6 ms·

> What's good for the goose... I think firing either party was a pretty daft idea for all types of poultry, or in this case, human beings. > Employers can peo

> What's good for the goose... I think firing either party was a pretty daft idea for all types of poultry, or in this case, human beings. > Employers can people based on their personal lives all the time. Yeah, I think I'm saying I'm saying that in a lot of circumstances, that's pretty lame and we actively, as a community, saying that type of reaction is unwise. Instead, you have someone calling for it. This is only getting to be a bigger problem as everyone's personal lives become more and more broadcasted. Chalk it up to self-interest if you'd like, I got a bunch of shit on my twitter accounts that could get me in trouble with different types of views and people. Any employer who is interested in hiring me is going to have to be able to deal with that. > this goes beyond a mere tweet Her actions were a tweet and a blog post. What someone else did with that is their issue. Go get angry at them if you think those actions were inappropriate.

Karunamon 14y ago
A tweet and a blog post that named and shamed two people, personally, in what I believe to be the biggest example of blowing something out of proportion in recent memory. So if I get this right.. Someone says a joke that offends you, in earshot, but not to you, and you take this as your opportunity to photograph them, get them kicked out of a con, fired, pilloried in public? And then you take to your blog to defend yourself (not really) with an incessant repeating of "I'm in the right! I'm in the right!" (paraphrased) Let me say this as clearly as I can: Anyone who would engage in the behavior described in the previous paragraph is a colossal fucking idiot of the highest caliber, who I would think very long and hard about hiring or retaining employment for any job that required any kind of public interaction. I am having trouble mustering words for how angry this makes me. Time to get off the internet for a while.
- paranoiacblack 14y ago
  Hmm, ever hear of slippery slope arguments? Because there's clearly a limit to the situation you're describing and clearly offense is relative. So, since you didn't specify any level of severity, let's assume the joke that offended you was about harming someone or themselves. I mean, people say things like "I want to kill the guy the wrote this" or "oh god, this makes me want to kill myself" jokingly. Would it be okay then or would I still be a colossal fucking idiot? Okay, how about if someone was threatening to harm a political figure as a joke? Or what if the joke insulted people of a different race for their cultural beliefs? You're generalizing too much.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    >Would it be okay then or would I still be a colossal fucking idiot? If your response to your first example was to do what the person we're talking about did, then yes, you would be an idiot. >Okay, how about if someone was threatening to harm a political figure as a joke? Yup. >Or what if the joke insulted people of a different race for their cultural beliefs? Yup. In my arrogant opinion, nothing short of lewd and obscene sexual discussion or threats of bodily harm should have led to the sequence of events we have here in front of us.
  - marshray 14y ago
    Right, you let two guys in private conversation snicker about the word "dongle" and the next thing you know people will be threatening to kill political figures with impunity. I've got one word for that: Lol.
    - paranoiacblack 14y ago
      I see how you got here, but that's not what I'm arguing. The parent's post seems to imply that anyone that would react strongly to a joke is a "colossal fucking idiot." This seems to imply that the joke's content has no relation to the reaction. So I was just wondering if that really holds. As per the parent's reply, it does. I'm not even barely implying that threatening to kill political figures is the next logical step. I'm implying that there definitely is some hard limit being ignored or maybe I'm wrong.
      - marshray 14y ago
        Yeah I dunno. I get your point about relating the offense and the action. Maybe try rephrasing your argument with a less "charged" example? Aside: Does anybody know the actual joke in question? More than it just referencing a "big dongle".
  - jcc80 14y ago
    You're polluting the discussion with all these hypotheticals. Stick to what actually happened.
- anthonyb 14y ago
  They were not kicked out of the convention.

Karunamon 14y ago

A tweet and a blog post that named and shamed two people, personally, in what I believe to be the biggest example of blowing something out of proportion in recent memory. So if I get this right.. Someone says a joke that offends you, in earshot, but not to you, and you take this as your opportunity to photograph them, get them kicked out of a con, fired, pilloried in public? And then you take to your blog to defend yourself (not really) with an incessant repeating of "I'm in the right! I'm in the right!" (paraphrased) Let me say this as clearly as I can: Anyone who would engage in the behavior described in the previous paragraph is a colossal fucking idiot of the highest caliber, who I would think very long and hard about hiring or retaining employment for any job that required any kind of public interaction. I am having trouble mustering words for how angry this makes me. Time to get off the internet for a while.

paranoiacblack 14y ago
Hmm, ever hear of slippery slope arguments? Because there's clearly a limit to the situation you're describing and clearly offense is relative. So, since you didn't specify any level of severity, let's assume the joke that offended you was about harming someone or themselves. I mean, people say things like "I want to kill the guy the wrote this" or "oh god, this makes me want to kill myself" jokingly. Would it be okay then or would I still be a colossal fucking idiot? Okay, how about if someone was threatening to harm a political figure as a joke? Or what if the joke insulted people of a different race for their cultural beliefs? You're generalizing too much.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  >Would it be okay then or would I still be a colossal fucking idiot? If your response to your first example was to do what the person we're talking about did, then yes, you would be an idiot. >Okay, how about if someone was threatening to harm a political figure as a joke? Yup. >Or what if the joke insulted people of a different race for their cultural beliefs? Yup. In my arrogant opinion, nothing short of lewd and obscene sexual discussion or threats of bodily harm should have led to the sequence of events we have here in front of us.
- marshray 14y ago
  Right, you let two guys in private conversation snicker about the word "dongle" and the next thing you know people will be threatening to kill political figures with impunity. I've got one word for that: Lol.
  - paranoiacblack 14y ago
    I see how you got here, but that's not what I'm arguing. The parent's post seems to imply that anyone that would react strongly to a joke is a "colossal fucking idiot." This seems to imply that the joke's content has no relation to the reaction. So I was just wondering if that really holds. As per the parent's reply, it does. I'm not even barely implying that threatening to kill political figures is the next logical step. I'm implying that there definitely is some hard limit being ignored or maybe I'm wrong.
    - marshray 14y ago
      Yeah I dunno. I get your point about relating the offense and the action. Maybe try rephrasing your argument with a less "charged" example? Aside: Does anybody know the actual joke in question? More than it just referencing a "big dongle".
- jcc80 14y ago
  You're polluting the discussion with all these hypotheticals. Stick to what actually happened.
anthonyb 14y ago
They were not kicked out of the convention.