6 ms·

> It's sad that people's alcohol fueled idiocy -not crime,but idiocy, becomes public and has repercussions in real life. Maybe not a "crime" by the definition

by kohanz 11y ago

> It's sad that people's alcohol fueled idiocy -not crime,but idiocy, becomes public and has repercussions in real life. Maybe not a "crime" by the definition of the law, but a lot of things that aren't crimes, such as sexual harassment, are grounds for losing your job. If you display such behavior in public, you should be willing to face the consequences, especially if you work as a government (publicly-funded) employee. > It's sad these vigilantes one day will also make fools of themselves, this is inevitable, one can hope the pitchforks will not come out for them, but they probably will. I've heard this argument before. Despite what some people think, not everyone harbors racist, sexist, or otherwise wholly objectionable thoughts in the recesses of their mind and of those who do, certainly most of them know better than to spout such things to a public audience.

mc32 11y ago
What you mention are but a few of the socially unacceptable things in "liberal" environs, others will have locally unacceptable behaviors. There are regional and industry differences. I recall an attorney who prosecuted domestic violence got in trouble when it was found out he engaged in violent sex; consensual, but brutal non the less. In other places people get accused of burning religious books. It's all puerile revenge, not really much to do with social justice. Sometimes social justice is a nice cover, when it coincides.
onion2k 11y ago
Sexual harassment very much is a crime. A woefully under-reported one, because lots of people don't think it's a crime.
- mc32 11y ago
  Do you honestly think his vulgar display was sexual harassment? Is the provincial or local government prosecuting this? Otherwise it's unwelcome and uncouth, but not illegal and your equivalency would be wildly exaggerated. He, the vulgar firee, should sue the province for illegal sacking --unless he displayed similar behavior toward coworkers or customers.
oddevan 11y ago
> not everyone harbors racist, sexist, or otherwise wholly objectionable thoughts in the recesses of their mind and certainly not everyone speaks such things publicly. I'll agree that "not everyone speaks such things publicly." The issue here is that jokes that are funny or at least "okay" in one context are incredibly offensive out of that context, and social media makes it easy for jokes to be taken out of context. But everyone, everyone has something in their mind that someone else finds objectionable. This is human nature. Even if those thoughts are not voiced or acted on, they are still there. The internet is so large with so many different views that inevitably someone will offend someone else without meaning to; even views that one person does not consider "sexist" could be "sexist" to someone else.
- Retric 11y ago
  I would take it further. People hate A, other people hate (not) A, and plenty of people on both sides hate those who don't pick a side. In the end there is no stance that does not offend someone. So, I don't think we can use offending someone as a reasonable rule for anything.
darklajid 11y ago
So my brother sent me a youtube link yesterday. It was a show by Luis CK, containing gems like I'm waiting to see their kid. They're so beautiful, maybe I want to fuck their kid, I don't know. I'm not saying I would kill a kid and fuck him, … (continued for another moment or two) Now.. That's a stand-up comedian of course. The setting is clear. We obviously KNOW that he's trying to provoke and that he isn't serious. This isn't exactly my type of humor, but let's pretend I'd say something like that to a friend and someone overhears that. Or just quote it. Why would that change anything? I assume these things would fall below the 'objectionable thoughts' umbrella in your list. Would I deserve to be attacked for that? Fired for that? followed by I wouldn't fuck a kid. I wouldn't do that. Maybe a dead kid. Who are you hurting? He's _dead_. Who are you hurting?
- kohanz 11y ago
  That's not really a comparable scenario. Being overheard in a private conversation is not what's being discussed in the FHRITP case. What if you said a similar type comment, but on camera to a television reporter who decided to ask you a question to clarify the "joke" (remember that the general public does not consider this a joke, nor does it consider it funny), and you involved the reporter or their child in the joke (e.g. similar to the "vibrator" comment)?
  - darklajid 11y ago
    Agreed. If we're talking about the drunken guys in front of the camera and the FHRITP thing (I .. didn't even know about that), that's plain insulting. That's the point, I guess: Insult/provoke in a direct manner. But this thread and the article talk about other cases as well and I'd argue that the PyCon case was merely a private conversation that someone overheard. I'd expect to be able to say the lines above to a friend and bystanders have nothing to do with it.
    - kohanz 11y ago
      Yes, the Pycon and FHRITP scenarios are on completely different planets as far as I'm concerned. I guess I'm focusing more on the latter because of recency bias and because it's in my backyard, geographically.

by kohanz 11y ago

mc32 11y ago

What you mention are but a few of the socially unacceptable things in "liberal" environs, others will have locally unacceptable behaviors. There are regional and industry differences. I recall an attorney who prosecuted domestic violence got in trouble when it was found out he engaged in violent sex; consensual, but brutal non the less. In other places people get accused of burning religious books. It's all puerile revenge, not really much to do with social justice. Sometimes social justice is a nice cover, when it coincides.

onion2k 11y ago

Sexual harassment very much is a crime. A woefully under-reported one, because lots of people don't think it's a crime.

mc32 11y ago
Do you honestly think his vulgar display was sexual harassment? Is the provincial or local government prosecuting this? Otherwise it's unwelcome and uncouth, but not illegal and your equivalency would be wildly exaggerated. He, the vulgar firee, should sue the province for illegal sacking --unless he displayed similar behavior toward coworkers or customers.

oddevan 11y ago

> not everyone harbors racist, sexist, or otherwise wholly objectionable thoughts in the recesses of their mind and certainly not everyone speaks such things publicly. I'll agree that "not everyone speaks such things publicly." The issue here is that jokes that are funny or at least "okay" in one context are incredibly offensive out of that context, and social media makes it easy for jokes to be taken out of context. But everyone, everyone has something in their mind that someone else finds objectionable. This is human nature. Even if those thoughts are not voiced or acted on, they are still there. The internet is so large with so many different views that inevitably someone will offend someone else without meaning to; even views that one person does not consider "sexist" could be "sexist" to someone else.

Retric 11y ago
I would take it further. People hate A, other people hate (not) A, and plenty of people on both sides hate those who don't pick a side. In the end there is no stance that does not offend someone. So, I don't think we can use offending someone as a reasonable rule for anything.

darklajid 11y ago

So my brother sent me a youtube link yesterday. It was a show by Luis CK, containing gems like I'm waiting to see their kid. They're so beautiful, maybe I want to fuck their kid, I don't know. I'm not saying I would kill a kid and fuck him, … (continued for another moment or two) Now.. That's a stand-up comedian of course. The setting is clear. We obviously KNOW that he's trying to provoke and that he isn't serious. This isn't exactly my type of humor, but let's pretend I'd say something like that to a friend and someone overhears that. Or just quote it. Why would that change anything? I assume these things would fall below the 'objectionable thoughts' umbrella in your list. Would I deserve to be attacked for that? Fired for that? followed by I wouldn't fuck a kid. I wouldn't do that. Maybe a dead kid. Who are you hurting? He's _dead_. Who are you hurting?

kohanz 11y ago
That's not really a comparable scenario. Being overheard in a private conversation is not what's being discussed in the FHRITP case. What if you said a similar type comment, but on camera to a television reporter who decided to ask you a question to clarify the "joke" (remember that the general public does not consider this a joke, nor does it consider it funny), and you involved the reporter or their child in the joke (e.g. similar to the "vibrator" comment)?
- darklajid 11y ago
  Agreed. If we're talking about the drunken guys in front of the camera and the FHRITP thing (I .. didn't even know about that), that's plain insulting. That's the point, I guess: Insult/provoke in a direct manner. But this thread and the article talk about other cases as well and I'd argue that the PyCon case was merely a private conversation that someone overheard. I'd expect to be able to say the lines above to a friend and bystanders have nothing to do with it.
  - kohanz 11y ago
    Yes, the Pycon and FHRITP scenarios are on completely different planets as far as I'm concerned. I guess I'm focusing more on the latter because of recency bias and because it's in my backyard, geographically.