Feminism Thread

[hey]

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.

If they wanted him they wouldn't have fired him. That's kind of obvious, i think.

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

His constitutional right to writefor The Michigan Daily. Wait, that's not in the constitution.

[Blubbartron]

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

I hate how right you are with that phrase. The more people that adopt this ridiculous prioritization of feelings over everything, as hey appears to have, the worse off our nation will become. Logic, reason, and even sanity go out the window when feelings are more important than those things.

[hey]

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.

They don't want him because X reason.

Even if x is because it would be bad PR to keep him, they still don't want him. Otherwise ya know, they wouldn't have fired him.

[hey]

Would you guys be so up in arms if someone was fired for publishing an article about how great hitler was? If not, why not?

[Lyall]

Today I learned the only rights are the ones in the Constitution.

[wipers]

Would you guys be so up in arms if someone was fired for publishing an article about how great hitler was? If not, why not?

It took 271 pages to make a Hitler reference ?

[Lyall]

Would you guys be so up in arms if someone was fired for publishing an article about how great hitler was? If not, why not?

If it was clearly satire? You bet your ass I would be. It shouldn't be anathema to offend people.

[Blubbartron]

Would you guys be so up in arms if someone was fired for publishing an article about how great hitler was? If not, why not?

It was SATIRE. What the actual fuck.

[wipers]

Why am I now only realizing the insanity of a thread about feminism ? I'm missing out here.

[Karbuncle]

Would you guys be so up in arms if someone was fired for publishing an article about how great hitler was? If not, why not?

if it was satirical? No.

If it was serious? No.

Either way, I'd laugh it off, Either because the man is clearly a nutcake or because its satirical. But also because I can easily chose not to read it, and i'm not some entitled twat who thinks that peoples constitutional rights should end where my personal opinions/feelings began. (This last sentence, btw, is not meant to Imply thats what you are, no sarcasm. IDK if that sounds sarcastic by saying no sarcasm... but seriously, no sarcasm, I'm not saying you are or implying it.)

Also in case it seems hypocritical (only a matter of time...), I happen to believe that "choosing not to read"/etc aren't applicable to a forum, as they are designed for open discussion.

It took 271 pages to make a Hitler reference ?

fucking Godwins Law at work.

[Lyall]

noun
1.
the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2.
a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3.
a literary genre comprising such compositions.


Hey's right. Trigger Warnings are serious business and should never, ever be joked about.

[wipers]

I'd say serious posts here but I'd be hard pressed to find one...

[hey]

It took 271 pages to make a Hitler reference ?

No, there's been a few. First one was post 1999.

If it was clearly satire? You bet your ass I would be. It shouldn't be anathema to offend people.

It was SATIRE. What the actual fuck.

Uh, yes, satire mocking feminism. So to clear this up for you, let me rephrase.

Would you guys be so up in arms if someone was fired for publishing a satirical article about jews during the holocaust, with the intended message being that the nazis were right.

Or would you think they were justly fired?

[Lyall]

This is so laughingly ridiculous, but you're absolutely right. The use of trigger warnings is on the same scale as the hol

I can't even finish that sentence. You're 100% serious, right?

Edit: Satire mocking trigger warnings. Trigger warnings. Go to tumblr and search for them and then come back and tell me those are all to be taken seriously. We'll wait.

[wipers]

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.

The amount of stupid in this post is amazing.

[Karbuncle]

No, there's been a few. First one was post 1999.



Uh, yes, satire mocking feminism. So to clear this up for you, let me rephrase.

Would you guys be so up in arms if someone was fired for publishing a satirical article about jews during the holocaust, with the intended message being that the nazis were right.

Or would you think they were justly fired?

Weren't you just giving Nynja shit for using strawmen?

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

mmm, wait, yep, yep you were.

Edit: I did answer the first one to be a good sport, and I wasn't lying either. I may sometimes react on something i read and I know i shouldn't... but actually taking action to ruin/hurt that persons life because I didn't like what they had to say? No, I would not. I may not like it, I may even voice my opinion on my dislike on a forum or place of discussion, but to seek retribution is taking it too far. He has a right to write it, I have a right to hate/ignore it. Simple as that. That is where I differ from feminist extremists. I can disagree with someone, and not make it my goal in life to fuck them over every way that I can by gathering a mob to bully them until they or those who employ them crack.

[Blubbartron]

No, there's been a few. First one was post 1999.



Uh, yes, satire mocking feminism. So to clear this up for you, let me rephrase.

Would you guys be so up in arms if someone was fired for publishing a satirical article about jews during the holocaust, with the intended message being that the nazis were right.

Or would you think they were justly fired?

This just in, if you mock authoritarian feminists, you're literally Hitler. The irony being that such an absurdly authoritarian viewpoint (if you're not with us, you're the devil, and we will destroy you in any way we can) is pretty fucking fascist.

[hey]

This is so laughingly ridiculous, but you're absolutely right. The use of trigger warnings is on the same scale as the hol

Does the scale even matter? Is your argument that this wasn't bad enough to justify firing him for, or that no journalist should ever be fired based on what they write? Because it seems like you're making the latter argument, but feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.

[wipers]

Since when has a feminist ever understood the concept of freedom of speech ? Freedom of speech to them is everyone agreeing with them.

[hey]

Weren't you just giving Nynja shit for using strawmen?

I didn't assume anyone's position on the matter one way or the other. I was asking if anyone would have a problem with it. The idea was i wanted to see the motivation behind thinking he didn't think he should be fired. If it you thought it would be okay to fire someone in that situation, but not this one, then it would suggest it's just a matter of not being bad enough to justify, rather than some imaginary rights being stepped on. See my last post.