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

[Deleted]

I disagree, they need to turn up the crazy even more! Thanks to them we have Trump now! god bless. If they keep it up, we might finally be able to purge colleges of the SJW cancer and make it so facts are more important than emotions again.

[Endus]

you don't think having to worry about people forming a mob to get you fired over a joke that's barely more offensives then "why did the chicken cross the road" isn't a chilling effect?

It literally does not meet the definition of such, no.

And even if you expand that definition to include it, I'd point out that said "chilling effect" is not a bad thing, as a result. Because the only way to get rid of that is to aggressively restrict people's right to speak. It's saying "you who told the joke, YOU get free speech. Anyone who didn't like the joke? You don't, keep it to yourselves, his feelings and rights trump yours."

I don't accept that as a principle. Nobody's rights trump anyone else's. If you can't handle public reaction, don't make public statements.

[Canpinter]

It literally does not meet the definition of such, no.

And even if you expand that definition to include it, I'd point out that said "chilling effect" is not a bad thing, as a result. Because the only way to get rid of that is to aggressively restrict people's right to speak. It's saying "you who told the joke, YOU get free speech. Anyone who didn't like the joke? You don't, keep it to yourselves, his feelings and rights trump yours."

I don't accept that as a principle. Nobody's rights trump anyone else's. If you can't handle public reaction, don't make public statements.

no another way to get rid of it is...not give into it. they only do it because people cave to it.

[Endus]

no another way to get rid of it is...not give into it. they only do it because people cave to it.

And? Nobody's saying you can't do that.

Speak out against the outcry. Stand your ground and defend your words. That's what free speech is.

It isn't demanding that everyone else be made to shut up because you don't like what they have to say about you.

[Canpinter]

And? Nobody's saying you can't do that.

Speak out against the outcry. Stand your ground and defend your words. That's what free speech is.

It isn't demanding that everyone else be made to shut up because you don't like what they have to say about you.

where have i ever said they should be stopped, i have said they should stop, if you cant tell the difference i'm sorry.

[Adam Jensen]

Colin Moriarty?

100 caps? 100 caps! Just to learn where my father went? EAT 10mm LEAD ASSHOLE.

[Endus]

where have i ever said they should be stopped, i have said they should stop, if you cant tell the difference i'm sorry.

Then all you're doing is saying you don't like what they have to say.

Which is exactly what they were saying about Moriarty.

So why are you any better than they are? Why shouldn't YOU stop? This is what I'm trying to get across; your position necessarily involves picking who gets to speak and who doesn't, and you base that decision based on whose speech YOU happen to prefer. That's not a defense of freedom of speech.

[Canpinter]

Then all you're doing is saying you don't like what they have to say.

Which is exactly what they were saying about Moriarty.

So why are you any better than they are? Why shouldn't YOU stop? This is what I'm trying to get across; your position necessarily involves picking who gets to speak and who doesn't, and you base that decision based on whose speech YOU happen to prefer. That's not a defense of freedom of speech.

i'm better because the world i'm advocating for allows for a fee market of ideas where people can say harmless jokes without fear of mobs trying to destroy there livelihoods.

They are worse because they don't seek to defeat an idea just scare people into silence. "say something we don't like and we will do everything in our power to get you fired".

they should be free to try to get him fired and the response from his boss and society as a whole should be to snicker at them and mock then for being overly thin skinned cry babies.

a world where people can make very slightly off color jokes without a mob chasing them with digital pitchforks is better then one where we cater to the most easily offended person. if you cant see this then you need to have your eyes checked.

[Endus]

i'm better because the world i'm advocating for allows for a fee market of ideas where people can say harmless jokes without fear of mobs trying to destroy there livelihoods.

The only way that world exists is if you've found a way to prevent everyone else from speaking out against those jokes. You have to control and restrict that speech to get to that world.

It's a world where speech is controlled and restricted, not free.

they should be free to try to get him fired and the response from his boss and society as a whole should be to snicker at them and mock then for being overly thin skinned cry babies.

This is literally the world we already live in. It's just that in these particular cases, their bosses and society agreed that the remarks weren't okay. Unless you want to try and force people to express a certain view, you have to accept that they can speak their own minds, even if you disagree with them.

That's what free speech is. Everyone gets their say, not just those you happen to agree with.

[Canpinter]

The only way that world exists is if you've found a way to prevent everyone else from speaking out against those jokes. You have to control and restrict that speech to get to that world.

It's a world where speech is controlled and restricted, not free

that world could exist easily is people just stopped giving into the mob, people only employ this tactic because it works, if it stops working it will for the most part stop being used.

- - - Updated - - -

This is literally the world we already live in. It's just that in these particular cases, their bosses and society agreed that the remarks weren't okay. Unless you want to try and force people to express a certain view, you have to accept that they can speak their own minds, even if you disagree with them.

That's what free speech is. Everyone gets their say, not just those you happen to agree with.

bullshit the reason they got fired is because there bosses are scared of bad press and the mob spamming them with complaints. sure they placate the mob by saying how totally inappropriate the comments where but if you cant see that as a shameless attempt to appease the easily offended you have your head in the sand.

And again where have i said anyone should be stopped from saying anything? i am perfectly ok with them being allowed to speak their minds, my problem is people giving into it.

[Kolvarg]

It's just that in these particular cases, their bosses and society agreed that the remarks weren't okay. Unless you want to try and force people to express a certain view, you have to accept that they can speak their own minds, even if you disagree with them.

That's what free speech is. Everyone gets their say, not just those you happen to agree with.

Was it really because they agreed the remarks weren't okay, or because they thought it was easier to fire someone than protecting them and/or ignoring the mob and consequential PR hell?

One thing is getting your say, sharing your opinion. Another is purposefully trying to achieve a harmful effect on someone else's life simply because of something they said.

I'm not saying they haven't or shouldn't have that right. I believe overall everyone should have the right to ignorance and to overall be an asshole, if anything because I don't believe it is possible to define it in an objective and fair way.

Now, at which point does it stop being free spech and starts being harassment? I'm not saying it is or it isn't, but it's something that should be considered when we're applying "free speech" to one of this situations where it is absolutely obvious that only one "side" has malicious intent.

I think it's less of a legal issue (free spech) though, and more of a social issue.

I don't think most people who are on Colin's side (or overall the side of the person being "criticized" by easily offended people) truly believe or want the offended people to be impeded from sharing their opinion. Simply that there tends to be a lot of hipocrisy, and that the "offended" mentality has been leading to some scary things, including being harmfull and going back in progress when it comes to equality.

I suppose in the end it simply still baffles me that people who claim to be good and fair are not ok with a joke with a sexist undertone (even when it's clarified there's no ill intent and the person who made the joke doesn't believe in or takes the stereotype seriously), but are perfectly fine with actively trying to take away other's livelihood, slander and other similar and worse things, simply because they personally perceive him as a bad person. I think it just comes to that: A perceived notion of "good" and an holier–than–thou attitude that is justified because people are ready to judge and give the sentence to someone over something as insignificant as a tweet. And for what? Personally, I think it's just because it makes them feel good about themselves, it makes them feel better than others.

It's as if words and ideologies are more important than actions are socially more important than actions nowadays.

[Bapestar]

A public figure, says something sexist, on social media. And recieves backlash. But somehow nothing is his fault? I wont lie, the joke was funny and even a bit true, but lets not pretend it wasn't a bit sexist. No idea why he resigned, the joke wasn't that bad. If your really that offended, that what you say can have consequences(lol), become your own boss. Or get a job at Mcdonalds, where your boss doesn't give a shit.

[Claymore]

The whole thing is completely and utterly ridiculous.

It seems to me that, because members of the gaming media already disagree with his political views (not many in the tech/gaming world hold conservative beliefs), people were looking for an excuse to "be offended".

It's a clear play to undermine anyone who might hold conservative or right-leaning views of any kind. Just look at the fact that in virtually EVERY article on the subject, his political beliefs are constantly brought up.

Anyone who is "offended"... please, stop being a whiny little bitch.

[Endus]

bullshit the reason they got fired is because there bosses are scared of bad press and the mob spamming them with complaints. sure they placate the mob by saying how totally inappropriate the comments where but if you cant see that as a shameless attempt to appease the easily offended you have your head in the sand.

Well, that's A> not true, at all. And B> irrelevant, since even if that was why they did it, that's their choice. They could've told the people complaining to shut it. They chose not to. That's their decision. Nothing forced them into anything. That's what you continue to ignore; you're denying people their own agency in an attempt to attack and restrict people's right to free speech, and your sole reason is that you don't like what they have to say. That's your only grounds. You don't like what they're saying, so you think they shouldn't be allowed to say it.

That's not a defense of freedom of speech.

And again where have i said anyone should be stopped from saying anything? i am perfectly ok with them being allowed to speak their minds, my problem is people giving into it.

Well, that's not your decision to make, now is it? Why should you be able to force them to ignore complaints? Because that's what you're asking, here.

The position of maximum liberty is to let people complain if they want to complain, and let their targets react how they want to, and that's already where we are. Trying to move us away from that necessarily requires an attack on someone's freedoms.

[Canpinter]

Well, that's not your decision to make, now is it? Why should you be able to force them to ignore complaints? Because that's what you're asking, here.

The position of maximum liberty is to let people complain if they want to complain, and let their targets react how they want to, and that's already where we are. Trying to move us away from that necessarily requires an attack on someone's freedoms.

i literally said in the part you are quoting no one should be forced i mean are you intentionally this obtuse? is this some form of ideological performance art? my only goal is to convince people that giving into the easily offended is a bad idea.

i don't want to force anyone to do anything, i wouldn't do it if i had the power to. you seam to think that just because i want something means i would force it on people, not sure what that says about you but it doesn't reflect my desires.

[Endus]

i literally said in the part you are quoting no one should be forced i mean are you intentionally this obtuse? is this some form of ideological performance art? my only goal is to convince people that giving into the easily offended is a bad idea.

Because the issue is you keep saying "no one should be forced", and then you try and tell people how they should act.

Either accept that they don't want to act the way you'd prefer, or admit you want to force them to do so. There's no "if everyone magically agreed with me about things" option. It's just not a reasonable position to hold.

It's like if I were sitting here saying "Moriarty shouldn't be saying sexist stuff, that shouldn't happen." You'd assume I want to censor him, right? Same deal; I'm either trying to force his speech to fit my preferences, or I need to attack his comments on their lack of merit, not his right to make those statements.

And the latter is a "his statement is false" argument, not a "he shouldn't be able to say that" argument. If you just don't like what the complainers had to say, fine, but you not liking it is where your position ends. You don't get to say that Funny Games was wrong to agree with them. Nor is there any evidence of any forcing of anyone's decisions, at any level, despite your claims otherwise.

[Spectral]

i don't want to force anyone to do anything, i wouldn't do it if i had the power to. you seam to think that just because i want something means i would force it on people...

Yeah, this is a common theme every time this comes up. Authoritarian impulses are apparently very hard to not project onto others.

[Canpinter]

Because the issue is you keep saying "no one should be forced", and then you try and tell people how they should act.

Either accept that they don't want to act the way you'd prefer, or admit you want to force them to do so. There's no "if everyone magically agreed with me about things" option. It's just not a reasonable position to hold.

It's like if I were sitting here saying "Moriarty shouldn't be saying sexist stuff, that shouldn't happen." You'd assume I want to censor him, right? Same deal; I'm either trying to force his speech to fit my preferences, or I need to attack his comments on their lack of merit, not his right to make those statements.

And the latter is a "his statement is false" argument, not a "he shouldn't be able to say that" argument. If you just don't like what the complainers had to say, fine, but you not liking it is where your position ends. You don't get to say that Funny Games was wrong to agree with them. Nor is there any evidence of any forcing of anyone's decisions, at any level, despite your claims otherwise.

you do understand that its actually possible to get people to change their behavior by argument and debate right? Like if i present a really good argument rational people will actually sometimes change their behavior.

So when i say "you shouldn't do x" and follow it up with an explanation of why, I'm trying to get them to change by argument and not force.

I can both not like the way they are acting but also not want them to be forced to act the way i want.

[xlanonym0uslx]

Well, his comment WAS blatantly sexist.

He needs to own that, not whine about how unfair it is that people rightly pointed it out as the sexist remark that it was.


And yeesh, people, for folks who get so upset about people being "triggered" by an indirect sweeping insult like this, your getting upset is the same kind of triggering. It just has a lot less merit, since you're upset that a sexist was identified as a sexist, based on a sexist remark he made in public and won't retract or apologize for.

lol wtf, he made a joke based off of a stereotype. he never said anything attacking women or stating them to be inferior to men. I don't get how you can stretch what he said so ridiculously far as to call it sexist

- - - Updated - - -

There was no social media decades ago.....

that literally has nothing to do with what he said, I really have no idea what you're going for

[PosPosPos]

lol wtf, he made a joke based off of a stereotype.

There you go, that's the definition of sexism.

And you are welcome, you and all the others refusing to consult a dictionary.