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

[Endus]

But I will say it again, It's a dumb and facile argument to pretend free speech involved nothing more than freedom from governmental repression.

Repeating that isn't going to make it more relevant.

In this instance at least, nobody's speech rights were in any way trodden upon, by any reasonable argument whatsoever. Not a hint of that. What happened was one guy said some things (free speech), a bunch of people complained about it (also free speech), his employer apologized (yet again, free speech), and then he quit (his right, because he's not his employer's slave).

At no point was free speech in any way under assault or threat here. Talking about the KKK and whatnot is just an attempt to distract from the central issues.

[Mistame]

Again, you do not understand my point.

Then what exactly is your point? You're the one who first brought up "civil liberties". A "violation of civil liberties" has nothing to do with "freedom of speech". Also:

because the point was that the argument that 'unless it's the government, your civil liberties are not being violated' is a dumb and facile argument.

No one made that argument. The entire conversation, up until you brought up "civil liberties", has been exclusively about freedom of speech. The two are not mutually inclusive, as one is separately identified with its own specific definition. But once again, let's make this (irrelevant point):

the freedom of a citizen to exercise customary rights, as of speech or assembly, without unwarranted or arbitrary interference by the government.

But I will say it again, It's a dumb and facile argument to pretend free speech involved nothing more than freedom from governmental repression.

What's dumb and facile is pretending that "free speech" involves anything more than the protection from government that the constitution specifically outlines. Legally and literally, that's what "free speech" is. Nothing less, nothing more, nothing else.

[Deleted]

http://www.polygon.com/2017/3/13/149...r-sexist-tweet

"It’s with a heavy heart and great sadness that I announce my resignation from Kinda Funny, effective immediately."

Straight from Moriarty's mouth. He didn't lose his job. He quit his job.

Under duress u mean, u are implying he would have done it anyway that it's somehow unrelated to the WITCH-HUNT.

[Endus]

Under duress u mean, u are implying he would have done it anyway that it's somehow unrelated to the WITCH-HUNT.

Literally no evidence supports this. You're making all this shit up out of nothing, and pretending that's a reasonable stance. It isn't. It's you inventing fantasies and demanding people treat them as truth.

[Deadite]

Literally no evidence supports this. You're making all this shit up out of nothing, and pretending that's a reasonable stance. It isn't. It's you inventing fantasies and demanding people treat them as truth.

You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think he would have woke up and quit on the same day if he never sent an innocuous tweet that got him hounded.

[Demoncrash]

Literally no evidence supports this. You're making all this shit up out of nothing, and pretending that's a reasonable stance. It isn't. It's you inventing fantasies and demanding people treat them as truth.

Watching him on the Joe Rogan podcast right now and he clearly says that he left because he had arguments with the guys over at Kinda Funny over the tweet and decided to leave now instead of in the future where something like this would happen again.

[Endus]

Watching him on the Joe Rogan podcast right now and he clearly says that he left because he had arguments with the guys over at Kinda Funny over the tweet and decided to leave now instead of in the future where something like this would happen again.

Which entirely supports my point. And?

[Elim Garak]

Which entirely supports my point. And?

You disputed him being under duress, arguing over a tweet with your colleagues to a point that you quit your job IS "under duress", which in turn destroys your point.

[Bapestar]

You disputed him being under duress, arguing over a tweet with your colleagues to a point that you quit your job IS "under duress", which in turn destroys your point.

No it's not lol. Even if you actually think it is, there was no evidence until now. And even then he still quit on his own.

[Endus]

You disputed him being under duress, arguing over a tweet with your colleagues to a point that you quit your job IS "under duress", which in turn destroys your point.

Disagreeing with your colleagues isn't "duress", don't be ridiculous.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/duress

You don't get to re-invent what words mean because reality doesn't line up with your preferred narrative.

[Elim Garak]

Disagreeing with your colleagues isn't "duress", don't be ridiculous.

That's not what I said though.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/duress

You don't get to re-invent what words mean because reality doesn't line up with your preferred narrative.

If he didn't quit he would've been fired later due to the ongoing "controversy". The fact that he pre-emptively quit means he was under duress. Unless you can specify another reason for him to quit. Never link dictionaries again.

[Endus]

That's not what I said though.

Fine. You actually said this; "arguing over a tweet with your colleagues to a point that you quit your job IS "under duress""

That's not "under duress". Not even a little bit, not in any way whatsoever.

If he didn't quit he would've been fired later due to the ongoing "controversy".

You aren't the Oracle of Delphi. You can't read alternate futures.

The fact that he pre-emptively quit means he was under duress. Unless you can specify another reason for him to quit. Never link dictionaries again.

Literally not. That isn't what "under duress" means. You're using the word incorrectly.

[Elim Garak]

Fine. You actually said this; "arguing over a tweet with your colleagues to a point that you quit your job IS "under duress""

That's not "under duress". Not even a little bit, not in any way whatsoever.



You aren't the Oracle of Delphi. You can't read alternate futures.


Literally not. That isn't what "under duress" means. You're using the word incorrectly.

Oh really? Let's ask someone who knows better:
http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...on/duress.html

Can you find the part that fits our situation here?

[Uoyredrum]

There's idiots on both sides. You can whine about the "regressive left" as much as you want, and you'd be right in saying this controversy is stupid. Colin Moriarty didn't do anything wrong. It was a joke and people got offended over literally nothing and just generally need to grow up.

That being said, there's just as many idiots getting butthurt on the right, blaming liberals for all of their problems, having massive victim complexes and pretending like it's their job in life to be self-centered assholes. That's really not any better than people being offended and calling someone sexist for a dad joke, and in fact everything I listed applies to both sides. For every one in the "regressive left", there's someone in the "regressive right". They're just two groups of assholes with polar opposite views acting the same way at a basic level.

I also want to say that Kinda Funny games should have grown a spine and told people to fuck off. I really lose a lot of respect for people and companies that feel the need to apologize for everything.

[Endus]

Oh really? Let's ask someone who knows better:
http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...on/duress.html

Can you find the part that fits our situation here?

No, because nothing in that definition comes anywhere close to what happened with Moriarty.

Because you have no freaking idea what "duress" means, despite linking definitions that directly contradict you.

[Elim Garak]

No, because nothing in that definition comes anywhere close to what happened with Moriarty.

Because you have no freaking idea what "duress" means, despite linking definitions that directly contradict you.

That's some state of denial you got yourself in.

[DeadmanWalking]

75 pages of people getting triggered over people getting triggered over people getting triggered when someone tries to trigger people on purpose. If getting easily triggered is a weakness that you want to expose in people you don't agree with then why do you spend your days surfing the web looking for content to get triggered over and spend your days complaining about triggered people? Isn't the point of saying people should not be so easy to get triggered is to not get triggered yourself? Shouldn't you by your own definition not give a fuck so much that you don't react to everything you don't like or is this just the drum beat of the new age social injustice warrior hypocrit who is fine with people getting triggered so long as it effects or is important to themselves personally?

I'm starting to wonder if half of these social injustice warriors are just 2 guys in a Republican think tank getting paid to convince teen boys to become social injustice warriors.

[Mormolyce]

Under duress u mean, u are implying he would have done it anyway that it's somehow unrelated to the WITCH-HUNT.

Under pressure, sure. Most businesses don't want to be associated with views like this. It's bad press for them and invites boycotts.

[therayeffect]

*snipped*

Hmm, you seem to be missing the point that I'm curious about. I have no interest in taking away someone's free speech so please stop with all of these 'you's. My problem is when does this 'policing' turn into limiting free speech? How is it not limiting for a literal mob to go around and reduce someone's lively-hood to ruin because they got 'offended' over something that's harmless? An even more extreme example would be getting offended for someone else who wasn't even offended themselves (aka his wife). What is the definition of what's offensive and what's not? What about the endless hypocrisy that everyone partakes in when they 'get offended' because it's literally impossible to not be offensive because we can make 'taking offense' up?

Are you saying that if I got offended about the things you say and wanted your mod status taken away, it would be okay if enough people got offended for your mod status to be taken away? My entire problem with the perma-offended types is that it's literally an opinion that has no real legal argument or logic behind it. There's just some mob running around picking on people, bullying away their freespeech because they're 'offended' at the tiniest thing like insignificant and harmless jokes. To you, where is the line that these bullies could cross that's limiting free speech?

From what I'm getting at, it sounds to me like you're completely okay with a digital 'Mob rule'.

[Avalos]

So much back and forth on whether or not the joke was sexist. That is completely missing the point. It is *a joke*. It doesn't matter. The sexist implication is what makes the joke work, regardless of whether you think it is funny or not. It does not reflect a person's actual views or ideas about women. Stereotypes have not only existed since jokes were first told, they serve a purpose in many other media other than jokes. Women talking more than men is perhaps among the oldest (and is accurate, but that doesn't matter).

Besides, I cannot fathom anyone getting hurt by a joke this innocent unless one were to actively try. Should we fire every person who jokes about blondes? What about priests who walk into bars, are those a no-go, too? Ask yourself if you'd rather live in a world where no one speaks their mind, lest they shatter someone's feelings like a gust of wind against an ancient porcelain jar, or one where we develop a natural shield against potentially hurtful comments?

There is, for sure, a line to be crossed when it comes to what can be responsibly said and what cannot. But if this tweet but scratches the surface of that threshold, we have fallen lower than I thought.