3 ms·
> You're free to call someone out or leave if someone makes a joke you don't like, you don't get to tell them to not make it. If you are a private company, suc
by fao_ 9y ago
> You're free to call someone out or leave if someone makes a joke you don't like, you don't get to tell them to not make it.
If you are a private company, such as an american university, or facebook, you absolutely do get to decide to tell people not to make jokes, and you absolutely do get to make hiring decisions based on bad jokes.
> It's almost as if thought policing were useless
This is not thought policing, this is looking at someone's jokes and attitudes towards People of Colour and women and deciding as a private company if you want a toxic person, someone who thinks that it's alright to joke about sexual harassment, in your private space.
> someone who's evil will do horrible things because they want to and not because "something something bad environment"
There are no evil people, there are only people who have been brought up in an environment where the actions they have taken are acceptable. What, you think people who do evil things are genetically predetermined to do them? It's rubbish. Hundreds of psychopaths have been born and never hurt a fly, it's about upbringing and social rules, rather than some "innate need to do 'bad'".
> And, guess what, your country has come a long way from the segregation of the 60s without needing to ban jokes.
Actually, the country I live in, like most European countries, has hate speech laws. We no longer have quite as bad a problem with racism as the US does.
> And nothing says this trend won't continue.
The 915 surviving and growing white supremacy hate groups, along with the 'alt-right' (The leader of the alt-right has openly written that he wants to exterminate black people), says otherwise. That young people feel that they can support such openly racist and anti-PoC movements, says a lot about the atmosphere today.
> but let's hope they're just noise that will die out eventually.
I'm pretty sure they said the same thing about the National Socialist Party...
> No, it isn't. Happiness isn't and shouldn't be mandatory.
We're not making happiness mandatory, we're making blatantly abusive speech against the law. I mean, it should be covered under the various "harassment" legislation, but shrug apparently not.
- julianmarq 9y ago> There are no evil people, there are only people who have been brought up in an environment where the actions they have taken are acceptable. Funny, serial killers still exist and will continue existing, even though society has condemned that for a long, long time. Yes, some people are born with their wires misshapen, just like there're people born deaf. What? Did you think that the brain was, somehow, our only organ that couldn't get messed up since birth? > What, you think people who do evil things are genetically predetermined to do them? [...] Hundreds of psychopaths have been born So, are they or are they not born? You're contradicting yourself. > Actually, the country I live in, like most European countries, has hate speech laws. We no longer have quite as bad a problem with racism as the US does. Yeah, you keep telling yourself that. A friend of mine (hailing from my latin american country) and the refugee crisis tell me otherwise. If so-called "hate speech" is banned openly, it just happens behind doors, using so-called "coded language". > The 915 surviving and growing white supremacy hate groups, along with the 'alt-right'. So do TERFs, the militant branch of BLM, AntiFa, etc. If we're going to judge by fringe groups, they just happen to be more visible every day on both sides. And they don't represent the majority, it's as if they were called "fringe" for a reason. > I'm pretty sure they said the same thing about the National Socialist Party... And it did die out. Some people might be itching to call anyone they disagree with "nazis", but they aren't. > We're not making happiness mandatory, we're making blatantly abusive speech against the law Funny how you earlier in this very same comment said that you weren't arguing for thought policing. Glad you decided to become honest at the end. > I mean, it should be covered under the various "harassment" legislation, but shrug apparently not. Harassment requires a victim. Yanow, someone being harassed. --- Anyways, you contradicted yourself twice, and one of those times was the very same thing you pretended you weren't arguing for. That's just dishonest argumentation, meaning this discussion is pointless, so I won't engage you further. Cheers.