Nevermind He’s Back

[Neroon]

5 minutes ago, starsmine said:

I didnt fail you are just taking the piss at this point. Find me someone who objects to goth in an offensive way(as in, a person who isn't just confused by the comment, like actually offended by it) who isn't a hateful fundamentalist that I would have respect for. 

"Who isn't someone I then decide isn't worthy of having an opinion, only people who I find to have a rational opinion, who just happens to agree with mine"

 

Seriously, once you start slapping demands on who's opinion you find worthy, you just tell me you aren't capable of listening to anyone with a different opinion.

[IkeaGnome]

6 minutes ago, Neroon said:

Would you be okay if Riley were to talk about some other board members, and how some guy hits their black quota? Maybe add some colourful language to it, maybe throw around the N word. Or do you have limits to what you think is ok?

Maybe he can reflect on LMG's own mostly white male staff and how they got their own 'token' employees.

See, here's the problem with this stuff. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

He gave himself that server nickname. He'll say the N word, then tell us white people to take him to HR over it just so he can see the look on their faces. He calls us that word. 

A joke you might see in bad taste, he might not. 

 

Just because you're offended, don't say everyone should be.

If my wife and I joke about me looking like a twink, who cares? 

[starsmine]

11 minutes ago, Neroon said:

"Who isn't someone I then decide isn't worthy of having an opinion, only people who I find to have a rational opinion, who just happens to agree with mine"

 

Seriously, once you start slapping demands on who's opinion you find worthy, you just tell me you aren't capable of listening to anyone with a different opinion.

Yes a person I find worthy. Im not about to respect a member of westboro that they find something offensive. So that’s why I asked who would be offended by being called a goth that is worthy. 
 

if I was to respect westboro’s opinion on what is offensive, I would have to say gay people are the devil. Which I can’t, because that’s unhinged and false. 
 

that’s why I asked who would actually be offended by being called a goth(not just confused)

[divito]

1 minute ago, Neroon said:

My insecurities or past trauma. How about you don't make idiotic assumptions about me.

I'm not even sure what you believe to be an assumption in this case. Practically everyone has insecurities or past trauma, acknowledging that isn't bad. My issue with referencing that the world owes you nothing is that you've been very condescending, and taking offense has been written to be related to issues in one's past. 
 

9 minutes ago, Neroon said:

As a mental health worker I see discrimination all around me. Religious families who don't want to be in contact with their kids, because they are part of the LGBTQ, or won't accept them for who they are.

People who are discriminated against consistently etc. Don't for 1 second think this is past us, discrimination is extremely real.

I've never thought that we're past discrimination, biases and other psychological issues. In fact, earlier I said "Intolerance and trauma-based reactions are growing instead of people dealing with their mental health. They're externalizing things as if they're infallible." 
 

11 minutes ago, Neroon said:

Maybe instead of telling me I should research why I dislike it, maybe you should research why others don't.

Again, externalizing. Other people have issues and we can definitely research and try to help people move past that. But that doesn't mean you're perfect and you should never work on yourself. 

 

13 minutes ago, Neroon said:

Would you be okay if Riley were to talk about some other board members, and how some guy hits their black quota? Maybe add some colourful language to it, maybe throw around the N word. Or do you have limits to what you think is ok?

Philosophically, no there are no limits; any human can do or say whatever they are physically or mentally capable of doing/saying. Even if I were to disagree with the statements or actions of an individual and think of them as ill-advised or subjectively hurtful, I'm not some superior being to throw stones. As to your hypothetical, I have no past trauma or insecurity that would cause me to take offense to that specific scenario, especially if done in jest. 
 

19 minutes ago, Neroon said:

Point is, is that none of this had anything to do with this guy, it's offensive at worst, and a stupid joke at best. If you are gonna offend people, make sure it's actually funny and people can tell it's an actual joke, and not just discriminating. Or better, don't do it. I know comedy is important for the channel, but they can skip a joke or 2 if they are in bad taste.

And that's a fair take. Other than the "idiotic" comment thrown in, I appreciate your responses, even if we don't seem to agree. Hopefully they're able to constructively take this topic's comments to heart in the future scripts.

[Arika]

26 minutes ago, Neroon said:

If you are gonna offend people, make sure it's actually funny and people can tell it's an actual joke, and not just discriminating.

I.....what?

 

sorry, this comment really confuses me, because you've been saying it's bad and offensive and they shouldn't use it, but now also saying "but as long as it's funny and a joke, it's ok".

I thought it was funny and very clearly could tell it's a joke.

[wanderingfool2]

12 hours ago, divito said:

Wait. You're implying that because something can/might be true, it can never be joked about? Does that mean you dislike the concept of roasts?

A roast where the subject of the roast isn't involved and didn't give their consent is just as wrong.  It's just like how the prop comics who bring people on stage, and peer pressure them into doing embarrassing things is also bad.

 

I'm not against jokes, but I am against joking about serious subjects that happen in real life (and create general issues).

 

Workplace politics, there actually are issues where people get labeled as being where they are because of some affirmative action stuff (even if they got the job because they were the most qualified).

 

That's why joking about a "quota" is what I am saying is problematic, which the fact you can't grasp that is actually the disturbing part.  The whole, just joking and those who are offended just need to grow a pair attitude is just idiotic, because I have seen that kind of toxic joking that leads to unfriendly workplaces for some groups of people.

 

It's actually where a large chunk of women in the tech industry have a hard time, because a lot of the "jokes" tend to be lets say about women's looks, positions and the idea that women get to where they are sometimes by looks.  Yet according to your type of reasoning, it's just humor and people shouldn't be offended by it.

 

Instead, you actually are going even further off the deep end, where you think anyone who thinks a "woman quota", "gay quota" type of joke is inappropriate is disturbed because your twisted reasoning is that that person must think the term "woman" or "gay" is a negative.

 

 

The simple fact is, a public joke like that where you are assuming and stating the sexuality as slightly problematic, as it's not relevant, but bringing it to essentially affirmative action is where I think things absolutely cross the line.

 

 

Do you honestly not understand that issues surrounding office place politics and affirmative action; and how perpetuating the whole culture of hired because of "xyz" not related to the job adds subtle act that making such a comment later is justified.  Remember, it used to be acceptable to tell someone "you run like a girl" because it was just a joke based on the fact that "girls run funny"...when in reality it also pushes girls to participate less in sports which does also help perpetuate the joke then.

 

9 hours ago, starsmine said:

Not ever is it a word used derogatorily, It's a positive for many.

Just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean it hasn't been used as a derogatory term by straight people against anyone who they think is too "girly"  and was wanting to insult them (used essentially against a straight person).  Yes, it is a word that is generally positive, but the fact can't be ignored that it is and has been used as a "joke" as an insult towards a straight person in the past.  So using it in the same kind of context isn't great, even if the intent wasn't that.

 

It's similar to how some people shorten the word Japanese, not everyone shortens it to JPN...and some people use the other shortened word while speaking without meaning anything of it...I've had a friend who even used that word and it took multiple times reminding him not to use it (because I didn't like the history behind it).  The reason is in many places in North America that word was used as an insult towards Japanese people after the war.

 

With that said, I had the issue with not the word twink but the "twink quota" where the quota  is the bit that I think makes it an inappropriate thing.

 

  

5 hours ago, Arika said:

I.....what?

 

sorry, this comment really confuses me, because you've been saying it's bad and offensive and they shouldn't use it, but now also saying "but as long as it's funny and a joke, it's ok".

I thought it was funny and very clearly could tell it's a joke.

It's a conditional type of statement, so basic application of logic dictates that when using and all statements must be true.

 

Essentially being funny and being clear it's a joke is a condition when telling an offensive joke; but he's also stating that it needs to be non-discriminatory; where he implies that in his believe none of the statements he proposed as a condition rang true.

 

Honestly, basic conditional logic should be taught in school.  The word that would have made it him saying it was "okay" if it was funny would have been the word OR instead of AND

[Arika]

41 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It's a conditional type of statement, so basic application of logic dictates that when using and all statements must be true.

 

Essentially being funny and being clear it's a joke is a condition when telling an offensive joke; but he's also stating that it needs to be non-discriminatory; where he implies that in his believe none of the statements he proposed as a condition rang true.

 

Honestly, basic conditional logic should be taught in school.  The word that would have made it him saying it was "okay" if it was funny would have been the word OR instead of AND

Can I draw your attention to what he typed, with clear intent?

 

Quote

If you are gonna offend people, make sure it's actually funny and people can tell it's an actual joke, and not just discriminating

that comma before “and not just discriminating” breaks up the sentence and changes its meaning along with his use of the word “just”.

Essentially now saying

“A joke must be funny and clearly made to be a joke as long as its not just discriminatory”

i, and probably a lot of others on this forum, would appeciate it if you didnt always inject how people are uneducated in very sepecific logical segments of conversation into a lot of your debate replies, it makes you come across as extremely pretentious and like you have a superioirty complex.

 

I can see why you have a problem with this joke if you read sooooo far into every little nuance instead of just seeing something with the most apparent meaning. 
 

i look forward to ignoring your next reply that tells me im stupid and uneducated and the next random buzzword logic that “owns” me.

[IkeaGnome]

7 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

That's why joking about a "quota" is what I am saying is problematic, which the fact you can't grasp that is actually the disturbing part.  The whole, just joking and those who are offended just need to grow a pair attitude is just idiotic, because I have seen that kind of toxic joking that leads to unfriendly workplaces for some groups of people.

There’s industries where there are still quotas. The company I work for has a quota set by the state of Alaska and the Juneau Borough. 
 

[Neroon]

22 hours ago, divito said:

I'm not even sure what you believe to be an assumption in this case. Practically everyone has insecurities or past trauma, acknowledging that isn't bad. My issue with referencing that the world owes you nothing is that you've been very condescending, and taking offense has been written to be related to issues in one's past. 

I'll respond to this, and ignore the rest of the babbling.

 

The fact you think this comment is ok, and even think it's on the money, tells me you have no clue.

 

First of all, even if it was an insecurity or trauma, so what? The goal here should be being funny, not offensive. I know, it's a fine line. I have mixed feelings over comedians making like homophobic, transphobic etc jokes, where is that fine line of it being ok to make jokes, and when doesn't it. It's hard, but there is 1 key difference between Riley and say Ricky Gervais. The audience of Ricky Gervais wants him to insult people, insult trans people, insult overweight people, insult religious people etc. His comedy is that of offending large groups of people.

If LMG wants to go that route, that's their choice, but so far 99% of their jokes are immature sex jokes and the likes, which may or may not be your cup of tea, but at least they aren't offensive to people. Well unless those people are extremely religious and conservative people, who think any mention of sex is the work of the devil.

So what if I had a trauma, what if others do? Does LMG want to push people away based on that?

Regardless, whether this was true or not, it doesn't matter for this argument.

 

Second, I'm a cis straight white male living in 1 of the richest countries in the world, where we have rights that the majority of people would love to have. I'm not discriminated against, at least not in any capacity that would even remotely support your absurd guess work.

Like I said, I work in mental health, I see what people struggle with, I know my fair share of people who committed suicide, people who are severely depressed etc, people that are discriminated against. In a world where we become harder and harder, everywhere right wing extremists are getting the popular vote, we need to act against this, we need to have some kindness.

 

By all means, if you like the joke, so be it, just like if you enjoy watching Gervais, do so. I love a lot of his stuff myself. But you also need to understand why people get offended by it, why it is considered discrimination to many, and that this is serious. Just think about this text when people are getting discriminated against, when rights are taken etc.

 

Quote

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

 

[divito]

20 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

A roast where the subject of the roast isn't involved and didn't give their consent is just as wrong.  It's just like how the prop comics who bring people on stage, and peer pressure them into doing embarrassing things is also bad.

So my Daily Show question asked earlier also applies here: do you think they should receive consent from the individuals/organizations they're roasting/poking fun at? 

 

20 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Workplace politics, there actually are issues where people get labeled as being where they are because of some affirmative action stuff (even if they got the job because they were the most qualified).

 

That's why joking about a "quota" is what I am saying is problematic, which the fact you can't grasp that is actually the disturbing part.  The whole, just joking and those who are offended just need to grow a pair attitude is just idiotic, because I have seen that kind of toxic joking that leads to unfriendly workplaces for some groups of people.

I think why we disagree is because you're placing responsibility outside of the organization. If Timmy in Accounting made remarks in jest about a quota at XYZ Company, that is something that is potentially concerning, as regardless of its truth, it can disrupt the workplace because of his internal role. There are workplace policies and laws that would also come into play. 

But Joe from the street, or a Youtube channel, who has no knowledge of the inner workings of XYZ Company and are not bound by those workplace policies, making a speculative remark or conjecture in an attempt at humor, does not carry the same context or inappropriateness as an actual privy person. 

 

20 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Instead, you actually are going even further off the deep end, where you think anyone who thinks a "woman quota", "gay quota" type of joke is inappropriate is disturbed because your twisted reasoning is that that person must think the term "woman" or "gay" is a negative.

People who choose offense are not disturbed. But they have conditioning that has made them sensitive towards certain things and are projecting that onto other people. It's akin to phobias; some are learnt or the result of an early childhood event, or influenced by environmental factors. People with phobias are also not disturbed, but it doesn't mean they can't seek a remedy through therapy.
 

21 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The simple fact is, a public joke like that where you are assuming and stating the sexuality as slightly problematic, as it's not relevant, but bringing it to essentially affirmative action is where I think things absolutely cross the line.

Do you think a 'twink quota' is a real thing a board or company has? Even if you did or it is a real thing, courts have been pretty clear in most jurisdictions over defamation when comedy or satire is involved. 

 

21 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Do you honestly not understand that issues surrounding office place politics and affirmative action; and how perpetuating the whole culture of hired because of "xyz" not related to the job adds subtle act that making such a comment later is justified.  Remember, it used to be acceptable to tell someone "you run like a girl" because it was just a joke based on the fact that "girls run funny"...when in reality it also pushes girls to participate less in sports which does also help perpetuate the joke then.

As above, if this was someone from OpenAI making that comment on Twitter or something, the context is definitely different. Affirmative action was nonsense, and what it did in workplaces psychologically and even today is unhelpful.

The other thing is, D'Angelo is a ridiculously successful entrepreneur. You'd have to take a fairly large leap to even suggest plausibility to the joke as being a serious accusation. 

----------

As with the other individual, who ended up just attacking me and not reading the rest of my responses, I appreciate this discussion, even if we aren't in agreement. Sometimes my phrasing can probably trigger some people, but I feel we've at least been fairly respectful of each other. 

[divito]

4 hours ago, Neroon said:

First of all, even if it was an insecurity or trauma, so what?

There wasn't more to any of the statements. If someone is offended by something, that's their right, their feelings are valid. Pointing out that it might have a deeper meaning that can be addressed and investigated is all that is, because as has been taught to me through my own therapy, expressing myself is one thing, but letting coping mechanisms dictate your life, or pushing your feelings onto other people, isn't the right answer. 
 

4 hours ago, Neroon said:

The audience of Ricky Gervais wants him to insult people, insult trans people, insult overweight people, insult religious people etc. His comedy is that of offending large groups of people.

If that's what you're taking away from his performances, I'm not sure I'd agree. He "insults" <insert group here> primarily from a logical and rational point of view because of their hypocrisy or other illogical factors. 

 

4 hours ago, Neroon said:

If LMG wants to go that route, that's their choice, but so far 99% of their jokes are immature sex jokes and the likes, which may or may not be your cup of tea, but at least they aren't offensive to people. Well unless those people are extremely religious and conservative people, who think any mention of sex is the work of the devil.

Sometimes those "immature sex jokes" are funny, most times I don't care for them. But I simply ignore them in that case. There are definitely people in the world, who if they came across an LMG video with immature jokes, they would choose to be offended by it.
 

4 hours ago, Neroon said:

So what if I had a trauma, what if others do? Does LMG want to push people away based on that?

Regardless, whether this was true or not, it doesn't matter for this argument.

As above and previously, having trauma isn't a bad thing. I have plenty of traumas I've been dealing with; but what I've learned is that you don't put them on other people. As for LMG and pushing people away, maybe if there was dislikes on that video, or some of the discourse from this topic make it through, they'll be able to use that to decide how they proceed with other jokes that flirt with the line of being inappropriate or not.

 

4 hours ago, Neroon said:

In a world where we become harder and harder, everywhere right wing extremists are getting the popular vote, we need to act against this, we need to have some kindness.

Your view seems a bit oxymoronic. I associate right wing with intolerance (inflexible, anti-abortion, opposed to certain anti-discrimination laws, pro-gun, religious rigidity) - they are the types of individuals that would stifle freedom of expression and opposing views.

 

I don't like the idea of censoring people (especially in regards to comedy), it seems non-liberal to me. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"