Feminism Thread

[hey]

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

Freedom of speech means you can say anything you want. It also means everyone can criticize you for what you say, and refuse to give you a platform to say it.

[Karbuncle]

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.

Well then read my edit on that post and you should have all the answer you need.

[hey]

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.

also, for everyone trying to say that i am suggesting they are on the same scale, i specifically chose something that was as massive of a difference in scale as i could think of.

[Lyall]

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.

The scale absolutely matters, otherwise we're free to say that you can never say/do/think anything because all offense is tantamount to Hitler. He wrote a satirical article taking ridiculous Trigger Warnings to task and someone claimed they were "threatened" by it. By what? By satire? Have these people ever heard of Stephen Colbert? He's said some pretty offensive things, he should be fired.

This is a dangerous precedent. Any time someone writes anything offensive now, there are claims to call it "threatening" and call for someone's head. You don't see how this could be a bad thing?

If someone wrote an article that said "Straight up, #killalljews, Hitler was right and they're a blight on society" that's definitely grounds for offense.

If someone wrote "Look, we really need to kill all of the jews. They have the best holidays, they have awesome food and their weddings are WAY COOLER. We've gotta level out the religions, and sorry, jews, you drew the short straw." that's not really the same, and if you can't see why, I can't explain it better.

[hey]

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.

If he was fired though for writing such an article, would you be angry and call the people who got him fired extremists?

[Blubbartron]

Freedom of speech means you can say anything you want. It also means everyone can criticize you for what you say, and refuse to give you a platform to say it.

And if the editors of his newspaper had said his article crossed a line and wouldn't be published, so be it. But that's not what happened. What happened was some woman effectively cried "muh feelings" and wouldn't relent unless he kowtowed to her point of view.

This is purely speculation on my part, but I'd bet earnest money that the woman wasn't even actually offended. This was most likely an exercise in power - the privilege of being female where hyper feminism is reigning. She didn't like what he said, so she probably just decided to fuck him over.

[Lyall]

If he was fired though for writing such an article, would you be angry and call the people who got him fired extremists?

Something we're not really including but should be is that the story doesn't end with him losing his position at the paper. It ends with him being harassed in his dorm and "hate speech" being written on his door by four angry women. Apparently losing his job wasn't enough, and he needed to be further taught a lesson.

That's fair though, right?

[Karbuncle]

If he was fired though for writing such an article, would you be angry and call the people who got him fired extremists?

*sigh*

Its almost as if you don't read my posts at all, because I already covered my opinion on that:

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.

And also, in the very section you quoted

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

I bolded it to help. I may not like it, I may voice my dislike on an open forum for discussion, but to take it further and actually go as far to impact his life by getting him fired, or vandalizing his room and harassing him in real life over a literary disagreement? Its insanity, its crazy, and thats what these people are. Not liking it is fine, being offended is fine, harassing someone in their place of residence. They went to where he sleeps, and harassed him by vandalizing his door with insults.

Now only did they get him fired by bullying him and his work until they caved, they physically went to where he lives, and harassed him. I can't emphasize this more.

[hey]

The scale absolutely matters, otherwise we're free to say that you can never say/do/think anything because all offense is tantamount to Hitler. He wrote a satirical article taking ridiculous Trigger Warnings to task and someone claimed they were "threatened" by it. By what? By satire? Have these people ever heard of Stephen Colbert? He's said some pretty offensive things, he should be fired.

This is a dangerous precedent. Any time someone writes anything offensive now, there are claims to call it "threatening" and call for someone's head. You don't see how this could be a bad thing?

Why do we keep saying satire as if it makes everything okay? The format of the article has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RESPONSE. The message of the article is that trigger warnings are stupid. That message is what upset people.

If someone wrote an article that said "Straight up, #killalljews, Hitler was right and they're a blight on society" that's definitely grounds for offense.

If someone wrote "Look, we really need to kill all of the jews. They have the best holidays, they have awesome food and their weddings are WAY COOLER. We've gotta level out the religions, and sorry, jews, you drew the short straw." that's not really the same, and if you can't see why, I can't explain it better.

Right, that's the exact opposite. A more comparable message in the form of satire would be if someone said that about the nazis. The two things you wrote have totally different messages, so yes, they are totally different. Being satire doesn't change anything. That's just one way to write, in order to convey a message.

[Lyall]

...Satire, specifically comedic satire, is written entirely to show you that the purported opinion is ridiculous. This loops back around to me saying that all trigger warnings are off limits to comedy, though, which... Sure. Let's go with that. That's a fair point of view, some things are completely beyond criticism and should never be looked at.

Looking forward to you putting everything you write in spoilers with appropriate trigger warnings on them so no one could possibly feel threatened.

[Gokku]

Does this mean I can pm a mod saying heys Hitler inspired feminist views threaten my sensitive cis male patriarchal feelings and he should be banned from BG for it.... Cuz his post make me feel threatened.

[Lyall]

Does this mean I can pm a mod saying heys Hitler inspired feminist views threaten my sensitive cis male patriarchal feelings and he should be banned from BG for it.... Cuz his post make me feel threatened.

Silly Gokku, cis males don't get to have feelings.

[hey]

And if the editors of his newspaper had said his article crossed a line and wouldn't be published, so be it. But that's not what happened.

Right, it was published, when it shouldn't have been, and he was asked to apologize, and then refused. So he was fired.

Something we're not really including but should be is that the story doesn't end with him losing his position at the paper. It ends with him being harassed in his dorm and "hate speech" being written on his door by four angry women. Apparently losing his job wasn't enough, and he needed to be further taught a lesson.

That's fair though, right?

No, obviously not.

*sigh*

Its almost as if you don't read my posts at all, because I already covered my opinion on that:

And also, in the very section you quoted

I bolded it to help.

You actually didn't respond to the question at all. I didn't ask if you would demand he be fired. I asked about what you would say to the people who already demanded he be fired, and was indeed fired. Would you be angry at those people, who demanded he be fired? I don't care what you think about the person who wrote it.

Okay, If i concede on this, what you're essentially now saying is, he deserves what he got because of what he was writing, yes? That even though it was satirical and not meant to directly influence people to do negative things to him, they took it as an invitation to attack his position and get him fired.

I'm saying that he doesn't own the newspaper, he has no right to publish anything in it unless someone allows him to. If they change their mind, for any reason, and don't want to publish his writing anymore, then too bad for him, he can find another newspaper to write for.

And it WAS meant to influence people. The point of the article was to attack trigger warnings and feminism, and make it seem silly.

[Karbuncle]

You actually didn't respond to the question at all. I didn't ask if you would demand he be fired. I asked about what you would say to the people who already demanded he be fired, and was indeed fired. Would you be angry at those people, who demanded he be fired? I don't care what you think about the person who wrote it.

I'd probably be angry at them yes, they are censoring something they don't like simply because they don't like it. But I don't know how I would react in this situation, but I do know I'm not going to go out of my way to seek out some borderline sociopaths who harassed a man at his residence over a satirical article and try to explain my opinion to them. Last thing I need is a horde of hypocritical feminist defiling my house because I don't agree with them.

I wouldn't try to get them fired because I don't like their opinions, I wouldn't go to their house and vandalize their door because I don't like their opinions. Would i disagree with them? You bet, would I be angry? you bet. But do I know how to separate my personal feelings from the fact they have a right to voice their opinions? I'd like to hope so. But I wouldn't know until in that situation.

[hey]

...Satire, specifically comedic satire, is written entirely to show you that the purported opinion is ridiculous. This loops back around to me saying that all trigger warnings are off limits to comedy, though, which... Sure. Let's go with that. That's a fair point of view, some things are completely beyond criticism and should never be looked at.

Looking forward to you putting everything you write in spoilers with appropriate trigger warnings on them so no one could possibly feel threatened.

You can criticize anything you want. For example, you can criticize an article criticizing trigger warnings. That's totally allowed. Wait a minute... it's you demanding that no one criticizes something, isn't it?

Does this mean I can pm a mod saying heys Hitler inspired feminist views threaten my sensitive cis male patriarchal feelings and he should be banned from BG for it.... Cuz his post make me feel threatened.

She, and yes, you can do that. If they agree, they can ban me for it. That wouldn't be infringing on my rights. None of us have any right to post here. Ragns allows us to, and he can revoke that permission at any time for any reason he chooses. Kind of like how the editor of that newspaper allowed him to publish his articles on their newspaper, but then decided they didn't want him to anymore, so now he's not allowed to.

[Lyall]

This might be hard to believe, Hey, but sometimes trigger warnings and the feminists who blast them are silly. They are not untouchable concepts, and sometimes the people claiming to be feminists using trigger warnings are dumb.

To put it in a different perspective: No one is above being posted in Gimp/Confused/WTF. Stop defending the gimps.

I'm glad you admitted he didn't deserve to be harassed, though. When you say things like "Bigots and jerks shouldn't write for newspapers" it makes you sound incredibly insensitive and uncaring to the fact that he was hounded after the fact by a gang of women looking to teach him a lesson.

[Lyall]

You can criticize anything you want. For example, you can criticize an article criticizing trigger warnings. That's totally allowed. Wait a minute... it's you demanding that no one criticizes something, isn't it?

What happened was not criticism.

[NynJa]

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

What part was strawman exactly? Someone who says shit like "fuck faggots and niggers" is a bigot, we all know this. You JUST called the writer a bigot for a satire piece of "trigger warnings are ridiculous". There is no strawman, you just equated the two to being the exact same degree of social heinousness.

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?

HOLYSHITFUCKIRONYWHATTHEFUCK
http://ih2.redbubble.net/image.53882...0,075,f.u1.jpg


Bane, cmon man, you have to fucking step in on this. As a mod whos job is to clean this area up, theres no fucking way in hell you can allow someone to say "Not answering that, lolstrawman", then do what hey just did. I dont give a shit if hey is a fully oppressed transgender introvert and I'm a fully priviledged white heterosexual canadian male, that has nothing to do with discussing the topic at hand.

[hey]

Sorry, but hypothetical straw men aren't legitimate arguments. I don't know how I would react in this situation, but I do know I'm not going to go out of my way to seek out some borderline sociopaths who harassed a man at his residence over a satirical article and try to explain my opinion to them. Last thing I need is a horde of hypocritical feminist defiling my house because I don't agree with them.

Sorry, what would you say about them? For example, if we had a thread here on bg that no one involved would ever read, about the injustice of some newspaper firing a writer for writing such an article, in response to criticism from some staffer.

If you're not sure how you would react, then it suggests it's not a matter of principle. If it was, then why wouldn't you defend the nazi writer too, and be upset that he lost his job because people didn't like his message?

This is the difference between thinking the death penalty is morally wrong and shouldn't be used on anyone, and then defending even hitler from it, vs "this isn't bad enough to justify the death penalty, but something worse totally could". People here keep talking about his rights, as if this is purely a matter of principle. But apparently it's not, or you would have no problem insisting that a someone who wrote about how great the nazis were shouldn't be fired for losing his job. In reality, you merely think the article he wrote doesn't justify being fired, because you don't see it as bad enough (or bad at all) to warrant that punishment.

Do you see why the difference matters? If you just think the article in particular didn't deserve this punishment, then i'm not going to argue against an opinion like that. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. It's not really so simple to answer, and we could debate it to no end all day, and that would be silly. But if you think it's a matter of principle and no one should ever be fired for what they say, no matter what they say or how bad it is, then i'm going to call bullshit. Freedom of speech means he is allowed to say anything he wants, but it does not mean anyone has to listen.

[Lyall]

No one is arguing that no one should ever be fired for saying dumb things, that's just what you're taking away from this. What we're appearing to say is that satire is intentionally dumb, and being fired for it is even dumber.

Of course, independent student newspapers like theDaily are not bound by the First Amendment, but students who value unfettered debate and free expression do not punish peers for saying or writing things with which they disagree. Instead of forcing Mahmood to choose between writing satire and reporting for the Daily, any editor who was offended by his column should have offered his or her own counterpoint to Mahmood.

Instead, the Daily’s actions will serve to make students reluctant to write further satire, confining their writing either to the non-controversial or, perhaps, to less entertaining forms.

Criticism should never just be "I DON'T LIKE THAT, TAKE IT DOWN AND MAKE HIM GO AWAY." That's not how adults hold a dialogue. There's no counter-argument, there's no discussion on a sensitive topic. There's just someone's opinion, someone whining that opinion is wrong, and the blanket ban on having that opinion. That's what children do.

If this staffer on the paper was so sure that Mahmood's opinion was indefensible, where is the counter article? Where's the follow-up? Oh, it's written on his fucking door. "everyone hates you you fuck" indeed.

FYI, his article is here: http://www.michiganreview.com/do-the-left-thing/

It's not a take-down of feminism. It's a take down of the overly-sensitive and sorts of people who find combat and injustice in every facet of life. I can see why some people would fail to make that distinction, though.