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

[Klaiden Potugye]

Her opinion doesn't matter because women are individual people and the rest of them are not required to submit to her judgment.

Clearly not. But males, i.e. Endus can keep his own "opinion" to himself. And, if by any chance you consider yourself a male, same goes for you.

[Deleted]

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?

Sexism is not a synonym of misogyny.

[Orange Joe]

Clearly not. But males, i.e. Endus can keep his own "opinion" to himself. And, if by any chance you consider yourself a male, same goes for you.

Endus most likely would have kept his opinions to himself if someone didn't make a thread asking people for their opinions.

- - - Updated - - -

Sexism is not a synonym of misogyny.

Where did I mention misogyny?

[Mistame]

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

Not sure if this is sarcasm, but it's certainly incorrect.

[Theodarzna]

Nobody is protected from the possibility of other people putting their words to the political litmus test. It is not something "my ilk believes", it is how the world works, whether you like it or not.

Yet Mormolyce explicit spelled out, "Only my group can say jokes!" and in other cases it seems the Litmus test is; "Does the mob of internet bullies agree with your politics or not."

In short, I think people like you are merely partisan hacks whose opinion or ability to enjoy a joke depends entirely on the politics or ideological allegiance of the joke teller.

- - - Updated - - -

Allowed as in what? Not getting arrested? Obviously. Not allowed to be subjected to criticism? Of course not.

It was an inappropiate joke in the context since it was bashing on a movement meant to support women's rights. That's all it was. It wasn't like some people were just joking around already. He could have even gave the movement some valid critism and then thrown this in and it would have been more appropiate but he didn't. All he did was bash it and it is therefore a sexist comment and that's it.

As opposed to the recent outrage of Pewdiepie and his "death to all jews" incident. I think it was completely appropriate within the context and he didn't deserve the ignorant criticism from people like J.K. Rowling calling him a fucking nazi.

It's all about context and it was the wrong context for that kind of joke. I don't think he deserves to have his career ruined over it but refusing to apologize won't help his case there.

It was poking fun at a psuedo-movement of slacktivists and hashtag warriors who take themselves way too seriously. You implicitly believe he does deserve that.

[Deleted]

Where did I mention misogyny?

I did:

Is there a context that amounts to misogyny?

So, does it exist?

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, that's sexism on its face,

No its not, that discriminates against men, and as the progressive stack tells us, that doesn't qualify, because of the oppressor/oppressed dynamic.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

What part of 'should' do you not understand?
I believe employers should, act in this way.

[May90]

All that aside, being internally inconsistent is a common element of the human psyche, known in psychology circles as cognitive dissonance. A LOT of people do it on a regular basis because it allows them to hold on to prejudices and preconceived notions.

That is true as well.

How does it affect him any less than the twitter posters stating their disapproval? You think he actually reads any of those?

He doesn't, but, apparently, his co-workers did - or, at least, heard of the backlash and decided that it hurts the interests of the company.

Yet Mormolyce explicit spelled out, "Only my group can say jokes!" and in other cases it seems the Litmus test is; "Does the mob of internet bullies agree with your politics or not."

In short, I think people like you are merely partisan hacks whose opinion or ability to enjoy a joke depends entirely on the politics or ideological allegiance of the joke teller.

You are free to think whatever you want. If you think that "his group" is some kind of a hive mind in which all people are the same and have the same opinion on the same jokes, then, frankly, there is no intellectual debate to be had here.

[Orange Joe]

I did:

So, does it exist?

So you are using the logic that if it isn't misogyny it isn't sexist? Otherwise what is the point of bringing it up?

[Kolvarg]

I think you need to refresh yourself on what "literally" means because I literally did not do that. You also need to pay more attention to what I actually say, as opposed to what you imagine I say. I am generally quite deliberate with my word choice.

What did you say exactly then? If you genuinely think I didn't understand someone either try to explain it or move on, otherwise what's even the point? Feeling superior?

We're not talking about the majority. Try to keep up.

If it's not the majority, then it is logicly impossible that some "observable pattern" exists with anything more than anecdotal evidence to support it, because the majority of people are neutral and will dislike both extremes, therefore it is illogical to assume someone who criticizes one extreme identifies with the opposing extreme.

Because it's MMO-C and I come here to waste time, not because I'm deeply moved by whatever inane plight people are bitching about in each thread.

So does the majority of other people? What makes you think I or anyone else are deeply moved about what we are discussing or comenting on in this thread?

I don't really care to put effort into these responses because I don't see you as an equal and your entire thing has basically been "my experience disagrees" combined with mental gymnastics, generous misuse of "literally," and ordinary everyday incorrectness. Your responses up to this point have been disappointing, quite frankly, and I really see no benefit to treating this seriously. You're well spoken, but that's about it and it merely helps cover up the vapidity of your responses. Put another way, you are boring.

Hasn't most what you claimed also been based on your experience (or what you call "observable patterns")? Which were the mental gymnastics? Where and how did I used them? Why are you not exposing them and proving them as logically wrong instead of just claiming they exist?

Why even keep responding?

I mean really, you're just saying whatever you believe to be true because it's "[your] experience," but apparently I am not allowed to do the same and must offer proof. Seems a bit unfair. What proof am I going to offer of broad trends on the internet that I observe? Do you think I keep a diary of every post someone makes? I don't. I've been using this site for years though, Gen-OT in particular. I have an idea of who could be lumped in which vague groups and what sorts of habits certain groups of people have. Even if I had proof, what's to stop you from doing what you've been doing this whole thing and basically going "nu uh"? Nothing.

You are certainly allowed. The difference is that I clearly expose my experience for what it is, and mentioned multiple times I might very well be wrong, or have been led to believe something that is not factually correct simply because my experience is limited and might not represent the whole, while you simply claim your experience to be "observable patterns" :P

And my point isn't even that such people don't exist or anything similar, simply that they are not as relevant and that their existance does not in any way invalidate the criticism towards the opposite crowd.

Again with the absurd amount of "charity" just because you're inclined to sympathize. Some men are loud and whiny too. This thread has plenty of proof of that. There's no reason to single out women if you're not taking a potshot at women for something pertaining to them being women. I never said or even suggested he's claiming literally all women are like that, but it's clear that it's a sexist joke. Whether he acts on or believes in it is immaterial. Again, pay attention to what I actually say and not whatever you imagine up.

You seem to have the idea that saying "some women are loud and whiny" somehow implies men aren't. It doesn't. The statement is there, everything else is your interpretation.

The joke isn't that women are loud and whiny but men aren't. The joke is at most, like I said, that "being lound and whiny is more common in the female sex".

Also, like I already said, it is indeed technically sexist. Instead of telling me to pay attention why don't you do it yourself?

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 give 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).

Just like we can't denyt that it is technically sexist, we can't ignore that "sexist" and "sexism" is generally viewed negatively and as something bad. And my question is simply how is the joke negative or bad? How does anyone benefit from associating the joke with actual cases of harmful and negative sexism?

You seem determined in establishing the joke is "sexist" (which I never really contested), but seem to have no cares as to what that actually achieves or means, so what exactly is the point?

still miss the point of what I said by a mile, such as "By your own words, one needs to have an understanding of the stereotype to understand the joke, therefore it is impossible for someone who doesn't have an understanding of the stereotype to start believing in it," which has fuck all to do with what I actually said, which is that the humor will not be understood without shared understanding, not that someone couldn't figure out the implication without shared understanding.

"By your own words, one needs to have an understanding of the stereotype to understand the joke, therefore it is impossible for someone who doesn't have an understanding of the stereotype to start believing in it" is just reasoning as to why the joke, which requires shared understanding, causes no harm or negative consequences. That's why it came right after "who and in what way did the joke actually cause any harm?"

[Theodarzna]

I'm talking about the person in the OP. He choose to quit instead of just saying sorry.

Sorry for what? Did he kill someone?

- - - Updated - - -

You are free to think whatever you want. If you think that "his group" is some kind of a hive mind in which all people are the same and have the same opinion on the same jokes, then, frankly, there is no intellectual debate to be had here.

Well, consider you lot all high five each other and hold nearly identical opinions. There was never an intellectual debate to be had here because only one side actually wishes to discuss the issue in good faith, unfortunately it isn't your side.

[Orange Joe]

Sorry for what? Did he kill someone?

Is that the only thing you would ever apologize for? You have never once in your life apologized for something you believe you didn't do?

[May90]

Well, consider you lot all high five each other and hold nearly identical opinions. There was never an intellectual debate to be had here because only one side actually wishes to discuss the issue in good faith, unfortunately it isn't your side.

Nah, you are just projecting: you see everything in black and white, us vs them, side vs side, so you think that other people see everything same way - they don't. Two people can just, you know, agree with each other on something. Which is hard to accept for you, because you prefer people to agree with you instead. Tough luck!

[Alexeht]

Is that the only thing you would ever apologize for? You have never once in your life apologized for something you believe you didn't do?

Colin did nothing wrong. So if he would apologize then he would apologize for his existence, which would not make sense. Also triggered woman make no sense at all if there worse problem on this planet to worry about, like feminists wearing burka/hijab which is the symbol of oppression in middle-east.

[Orange Joe]

Colin did nothing wrong. So if he would apologize then he would apologize for his existence, which would not make sense. Also triggered woman make no sense at all if there worse problem on this planet to worry about, like feminists wearing burka/hijab which is the symbol of oppression on middle-east.

So let me ask you too. Have you never in your life apologized for something you feel you didn't do?

[DisposableHero]

Is that the only thing you would ever apologize for? You have never once in your life apologized for something you believe you didn't do?

how about the define the threshold of requiring public apology somewhere more severe than mildly insensitive tweets? I think the world will go right on turning for everyone even if we don't extract a pound of flesh over a joke at the expense of women who think things will instantly grind to a cataclysmic halt if they take a sick day.

[Orange Joe]

how about the define the threshold of requiring public apology somewhere more severe than mildly insensitive tweets? I think the world will go right on turning for everyone even if we don't extract a pound of flesh over a joke at the expense of women who think things will instantly grind to a cataclysmic halt if they take a sick day.

Saying "I'm sorry" is "extracting a pound of flesh over a joke"


Jesus christ where do you people live that those 2 little words are that harmful to you?

[DisposableHero]

Saying "I'm sorry" is "extracting a pound of flesh over a joke"


Jesus christ where do you people live that those 2 little words are that harmful to you?

Well, I don't think you much understand then. When people apologize for things they don't believe are wrong, it is generally because the value the relationship that is strained by their lack of apology, and are more interested in mending it than standing on principal behind their actions. In this case he doesn't really value his relationship with people demanding he undergo public humiliation for a harmless tweet, so he really has not compelling reason to apologize if he doesn't believe he has done something wrong. You also appear to be unfamiliar with the use of "a pound of flesh" as a turn of phrase denoting a punishment disproportionate to the offense.

[Kolvarg]

I think you need to understand that simply inserting "logically" into sentences does not mean anything that follows it is actually logical. Case in point: The quote above.



Your pitiful attempt at a gotcha is yet another instance of you failing to pay attention. I'm done here.

Just like saying something is wrong or not logical does not prove it is wrong or not logical.

It wasn't a 'gotcha', just me talking to you, and perhaps a bad attempt of getting you to focus on what's being discussed instead of personal attacks which don't benefit the discussion in any way.

Either way, didn't mean for you to take it personally, sorry if I did miss or misunderstood anything, and thanks for the chat have a nice evening/night

[Orange Joe]

Well, I don't think you much understand then. When people apologize for things they don't believe are wrong, it is generally because the value the relationship that is strained by their lack of apology, and are more interested in mending it than standing on principal behind their actions. In this case he doesn't really value his relationship with people demanding he undergo public humiliation for a harmless tweet, so he really has not compelling reason to apologize if he doesn't believe he has done something wrong. You also appear to be unfamiliar with the use of "a pound of flesh" as a turn of phrase denoting a punishment disproportionate to the offense.

This is what I've said. The guy cared more about not saying sorry. Than he did his job. His actions are his own and can be blamed on no one else.

[elaina]

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.

Thanks. I considered explaining how flipping that was not logically sound but by that point my head was already pounding.