4 ms·

Care to explain?

denkmoon 7y ago
r/wallstreetbets is not politically correct. It is shitposting of a magnitude not seen since the heyday of 4chan. (Their motto is "if 4chan got a bloomberg terminal") In other words, he's upset because people put mean words on an imageboard.
- sarakayakomzin 7y ago
  >In other words, he's upset because people put mean words on an imageboard. that's a lot to infer from a single sentence. do you offer a better warranty than Best Buy? I'm looking for a new projector.
- 0_gravitas 7y ago
  ikr, and honestly, I mean, at least compared to what i've seen in some other places on reddit, wallstreetbets is pretty tame, still politically incorrect, but the worst ive seen is them calling both themselves and others "gay bears" and "autists". ive definitely seen far worse and more mean-spirited elsewhere
  - denkmoon 7y ago
    I would tend to agree. WSB is mostly about self deprecation, and occasional digs at "FIRE" types and people who are financially prudent. It is a far cry from the many subreddits that actually preach hatred against an outgroup.
  - spookthesunset 7y ago
    agree. wsb has some racy language but it is all in good spirits. It is not at all like all the cesspool subreddits where everybody is a mean spirited asshole.
Loughla 7y ago
I'm going to guess, based on what I know about diversity and inclusion. It's the fact that people are called retards, autists, and homophobic slurs. To some it's about "having thick skin". To others it's about normalizing "hate speech". It really depends on what your life experience is to determine which camp you fall in. If you've been on the receiving end of hate speech or discrimination, you tend to be in the second camp. If you've lived a relatively privileged life in terms of 'fitting in' to the world around you, you tend to think people just need to grow thicker skin. And this disagreement between those two groups sums up like 95% of all social media posts right now.
- missosoup 7y ago
  > If you've been on the receiving end of hate speech or discrimination, you tend to be in the second camp. If you've lived a relatively privileged life in terms of 'fitting in' to the world around you, you tend to think people just need to grow thicker skin. As someone who fell into category 1 for most of my childhood, I think you have the labels reversed. I think it takes a tremendously sheltered privileged life to get offended by such weak words, especially when they're clearly in jest. Thick skin comes from being exposed to the realities of the world and having an idea of the magnitude and context of e.g. those memes compared to actual hate speech such as I experienced. It's not a case of 'people who never experienced hate speech think its ok', it's a case of 'people who experienced real hate speech can differentiate it from crude jokes and shitposts' If anyone remembers Jay Austin and Lauren Geoghegan, the American couple who went to Tajikistan and started video blogging to show that 'all humans are kind' and promptly got murdered by ISIS because they had no idea how dangerous the country was? That's the kind of sheltered privileged demographic that gets offended by shitposting. They have no clue what actual hate or actual danger looks like. Political correctness and victim culture are pretty unique to the wealthier segments of the West and Europe.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - dmix 7y ago
    The internet has generated this weird subculture of people who get really really upset at people making jokes. It has a "think of the children" sort of moral panic vibe to it. A lot of it has to do with completely ignoring any context or intention from the source material, which isn't how language works in any other context. Jokes inherently use exaggeration and extreme positions in jest which make them easy targets for misrepresentation. The even weirder thing is it's finding a reception among weak-willed administrators at various institutions who capitulate under the slightest provocation from these small groups of highly vocal outage mobs (largely because these groups have gotten really good at stirring up controversy, and the low-budget modern internet media is perpetually looking for controversy, legitimate or not). But if you did a survey of the general population (or the institution's actual customers) instead of just listening to these small mobs you'd find that it really isn't that big of a deal to the vast majority of people. The average person understands context and intent - assuming they heard the original source, not the filtered down unfunny reinterpretations that make the rounds. I was listening to a "best of Jeff Ross" on Youtube recently and all I could think of was that if any of his stuff had been filtered through these cancel culture people over the last few decades he'd basically be considered the devil instead of one of the funniest people in comedy. I fear for the future of culture, especially comedy, which thrives in a sort of experimental unfiltered chaos. Maybe it will have to live on in the underground like Samizdat in the Soviet Union.

Care to explain?

r/wallstreetbets is not politically correct. It is shitposting of a magnitude not seen since the heyday of 4chan. (Their motto is "if 4chan got a bloomberg terminal") In other words, he's upset because people put mean words on an imageboard.

sarakayakomzin 7y ago
>In other words, he's upset because people put mean words on an imageboard. that's a lot to infer from a single sentence. do you offer a better warranty than Best Buy? I'm looking for a new projector.
0_gravitas 7y ago
ikr, and honestly, I mean, at least compared to what i've seen in some other places on reddit, wallstreetbets is pretty tame, still politically incorrect, but the worst ive seen is them calling both themselves and others "gay bears" and "autists". ive definitely seen far worse and more mean-spirited elsewhere
- denkmoon 7y ago
  I would tend to agree. WSB is mostly about self deprecation, and occasional digs at "FIRE" types and people who are financially prudent. It is a far cry from the many subreddits that actually preach hatred against an outgroup.
- spookthesunset 7y ago
  agree. wsb has some racy language but it is all in good spirits. It is not at all like all the cesspool subreddits where everybody is a mean spirited asshole.

Loughla 7y ago

I'm going to guess, based on what I know about diversity and inclusion. It's the fact that people are called retards, autists, and homophobic slurs. To some it's about "having thick skin". To others it's about normalizing "hate speech". It really depends on what your life experience is to determine which camp you fall in. If you've been on the receiving end of hate speech or discrimination, you tend to be in the second camp. If you've lived a relatively privileged life in terms of 'fitting in' to the world around you, you tend to think people just need to grow thicker skin. And this disagreement between those two groups sums up like 95% of all social media posts right now.

missosoup 7y ago
> If you've been on the receiving end of hate speech or discrimination, you tend to be in the second camp. If you've lived a relatively privileged life in terms of 'fitting in' to the world around you, you tend to think people just need to grow thicker skin. As someone who fell into category 1 for most of my childhood, I think you have the labels reversed. I think it takes a tremendously sheltered privileged life to get offended by such weak words, especially when they're clearly in jest. Thick skin comes from being exposed to the realities of the world and having an idea of the magnitude and context of e.g. those memes compared to actual hate speech such as I experienced. It's not a case of 'people who never experienced hate speech think its ok', it's a case of 'people who experienced real hate speech can differentiate it from crude jokes and shitposts' If anyone remembers Jay Austin and Lauren Geoghegan, the American couple who went to Tajikistan and started video blogging to show that 'all humans are kind' and promptly got murdered by ISIS because they had no idea how dangerous the country was? That's the kind of sheltered privileged demographic that gets offended by shitposting. They have no clue what actual hate or actual danger looks like. Political correctness and victim culture are pretty unique to the wealthier segments of the West and Europe.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dmix 7y ago
  The internet has generated this weird subculture of people who get really really upset at people making jokes. It has a "think of the children" sort of moral panic vibe to it. A lot of it has to do with completely ignoring any context or intention from the source material, which isn't how language works in any other context. Jokes inherently use exaggeration and extreme positions in jest which make them easy targets for misrepresentation. The even weirder thing is it's finding a reception among weak-willed administrators at various institutions who capitulate under the slightest provocation from these small groups of highly vocal outage mobs (largely because these groups have gotten really good at stirring up controversy, and the low-budget modern internet media is perpetually looking for controversy, legitimate or not). But if you did a survey of the general population (or the institution's actual customers) instead of just listening to these small mobs you'd find that it really isn't that big of a deal to the vast majority of people. The average person understands context and intent - assuming they heard the original source, not the filtered down unfunny reinterpretations that make the rounds. I was listening to a "best of Jeff Ross" on Youtube recently and all I could think of was that if any of his stuff had been filtered through these cancel culture people over the last few decades he'd basically be considered the devil instead of one of the funniest people in comedy. I fear for the future of culture, especially comedy, which thrives in a sort of experimental unfiltered chaos. Maybe it will have to live on in the underground like Samizdat in the Soviet Union.