'Its just a joke' is not an excuse

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

I mean, offensive jokes can be funny too. "Offensive" and "funny" aren't mutually exclusive concepts, especially in comedy.

It's even worse when they wait until people get offended to say it was a joke, otherwise they keep acting like they are serious. I call someone who does that intentionally the Schrondiger's douchebag: someone who says something offensive and decides whether it was a joke based on people's reaction.

Something Amyss:
If you're telling a joke and half your audience don't like it, you're doing a bad job at comedy.

Or you got the wrong crowd - which, let's face it, happens sometimes.

I was reading some gig reviews from members of the public recently and some guy absolutely slated the band he'd gone to see for how shit he thought their music was. If he was too stupid to bother listening to any of their music (easily available online for free via YouTube) before he shelled out ?30, that is totally all his own fault.

Saelune:
'Its just a joke' is a common back-peddle defense people use when they say something shitty and offensive and people actually call them out on it. Guess what, it aint an excuse.

Context is everything.

Yes you're right some people are pricks. They say things totally objectionable and then try to backpedal. Occasionally it's even worse than you're pointing out, because it's expressed in a way designed to not only excuse their odious conduct but to make out that anyone offended must be uptight, humourless, or just too stupid to realise it's a joke.

However, as above, sometimes you have a bunch of people who sometimes just don't get the point, and sometimes don't want to because they are uptight, have chips on their shoulders or want any excuse to push some agenda. Those people really can take a long walk off a short pier.

Schadrach:

That's not allowed these days. If there's any chance someone who might be offended might be eavesdropping, you have to assume they are and avoid saying anything that might offend the eavesdropper. Look at all the people who supported Adria Richards...

I don't honestly have a lot of sympathy here. If you tell offensive jokes where other people rather than the intended recipient can hear, you can damn well take some responsibility for it and suck up some criticism. You might have to consider that perhaps the person who can overhear has just spent the last month getting sexually pestered by a colleague, and you have to understand that perhaps their tolerance for crude humour might be very low, and with good reason.

The specific incident you're complaining about isn't "eavesdropping": it's about naturally hearing what people around you say when they're not careful about how loud they are. I hear lots of conversations on the train into work - not because I want to or try to (I really don't, I'd rather work or sleep), but just because some people insist on talking to each other or into mobile phones at high enough volume.

Secondly, the specific problem about that specific incident is not that she made her feelings know, but that she decided to publically embarrass them on social media. For which she ultimately also got a heap of shit and I believe lost her job... The holistic picture of how that shitshow ended up is more instructive than the limited picture designed to sell your selective point.

trunkage:
I find it funny that some people cant handle someone not liking their joke. It's even okay for someone to be offended. You getting offended at someone else's offense isnt a default win. Grow up and talk to the person instead

Bill Maher keeps coming up today. It's weird.

PsychedelicDiamond:
There's a wonderful expression I've heard in a YouTube video recently. It's "Schr?dinger's Asshole" and it describes that insufferable sort of person who makes an outrageous statement, waits for the reaction and then decides if he was being serious or not. Those people are the worst.

Innudendo Studios recently used the term "Shrodinger's douchebag."

Saw it this morning and was quickly reminded of this thread.

Gethsemani:
This song caused an outrage among... the GLBT community who felt it was insulting to them. Now, I might be wrong and my sarcasm radar might be faulty as fuck, but I am fairly confident that the song is making fun of how extremist religious groups love to blame homosexuals for all kinds of inane stuff. Now, are Grotesco just unfunny or was parts of the GLBT community just a wee bit thin-skinned when taking offense at a joke that was meant to mock people that hate them? I hardly think it is the former.

I can see a third option in that humour putting gay people at the ass end of the joke is both easy and often not done with kind intent. The LGBT community isn't inherently wrong to feel that the use is an attack just because it's labeled "satire." Sotuh Park and Rockstar pay the same card.

However, I just spent a fair time with google translate (it's nmot the best tool, but I don't speak the language) and...I'm not really seeing an outcry. And now I'm wondering if it even exists, because quite often these counter-anecdoes rely on "this one person said this thing." I've seen "controversies" reported out of one or two tweets of dubious authenticity before, and I can't help but wonder if I'm seeing anothercase of this right now.

Hypothetically,. I can see reasons why the LGBT community might take issue with the sketch even as satire, but withou any such instances apparent to use we're forced to guess as to whether or not any of those were reasons.

Or, we could offer a binary choice between the troupe being mustachioed villains and LGBT people being special snowflakes.

So...devoid of any useful, practical information, my mind wandered over to this Tim Minchin song (and I will warn people, it uses NSFW language): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0xQcEH7Dqo

This stuck in my head for two reasons: it's a song where Tim expresses a homophobic idea and virtually nobody seems to care. Does that mean nobody else ever gets offended over anything? No, and the Grotesco example might be different. But there's also the framing material. In the beginning, Tim is being humourous while mocking something based on professed true beliefs: Christians are wrong and arguably silly. Is he right? I'll let other people get into that. He ends the song with "maybe these are ideas bes shared in churches," still mocking the religious folk and homophobia. You can be absurd and still have a message that dovetails with the comedy.

In another version of the clip, he ends by explaining how a gay friend of his made an exception, and how gays just don't get humour. This is an idea played for laughs that could be still sincere. Given the other things Tim's said that seem supportive of LGBT rights and my own personal read on the situation, I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Contrast with Bill Maher, since I already made a comment about him, who is known to make casually racist, homophobic, transphobic and misogynistic comments in and out of his comedy, and I'd be less charitable. We also don't know the context of Grotesco outside this one instance and most o f use reading this are likely at a disadvantage due to language barrier. But I'm reminded of the Charlie Hebdo controversy, where people tried to downplay some of the shit the publication said back when my French was much more up to dte and I could call bullshit.

Getting off track.

The ending comment that I couldn't find a version of is something where my read is he was trying to be funny and ironic and not hurt gay people. But I can still understand why someone else might have a different read on it. I wouldn't necessarily think they were being sensitive, or even that they just didn't get the joke (which seems to be more in line with what Saelune was talking about), because I can believe people are sincere in their interpretation without pearl clutching as I hope we all can from time to time.

I have one more point to make on that note, but I wanted to flip it for a second in that Christians absolutely have the right to take away scorn for their position, and some did. If you scroll down enough, you can find more than enough Christian comments to manufacture an outraged controversy. Tim could argue "it's just a joke," but it's clearly not.

To wrap this bloated post up:

Saelune:
All they need to do is sincerely explain it, not as an excuse to defend their behavior, but just as a means of explaining their point. 'Its just a joke, we didn't mean to offend and are sorry' is not what people who say its just a joke mean. They mean 'Fuck you, suck it up and stop being a baby'. Which never makes me feel they are sincerely telling a joke.

Depends on your intent. If you're supportive of the group in question, you should make some attempt at restitution. This implies, among other things, that you actually care about what people think. Andy Kaufman was happy to play the heel IRL, but it always amazed me that when Eminem was accused of homophobia, he would be almost as emphatic as the "leave Brittney alone" kid in this butthurt bewilderment th people would think he was a homophobe just because he used the f-slur and implied men having sex was bad in his music. I mean, obviously, he's just plaing a character or something, and this has nothing to do with the undercurrent of homophobia in rap, right?

Decent people attempt to make some sort of restitution. It doesn't have to be explaining the joke; it can be as simple as "I'm sorry, I didn't intend it that way." Too often, though, people go the Ricky Gervais route and go "did I trigger you?" and for some reason seem upset at the backlash.

I'm actually sort of curious now, how Grotesco handled any controversy related to their bit, if any existed. Not curious enough to spend more time on Google Translate, especially when I have a fake outrage over Tim Minchin's "I Love Jesus" to drum up, but still.

I make ironic jokes a lot. Snark and irony are how I cope with the shitty hand I've been dealt, and still, I'd be ortified if someone thought I was really racist or homophobic or whatever.

But that's sort of the problem: sarcasm and irony as a defense can only go so far. When you hurt people, "I was being sarcastic" is a shitty defense. The decent response is some variation of "I'm sorry."

Agema:

Or you got the wrong crowd - which, let's face it, happens sometimes.

My brother does standup and part of job is awareness of the audience.

I imagine sometimes it's intractable. The stylings of a black comedian might not be adaptable to an accidental booking at the local KKK,but reading the audience is part of the territory.

Hell, I used to do open mic nights performing music, and I'd adapt to what the crowd responded to. Those ere unpaid performances for the sake of, you know, getting people to like you. It's all kind of important. If I'd said "fuck you, I'm going to do a ten-minute reinterpretation of a deep cut by Conor Oberst," not only would I have not gone over well, I might not be invited back. When i's your job, that's probably a bad thing, you know?

I don't honestly have a lot of sympathy here. If you tell offensive jokes where other people rather than the intended recipient can hear, you can damn well take some responsibility for it and suck up some criticism. rally, but as a rule, gauging what works with the crowd is part of the territory.

I think it's a largely imagined fear in the first place.

The poster in question has repeatedly demonstrated they don't mind being intentionally offensive to people, so I have trouble imagining this gnashing of teeth that they might accidentally say something offensive and be jumped upon by a pack of wild social Justice Ninjas.

Something Amyss:

Agema:

Or you got the wrong crowd - which, let's face it, happens sometimes.

My brother does standup and part of job is awareness of the audience.

I think it is a big leap to assume a comedian can always be 100% completely aware of the audience for what they do. Like, the standup analogy doesn't really extend well to, say, twitter or youtube.

Agema:
Secondly, the specific problem about that specific incident is not that she made her feelings know, but that she decided to publically embarrass them on social media. For which she ultimately also got a heap of shit and I believe lost her job... The holistic picture of how that shitshow ended up is more instructive than the limited picture designed to sell your selective point.

She did lose her job, from the blowback from her employer's customers and 4chan over her pulling the public "name and shame" against the two guys in question, after getting one of them fired. Turns out listening in on private conversations among people who happen to work for your customers and sparking a harassment mob after them is a bad idea when you're in a PR position. Who knew?

The media coverage is fantastic though - it's all about how Adria was a victim for merely calling out vile sexism and daring to be a woman on the internet. Ironically, she'd posted a dick joke not long before that on her public Twitter. Shouldn't that, in her mind, have been sufficient to fire her? Why isn't her making a sexual joke publicly at least as bad as two others making a quasi-sexual joke privately?

Agema:

Saelune:
'Its just a joke' is a common back-peddle defense people use when they say something shitty and offensive and people actually call them out on it. Guess what, it aint an excuse.

Context is everything.

Yes you're right some people are pricks. They say things totally objectionable and then try to backpedal. Occasionally it's even worse than you're pointing out, because it's expressed in a way designed to not only excuse their odious conduct but to make out that anyone offended must be uptight, humourless, or just too stupid to realise it's a joke.

However, as above, sometimes you have a bunch of people who sometimes just don't get the point, and sometimes don't want to because they are uptight, have chips on their shoulders or want any excuse to push some agenda. Those people really can take a long walk off a short pier.

Saelune:

Asita:

Saelune:
I get that, but the problem is the hostile approach. Why does it have to be a 'fuck you' kind of response? Why not 'Oh, sorry, yeah it is just a joke between my friends and I, I don't really mean that'?

...Because you touch yourself at night?

Sorry, but considering your previous post, you kinda set yourself up for that one. Though as food for thought, do you suppose that this response right here might qualify as a 'fuck you' kind of response?

I am offended. :(

Ultimately though, everything in context. Like, yeah, sometimes people get offended when they shouldn't, and sometimes you sincerely apologize to someone and they don't care, but really I just want people to have a base respect for eachother and understand that everyone has their own standards and preferences and what does and does not upset them.

I think a lot of people are offended by things they should not be offended by, but I also think there are lots of things we should be more offended by than we are.

So few people ever seem to want to own up to their own actions. And even less are willing to just say 'sorry' and mean it.

Gethsemani:
So something like 10 years back a Swedish comedy troupe (Grotesco) did a TV-series that was essentially a bunch of sketches or skits strung together. Grotesco were characterized by their mix of parody, meta humor, absurdism and political commentary and one of their sketches was a parody on a Swedish debate TV-show. This particular sketch involved a bunch of extremist Christians taking over the show to start a song with the chorus "it is the Gays fault" and a first minute of the song that goes like "The war in Afghanistan? The gays fault. The dictatorship in Iran? The gays faults. And Earthquakes, floods and other bad stuff? That Vin & Sprit, Saab and Volvo aren't Swedish anymore? It is the gays fault.(x3) The world is in flames and it is the gays fault. My son killed four people with a rifle and somehow I can feel it is the gays fault. Divorces and alcoholism? The gays fault. Parking guards and atheism? The gays fault."

This song caused an outrage among... the GLBT community who felt it was insulting to them. Now, I might be wrong and my sarcasm radar might be faulty as fuck, but I am fairly confident that the song is making fun of how extremist religious groups love to blame homosexuals for all kinds of inane stuff. Now, are Grotesco just unfunny or was parts of the GLBT community just a wee bit thin-skinned when taking offense at a joke that was meant to mock people that hate them? I hardly think it is the former.

And I would like to point out that a common use of comedy and humor is to mock and satirize people you don't agree with, just as Grosteco did with extremist Christians. Preferably this means punching up, against people with power, but just because someone makes fun of me at my expense that doesn't mean the joke can't be legit funny for everyone else on this forum or that there's ill-will behind it.

Could it be that they weren't aware it was a joke at all? Or felt it was too close to reality to not take seriously? The other day, I was coming across memes that glorified the film American History X as one of the most masculine films ever and generally seeming to believe it was an affirmation of their alt-right/far-right perspectives, apparently oblivious to the unsubtle messages the film was unsubtly presenting. It's like they turned off their brain as soon as they saw and heard the people and their rhetoric that they resonated and blanked out the rest of everything that happened. The main site they led to was return of Kings, whatever that is, it sounds vaguely familiar. But shows that no matter how obvious you think a satirical or dramatic point is made, people can miss it entirely if not in a receptive state of mind.

One habit I've had to be carefully aware of is using humour around suicide and mental health, even with more than the preferred amount of personal experience that could be used to tastelessly justify the misses, there are plenty of times and people in which it is evidently inappropriate at very best. It's often more just a way of trying to maintain a semblance of control over the worst parts whenever possible before they inevitably overwhelm again than anything trying to belittle the subject. But that doesn't ease the concern that many won't see or know intent, so try to remain very cautious with it. Except when I forgets. But am trying to limit the forgets.

Schadrach:

Asita:
...Because you touch yourself at night?

Part of me wants to argue that this is literally killing trans people because many of them are distressed by their genitalia.

Well, if you believe I was out of line, I invite you to read post 11 to understand why I believed Saelune would probably be ok with it here.

Saelune:

Asita:

Saelune:
I get that, but the problem is the hostile approach. Why does it have to be a 'fuck you' kind of response? Why not 'Oh, sorry, yeah it is just a joke between my friends and I, I don't really mean that'?

...Because you touch yourself at night?

Sorry, but considering your previous post, you kinda set yourself up for that one. Though as food for thought, do you suppose that this response right here might qualify as a 'fuck you' kind of response?

I am offended. :(

Ultimately though, everything in context. Like, yeah, sometimes people get offended when they shouldn't, and sometimes you sincerely apologize to someone and they don't care, but really I just want people to have a base respect for eachother and understand that everyone has their own standards and preferences and what does and does not upset them.

I think a lot of people are offended by things they should not be offended by, but I also think there are lots of things we should be more offended by than we are.

So few people ever seem to want to own up to their own actions. And even less are willing to just say 'sorry' and mean it.

There's certainly that. On the other hand it seems to me that we're much less willing to accept apologies than we were even a few years ago. For instance, I find it absolutely perplexing that "I didn't mean to cause offense" tends to be interpreted as a "non-apology" in the vein of "Too bad you were offended (but that's on you, not me)" rather than "I conveyed things I didn't intend and I'm sorry that I said something hurtful".

Asita:

Saelune:

Asita:

...Because you touch yourself at night?

Sorry, but considering your previous post, you kinda set yourself up for that one. Though as food for thought, do you suppose that this response right here might qualify as a 'fuck you' kind of response?

I am offended. :(

Ultimately though, everything in context. Like, yeah, sometimes people get offended when they shouldn't, and sometimes you sincerely apologize to someone and they don't care, but really I just want people to have a base respect for eachother and understand that everyone has their own standards and preferences and what does and does not upset them.

I think a lot of people are offended by things they should not be offended by, but I also think there are lots of things we should be more offended by than we are.

So few people ever seem to want to own up to their own actions. And even less are willing to just say 'sorry' and mean it.

There's certainly that. On the other hand it seems to me that we're much less willing to accept apologies than we were even a few years ago. For instance, I find it absolutely perplexing that "I didn't mean to cause offense" tends to be interpreted as a "non-apology" in the vein of "Too bad you were offended (but that's on you, not me)" rather than "I conveyed things I didn't intend and I'm sorry that I said something hurtful".

I think most people don't apologize.

It really depends.

Its just a joke only works as an excuse for so long. Its right up there with Sticks and Stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. Words hurt, and mental scars don't heal as fast as a rock being flung to the side of the head or a baseball bat to the shin.

Part of it might also be what a group sees as an acceptable target. Most of us here have no problem slinging stones at Trump, Nazies, Uwi Boll, or the snake handling part of Christianity (people outside of the US, Look Up Snake Handlers and Christianity, and gawk) but some groups you end up looking more like a inhuman monster. Say people with cancer, mental disabilities, physical disabilities, and so on. Yes, I laugh at some jokes involving those with special needs (such as most things involving Caboose from Red Vs. Blue), but having been in Special ED and a diagnosis of Autism, I mostly get pissed.

THis might also maybe the reason for the joke. Alot of the more insensitive jokes are there to hurt, to tear down, to belittle, and when you are part of that group it hits you really hard.

Others it can be solved with its bad on both a structural level and a confusing mess, as well as a in poor taste.

Saelune:

Asita:

Saelune:
I am offended. :(

Ultimately though, everything in context. Like, yeah, sometimes people get offended when they shouldn't, and sometimes you sincerely apologize to someone and they don't care, but really I just want people to have a base respect for eachother and understand that everyone has their own standards and preferences and what does and does not upset them.

I think a lot of people are offended by things they should not be offended by, but I also think there are lots of things we should be more offended by than we are.

So few people ever seem to want to own up to their own actions. And even less are willing to just say 'sorry' and mean it.

There's certainly that. On the other hand it seems to me that we're much less willing to accept apologies than we were even a few years ago. For instance, I find it absolutely perplexing that "I didn't mean to cause offense" tends to be interpreted as a "non-apology" in the vein of "Too bad you were offended (but that's on you, not me)" rather than "I conveyed things I didn't intend and I'm sorry that I said something hurtful".

I think most people don't apologize.

And when a lot of people DO apologize, they basically want total forgiveness for saying two words. Say "I'm sorry" and nothing can be held against you, according to those people.

thebobmaster:

Saelune:

Asita:

There's certainly that. On the other hand it seems to me that we're much less willing to accept apologies than we were even a few years ago. For instance, I find it absolutely perplexing that "I didn't mean to cause offense" tends to be interpreted as a "non-apology" in the vein of "Too bad you were offended (but that's on you, not me)" rather than "I conveyed things I didn't intend and I'm sorry that I said something hurtful".

I think most people don't apologize.

And when a lot of people DO apologize, they basically want total forgiveness for saying two words. Say "I'm sorry" and nothing can be held against you, according to those people.

An insincere apology is not an apology.

Schadrach:
The media coverage is fantastic though - it's all about how Adria was a victim for merely calling out vile sexism and daring to be a woman on the internet.

Richards is a victim, as is the guy inadvertantly and indirectly fired because of her misjudgement.

They're both victims of internet "lynch mobs" who amuse themselves by seeking punishment of people they find annoying. It's as wrong for one as it is wrong for the other. Consequently the funny thing is that Richards is every bit as good an example of how one can live in fear of excessive repercussions just for saying the wrong thing. However, for someone of your ideological perspective, she's not a palatable example to illustrate the point because mud ends up sticking to you and yours.

Agema:

Schadrach:
The media coverage is fantastic though - it's all about how Adria was a victim for merely calling out vile sexism and daring to be a woman on the internet.

Richards is a victim, as is the guy inadvertantly and indirectly fired because of her misjudgement.

They're both victims of internet "lynch mobs" who amuse themselves by seeking punishment of people they find annoying. It's as wrong for one as it is wrong for the other. Consequently the funny thing is that Richards is every bit as good an example of how one can live in fear of excessive repercussions just for saying the wrong thing. However, for someone of your ideological perspective, she's not a palatable example to illustrate the point because mud ends up sticking to you and yours.

To be fair, she threw the first punch and attempted to rile up the mob against the guy in the first place.

The mob she got back in return was in retaliation to her first attempt at the same. Had she not tried to cause economic or public shame to someone on social media she never would have suffered for it.

Stones and glass houses and such.

Abomination:

Agema:

Schadrach:
The media coverage is fantastic though - it's all about how Adria was a victim for merely calling out vile sexism and daring to be a woman on the internet.

Richards is a victim, as is the guy inadvertantly and indirectly fired because of her misjudgement.

They're both victims of internet "lynch mobs" who amuse themselves by seeking punishment of people they find annoying. It's as wrong for one as it is wrong for the other. Consequently the funny thing is that Richards is every bit as good an example of how one can live in fear of excessive repercussions just for saying the wrong thing. However, for someone of your ideological perspective, she's not a palatable example to illustrate the point because mud ends up sticking to you and yours.

To be fair, she threw the first punch and attempted to rile up the mob against the guy in the first place.

The mob she got back in return was in retaliation to her first attempt at the same. Had she not tried to cause economic or public shame to someone on social media she never would have suffered for it.

Stones and glass houses and such.

I don't think you know what 'to be fair' means.

Also do you not see the hypocrisy of publicly shaming someone who people are mad at for publicly shaming people?

Saelune:

Abomination:

Agema:

Richards is a victim, as is the guy inadvertantly and indirectly fired because of her misjudgement.

They're both victims of internet "lynch mobs" who amuse themselves by seeking punishment of people they find annoying. It's as wrong for one as it is wrong for the other. Consequently the funny thing is that Richards is every bit as good an example of how one can live in fear of excessive repercussions just for saying the wrong thing. However, for someone of your ideological perspective, she's not a palatable example to illustrate the point because mud ends up sticking to you and yours.

To be fair, she threw the first punch and attempted to rile up the mob against the guy in the first place.

The mob she got back in return was in retaliation to her first attempt at the same. Had she not tried to cause economic or public shame to someone on social media she never would have suffered for it.

Stones and glass houses and such.

I don't think you know what 'to be fair' means.

Also do you not see the hypocrisy of publicly shaming someone who people are mad at for publicly shaming people?

Turnabout is fair play. Playing with fire, getting burned... any other metaphor you can think of.

She tried to do something to someone for a comment that individual made to one other person that she overheard. Had she not made a fuss about it, nobody would have known about it.

She kicked this hornet's nest. She tried to have what happened to her happen to someone else, and it only happened to her because she tried to make it happen to someone else.

It's poetic justice, not hypocrisy.

Abomination:
Turnabout is fair play.

It's poetic justice, not hypocrisy.

Your posting history doesn't support this.

Your expressed views on The US Confederacy, your views on 'Due Process', you do not seem to actually support this view you are claiming here.

But still, I will keep this in mind.

Abomination:

Saelune:
Like I said, you agree with me.

A system that works doesn't work when it is not implemented to begin with.

I do not agree with the removal of due process in any criminal case, just because establishing guilt of a certain type of crime is more difficult than when dealing with other crimes.

Public shaming and the court of public opinion is also not the correct method of seeing justice done. Mob justice is a misnomer, there is no justice there. The same reason I hold due process in such high regard is the same reason I am so opposed to mob justice. The idea of an innocent being lynched is abhorrent to me.

Saelune:

Abomination:
Turnabout is fair play.

It's poetic justice, not hypocrisy.

Your posting history doesn't support this.

Your expressed views on The US Confederacy, your views on 'Due Process', you do not seem to actually support this view you are claiming here.

There was no government involvement in this woman's "punishment". She brought the case to the "court of public opinion" and she suffered via the "court of public opinion".

There is no hypocrisy. She chose that battleground herself.

Abomination:

Saelune:

Abomination:
Turnabout is fair play.

It's poetic justice, not hypocrisy.

Your posting history doesn't support this.

Your expressed views on The US Confederacy, your views on 'Due Process', you do not seem to actually support this view you are claiming here.

There was no government involvement in this woman's "punishment". She brought the case to the "court of public opinion" and she suffered via the "court of public opinion".

There is no hypocrisy. She chose that battleground herself.

Your views on due process and mob justice are inconsistent.

Abomination:
To be fair, she threw the first punch and attempted to rile up the mob against the guy in the first place. The mob she got back in return was in retaliation to her first attempt at the same.

I think posting a picture of the guy was out of order and somewhat vindictive. But I don't honestly think she can have expected it to balloon into a full-blown internet rage war which would result in anyone getting fired.

Stones and glass houses and such.

Only to a limited extent. But the minute you're arguing she deserves it, you've no moral high ground to complain when anyone else gets torn down and savaged. That's my point.

Agema:

Abomination:
To be fair, she threw the first punch and attempted to rile up the mob against the guy in the first place. The mob she got back in return was in retaliation to her first attempt at the same.

I think posting a picture of the guy was out of order and somewhat vindictive. But I don't honestly think she can have expected it to balloon into a full-blown internet rage war which would result in anyone getting fired.

Stones and glass houses and such.

Only to a limited extent. But the minute you're arguing she deserves it, you've no moral high ground to complain when anyone else gets torn down and savaged. That's my point.

Would all this had been avoided if she had said "it's just a joke"?

Saelune:
I think posting a picture of the guy was out of order and somewhat vindictive. But I don't honestly think she can have expected it to balloon into a full-blown internet rage war which would result in anyone getting fired.

I think you mean "HER" getting fired. Her original post was very vindictive, name and shaming, calling for action.

Stones and glass houses and such.

Only to a limited extent. But the minute you're arguing she deserves it, you've no moral high ground to complain when anyone else gets torn down and savaged. That's my point.

Excuse the extremity being used here but it's the best way to highlight what went down.

She tried to plant a car bomb. While the car owner was returning to the car it went off hurting the car owner. The car bomb also hurt her more severely. Nobody died, but only she lit that fuse.

Moral high ground would exist if someone got torn down and savaged when they did not make any public posting about something attempting to defame another.

Abomination:
Snip

Fix your post, its all kinds of misquoted.

This is a thread looking for trouble.

image

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked