Can we lay off the sexual harassment jokes please

[Beerzerker]

13 hours ago, oaktree_b said:

So you let a sexual harassment joke slip into the TechLinked video on April 3rd... Too soon buds, um rather poor taste. I'll let this one slip as a late April Fools joke, but, do better guys.

All I can say about that is if it wasn't you, it would be someone else with a problem over it.

What I'm getting at is it's already understood by most, if not all it's a joke and nothing more BUT there are a huge number of folks these days too, all with different viewpoints that might be offended by a joking statement another would probrably laugh at.

On that point:
I'm not excusing anything on their part here because I can't do that and frankly, something in bad taste is in bad taste but I also know how it goes with different viewpoints all based on the individual in question, depending on who it is.

I do understand there are times some reasonable tact is required and this was one of them - Hey, it is what it is.

59 minutes ago, Dedayog said:

I'm old, I guess.....

That makes at least two of us so don't around feeling like you're the lone stranger.

[Erioch]

9 minutes ago, Lurick said:

In this specific case it's grey area since they just say "scotch in me and I make sex with others", if the word force or an implication of coercion was in there it would 10,000% be too far but this is right on that line which pushes it right to that line if not a tad over depending on who you are.

It's in the context of a workplace party.  At best, it's cringy AF.

[wanderingfool2]

26 minutes ago, Dedayog said:

Want to thank you for sharing first but also make sure you realize you may be more sensitive to it than the rest of them, and taking it much more serious.  Not that it isn't something to take seriously, but I think you know what I mean.

I do admit I do take it a bit more seriously, but at the same time prior to the relationship that lead me into seeing a real world victim I still took this kind of subject to heart.  It's why I was able to enter a relationship like that, because she recognized that my viewpoint matched her experiences and I would respect what she said.

 

8 minutes ago, Beerzerker said:

What I'm getting at is it's already understood by most, if not all it's a joke and nothing more BUT there are a huge number of folks these days too, all with different viewpoints that might be offended by a joking statement another would probrably laugh at.

The idea though is that it shouldn't be made a joke, and especially not when there are current events that make joking about consent and alcohol.

 

Jokes can be impactful in trivializing situations because situations now are the butt of the joke.  The fact is what they joke about has been a trope for years now; along with the whole "she was asking for it", "she consented because xyz" etc.

 

This is also from LMG who had the leaked HR meeting [about allegedly harassment] and there was a joke by a staffer who made a sexual joke.  The thing is joking isn't just a "joke and nothing more", as it has real world eroding of what can be acceptable or taking real statements and trivializing it.

 

16 minutes ago, Holmes108 said:

To take that to some definition of consent over the sexual act between 2 people requires some sort of projection/extrapolation. Likewise with the scotch joke. Saying you have lots of sex when you're drunk has absolutely zero to do with partner consent. It can, if you're talking about the other party being too intoxicated to give consent.  But to poke fun at yourself over bad decisions when drunk is still separate from assautling a women. We're pasting this stuff in there, as far as I can tell.

You are taking the two things as though they should be treated exclusively as different statements.  The fact is, lots of people who have watched this seem to agree that the jokes has crossed a line.  Sure, if each joke was separated far apart or in different videos I bet it wouldn't necessarily be as criticized; but it's not.  Those jokes follow each other and one joke talks about getting consent when there isn't consent and the next one talking about promiscuous while drunk.  [Which is a giant trope of what's often used as an excuse for "not getting consent"].

 

Again, it's a giant trope that has been actually used to justify assault.  And a joke this like is bad, especially when in the current media space there is talk about a woman who went to a party, and accused someone of sexually harassing her while she was drunk/vulnerable [Like this happened within the last month].  

[Middcore]

37 minutes ago, Lurick said:

SA allegations against the company recently for which they have an ongoing investigation for.

 

I mean, it could still be ongoing. Or it could have concluded. Or it might have never happened. We don't know. In fairness, legalities limit what they would be able to say about the findings of the investigation, assuming it took place.

 

So all we have to go on to determine how seriously they took the whole matter is their attitude towards these things in other videos.

 

Hmm. 

[Beerzerker]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

The idea though is that it shouldn't be made a joke, and especially not when there are current events that make joking about consent and alcohol.

 

Jokes can be impactful in trivializing situations because situations now are the butt of the joke.  The fact is what they joke about has been a trope for years now; along with the whole "she was asking for it", "she consented because xyz" etc.

 

This is also from LMG who had the leaked HR meeting [about allegedly harassment] and there was a joke by a staffer who made a sexual joke.  The thing is joking isn't just a "joke and nothing more", as it has real world eroding of what can be acceptable or taking real statements and trivializing it.

 

I didn't trivialize anything, I stated the simple truth of the matter in question here BUT that also leads to what it was in the first place. It was stated as a joke and even though it's intent was for that purpose it was really something that went beyond that in itself. 

In the end it became more than that, there is really nothing myself, you or any other can do about it once it's out there except complain if they want to - I'll say it again, "It is what it is".
Now, exactly to what it is, is subject to opinion by anyone that saw and heard it. Some will take it as it was presented (A joke) but others won't as the subject/topic of this thread demonstrates.

 

Don't forget what else I posted when I said:

1 hour ago, Beerzerker said:

On that point:
I'm not excusing anything on their part here because I can't do that and frankly, something in bad taste is in bad taste but I also know how it goes with different viewpoints all based on the individual in question, depending on who it is.

I do understand there are times some reasonable tact is required and this was one of them - Hey, it is what it is.

If it was in bad taste (And was in this case), then it's just that.

[Caroline]

I can't believe some unironically think "that's what she said" is a "joke about sexual assault".

 

LOL are you actually serious?

 

Even I laugh with that's what she said puns. Oh I laugh about things MUCH worse than OceanGate, you don't wanna know.

Let's face it, most "harassment" charges thrown at name companies or individuals are blatantly fake and simply a way to get easy money by abusing (heh) the broken justice system most 'developed' western countries have.

Quote

 

>be morally corrupt

>run out of money

>idea.avi

>come up with sad story, rally up twitter feminists

>sue your boss/company over something that "happened years ago"

>obv no proof or anything needed, the justice system will just trust you

>get free housing and welfare until the court rules

>ez money glitch irl baby, make it rain

>guy loses everything, is ruined for life and sentenced to 10 years

"b-but that's sexist!!!!"... yeah, a bit, can I be sexist against my own sex? depends on who you ask, I'm just against emobait scammers and certain rancid ideologies that's all, but that's getting political and we don't want that

[Motifator]

Given the replies, I'm doubting most the people here can put their shoes into a married individual. I understand you may want to defend LTT, but I don't see the point. Come to think of it, say I tell you that I'm going to screw your wife at a party. You would probably be afraid so much, you would want to punch me in the face IRL. I wouldn't care who wrote the script, that's just Winger material. It's uncalled for.

Ignore the professional silly user above.

If somebody gets kicks out of marriage jokes, I don't know what to say in this case. I mean I would, but all the things considered... you know the kind of replies I'd come up with. Don't bring yourselves down to their level.

[Neroon]

There is no mention of sexual harassment, let alone sexual assault. Is it a lame joke? Sure, but they have always done these types of jokes.

 

I get people get sensitive over this stuff, and by all means if you don't care for these jokes, let them know. But don't accuse them of things that aren't true, it serves no purpose.

[Neroon]

2 minutes ago, Motifator said:

Given the replies, I'm doubting most the people here can put their shoes into a married individual. I understand you may want to defend LTT, but I don't see the point. Come to think of it, say I tell you that I'm going to screw your wife at a party. You would probably be afraid so much, you would want to punch me in the face IRL. I wouldn't care who wrote the script, that's just Winger material. It's uncalled for.

Did you even hear what he said? The joke was towards his own wife how he would sleep with women at the christmas party. Not that he would screw someone elses wife at the party.

[Motifator]

2 minutes ago, Neroon said:

Did you even hear what he said? The joke was towards his own wife how he would sleep with women at the christmas party. Not that he would screw someone elses wife at the party.

Are you really pulling the semantics on whose wife it is to screw over at the party? Yeah, just goes to show how you can't put yourself in the shoes of a married, grown person. You just seconded my point, nothing more.

I'm not going to bother with a more extensive reply, because there's no need to.

[Neroon]

1 minute ago, Motifator said:

Are you really pulling the semantics on whose wife it is to screw over at the party? Yeah, just goes to show how you can't put yourself in the shoes of a married, grown person. You just seconded my point, nothing more.

I'm not going to bother with a more extensive reply, because there's no need to.

I must be missing the part where every woman is married/in a relationship. 

But even if they were, the whole point is that it's a joke, it's not a joke about a single person, and there is no talk about 'screwing someones wife' 

 

You are just adding details that fits your narrative, when factually none of it was said.

[Yes IAAL]

Yup, they haven't changed. "You put some scotch in me, I put myself in women?" Jeez. Maybe the HR investigation results are taking so long as they can't get the employees to actually do the remedial HR training.

[wanderingfool2]

15 minutes ago, Caroline said:

I can't believe some unironically think "that's what she said" is a "joke about sexual assault".

 

LOL are you actually serious?

 

Even I laugh with that's what she said puns. Oh I laugh about things MUCH worse than OceanGate, you don't wanna know.

Let's face it, most "harassment" charges thrown at name companies or individuals are blatantly fake and simply a way to get easy money by abusing (heh) the broken justice system most 'developed' western countries have.

It wasn't a "that's what she said" joke though; it was a joke about infidelity and getting consent, followed up with a joke about sleeping with people while drunk [which is a massive trope of unwanted office place advances of the "drunk" person making unwanted sexual advances].  Again, WHAT they are joking about is literally in the media regarding a YouTube who is accused of pretty much getting drunk with someone and touching her without consent.

 

If you think laughing/making jokes about someone who just died [re:OceanGate]; where a kid who didn't want to go on died because they were pressured into it then you are just disgusting individual.

 

Simple fact is, lots of people who have watched this come off with the concept that it's sexual harassment and many feel the drunk joke is going to far.

 

13 minutes ago, Neroon said:

There is no mention of sexual harassment, let alone sexual assault. Is it a lame joke? Sure, but they have always done these types of jokes.

 

I get people get sensitive over this stuff, and by all means if you don't care for these jokes, let them know. But don't accuse them of things that aren't true, it serves no purpose.

You lack awareness then.  100% a joke about not getting proper consent from a wife, followed up with a joke that is a trope for SA defense makes it a joke about sexual assault.

 

It's like if I make a joke about genocide, and then switch to a different joke about a race; the context of having a joke sitting right before without an interlude still implies a continuance.

[Motifator]

2 minutes ago, Neroon said:

I must be missing the part where every woman is married/in a relationship. 

But even if they were, the whole point is that it's a joke, it's not a joke about a single person, and there is no talk about 'screwing someones wife' 

 

You are just adding details that fits your narrative, when factually none of it was said.

It doesn't need to be said, I stopped watching the video when he said the wife joke. Sure, it was an example and he didn't say it word by word...

but I am going to get back to my main post. Wife jokes are downright low level. Heck, even jokes about other people's boy or girlfriends are really bad.

It's bad enough to start fights in common norm. Nobody needs some wanker's thoughts about their partner. These kind of jokes are often times made by people who can never get in a proper relationship. I don't know the guy since I don't watch a lot of LTT, but either way, it is all over the place.

[IkeaGnome]

17 minutes ago, Motifator said:

Are you really pulling the semantics on whose wife it is to screw over at the party? Yeah, just goes to show how you can't put yourself in the shoes of a married, grown person. You just seconded my point, nothing more.

I'm not going to bother with a more extensive reply, because there's no need to.

Just a friendly reminder to take a bit of your own advice. Just because you think something isn't a joke in any circumstance doesn't mean there isn't one where it is. i.e infidelity.

6 minutes ago, Motifator said:

but I am going to get back to my main post. Wife jokes are downright low level. Heck, even jokes about other people's boy or girlfriends are really bad.

 

There's a painter at my wife's mom's house today. Her mom is working so she's there to have the house open. First thing I did when I heard the contractor was there was ask if he was better or bigger than me. 

 

One person's insecurities isn't everyone's. I know that woman won't cheat on me, she knows I won't cheat on her and we're both comfortable enough to make jokes about it. 

 

Ever heard of Jody? There's plenty of jokes about Jody. I've been out for long enough that it's not directly applicable anymore, but the rotation work most of us out here will make jokes about infidelity. "I just wish my wife would find a guy to cheat on me with that makes enough money I wouldn't have to come to work anymore" etc. 

[starsmine]

4 hours ago, LogicalDrm said:

 

 

Timestamped if anyone is interested. I must agree @LinusTech @LMGcommunity @RILEYISMYNAME, thats very poor taste your audience and recent events in consideration.

Usually Im pretty quick to call out harassment where people don't see it...
But where is it at your time stamp? A sexually charged joke yes, a infidelity joke yes. Harassment? no. The consent is the consent of the wife to be in an OPEN marriage. There isn't a single joke OR implication of ANY kind of harassment there. 

Infidelity =/= harassment. Its infidelity.

No where in the joke was there an implication of, "I drink, I harass". Lets stress that having sex is not harassment. 

I agree with the idea of always do better. Here they are doing just fine. 

[Neroon]

13 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

You lack awareness then.  100% a joke about not getting proper consent from a wife, followed up with a joke that is a trope for SA defense makes it a joke about sexual assault.

 

It's like if I make a joke about genocide, and then switch to a different joke about a race; the context of having a joke sitting right before without an interlude still implies a continuance.

Wait... you need consent from someone else to have sex with an adult? I'm very much against cheating, but you don't need consent from your partner to have sex with someone else, that's not how consent works. You need consent from the person you have sex with. Your partner may divorce you, but that's a whole different thing.

 

What trope? You are making things up now. Your comparison makes no sense.

8 minutes ago, Motifator said:

It doesn't need to be said, I stopped watching the video when he said the wife joke. Sure, it was an example and he didn't say it word by word...

but I am going to get back to my main post. Wife jokes are downright low level. Heck, even jokes about other people's boy or girlfriends are really bad.

It's bad enough to start fights in common norm. Nobody needs some wanker's thoughts about their partner. These kind of jokes are often times made by people who can never get in a proper relationship. I don't know the guy since I don't watch a lot of LTT, but either way, it is all over the place.

It doesn't need to be said, nor implied, just the mention of 'wife' put you over the edge.
Low level how? While I have no idea if he has a wife, if he does, that's between him and his wife. Why are you butting in on their personal life? You don't get to decide what is ok for them or not.

1 minute ago, IkeaGnome said:

There's a painter at my wife's mom's house today. Her mom is working so she's there to have the house open. First thing I did when I heard the contractor was there was ask if he was better or bigger than me. 

 

One person's insecurities isn't everyone's. I know that woman won't cheat on me, she knows I won't cheat on her and we're both comfortable enough to make jokes about it. 

 

Ever heard of Jody? There's plenty of jokes about Jody. I've been out for long enough that it's not directly applicable anymore, but the rotation work most of us out here will make jokes about infidelity. "I just wish my wife would find a guy to cheat on me with that makes enough money I wouldn't have to come to work anymore" etc. 

We make these all the times as well. When I get home early, I will text my gf that she better kick him out fast because I will be home in 15.
She makes similar jokes.

[LogicalDrm]

10 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Usually Im pretty quick to call out harassment where people don't see it...
But where is it at your time stamp? A sexually charged joke yes, a infidelity joke yes. Harassment? no. The consent is the consent of the wife to be in an OPEN marriage. There isn't a single joke OR implication of ANY kind of harassment there. 

Infidelity =/= harassment. Its infidelity.

The timestamp starts where joke starts. There's two parts. First is about cheating at office party. We aren't talking about nuances of people's social life here. The first joke is about saying one thing (there are others at party) and taking its meaning as consent to do something else. The part right after that is the problem (use of alcohol and the very direct sexual reference with that). Considering the audience of the channel (teens and young adults), thats bit over the line imo. It might not be their worst, like there has been much worse jokes in past. But considering their aim to do better, this surely isn't it.

 

E: Also people reading WAY TOO MUCH into this. Its still a joke, not recommendation of doing things. But was it needed or not? Did it go over the line? Those are the questions. Ofc people will take things differently. Remember this?  Not all took that as bad joke either. Doesn't mean it should have been made at all or was required.

Edited April 4 by LogicalDrm

[starsmine]

5 minutes ago, LogicalDrm said:

The timestamp starts where joke starts. There's two parts. First is about cheating at office party. We aren't talking about nuances of people's social life here. The first joke is about saying one thing (there are others at party) and taking its meaning as consent to do something else. The part right after that is the problem (use of alcohol and the very direct sexual reference with that). Considering the audience of the channel (teens and young adults), thats bit over the line imo. It might not be their worst, like there has been much worse jokes in past. But considering their aim to do better, this surely isn't it.

"I get buzzed, and make life choices" is NOT harassment. 

Assault comes In if the other person is too intoxicated to consent. that is not implied here anywhere in the joke. 
Harassment comes in if the other person at the party one hits on is not receptive of the advancements and has told them to stop. Again, not a thing implied here. 

Office romances are NOT by definition harassment. You need something more to attach the label. 

There is nothing bad or wrong in this joke. 

[LogicalDrm]

Just now, starsmine said:

"I get buzzed, and make life choices" is NOT harassment. 

Assault comes In if the other person is too intoxicated to consent. that is not implied here anywhere in the joke. 
Harassment comes in if the other person at the party one hits on is not receptive of the advancements and has told them to stop. Again, not a thing implied here. 

Office romances are NOT by definition harassment. You need something more to attach the label. 

Intoxication is very often used as defense of the accused when those are investigated in this context. Hence my note. Sorry if it was too much for your sense of reality.

[starsmine]

8 minutes ago, LogicalDrm said:

Intoxication is very often used as defense of the accused when those are investigated in this context. Hence my note. Sorry if it was too much for your sense of reality.

"I'm promiscuous when I drink", is not and has never been the same or close to equivalent of "I harass women when drunk". Nor is it ever a defense of harassment. 

I have no idea what you are trying to imply with that last sentence. 

[IkeaGnome]

11 minutes ago, LogicalDrm said:

But was it needed or not? Did it go over the line? Those are the questions. Ofc people will take things differently.

So since I said why wife jokes aren't always bad above, and not in relation to you. I do have a bit I want to add. 

 

I don't agree with this particular joke either. It wasn't a joke between the two people that it's about. It strongly implies someone, somewhere also isn't okay with the situation. 

 

I don't even think the person who said the joke was okay with it. 4:42 that's the face and body language of someone who is uncomfortable with what they said. It seems to me almost like there was some boundary pushing with his joke and the other person in the background(purposefully not using names) and the person on camera pushed a little farther, followed by a "Oh shit, did I just say that" and awkward silence from everyone else. 

 

I think context given everyone thought it wasn't okay. 

[LogicalDrm]

1 minute ago, starsmine said:

"I'm promiscuous when I drink", is not and has never been the same of "I harass women when drunk". Nor is it ever a defense of harassment. 

Its not, but its used as such and successfully so in some crowds.

 

Again, my point may have been bit taking it too far, but thats how I read it. The core of my point is still whether the joke was required to make that part funnier, was it necessary at all, was the first part necessary and should these kinds of jokes be made for channels whose core audience is teens and young adults? The childish "69" jokes and other such are already, and have always, walked the line for me. I don't like it when teens do them, and like it less when men my age do them.

[wanderingfool2]

57 minutes ago, Neroon said:

Wait... you need consent from someone else to have sex with an adult? I'm very much against cheating, but you don't need consent from your partner to have sex with someone else, that's not how consent works. You need consent from the person you have sex with. Your partner may divorce you, but that's a whole different thing.

 

What trope? You are making things up now. Your comparison makes no sense.

My comparison makes perfect sense; don't blame me if you can't put two and two together.  It's an analogy of an extreme example to show how two things can be connected if followed by each other.  So in this case making a joke about consent, followed by a trope that is often used as an excuse is the issue.

 

The trope is the whole excuse "I was drunk" to justify actions you take.

 

Also, if someone is in a marriage and doesn't get consent from their partner before having sex with someone else it is called infidelity [and if you pass on lets say a STI to your partner, it actually rises to sexual assault] IF your partner didn't consent to you having multiple partners.  The whole joke they made was how they can use a shoddy excuse to justify consent; which AGAIN was followed by a joke often used guilty parties to justify their actions to avoid punishment.

 

I am not making this kind of stuff up, look up lets say Bryn Spejcher.  She stabbed her boyfriend 100 times and was let off with community service because she was high at the time of the stabbing.  People DO use intoxication to justify away their actions.  Then there's the whole trope of "she was asking for it", "if she didn't want that she shouldn't be dressed like that" that people use to justify more sexual harassment.

 

I'm sorry, but at this point you are a lost cause if you can't see the implication of joking about consent [whether or not it's joking about infidelity or not] and THEN shifting it to a joke which often has a connotation of unwanted consent.

 

1 hour ago, starsmine said:

Usually Im pretty quick to call out harassment where people don't see it...
But where is it at your time stamp? A sexually charged joke yes, a infidelity joke yes. Harassment? no. The consent is the consent of the wife to be in an OPEN marriage. There isn't a single joke OR implication of ANY kind of harassment there. 

Infidelity =/= harassment. Its infidelity.

No where in the joke was there an implication of, "I drink, I harass". Lets stress that having sex is not harassment. 

I agree with the idea of always do better. Here they are doing just fine. 

The joke about infidelity followed by a joke that is often used as an excuse for SA is harassment though.

 

The thing is the jokes followed one and another, so it adds subcontext to a joke [whether they intended or not]

 

The thing is as well, there was a recent discussion regarding consent, and yes while in this case it was a joke about consent about infidelity it has all the hallmarks what is used to justify sexual assault...which when paired with a comment about drunk we have a situation that is similar enough to a real world event that went on.

 

So yea, it's about infidelity consent in this case, but again in such close relations to a sex joke as well it's inappropriate.

 

Also as a note, if someone cheats and passes along a STI it actually in BC at least can be considered sexual assault [because your partner never consented to you having multiple partners]

[Kisai]

5 hours ago, Dedayog said:

 

It's non-stop.  I would wager at least 75% of all LTT videos include a 69 comment, she said, know what I mean, or someone off screen yelling something.

 

69 is meme at this point in internet culture and has long since lost it's implication. Same with "Rule 34" (if it exists, there is porn of it) and "Rule 63" (if it exists there's a gender flip of it)

 

Meanwhile 69, https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/69-nice-meme-twitter/

 

Most people understand it's just a meme, and doesn't imply something sexual without additional context. Same with "deez nutz ~ gottem"

 

When people only read the sexual context of something, that says more about the person making the complaint expecting something and getting denied. Yes there are people on the internet who make a lot of innuendos, their content is also 18+ in the first place.

 

The default upload configuration for youtube is "this is not for children, this is not strictly for adults" thus lands in the squarely PG13 zone of content. You get one blatant adult joke (eg one profanity). 

 

Sometimes you have people who are FAR, FAR too willing to read sexual inferences from things that aren't.

Does LTT need a Disney S&P? No. But I feel that if people are upset about a script, or an adlib to a script, it warrants maybe that script writer needing to have their work passed to someone outside LTT to "check the read" of it.