4 ms·

I'm the person who originally called out the response. The issue I had with it was related to the "Implying a joke should not be made", but one step further. It

I'm the person who originally called out the response. The issue I had with it was related to the "Implying a joke should not be made", but one step further. It's this common pattern I feel like has popped up in the last 10 years with social media that I find really annoying and manipulative. The person in the post was implying that the joke shouldn't be made because some theoretical person somewhere might be offended by it. They aren't saying they're offended by it because most people don't care if they offend some random person on the internet. Instead they try to find a group that is disadvantaged and frame their offense at the joke as a attempt to protect that group. They're trying to create a scenario where either you agree with them or you're punching down. It's manipulative and gross and it's become such a staple of social media debates that I don't even think people realize when they do that. I would actually have no problem if that person said, "I think it's offensive to make jokes about Enron and you shouldn't do that", but that isn't what they did. They're essentially trying to guilt trip people into agreeing with their opinion.

sharkjacobs 2y ago
I think I basically agree with you, it raises my hackles when I see rhetorical devices being used to push positions I disagree with, it feels transparently manipulative in a way that is disrespectful to the audience (me) But I think that you're overlooking some of the specifics of Molly's post, and this particular joke. Molly believes that memecoins are basically Ponzi schemes. So what she claims that this joke is in bad taste it is not just because it is making fun of a famous case of financial fraud which ruined people, but crucially because of the context of launching and promoting another financial fraud. edit: in her own words > fwiw i don't really have an issue with someone doing an enron parody for parody's sake > > however i am concerned about a very suspiciously-timed memecoin that cropped up, and the possibility that this is all just a play to go viral to pump a token. https://bsky.app/profile/molly.wiki/post/3lcdurxh5mk2m https://bsky.app/profile/molly.wiki/post/3lcdurxh5mk2m
- superfrank 2y ago
  Ah, with the additional context that makes a little more sense. I just saw the single post and wasn’t aware that it was a bit tongue in cheek

sharkjacobs 2y ago

I think I basically agree with you, it raises my hackles when I see rhetorical devices being used to push positions I disagree with, it feels transparently manipulative in a way that is disrespectful to the audience (me) But I think that you're overlooking some of the specifics of Molly's post, and this particular joke. Molly believes that memecoins are basically Ponzi schemes. So what she claims that this joke is in bad taste it is not just because it is making fun of a famous case of financial fraud which ruined people, but crucially because of the context of launching and promoting another financial fraud. edit: in her own words > fwiw i don't really have an issue with someone doing an enron parody for parody's sake > > however i am concerned about a very suspiciously-timed memecoin that cropped up, and the possibility that this is all just a play to go viral to pump a token. https://bsky.app/profile/molly.wiki/post/3lcdurxh5mk2m https://bsky.app/profile/molly.wiki/post/3lcdurxh5mk2m

superfrank 2y ago
Ah, with the additional context that makes a little more sense. I just saw the single post and wasn’t aware that it was a bit tongue in cheek