits and how they correlate with decency. Even if it rested entirely on not being a buzzkill, it could still leave them neutral in terms of decency. And you talk about ignorance.

Nope, the level of thinking required is probably too high for me.

Well, at least your self-awareness is working properly.

You should probably read the post I responded to with that statement more closely. You'd look a lot less retarded.

No, I didn't call him a buzzkill.

He didn't take it that way, and I didn't mean it that way. Which is really fucking ironic when you think about it, since most events similar to the one this thread is about involves people getting offended on others' behalf.

How amusing.

So you want to remove this source of amusement? Shame on you mon. Also, the best part of this whole thing is that both you and @elaina consider their interpretation to be idiotic. That or the part when after getting offended on elaina's behalf backfired, PosPosPos started flailing around in their direction about how they should be offended and are too stupid not to be.

You are welcome.

Whooping two lines of text are addressed at Bigzo's comment about buzzkills. One and a half even. Four whooping sentences. Well, if that's an essay for you, then you were even more accurate with your comment about level of thinking than I expected. And, weirdly enough, this "essay" doesn't say squat about how they are not a buzzkill. And instead focuses on how the joke wasn't innocuous just because Bigzo says so and how they already explained why it is. You alt-right Trumpkins and your alternative facts...

[Moratori]

Have some empathy with women. Try to look beyond your little groups of friends. Imagine the joke being aimed at you for 1000 of times. Imagine the gender swapped. At some point you find the 'joke' just plain rude.

I am a woman, I don't find it offensive. I don't find it particularly funny either but I'm not going to go after someone for making jokes that aren't funny to me.

[Saucexorzski]

Hi, I am a married man, and I do everything in my power to spend as much time with my wife as possible, because I love her and actually enjoy spending time with her.

For you to say that I should like to spend a day without my wife makes you an arrogant, self-centered chauvanist, and that you have the unmitigated gall to claim that you have empathy for women on equal terms for men after so easily generalizing every single person makes you either stupid or ignorant as well. You have no right whatsoever to tell me that I should want to spend time without her, you have no right whatsoever to dictate the terms of my life, my relationship, or my time, and you have no right whatsoever to believe that you have any right to speak on my behalf, or to include me in your point of view.

Edit: And to stop the ever-so-predcitable "you've obviously just gotten married and haven't lived with her long enough for this to happen yet, but it will" bullshit I can just hear coming, we're coming up on 8 years of marriage this June.

What a Hero you are, an outstanding example for all of humanity to actually to enjoy your wife's company, i am deeply impressed by this novel concept. If only everyone in the world could live by your example i am sure the patriarchy would crumble and a true era of equality where women are finally respected will follow. Its up to folks like you to put those horrid arrogant, self-centered chauvinist in their place, like this guy for making such a sexist joke or like Dr Matt Taylor for his audacity to were a shirt. Truly you have cut the head off of sexists world wide by endorsing the public ridicule of such individuals. I applaud you and your fellow social morality police for taking up the mantle that the religious right tarnished to help usher us into utopia.

[Orange Joe]

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.

His consequences was to apologize, HE decided to take it further and quit. He is the one that escalated it no one else.

- - - Updated - - -

After what happened with pewdiepie I don't think they fucked something up, they put it there deliberately.

What happened to pewdiepie?

https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/pewdiepie



Not a dam thing. It's like they never even wrote a story to begin with. They really ruined his life huh.

- - - Updated - - -

You realize defamation is against the law, right?

Then what is the problem? If they have a case of defamation they can take them to court and sue them.

[Mehrunes]

Defamation has a very strict definition. Calling someone sexist based on a provocative joke is not defamation; defamation would be making a claim about an objective fact from their lives which is apparently false.

It is an assessment, not a claim about an objective fact. A claim about an objective fact would be, for example, "He raped a child last week".

What are you going on about? There's no requirement of the false comments to be about "objective facts". Only that said false statements are, well, false. Or at best, presented as facts. Though in this case the guy would be considered a public figure which would make the requirement of malice much more strict. And a statement that "He raped a child last week" would be defamation per se, not just defamation.

He wasn't defamed by "legal" definition. As for the right to have public image unharmed... There ain't such right, and if there was, it would conflict with multiple other rights.

Fixed it for you.

I think we are about to uncover that, beside not understanding what free speech is, you also don't understand what a fact is and what false statements of fact legally are.

Says the person conflating defamation per se with defamation. Top notch authority on the topic right here /s

First of all, "person X is a sexist" is not a statement of fact. "Sexist" is a characteristic, not a factual truth, and it depends largely on the used definition, on one's point of view, on one's sensitivity, etc.

Second, the purpose of the laws behind false statements of fact is not to protect people from a public backlash, it is to protect individuals and the government from being taken advantage of by each other through lies. Unless you can prove that people publishing derogatory articles towards him were deliberately lying with the purpose of getting something out of it, you aren't going to get anywhere. Just saying a lie or a false statement in itself has nothing to do with it. I can say "I push buttons is a dwarf", and you cannot hope to sue me over it and win the trial.

All of these are pretty basic things, and you would know them, if you learned the law not from phrases taken out of context from Wikipedia, but by looking at the actual laws and studying the history of their usage.

As evidenced right here. Do link a definition of defamation that requires the offender to have the purpose of getting something out of it for it to constitute defamation.

Actually, let's just link actual laws since what you'll pull out of your ass is bound to annoy me. I'm going to use Polygon as an example since last time I checked they did not correct their article like the other newspaper. I couldn't find their headquarter and the only mentions of that were in regards to their parent company, Vox, which has headquarters in Washintgon D.C. or New York.

Elements of defamation in District of Columbia:

1. the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff;
2. the defendant published the statement without privilege to a third party;
3. the defendant's fault in publishing the statement amounted to at least negligence; and
4. either the statement was actionable as a matter of law irrespective of special harm or its publication caused the plaintiff special harm.

Elements of defamation in New York:

1. a false statement;
2. published to a third party without privilege or authorization;
3. with fault amounting to at least negligence;
4. that caused special harm or defamation per se.

Would you look at that, no mention of that. It doesn't even specify a false statement of fact. But since we're already talking about it, let's link the legal meaning of "statement of fact", that you're totes legit well versed in:

affirmation, allegation of facts, assertion, asseveration, attestation, avouchment, declaration, description, enumeration, one's position, one's stand, review, summary

You know, presenting something as fact and things like that, regardless of their actual state as fact. And even then, the mental gymnastic about characteristics were just that.

Defamation. doesn't even focus on your supposed "being taken advantage of". Instead, the focus of actual defamation laws and not this nonsense you conjured from thin air and convinced yourself to be correct, is harm.

And hell, depending on a judge your statement that @I Push Buttons is a dwarf would not only could fall under defamation, it could fall under defamation per se if the judge in question considers dwarfism to be a disease that's "loathsome". In which case I Push Buttons wouldn't even need to prove malice on your part because it would be considered malicious by default. And you'd lose the case in an instant.

There is such a thing is civil law.

17 states have some criminal law aspects of defamation as well anyway.