Rabid feminism on the front page


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    Reading through the comments from today's front page article, Snoofle's having to defend himself for using the phrase "right or wrong" as if it implies tacit approval of sexist behavior.

    Miss the point much?



  • There's a front page!?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    There's a front page!?
    Yup@Corinne (Unregistered) said:
    Not only is this story boring and weird, but the suggestion that treating women as sexual objects in the workplace could ever possibly be "right" is super offensive.
    Someone who clearly didn't work in/doesn't even know about the 1950s/1960s/1970s.



    Well... that's not to say it was right, but it was certainly tolerated to a much greater extent that it was never talked about back then.



    It certainly shouldn't evoke a "super offensive" emotion from someone who's never even heard of such a situation, though likely coming from someone whose only experience with any sort of even potential sexual harassment is probably the immediate suspension of the accused with the vague possibility that they'll be allowed to return to work when it's found nothing of the kind happened, wouldn't be too surprising.



    Oh, and to resurrect a similar previous thread, don't forget Adria "all men are rapists" Richards. She'd have a whale of a time with this one.



  •  That's rabid feminism ?

     People have the hyperbole way too easy. Or just don't want to get anywhere near a feminist. Maybe they have the cooties ?



  • I don't care much for the long-winded argument about the meaning of the phrase "right or wrong", but I have a question about this sentence from the front page story:

    Now there were no inter-species acts.

    What I would like to know is what is the philosophical argument against such acts? I know the religious argument and I don't buy it. Assuming you don't hurt the beast, what is wrong about inter-species sex?




    I can imagine that, in the middle ages people might believe without evidence that it could lead to the birth of monsters, but now we know better. So why does everyone still consider it a Bad Thing?



  • @PJH said:

    Well... that's not to say it was right, but it was certainly tolerated to a much greater extent that it was never talked about back then.

    That's the issue. It's a story about a sexist office, and uses the phrase "right or wrong" to refer to that sexist office. When sexism is clearly wrong. It's a poor choice of phrase rather then anything sinister, but I can see why someone would be offended.



  • @KillaCoda said:

    but I can see why someone would be professionally offended.
    FTFY. While she has every right to voice her professional opinion, she does not have the right not to be offended, deliberately or otherwise.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    comments
     

    "rabid"?

    Wow. That's not even enthusiastic feminism, let alone rabid. You're overreacting, you hysterical man. If anything's rabid, it's you starting this thread as if you're completely flabberghasted and so emotionally distraught by the lukewarm expression of opinion that you require immediate consolence by your forum buddies.



  • @PJH said:

    FTFY. While she has every right to voice her professional opinion, she does not have the right not to be offended, deliberately or otherwise.

    Double negative so... she does have the right to be offended? Whoever she might be? What's happening? I'm scared...



  • @KillaCoda said:

    That's the issue. It's a story about a sexist office, and uses the phrase "right or wrong" to refer to that sexist office. When sexism is clearly wrong. It's a poor choice of phrase rather then anything sinister, but I can see why someone would be offended.
     

    But it's clearly in a narrator's voice describing the situation as it is, not as it should be. Especially when one reads the entire paragraph.

    "It was back in the 50s, before the dismantaling of segregation and the introduction of human rights to everyone. Alistar Smith III, or 'Boy Nigger' as his coworkers referred to him behind his back (mostly), was a bit thirsty. It had been a long day, and he used the wrong waterfountain, and was summarily arrested for drinking while black. Right or wrong, that's how law enforcement has always been with people who look different from the majority."

    The narrator is talking about how things were in the 50s, not how things are now, nor how things are now.  Maybe the tense could have been a tad clearer?  "Right or wrong, it's just the way the business side has had always been in large financial firms."

    Whatever.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    The narrator is talking about how things were in the 50s, not how things are now, nor how things are now. 
     

    Are you convinced? I'm not.



  • @KillaCoda said:

    @PJH said:
    FTFY. While she has every right to voice her professional opinion, she does not have the right not to be offended, deliberately or otherwise.

    Double negative so... she does have the right to be offended? Whoever she might be? What's happening? I'm scared...
    Hmm - "does not have the right to not be offended" is what I meant to type.



  • @Planar said:

    Now there were no inter-species acts.

    What I would like to know is what is the philosophical argument against such acts?

    Assuming (foolishly, I expect) that you're serious, the answer is simple: animals can't consent.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @dhromed said:

    @joe.edwards said:

    comments
     

    "rabid"?

    Wow. That's not even enthusiastic feminism, let alone rabid. You're overreacting, you hysterical man. If anything's rabid, it's you starting this thread as if you're completely flabberghasted and so emotionally distraught by the lukewarm expression of opinion that you require immediate consolence by your forum buddies.

    The argument quickly devolved into one over semantics. The phrase, "right or wrong" was clearly intended to mean, "without stepping into this obvious moral deathtrap," and instead he was dragged into it. It's rabid because it was unprovoked, someone wanted to be offended by that phrase, and twisted the meaning of it in order to be offended enough to start a pointless argument - knowing full well that's not what he meant.

    Yep, sounds pretty rabid to me.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @blakeyrat said:

    @Planar said:
    Now there were no inter-species acts.

    What I would like to know is what is the philosophical argument against such acts?

    Assuming (foolishly, I expect) that you're serious, the answer is simple: animals can't consent.

    Here's some interesting reading for you: Wet Goddess. It's a heart-warming autobiographical tale of love, life, and "consensual" dolphin-human sex.



  • While not "rabid" (there are far more hilarious examples of rabid feminism out there), it is funny how the argument has degraded into "you didn't say what I think you should have said, therefore you are sexist". Why can't we all just get along?



  • @aapis said:

    Why can't we all just get along?

    That's not what we do here.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    Maybe I exaggerated (shock! horror!), but what I saw looked like a man being attacked by a group of females for a poor choice of words.

    It should have been "the dophin whom [you] raped! Whom!" I'm so offended by your misuse of object pronouns!



  • @joe.edwards said:

    The phrase, "right or wrong" was clearly intended to mean, "without stepping into this obvious moral deathtrap,"

    Clearly it doesn't mean that, and if you want to avoid an obvious moral deathtrap, your only option is to say nothing at all.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    @KillaCoda said:

    That's the issue. It's a story about a sexist office, and uses the phrase "right or wrong" to refer to that sexist office. When sexism is clearly wrong. It's a poor choice of phrase rather then anything sinister, but I can see why someone would be offended.
     

    But it's clearly in a narrator's voice describing the situation as it is, not as it should be. Especially when one reads the entire paragraph.

    "It was back in the 50s, before the dismantaling of segregation and the introduction of human rights to everyone. Alistar Smith III, or 'Boy Nigger' as his coworkers referred to him behind his back (mostly), was a bit thirsty. It had been a long day, and he used the wrong waterfountain, and was summarily arrested for drinking while black. Right or wrong, that's how law enforcement has always been with people who look different from the majority."

    The narrator is talking about how things were in the 50s, not how things are now, nor how things are now.  Maybe the tense could have been a tad clearer?  "Right or wrong, it's just the way the business side has had always been in large financial firms."

    Whatever.


    The tense isn't a problem. Saying right or wrong is, ir could be interpreted as such. In your example, it's the same. Saying "right or wrong" in reference to racist laws could be considered offensive, when most folks consider such laws evil and wrong. It's not a major issue but I do see where the "offendies" are coming from. For once!


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @dhromed said:

    Clearly it doesn't mean that,

    You know what else it doesn't mean? That it might actually be right or wrong. It's an idiom: its meaning is not intended to be derived from a literal interpretation of the words comprising it. This is political correctness being taken to a ludicrous extreme. The actual semantic content of that phrase was more akin to, "moral and ethical issues aside." The intent was to explain the situation without assigning a judgement to it.

    Some were arguing that you cannot maintain a disinterested position while discussing the issue, and that's just silly.





  • @Planar said:

    I don't care much for the long-winded argument about the meaning of the phrase "right or wrong", but I have a question about this sentence from the front page story:

    Now there were no inter-species acts.

    What I would like to know is what is the philosophical argument against such acts? I know the religious argument and I don't buy it. Assuming you don't hurt the beast, what is wrong about inter-species sex?




    I can imagine that, in the middle ages people might believe without evidence that it could lead to the birth of monsters, but now we know better. So why does everyone still consider it a Bad Thing?

    No, you did not just post that.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @dhromed said:
    Clearly it doesn't mean that,

    You know what else it doesn't mean? That it might actually be right or wrong. It's an idiom: its meaning is not intended to be derived from a literal interpretation of the words comprising it. This is political correctness being taken to a ludicrous extreme. The actual semantic content of that phrase was more akin to, "moral and ethical issues aside." The intent was to explain the situation without assigning a judgement to it.

    Some were arguing that you cannot maintain a disinterested position while discussing the issue, and that's just silly.

    Yeah it's just an argument between people who take it's meaning to be "morality aside" and those who take it as "well I may or may not think it's moral". Silly and pedantic and pointless and dull. Perfect for this site! :D


  • @joe.edwards said:

    Here's some interesting reading for you: Wet Goddess. It's a heart-warming autobiographical tale of love, life, and "consensual" dolphin-human sex.

    Why, thank you so very much. In return, may I suggest this link: ‹http://amazon.com/s?field-keywords=brain+bleach›.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @ubersoldat said:

    No, you did not just post that.

    Right or wrong, Blakeyrat is a lizard person from the planet Haguor, who has probably had sexual congress with human females at some point.



  • There's nothing quite like a TDWTF shitstorm. Always brings out the best comments,.

    @ penis mightier said:

    Up yours cunt

     

    Who really cares about the opinions of people whose reading comprehension doesn't even extend to an understanding of the phrase "right or wrong"



  • I was actually most disappointed by the fact that people claim something is right or wrong without an objective reason for such an assertion. I think it's a side effect of post-modernism really.  After all, the rational universe itself doesn't have concepts of right and wrong, so saying that personal consent or freedom or lack of pain or whatever is better or worse than anything else is largely irrelevant without a reason why something is better than something else.

    I guess I blame modern education, because it apparently has failed to teach people that "right and wrong" really are wholly defined by society, and so those things do change over time.  Unless, of course, you believe there is an absolute moral standard -  aside from religion, though, there aren't any reasons why such an absolute standard would exist in the first place.  That is: you either believe moral standards are arbitrarily created by man, and so can change, or there is some external construct that establishes a moral standard independent of what mankind (or alienkind or whatever) thinks about it.

    Simple argument: why is it better for (human) society to keep going into the future rather than die off?  For some reason people think that's the ultimate goal - but why?  Without religion, why does it matter if we just live it up as much as we can today and let the future generations (if there are any) deal with it later?  I've never heard a good argument - if there are any, I'd like to hear them.  And by "good argument", I mean one that isn't turtles all the way down.



  • @dhromed said:

    @Lorne Kates said:

    The narrator is talking about how things were in the 50s, not how things are now, nor how things are now. 
     

    Are you convinced? I'm not.

    I'd say the "narrator's voice" is pretty clear. The wording may not be the best, but it's pretty clear what's being said, "regardless of whether it was good or bad, it happened".



  • @Planar said:

    I don't care much for the long-winded argument about the meaning of the phrase "right or wrong", but I have a question about this sentence from the front page story:

    Now there were no inter-species acts.

    What I would like to know is what is the philosophical argument against such acts? I know the religious argument and I don't buy it. Assuming you don't hurt the beast, what is wrong about inter-species sex?




    I can imagine that, in the middle ages people might believe without evidence that it could lead to the birth of monsters, but now we know better. So why does everyone still consider it a Bad Thing?

    Planar.



    Awesome.



    Just awesome.



    Please come here more often and post, because if this is any indication of the quality, we're gonna be in for some real treats! :o)


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @eViLegion said:

    I can imagine that, in the middle ages people might believe without evidence that it could lead to the birth of monsters, but now we know better.

    You mean my pony's not going to foal baby centaurs?



  • @TheLazyHase said:

     That's rabid feminism ?

    It's a spelling mistake - he meant rapid feminism, like rapid prototyping. It's still not accurate.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    You mean my pony's not going to foal baby centaurs?
     

    Blah... I can't remember the name of the creature that has a horse's top half and human bottom half (e.g., the equine version of a minotaur).

     


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @too_many_usernames said:

    @joe.edwards said:

    You mean my pony's not going to foal baby centaurs?
     

    Blah... I can't remember the name of the creature that has a horse's top half and human bottom half (e.g., the equine version of a minotaur).

     


    Abomination! gets out shotgun


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @too_many_usernames said:

    @joe.edwards said:

    You mean my pony's not going to foal baby centaurs?
     

    Blah... I can't remember the name of the creature that has a horse's top half and human bottom half (e.g., the equine version of a minotaur).

     




  • @too_many_usernames said:

    Blah... I can't remember the name of the creature that has a horse's top half and human bottom half (e.g., the equine version of a minotaur).
     

    Sandra Bullock?

    (Also, airline food... What up?)



  • @KillaCoda said:

    @PJH said:
    Well... that's not to say it was right, but it was certainly tolerated to a much greater extent that it was never talked about back then.

    That's the issue. It's a story about a sexist office, and uses the phrase "right or wrong" to refer to that sexist office.

    It comes right after talking about off color jokes. So it's perhaps ambiguous (and I'm not going to wade through the jungle of front page comments to get more context from snoofle). As PJH mentioned, we had plenty of go around about the gits who can't stand off color jokes. Even when they really aren't.



  • @Planar said:

    I don't care much for the long-winded argument about the meaning of the phrase "right or wrong", but I have a question about this sentence from the front page story:

    Now there were no inter-species acts.

    What I would like to know is what is the philosophical argument against such acts? I know the religious argument and I don't buy it. Assuming you don't hurt the beast, what is wrong about inter-species sex?




    I can imagine that, in the middle ages people might believe without evidence that it could lead to the birth of monsters, but now we know better. So why does everyone still consider it a Bad Thing?

    I can field this one. There is actually a precedent for moderately different genotypes resulting in the procreation of monsters.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    Right or wrong, Blakeyrat is a lizard person from the planet Haguor, who has probably had sexual congress with human females at some point.
    Based on his extensive knowledge of video games, I would say contact with females of any species is unlikely.



  • Story on Inappropriate Email Forwarding -> Hiring Misstep -> Miscomprehension -> Assumed Antifeminism -> More Miscomprehension -> Rape -> Nazis -> Cave Rape -> [spawn to sidebar ] -> Bestiality -> Mermaids -> Minotaurs -> ???

    Wow. Just. Wow.

     



  • @snoofle said:

    Wow. Just. Wow.

    I dunno, based on some of what we see here on the sidebar I find it more surprising that a chain like that is unusual enough to comment on.



  • @snoofle said:

    Story on Inappropriate Email Forwarding -> Hiring Misstep -> Miscomprehension -> Assumed Antifeminism -> More Miscomprehension -> Rape -> Nazis -> Cave Rape -> Bestiality -> Mermaids -> Minotaurs -> ???

    I guess it's a sign I've been here too long.  That doesn't even seem all that surprising.

     



  • @snoofle said:

    Story on Inappropriate Email Forwarding -> Hiring Misstep -> Miscomprehension -> Assumed Antifeminism -> More Miscomprehension -> Rape -> Nazis -> Cave Rape -> [spawn to sidebar ] -> Bestiality -> Mermaids -> Minotaurs -> ???

    Wow. Just. Wow.

     

    Great, isn't it?

     



  • @dhromed said:

    @snoofle said:

    Story on Inappropriate Email Forwarding -> Hiring Misstep -> Miscomprehension -> Assumed Antifeminism -> More Miscomprehension -> Rape -> Nazis -> Cave Rape -> [spawn to sidebar ] -> Bestiality -> Mermaids -> Minotaurs -> ???

    Wow. Just. Wow.

     

    Great, isn't it?

     

    Meh, you'd think at least one person would have asked for the details of the vacation.




  • @joe.edwards said:

    @too_many_usernames said:

    @joe.edwards said:

    You mean my pony's not going to foal baby centaurs?
     

    Blah... I can't remember the name of the creature that has a horse's top half and human bottom half (e.g., the equine version of a minotaur).

     


    The face of the dude on the top-right frame is exactly like mine the first time i went to a brazilian steakhouse.



  • @Snooder said:

    Meh, you'd think at least one person would have asked for the details of the vacation.
    You obviously did not read all the comments. There were several such requests.

     



  • @HardwareGeek said:

    @Snooder said:

    Meh, you'd think at least one person would have asked for the details of the vacation.
    You obviously did not read all the comments. There were several such requests.

     

    Fool. The purpose of a forum is to POST comments not read them.



  • @too_many_usernames said:

    @joe.edwards said:

    You mean my pony's not going to foal baby centaurs?
     

    Blah... I can't remember the name of the creature that has a horse's top half and human bottom half (e.g., the equine version of a minotaur).

     

    Sarah Jessica Parker?

     



  • @too_many_usernames said:

    Blah... I can't remember the name of the creature that has a horse's top half and human bottom half (e.g., the equine version of a minotaur).
    What about the creatures that have a human bottom half on the bottom, and a horse's bottom half on the top?

     



  • @Snooder said:

    @too_many_usernames said:
    @joe.edwards said:
    You mean my pony's not going to foal baby centaurs?
     

    Blah... I can't remember the name of the creature that has a horse's top half and human bottom half (e.g., the equine version of a minotaur).

     

    Sarah Jessica Parker?

     

     


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.