That’s actually an interesting story, but from looking around a bit it does not appear that she was fired based on the DDOS threats (which were apparently carried out, briefly). Rather, she was fired was because she had alienated a good part of the community that her job was to sell to. Apparently, she’s something of a drama queen with a history of this type of thing. See for example this.
Assuming that was why he was fired, sure. Sorry, lost the context of the post.
Removing Rittersport’s post from the thread and reading a single sentence from it in isolation, sure. But his post should be read as a paraphrase of what Martini was claiming happened, and the rest of his post colors the sentence you extracted.
I guess you can claim a victory, but not one connected to the discussion.
Raising awareness about a cause and garnering public sympathy and support is activism 101. Do you consider Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, et al to be “SJWs”?
What actions do you consider to constitute “punishment”. Some real-life examples might be helpful.
I disagree.
Martini wasn’t claiming that the specific example of harm that he conjured up had happened. It was an example. Ritter rejected that based on a general statement that “people don’t get fired for making a sexist joke”, and said “Can you cite an example of this?” An example was then provided, which showed that people do indeed get fired for making sexist jokes, and this makes Martini’s example plausible.
So in the context of this thread, the example was completely on target.
Read the full paragraph: “this” includes more than just getting fired for making a sexist joke.
Sounds like the man is facing the consequences of his actions. I thought conservatives were all gung-ho about that sort of thing.
I disagree with this interpretation. “This” refers to the sentence that preceded it denying that such things happen, not to the subsequent sentence about what it sounds like.
Here is another computer industry example where someone tried really, really hard to get people fired over something even milder than a dongle joke.
ok
That was pretty bad, I agree. But, you know something? The reason why these cases get known is because they are unusual. So, I’ll amend my statement – practically no one gets fired for telling a joke. And, in that case, no one did, happily.
If everything played out as described in that article, I think we may have found an SJW in the wild.
Well, as for SJWs in the wild, there is this one (who got someone fired, but he was rehired when the video hit the net.) And this one who harassed poor Hugh Mungus (she wasn’t trying to get him fired–just arrested.)
Jesus, the woman in the first video is completely insane. Do a google search on her. She is seriously not OK. Her problems go way beyond being an “SJW” though that is the ideology she is using to express her psychosis.
Here’s an example of someone getting a man fired for calling her a mean name:
I’m not defending the guy - calling someone a “slut” in a bad way is not a nice thing to do and it’s not a “joke”, but it’s hardly worthy of being fired for IMHO. Especially when the person being called a mean name is a nationally known writer who regularly gets called infinitely worse things - and has also been known to post/write some pretty inflammatory things herself, IMHO.
As a conservative Rutgers college student, there are some very liberal people on this campus, but for the most part they’re respectful about their beliefs and aren’t abrasive about their beliefs and try to yell their way to win an argument.
In my opinion, liberals who peacefully protest at conservative events but allow their speaker to have a say are not anarchists or social justice warriors (although I disagree with their political opinions, but respectfully).
It’s the type of people such as the leftist violent protestors at Middlebury when Professor Charles Murray spoke (or, rather, was preventing from speaking) who then attacked him when he walked back and later sent one of their own professors to the hospital with a neck brace who are Social Justice warriors, as well as hypocrites.
I don’t know why they don’t just debate their political opponents, instead of violently lashing out at them. There really is nothing bad about having an intellectual debate with your opponents and there’s no need to be violent. Wish they could see that.
I don’t understand what these links are supposed to be about. All these guys behaved poorly and their lives became difficult because of it. Maybe if they were better people they could enjoy their lives more.
How was the Lyft driver in Darren’s first video behaving poorly?
Yelling at Murray and aggressively preventing him from speaking is far more effective than the intervening 22 years of logical evidence-based arguments against his book. I think it’s a good idea to shout down people who continuously express views like Murray’s. I know we can all hide behind civility and intellectual debates and all of that, but in the end, many people view Murray as a person who promotes a racist misinterpretation of scientific information. There’s no reason to discuss it. It’s an old and tired argument. Just shout it down until it gets off of campus and crawls back in its hole.
There was a lot of hostility toward the Tribeca film festival last Summer because a documentary by Andrew Wakefield was included. The hostility got the documentary removed. There’s no need for public civil debate over this topic; just shout it down.
People expressed their outrage over Ben Carson’s speech recently. Ben Carson changed his tune. If he hadn’t, well then shout him down.
Shouting people down works and is perfectly legal. If it gets a little violent, we have laws for that. But the shouting is perfectly legal and if it gets people to stay home because they feel uncomfortable, all the better.
How about you tell me why it’s important to this discussion first.
As you yourself acknowledged, they didn’t just “shout him down”, so to speak, they violently attacked him and jumped on his car and tried to prevent him from leaving, as well as injuring a Middlebury professor who had to be sent to the hospital.
I’m a black man (and a conservative, yes, I know it’s rare), by the way, so obviously I disagree with his specious and gratuitous argument that blacks are as a whole intellectually inferior to whites due to different genetics whites supposedly having superior genetics.
But all this violent protest did is garner sympathy for him.
Instead, they should have fiercely debated him with scientific facts and let him speak his mind, and then took their turn and demolished his racist argument.
Just my two cents.