We got another one.

[FAST6191]

But also, that if you are really emotionally moved by it, but were not personally affected - something went wrong, somewhere along the line.

That seems to be along the same lines/schools of thought as the "if you don't like it then move" or "you don't live here" when talking to Septics about guns.

When I was younger, I read Charles Bukowski and found one quote attributed to him (although he probably never said it, source could not be pinpointed) rather 'intelligent/amusing' in an odd way. "Feminism exists only because ugly women want to integrate in society".

Now, yes its chauvinistic. Yes its wrong. Yes it portraits certain power phantasies. Yes the glass ceiling is an issue. But also - there is some strange hint at the 'importance' of some social activism, that still kind of rings true, and gives me pleasure in a trolly kind of way.

But at no point - even, when maybe finding more enjoyment in that line, than I should have - did I ever cross the line to 'thats a grave issue, we have to do something about it, lets mobilize'.

Sounds like you encountered a joke. They often take a kernel of truth and exaggerate it a bit for laughs. It is a fairly standard comedic form. Glad you recognised that at some level.

 

[notimp]

Damn, I knew there was something. So that was what it was...

(Bukowski has an 'interesting' life story. And 'writing style'. Its moreso something that he could have said without a grain of irony. But then he probably didn't say it at all.. So yes, trolly joke - most likely.)

 

[notimp]

That seems to be along the same lines/schools of thought as the "if you don't like it then move" or "you don't live here" when talking to Septics about guns.

Too much emotion for no apparent reason seems along the lines of if you dont like it get out of town?

Here is a more fun explanation of why I might be wrong.

 

[FAST6191]

Too much emotion for no apparent reason seems along the lines of if you dont like it get out of town?

More the "you don't live here"
Yet I have friends there, do business there, want to move there, it is a key part of the world that if it fails then it is notable, the field itself is one I am concerned with...

To restrict it to some kind of direct impact to you else fuck off discussing it seems to be rather missing the mark.

 

[Deleted User]

Arguing is about, that you left out intent or purpose for why you are manufacturing outrage here.

Idk how others see it, but to me manufacturing a fake harassment campaign against oneself, to simply broker attention, is as close to a public display of self harm, as we get in this modern age.

Now why are you building a "we" identity around gotcha catching, and publicly ridiculing those kinds of people? What does it give you internally.

Yes, this is more problematic, as it was attempted to be used as a strategy to get a leg up in her professional life - but this still doesnt mean that this is a widespread issue - with people, in droves, outright destroying their careers preemtively - for a chance to get more social recognition, if no one finds out.


So in short - yes, you need the public pillory of "this is a thing now". People go to jail for, and ruining their professional careers, and probably private lives with - if they ever get caught.

But you don't need the 'quickly, get together, its spreading - join in our ecstasy kicking a mentally deranged person' angle to it, that you promoted.

Also no - there is no analogy to be had in how this is handled in the US as to compared with Australia - because for all that matters those are single cases (and comparisons between those two legal system arent very interesting either).

Also - I dont see anyone posting - dude or gal got job because of mobbying hi/her direct rival, and misrepresenting their work either. So you are not interested in the "structural issue" here. (People do whatever they perceive as giving them advantages in their professional life.) You are only interested in playing an angle where - a oh so liberal society - gets abused for its standard to want to help out suppressed minorities, HAHA - told you so, right?

Now again - whats your purpose.

- Do you want to inform others that this is the case (then why go with "we caught another one!")
- Do you want to ridicule the mentally deranged (hint, not as big of a societal issue as you may want to make out of it)
- Do you want to give people food to ridicule others on the basis, of haha - even dudebro is more moral than this lady
- Do you want to change societaly morals, so we dont protect the weak anymore
- Do you want to misrepresent this as a structural issue - so anyone can play misogynist attribution games - whats the deal here.


Those stories are in the media to produce somewhat of a chilling effect, so that people understand, that if they try it - and are caught, their lives will be ruined, professionally and socially. They are not there for you to drum up laughter cycle and hate against social practices.

Yes, we know - that "safe space" or public outrage culture can be abused. (As can every other culture) We are well aware.

Now dont get the mob together to publicaly demean or shame those people any further, if you are not personally affected. Awareness yes, ridiculing or even mobilizing against grave injustice here - no. You usually shouldnt get that many people in leading positions - who are that mentally unstable, that this gets to be a widespread issue you could reasonably (politically) campaign for this being a huge issue that we have to do something about.

Also the 'but all I wanted was to inform' angle is naive at most. Don't act as if you didn't realize, that this story couldt be used to unite gamers behind mysoginist or even just ultra right wing "how wrong is that!" anti social status quo protest. Again.

Simply recognize that those stories exist to demote that behavior and go on with your life.

Its the same level of outrage baiting you saw in the yellow press in my country for decades. "Minority robber robbed rights abiding majority race citizen. Very worrysome." Not really. In this case especially, those are very odd statistical outliers. So now try getting through your day without worrying all day long about the deeper implication of that.

We: the people of this world
got: have the following clause among the previous clause.
another: following clause is not the first
one: singular of a noun which implied by the context: in this case a Jussie Smollet.

 

[notimp]

If ingroup = everyone > no possible issue with statement.