3 ms·

> I can't figure out how this was allowed Why wouldn't this "be allowed"? More importantly, what is the entity that would or would not be doing the "allowing"?

sciguy77 12y ago
I think he means "tolerated by the public/any reasonable readership." Several articles come to mind (particularly an op ed about gender roles from Fox News some two years ago) in which readers become outraged by something they've read. This is usually followed by a flurry of other articles in which the offensive piece in question is condemned. I think he means "how are people not more disturbed by this piece." Though perhaps OP can weigh in and explain it better.
- jack-r-abbit 12y ago
  Yes. I didn't mean "allowed" as in some governing body handed down a decision to allow it. I've seen huge uproar over (what I see as) pretty minor things compared to this. Yet this seems to have rolled on happy without that. I don't like to use the F-word (feminist) but how are they managing to not explode in anger over this. I truly don't get it.
  - larrys 12y ago
    Two possibilities. They either don't know about it or they don't care. For further thought by someone "who doesn't see the problem" (me) read my other comment. Feel free to reply to that and let me know what you think about what I have said. I think it's a practical solution to a problem.
  - argumentum 12y ago
    What specifically do you find offensive about this? All the participants (male & female, consumers and company) are willing and eager. I don't necessarily agree with firing people over politically incorrect jokes either, but in this case there is no party that is potentially suffering damages. I.e. in the case of misogynist jokes by an employee, the company may believe it's reputation would suffer unless mitigating action was taken. There is no analog here ..

3 ms·

> I can't figure out how this was allowed Why wouldn't this "be allowed"? More importantly, what is the entity that would or would not be doing the "allowing"?

by argumentum 12y ago

sciguy77 12y ago
I think he means "tolerated by the public/any reasonable readership." Several articles come to mind (particularly an op ed about gender roles from Fox News some two years ago) in which readers become outraged by something they've read. This is usually followed by a flurry of other articles in which the offensive piece in question is condemned. I think he means "how are people not more disturbed by this piece." Though perhaps OP can weigh in and explain it better.
- jack-r-abbit 12y ago
  Yes. I didn't mean "allowed" as in some governing body handed down a decision to allow it. I've seen huge uproar over (what I see as) pretty minor things compared to this. Yet this seems to have rolled on happy without that. I don't like to use the F-word (feminist) but how are they managing to not explode in anger over this. I truly don't get it.
  - larrys 12y ago
    Two possibilities. They either don't know about it or they don't care. For further thought by someone "who doesn't see the problem" (me) read my other comment. Feel free to reply to that and let me know what you think about what I have said. I think it's a practical solution to a problem.
  - argumentum 12y ago
    What specifically do you find offensive about this? All the participants (male & female, consumers and company) are willing and eager. I don't necessarily agree with firing people over politically incorrect jokes either, but in this case there is no party that is potentially suffering damages. I.e. in the case of misogynist jokes by an employee, the company may believe it's reputation would suffer unless mitigating action was taken. There is no analog here ..