Feminism Thread

[Teryu]

It's ok for bigots and jerks to write for gaming journalism though.

[hey]

You're seriously going to call someone who says "trigger warnings are ridiculous" a bigot? So you're saying that person is as bad as someone who says "fuck niggers" or "fuck faggots"? WOW

If you can manage to ask again without a straw man, i will answer.

You don't like articles/videos on TheOnion either, huh? Serious question.

huh? My problem is with the message, not the format. Nothing wrong with satire.

[Karbuncle]

If you can manage to ask again without a straw man, i will answer.

huh? My problem is with the message, not the format. Nothing wrong with satire.

I have a question o/

Do you have any sort of basic understanding on the Freedom of Speech/Press?

Now, as a separate response not targeted at you but in a general audience using "You" as a mean for "Others", and not personal attacks(okayisthatenoughclarificationyet?) Who gives a fuck if you're offended by what he writes. He has the right to write it by the constitution, and if you don't enjoy it, and this is a big leap I know, read something else(omghax). I would get it, on a level of "At least they have a small pebble to balance their pinky toe on for this argument" instead of the regular "Idiotic feminazis raging over nothing again", if the article was a bit more serious, but it was satire.

But nah, once again, the feminazi bullies work in groups to harass someone, a gang of Feminist if you will, assaulting this man. But hey, he was asking for it because of what he was writing right?

[Lyall]

It's an oldie but a goodie. "Your rights end where my feelings begin."

[Lyall]

I feel like this needs shared as another example of the authoritarian nature of the current era of feminists.

The gist is that a guy wrote a satirical article mocking trigger warnings and patriarchy, and in response some feminists claimed he made them uncomfortable which got him terminated from his position as student journalist, and later on the entrance to his dorm was vandalized with hate speech and shit.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/15/so...dalize-apartme

There's nothing quite as chilling on speech as going out of your way to get people fired from their jobs (even if it's just a student journalist thing) because you were booty bothered over their opinion.

It's even more asinine than that. The article was a joke about left-handed people being oppressed by right-handed people who don't respect the lefthandyd folks or their rights.

It was a staffer for the newspaper who said they felt "threatened" by the article. Come the fuck on.

Edit: Here's a video of the people who did it. No prizes for guessing who it might be ahead of time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S51pRQ4p4tk

[hey]

I have a question o/

Do you have any sort of basic understanding on the Freedom of Speech/Press?

Now, as a separate response not targeted at you but in a general audience using "You" as a mean for "Others", and not personal attacks(okayisthatenoughclarificationyet?) Who gives a fuck if you're offended by what he writes. He has the right to write it by the constitution, and if you don't enjoy it, and this is a big leap I know, read something else(omghax). I would get it, on a level of "At least they have a small pebble to balance their pinky toe on for this argument" instead of the regular "Idiotic feminazis raging over nothing again", if the article was a bit more serious, but it was satire.

But nah, once again, the feminazi bullies work in groups to harass someone, a gang of Feminist if you will, assaulting this man. But hey, he was asking for it because of what he was writing right?

lol. This is a joke right?

[Karbuncle]

lol. This is a joke right?

If you can manage to ask again without a straw man, i will answer.

Oh, well, big surprise, you're a liar too. guess I shouldn't be too shocked. Feminist believe constitutional rights are a joke because it hurts their feelings... raise your hand everyone, who is surprised by this turn of events? No one? But I guess that is the age old defense of someone who has no idea what they're talking about, ignoring it entirely.

[hey]

Freedom of speech means you can say anything you want. it doesn't mean everyone else has to listen to you. The first amendment does not protect your job when you say stupid shit.

[Karbuncle]

Freedom of speech means you can say anything you want. it doesn't mean everyone else has to listen to you.

Holy fricking seen the light batman, yes. Which is why you read something else instead of gang bullying this man out of his job because ya somehow feel that your feelings are better than his constitutional right to write it. How can you grasp that basic concept but still post crap like this:

Bigots and jerks shouldn't be writing for newspapers, sorry.

Which is actually funny because like 100% of media outlets are bigots and jerks. But beyond that, his article was entirely satirical. I'm not naive enough to think it didnt have real world inspirations, but it was clearly not meant to be taken seriously.

[hey]

btw, i thought it was a joke because you asked what it was, then demonstrated that you don't understand it yourself

[Lyall]

Freedom of speech means you can say anything you want. it doesn't mean everyone else has to listen to you. The first amendment does not protect your job when you say stupid shit.

He wrote satire for a newspaper. Calling it "stupid shit" is fine, but saying "this is threatening and hurtful" is retarded. But you're right, anyone should be able to think something is "stupid shit" and get someone fired over it.

[hey]

Holy fricking seen the light batman, yes. Which is why you read something else instead of gang bullying this man out of his job because ya somehow feel that your feelings are better than his constitutional right to write it. How can you grasp that basic concept but still post crap like this

He can write anything he wants, but he does not have a constitutional right to have that particularly newspaper publish it.

[Lyall]

He can write anything he wants, but he does not have a constitutional right to have that particularly newspaper publish it.

Confirmed for not having read the article. They make it very clear what happened and how it got him run out. None of it had to do with the newspaper not wanting him to write.

[Blubbartron]

Just in case anyone is planning to go that route, there's a very big difference between intentionally getting someone canned because their opinion personally offends you, and someone getting canned because they expressed an opinion that isn't consistent with the publication they write for (e.g. someone on Fox News telling the truth). The latter is 100% kosher (though disappointing), the former is egregiously fucked up.

[Karbuncle]

He can write anything he wants, but he does not have a constitutional right to have that particularly newspaper publish it.

I almost thought you had it when you said "People don't have to read it", but what it really means is "I read it and am offended therefor he should never write again", instead of what it should mean, "I read it and am offended therefor I will not read his writings any further".

Most newspaper publishings have systems in place to prevent things that are against their publishing policies, if they felt this was against it, it would not have been published.

Confirmed for not having read the article. They make it very clear what happened and how it got him run out. None of it had to do with the newspaper not wanting him to write.

[hey]

Confirmed for not having read the article. They make it very clear what happened and how it got him run out. None of it had to do with the newspaper not wanting him to write.

Yes it did. If they wanted him to keep writing for them they wouldn't have fired him. It doesn't really matter what caused them to not want him.

[Lyall]

Yes it did. If they wanted him to keep writing for them they wouldn't have fired him. It doesn't really matter what caused them to not want him.

Staffer felt threatened by this:

He offered his hand to help me up, and I thought to myself how this might be a manifestation of the patriarchy patronizing me. I doubt he would’ve said those violent words had I been white, but he would take any opportunity to patronize a colored m@n or womyn. People on this campus always box others in based on race. Triggered, I waved his hand aside and got up of my own accord. ...

The biggest obstacle to equality today is our barbaric attitude toward people of left-handydnyss. It’s a tragedy that I, a member of the left-handed community, had little to no idea of the atrocious persecution that we are dealt every day by institutions that are deeply embedded in society. So deeply embedded, and so ever-present, that we don’t even notice them.

Then this.

A staffer at The Daily who saw the piece was furious, however, and complained to editors. One of Mahmood's bosses at The Daily told him that article—which ran in The Review, remember—created a hostile work environment and made the staffer feel "threatened." Mahmood was asked to apologize, which he refused to do.

Daily editors dug up the paper's bylaws and found a provision that forbids students to work for both papers without prior permission from the editor-in-chief. He was told to resign from The Review immediately. After he failed to do so, he was sent a termination letter.

Where's it say they didn't want him to write, exactly? I just see someone bitching to his superiors and refusing to apologize for OFFENDING SOMEONE WITH SATIRE, which is the "crime" here. Then, they dug out a loophole to toss him out, not even resorting to him being fired for any other reason. A loophole.

But you're right. Look at that sampling. He is clearly the devil and also Hitler.

[hey]

If it broke any of the newspapers publishing rules or what have you, It would not have been run.

So...?

Did you read the article? He was asked to apologize, and was fired when he refused. Sometimes things are done, with good intentions, without really understanding the situation, so it ends up hurting people. This is unfortunate, but it happens. It's not that big of a deal. The appropriate thing to do in that case though, is to apologize. He refused.

[Lyall]

So...?

Did you read the article? He was asked to apologize, and was fired when he refused. Sometimes things are done, with good intentions, without really understanding the situation, so it ends up hurting people. This is unfortunate, but it happens. It's not that big of a deal. The appropriate thing to do in that case though, is to apologize. He refused.

His rights ended where the staffer's feelings began, in other words.

[Karbuncle]

Yes it did. If they wanted him to keep writing for them they wouldn't have fired him. It doesn't really matter what caused them to not want him.

You actually believe that don't you?

I'll explain. Firing someone isn't always a matter of "You have broken X rule or we no longer wish to have you with us" when it comes to these mass bullying situations. Pressure on a company to let go of someone who is being targeted by negative attention is a strong motivator. They could agree with what he wrote and feel people are overreacting, but all that would do is fan the flames. So instead of dealing with the spiraling shit storm, they take the good PR route and can the guy.

Mob mentality is a powerful tool for the SJBullies.

So...?

Did you read the article? He was asked to apologize, and was fired when he refused. Sometimes things are done, with good intentions, without really understanding the situation, so it ends up hurting people. This is unfortunate, but it happens. It's not that big of a deal. The appropriate thing to do in that case though, is to apologize. He refused.

He did nothing wrong, why should he be forced to apologize? And no, the "if he did nothing wrong why was he asked to apologize" blah blah isn't going to roll, read my above post. Its pretty much entirely because of PR reasons and the fact that pressure from mob mentality is a strong motivator for a group to take action so it doesn't look bad or devolve into a further sh*t storm.