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

[Tulune]

Since you're saying his joke isn't sexist, please explain why it's funny, then. What is it about the joke that makes it a joke, especially with it having to do with the Day Without Women protest?

It's a joke on the stereotype that women are chatty. It's poking fun at the stereotype. Not hard to figure that out.

[Brubear]

It's a joke on the stereotype that women are chatty. It's poking fun at the stereotype. Not hard to figure that out.

So, the basis of the humor is how women are really chatty, and if they were all gone things would be quiet?

You don't see how that isn't a sexist joke? The punchline can pretty much be summed up with, "pfffh, women, am I right?". It might not be flagrant or the worst example, but how is that not, by definition, a sexist joke?

[Bushtuckrman]

Pretty sure playing female characters that romance female characters doesn't make me "gay". But damn that evil Bioware for stories that don't fit your world view.

I don't care if you think I don't like gays either. Also, didn't even know about gay characters in ME. Damn I bet that didn't fit your world view hey mate

[Tulune]

So, the basis of the humor is how women are really chatty, and if they were all gone things would be quiet?

You don't see how that isn't a sexist joke? The punchline can pretty much be summed up with, "pfffh, women, am I right?". It might not be flagrant or the worst example, but how is that not, by definition, a sexist joke?

No, it's poking fun at the STEREOTYPE, not reinforcing it. I'm a woman, and I didn't find it offensive in the least. I've joked about far worse FFS.

[Brubear]

No, it's poking fun at the STEREOTYPE, not reinforcing it. I'm a woman, and I didn't find it offensive in the least. I've joked about far worse FFS.

So a joke about black people not being able to support a family isn't racist, it's just poking fun at the stereotype that black people can't hold a job?

Nothing about the joke (or the person making the joke) makes it seem like it's intent is to poke fun at the stereotype. Given that the guy didn't get any explanation to try and defend it as such (I admit I didn't watch the interview, as I don't have a spare hour and a half), really doesn't seem like that was the direction he was going. Since it was a Twitter joke there's no inflection or tone that would make it obvious it was sarcasm/satire/meant to poke fun of the stereotype and not play into it.

Just because you personally didn't find it offensive doesn't make it suddenly not based on a sexist premise (that women just can't stop talking) or offensive to others, nor does the fact that you've told worse jokes before. That's definitely one thing that cracks me up, when people say "well I'm x and I wasn't offended" as if that's somehow proof that it couldn't possibly be offensive to anyone else who is also x.

[Tulune]

So a joke about black people not being able to support a family isn't racist, it's just poking fun at the stereotype that black people can't hold a job?

Nope, just like a joke about how white people can't dance or that white girls love pumpkin spice everything, or like white hilbilly rednecks love to fuck animals and family isn't racist. Joking about stereotypes does not mean you support them, how can you not see that?

[Mormolyce]

No, It was just bad.
People shouldn't be fired for any political opinions they hold.

So I refer you back to my original point.

So? - You still said that dissent with feminism is 'badthink'.

You're the one tossing that word around, buddy

[Flarelaine]

So what was the context of his joke?

Honestly I don't know. I suspect there isn't any and Endus was spot on, but even if he is right there was no way to know from the thread and even though I mostly agree with him, his self-assuredness occasionally grates on my nerves so I just had to ask.

[Moon-Man]

The extreme left and the extreme right should be locked in a room and left to fight it out, with the event documented for the entertainment of future generations.

You put Extreme Lefties and Right-wings in a room. I will tell you what will happen.

Once you open the door, the heads of those leftist will be on the floor with their own blood on their heads.

You initiate a Revolution between Left and Right, there would be a massacre on Leftists. Leftist would bring protest signs, and maybe bats. Right wings would just bring Assualt Rifles, handguns, w/e. Shit will ensue.

Right now, Right-wingers are the True Tolerant and Peaceful. Leftists acting fascists, even to the point of being branded as Terrorists.

You do not want to put Left and Right in a same room. That would be most unwise.

[May90]

Nope, just like a joke about how white people can't dance or that white girls love pumpkin spice everything, or like white hilbilly rednecks love to fuck animals and family isn't racist. Joking about stereotypes does not mean you support them, how can you not see that?

I think the problem here is disagreement on terminology. When people say "sexist joke", they do not necessarily mean a joke made with a sexist intent; a joke about sexist stereotypes can also be called "sexist joke". Much like a joke about politics can be called "political joke", even if it does not pursue any political intent.

I agree though, it is stretching the definition a bit too far. Better would be to call it "sex joke".

[Leonora]

This sounds a lot like confirmation bias.

First of all, the moment you start throwing 'confirmation bias', the accusation goes both ways.
However. Do you think that what you, or your close friends, or the people on this forum, have as opinion can be generalised to the general population reading that twitter feed?

[Mizix]

What you call "self-censorship" is nothing more than everyday discretion and something you do all the time without a second thought.

Having studied the subject (in the context of the two world wars but there are many other fields and situations where self-censorship or soft censorship applies, i.e. journalism), let me disagree. There is a difference between self-censorship out of fear and normal discretion. I don't greet people by telling them my deepest secret, that is discretion, but if I stopped greeting people out of fear that they would punch me because I dared speaking to them, that would be self-censorship. Stupid example, of course, but it should give you an idea of why the two things are not the same.

Moreover, my action should be met with an expected reaction based on common social norms: when I greet a stranger, I expect them to either greet me back, ignore me or some variance of the two; I certainly do not expect them to punch me or yell at me just because I spoke to them. Similarly, when I make a stupid joke I expect people to laugh at my joke or not laugh at my joke, eventually even to take offense at my joke, because that is what normally happens when people make a joke. I do not expect them to try to fuck up my livelihood out of outrage. When this starts happening more and more, it means social norms have shifted or are in the process of shifting and people subjected to this shift (in this case, people that work with social networks) will begin to self-censor. IMHO, that is never a good thing: it dampers and dulls democratic debate and interaction, which is not the same thing as expressing one's dissent.

Maybe I was not clear in my previous post though. I'm not particularly defending Colin Moriarty because I don't really know him. I believe it is stupid to pressure someone into quitting his job because of one single joke, but for all I know the dude had an history of similar behavior, thus what seems to me an over reaction actually is an appropriate reaction to his continue bashing.

[Grimbold21]

If you wanna see this regressive left at work, just watch some of Jordan Peterson's videos (no, he's not the regressive one)

[Mizix]

No, every person should say what they feel is right - and face the consequences. The consequences do not always match the words in size. Nor should they: we don't live in an utopia of fairness. The best we have is a leveled playing field. Some people can play dirty, but, as long as it is within the rules, it is a fair game. This is what free society, free speech and free market is.

Yeah, if you take society out of its social context and pretend it is an unchanging and modeled environment. Society works because people behave within certain limits of the expected social norms, indeed when someone goes over board and does something unexpected, society generally takes notice and react by either accepting and adjusting to the new norm or by rejecting it. Rights, such as freedom of speech, are nothing more than codified social norms we, as a society, agreed upon. It is not them that shape society, but society that shapes rights (and all of our legislation, for all that matters).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for the removal of free speech, all I'm saying is that social norms play a huge role in how people behave and if you want to have an intellectually honest discussion you should consider both aspects not only the one that gives you the best argument to win. Rights mean jack shit outside of their social context, ask people that live in places where, in theory, Human Rights apply but in practice they do not...

Bottom line: your freedom of speech cannot be at the expense of mine. If I had to systematically self-censor myself in order to let you exercise your right to free speech, well, that would be a distortion of the social norm that created the right to freedom of speech in the first place and a distortion of the idea itself of free speech. You either change the underlying social norm to reflect the new situation, where self-censorship is accepted, or you tone down your over reaction so that people can keep expressing their views without fear. Which does not mean that you cannot dissent or be outraged anymore, it just means that your reaction will fall within the expected spectrum of possible reactions to a given action. I.e., when I greet you, you can ignore me or greet me back, but not punch me just because I dared speaking to you.

[Deleted]

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?

No, it's because i separate 'sexist' things into two categories, thing's i care about (requiring, actual misogyny) and nonsense like this.

[Machismo]

I did:

So, does it exist?

- - - Updated - - -



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 - - -



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

I agree, they should be able to fire their employees for anything they want.

[May90]

Yeah, if you take society out of its social context and pretend it is an unchanging and modeled environment. Society works because people behave within certain limits of the expected social norms, indeed when someone goes over board and does something unexpected, society generally takes notice and react by either accepting and adjusting to the new norm or by rejecting it. Rights, such as freedom of speech, are nothing more than codified social norms we, as a society, agreed upon. It is not them that shape society, but society that shapes rights (and all of our legislation, for all that matters).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for the removal of free speech, all I'm saying is that social norms play a huge role in how people behave and if you want to have an intellectually honest discussion you should consider both aspects not only the one that gives you the best argument to win. Rights mean jack shit outside of their social context, ask people that live in places where, in theory, Human Rights apply but in practice they do not...

Bottom line: your freedom of speech cannot be at the expense of mine. If I had to systematically self-censor myself in order to let you exercise your right to free speech, well, that would be a distortion of the social norm that created the right to freedom of speech in the first place and a distortion of the idea itself of free speech. You either change the underlying social norm to reflect the new situation, where self-censorship is accepted, or you tone down your over reaction so that people can keep expressing their views without fear. Which does not mean that you cannot dissent or be outraged anymore, it just means that your reaction will fall within the expected spectrum of possible reactions to a given action. I.e., when I greet you, you can ignore me or greet me back, but not punch me just because I dared speaking to you.

If you stretch the definition of free speech so far, then we have to say that free speech is only possible in the vacuum, because that is the only place where you speaking out doesn't face any counter-reaction from anyone or anything.

Instead, we have a leveled playing field in the society: everyone is allowed to say whatever they want (with some exceptions such as libel, inciting violence, disturbing the piece, etc.), and others are allowed to respond however they want. You don't have to censor yourself, but you can choose to. Either way, no one protects you from the consequences your speech creates. This is the only way it can work.

Think of it as a chess game. You don't have to make good moves, you can even just move pieces around randomly, if you like. You will lose if you do so, however; same goes for your opponent. What you do is up to you, but you don't have control over the outcome, and the government (the referee, in this example) won't protect you from the consequences you dislike.

In a society, people can and will control each other by various means, because, as a society, we constantly interact with each other, and this interaction goes both ways. I understand that people want more freedom, but the reality is, you cannot be free from the society while living in the society; it would be a self-contradiction. Of course, you can try to change the social norms to better suit your preferences, but other people are also trying to change the social norms to better suit their preferences. You don't get to request a preferential treatment, just because you believe that your preferences and suggested behavior is better than what other people have and have come up with. But you can and should promote your values and suggested behaviors, if you hope to get a better society eventually; same goes for everyone else as well.

Finally, just because something is expected and deemed appropriate, it doesn't mean that not following it is going to bring your life to a disaster. There are many people in the world that don't let the social norms dictate them how to behave, and many of them are very successful. I mean, we just elected one of them a few months ago. If you decide to conform with the social norms, it is ultimately your personal decision. There are women, say, in Iran principally not following Islam and not wearing Islamic clothes; they get shunned by the society and even oppressed by the government, but they know that they are doing the right thing, and they gradually change the society towards being more accepting of dissent. Everyone is free to do something like that in their lives.

---

Bottom line is: I get your concerns, they are absolutely valid - but ultimately they directly follow from the way a society operates, you cannot resolve these issues without fundamentally changing the societal framework. The best you can do is to advocate for the change of the societal norms in the direction you think is right, and this is something we all should do, in my opinion.

[Deleted]

You're the one tossing that word around, buddy

so when I say it it probably IS just a joke, not a shitty political statement. Context matters.

Simple question, dissent with feminism, valid opinion or not?

- - - Updated - - -

I agree, they should be able to fire their employees for anything they want.

I do hold those two positions simultaneously yes, they should have the power to fire anyone, for any reason, just as i think society would be infinitely better off if they chose not to do that, for this particular reason.

[Machismo]

Simple question, dissent with feminism, valid opinion or not?

- - - Updated - - -



I do hold those two positions simultaneously yes, they should have the power to fire anyone, for any reason, just as i think society would be infinitely better off if they chose not to do that, for this particular reason.

If someone is political in the office, it can ruin the team environment. This is especially true when someone is a *zealot about their politics. Employers often want to keep politics out of their office, because it really dicks with morale. Now, we don't exactly know what happened behind closed doors, it could have been much worse. He could have been a sexist pig, then again, maybe not. He chose to resign, and we do not know exactly what led to that, if he was told to do so, or if he just didn't like the atmosphere. I've worked with outright racist, homophobic, and sexist people at times, and you really learn to hate people like that. I've also worked with plenty of ultra-liberals and die-hard conservatives, and they can be equally annoying. If they piss off enough people, then an employer would be wise to get rid of them. I know I've fired people for it. Sure, you give them a warning or two, but when a guy is passing around racist jokes in e-mails, or denigrating women to his colleagues... his days are likely numbered in many businesses.

(Zealot: someone who is unable to change their mind, and unwilling to change the subject).

[Mormolyce]

Simple question, dissent with feminism, valid opinion or not?

You're free to disagree with any statements you like, just like I'm free to judge this guy's political statement "shitty". Which it is.

How do you get from what I'm saying that disagreeing with feminism is invalid? Not only am I not a feminist, but that's a ridiculous statement because feminists disagree with each other all the fucking time. In fact given almost any issue, you can find feminists on either side of it.