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

[Elim Garak]

Clearly your wife secretly hates her own gender.

It's called internalized misogyny. Instilled into women by Patriarchy Inc.

[Deleted]

People should be able to be fired for whatever their employer wants.

To be clear, i said 'should' not legally forced to.

Otherwise, no employer should should be able to fire an employee who says racist shit, or refuses to serve police officers.

And I don't think corporations should care what opinions their employees have.
Should - Not, must, cant, - Oh and clearly, refusing to serve anyone is clearly a violation of your job description -

- - - Updated - - -

So what was the context of his joke?

Is there a context that amounts to misogyny?

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, but for most people in the real world, there are consequences for your actions.

You know they used to fire people for being in the NAACP?
Was that bad or not?

[Orange Joe]

Is there a context that amounts to misogyny?

A joke about a women stereotype on a day to recognize women? To me falls under sexism. How offensive it is is going to depend on the person. To me it's not.


Is there any other context we should know?

[Kolvarg]

The subject was not literally "people who do this." It was "SJWs," which is a label routinely carelessly hurled at anyone who ever objects to anything said about women or minorities. Don't waste my time lying to me when I can scroll up five posts and see what the subject was.

But SJW is an abstract concept that is defined exactly as "people who do this". Not exclusively this (call out "missoginy"), but things very similar to this. "SJWs" as the subject is still not a generalization, because they are a specific "type" of people that is defined by that thing.

It's like saying "mammals have mammary glands" is a generalization.

Regardless, it's pretty clear that Noxx's point was only to point out how utterly absurd his post was for the reasons I highlighted, which it absolutely was and it's nothing more than feelings based whining about people doing things they don't like. All you're doing is bending over backwards to be charitable to one post–the one you agree with–even going so far as to invent shit that didn't happen, while being incredibly uncharitable towards the other and taking it as literally as possible to make the person seem stupid, rather than understand what they were going for.

The truth is also that there ARE a lot of people online who throw a fit if anyone objects to anything said about women or minorities that's less than positive. While obviously they don't believe literally "nothing" is misogynist, they are overly quick to slap down any objections as little more than "hypersensitivity."

I understand what they were going for, I just really don't like that way of "discussing" opinions, and think it's a dishonest (intentionally or not) logic jump that makes no sense, that's my main criticism. I'm being "uncharitable" because if that post had any point, it was in my opinion an incredibly childish and unreasonable way to make it.

It's like going to the USA in the 40s, aproaching someone who says "I hate Nazis" and going "Oh, so you love communists then?".
Stating you dislike "A" doesn't mean you like absolutely everything "not A".

The difference is in the context. Him saying he dislikes people who overreact and overuse these buzzwords and saying nothing about people who might "underreact" and thing everything is ok, doesn't mean he doesn't also dislike the 2nd "type" of people. Especially in today's context where the 1st "type" have been getting more and more of a presence and impact at least on a social level.

I mean, maybe it's just my personal experience, but I've been exposed to many cases of people who "claim EVERYTHING is misogynist", but very little if not none of people who "claim NOTHING is bad/sexist/racist/offensive".

They're just very different types of exageration, if anything because the second one was made with a mocking overtone that functions essentially as a strawman. The existance or validity of the extreme opposite doesn't invalidate in any way what he was saying, nor does it say that he doesn't also dislike the extreme opposite. Personally I just think the 1st exageration describes the people it applies to, while the second doesn't really describe anyone. There are indeed people who "underreact" to some serious issues, as there are people who are ready to undermine anyone who they percieve to be a SJW, but "people who claim NOTHING is bad" is certainly not how I'd ever choose to describe any of them even when exagerating.

Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but to me at least, if I exclude both extremes and look at the "regular" people, what I see is people shutting up and/or siding with the "PC" because they don't want to be judged or feel like they are bad people for being, essentially, human. Maybe I'm wrong, but I haven't seen many if any people become intimidated of sharing their opinion/thoughts because of the "anti-SJWs".

You guys see what you want to see, but have your heads so far up your own asses which are themselves located in insular thought bubbles that you actually need to ask me for examples of this when you're on MMO-C, a never ending example of exactly that. I mean we're in a thread where people are trying to argue that a blatantly sexist joke isn't sexist because they can't actually figure out how to distinguish between something being sexist and being something not worth getting upset over. I'm not going to deny that there are people out there who get too upset. It's a thing, sure, but "regressive leftists" don't have a monopoly on it and if you actually manage to think that they do, it's likely because you're not bothering to question for even one second what you accept as true. This entire thread is a testament to the love of insipid whining "anti-PC" types have, even over a total nontroversy, so long as it disagrees with them.

We all see what we want to see. We all have biases and prejudices. That's just part of being human.

I say to you what I said to Endus:

My problem with this is that while yes, you "can" technically classify this as "sexism", did it really harm any women?

Because by the same train of thought, I can logicly classify many of the "pro-women" things we have been seeing lately, including the hashtag #ADayWithoutAWoman as sexist. Because they are sexist. Most of the supposed "fight agaisnt sexism" we see nowadays IS sexist as it's trying to gieve certain benefits to women simply because they are women.

It's technically sexist to segregate men from women in sports. But is it not fair?

The trouble with all this is that it severely dilutes the meaning of "sexism", to the point of ridicule. Because then you need to start clarifying between "good" and "bad" types of sexism (or maybe you defend total impartialness, which I personally doubt as to this day I don't think I've seen anyone capable or even willing to do that, nor do I believe it would be better for society or women).

What was achieved by calling the joke sexist? What is the point?

It's true, "regressive leftists" don't have a monopoly on it, but that doens't mean they aren't currently heavily associated with it and one of the main "group" of people practicing it currently.

I will agree that there are similarities, there is a lot of value in considering that and questioning ourselves. I mean, in essence both are essentially "disliking what someone else said".

But in the end I think it is undeniable that there are some relevant differences that shouldn't be ignored. Because while it's possible to describe both "sides" as "complaining about what someone said", generally (and considering mainly the more reasonable of both sides) the "SJW" side immediately applies personal judgement to the whole person for that one statement, while the "anti-SJW" side applies judgement, if anything, on a set of repeated actions.

At least from my personal experience, I see the "SJW" side with a "shaming" attitude. Even when it's more tame and polite, it's almost always done with a condescending and/or judgemental tone and a "holier-than-thou" attitude. On the other hand, the "anti-SJW" I follow and defend are not actually "anti-SJW" (even if you or many people would classify them as such), but rather just people who like to apply skepticism and logic to the ideas they ready, and base their criticism on logic and thought rather than feelings. Granted, there are "anti-SJW" who are as bad or worse than many "SJW", but at least in my perception there's a fairly big difference in "concentration" of these people in either "group". At least from what I understand a "SJW" is, they are by definition going to be people that do these things I dislike. And from what I understand an "anti-SJW" is (basicly someone who dislikes and speaks agaisnt the "SJW mindset"), while it may include idiots like that it isn't exclusively them.

I understand you don't perceive the "SJW" mindset as harmful, but there I will respectfully disagree with you. I might be wrong, or perceiving it on a scale bigger than it actually is (easy to happen especially on the internet, makes us forgets how big the world is sometimes), but I defenitely have the idea there are negative consequences brewing from this "trend". For instance, the protests in the name of "progressiveness", "PC" and "love" that turned into vandalism and/or sheer insanity, like the "protest" agaisnt Milo Yiannopoulos speaking at some university, or the "feminist" protest agaisnt "sexism" on a male suicide lecture.

I mean obviously the people that do these things don't represent ALL "SJWs", but I do believe the "SJW mindset" is feeding them, and is essentially indocrinating people into this idea of society that simply doesn't match reality, meanwhile creating delusional people who'd rather pull their victim and/or opression cards, be it their own or those of others, than actually try to have a reasonable and respectable discussion.

Either way, I respect your position, and hope I gave you at least a bit of insight on mine

[Interim]

This generation makes my soul hurt. Day without a man.. heh. The world you know and enjoy, the computer the faux neo feminists rant on, the roads driven on, roofs over their heads... constitution that gives them the rights they deny having... all here due to us worthless men.

Chew on that man haters.

[Noxx79]

This generation makes my soul hurt. Day without a man.. heh. The world you know and enjoy, the computer the faux neo feminists rant on, the roads driven on, roofs over their heads... constitution that gives them the rights they deny having... all here due to us worthless men.

Chew on that man haters.

I think youve wandered into the wrong thread. This has nothing to do with "man haters".

[Theodarzna]

A joke about a women stereotype on a day to recognize women? To me falls under sexism. How offensive it is is going to depend on the person. To me it's not.


Is there any other context we should know?

Is nobody allowed to poke fun at the "Day Without a Woman" protest?

[Noxx79]

Is nobody allowed to poke fun at the "Day Without a Woman" protest?

Only if they can take the shit they get for it, which apparently most of the anti-SJWs can't.

[fluffhead]

If you say and do sexist things, you are a misogynist. If you say and do racist things, you are a racist.

Your post is pretty sexist itself, why didn't you add misandry as well?

[Noxx79]

If so, it also has nothing to do with sexism.

What are you taking about? Seriously I think you're in the wrong thread.

[Skyforge1]

This thread is so entertaining

[Orange Joe]

Is nobody allowed to poke fun at the "Day Without a Woman" protest?

Sure, but I don't think twitter would be the best platform for the joke. A good comedians knows his audience.


Is it that hard to just say I'm sorry?

[Noxx79]

Some people are calling what Colin Moriarty tweeted 'sexist'. That is in the same realm of absurdity and reasoning as claiming those who didn't like his tweet are man haters.

So you admit that you're being completely absurd?

[taliey]

Ah yes, concern trolling.

[May90]

Is nobody allowed to poke fun at the "Day Without a Woman" protest?

Still not getting it, after almost 60 pages...

People are allowed to poke fun at this protest.
Other people are allowed to tell what they think about this poking.
Other people still are allowed to tell what they think about what these people think.
Other people still still...
[infinite loop continues]

[Noxx79]

No, because I see neither sexism nor manhating. Do you?

I've made no argument regarding the sexism. You admit you're being absurd. Otherwise you wouldn't have made the Manhating comment. The fact that you made that comment shows that by your reasoning there was sexism in the remark. So either you admit the remark was sexist, or you're being absurd. Which is it?

[Machismo]

To be clear, i said 'should' not legally forced to.

And I don't think corporations should care what opinions their employees have.
Should - Not, must, cant, - Oh and clearly, refusing to serve anyone is clearly a violation of your job description -

- - - Updated - - -



Is there a context that amounts to misogyny?

- - - Updated - - -


You know they used to fire people for being in the NAACP?
Was that bad or not?

Of course they should not be legally forced to do anything. I have no problem if an employer wants to fire anyone, and for any reason. As an employer, I wouldn't want to be obligated to keep anyone on for any reason, especially a political on.

[Theodarzna]

Still not getting it, after almost 60 pages...

People are allowed to poke fun at this protest.
Other people are allowed to tell what they think about this poking.
Other people still are allowed to tell what they think about what these people think.
Other people still still...
[infinite loop continues]

Following Mormolyce's logic, it appears your ilk believe nobody is allowed to poke fun at it without passing a political litmus test.

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.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, but I don't think twitter would be the best platform for the joke. A good comedians knows his audience.


Is it that hard to just say I'm sorry?

Sorry for what? Offense is taken, not given.

- - - Updated - - -

Only if they can take the shit they get for it, which apparently most of the anti-SJWs can't.

Well the SJW types seem to want us all to praise them for being such righteous little folks, instead of just calling you people bullies and thugs which is all that that crowd seems to be composed of.

[Deleted]

Sure, but I don't think twitter would be the best platform for the joke. A good comedians knows his audience.


Is it that hard to just say I'm sorry?

Is it that hard to move on from a joke?

[Xtacle]

Another non issue somehow became a huge deal. You guys are right though, technically the joke is sexist, however it doesn't change just how absurd the backlash it received is. Hell it wouldn't have even been worthy of news if the roles were reversed which is what most of the people triggered by people being triggered have issue with. Sure you can tell someone a joke against women is sexist and should be punished and that's fine, but a "punishment" of this extent should be considered outlandish but sadly it isn't. Just at least be consistent with your outrage, when was the last time a woman got hounded on like this for telling a joke of equal or worse intentions against a man? Aside from a handful of "men's rights" folks that is.