Red Mosquito

Strat wrote:

macphisto wrote:"I'm sorry IF you were offended."

This "apology" infuriates me more than the initial offense. Ive been the receiver of this plenty before and it just leads to more harmful behavior. Ugh. Im sure i've said that as well. I always am very careful about the word choice in an apology.

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

tree_ wrote:Listen, Harmless, your hypocrisy is through the roof. If you're going to be the one advocating the idea that humorous "insults" equate violence, then you should be the one to not hurl them, don't you think? Unless you're actually trying to be violent. What if his mom is actually dead? Do you know? How hurtful might that actually be?

if I find any of that is true, I will take accountability and apologise, as Chris should have done

Would you say it would be more reasonable for you to have the right to be afforded the opportunity to make amends before spike smacks you in the face?

that's just decorum, I don't care; nobody wants a smack in the face but if spike is truly hurt by what I've said, what I feel about it ceases to matter

This is a logical fallacy. Again, I'm reminded of Charlie Hebdo. Do you think because people feel offended, pained that their god has been mocked, they are right to murder, if they feel justified in doing so? Surely a god is more important to someone than their cheating, skanky wife.

We need laws because your feelings don't trump someone's right to not be physically attacked.

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

tree_ wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

tree_ wrote:Listen, Harmless, your hypocrisy is through the roof. If you're going to be the one advocating the idea that humorous "insults" equate violence, then you should be the one to not hurl them, don't you think? Unless you're actually trying to be violent. What if his mom is actually dead? Do you know? How hurtful might that actually be?

if I find any of that is true, I will take accountability and apologise, as Chris should have done

Would you say it would be more reasonable for you to have the right to be afforded the opportunity to make amends before spike smacks you in the face?

that's just decorum, I don't care; nobody wants a smack in the face but if spike is truly hurt by what I've said, what I feel about it ceases to matter

This is a logical fallacy. Again, I'm reminded of Charlie Hebdo. Do you think because people feel offended, pained that their god has been mocked, they are right to murder, if they feel justified in doing so? Surely a god is more important to someone than their cheating, skanky wife.

We need laws because your feelings don't trump someone's right to not be physically attacked.

epilogue wrote:

spike wrote:

I'm not here to defend anyone. But you have to see the difference between the joke in that video and what Chris Rock said. If you can't, then it's clearly willful and I'm not sure what you're after.

The Argonaut wrote:Yeah, the Leo joke is way worse. Gervais compared him to a pedophile sexual predator. That's worse than comparing someone to Demi Moore

epilogue wrote:

spike wrote:

I'm not here to defend anyone. But you have to see the difference between the joke in that video and what Chris Rock said. If you can't, then it's clearly willful and I'm not sure what you're after.

Strat wrote:I swear ive heard that same GI Jane joke before on TV broadcasts.....

Strat wrote:Not an attack or an insult or an agrgessive question here:

However, how much does the above have to relate to the fact that Chris Rock just made fun of a woman vs Gervais making fun of a man? I think that is absolutely playing a roll in your guys opinion on the differences in jokes.

Perhaps im wrong.

Mickey wrote:Leo actually is a creep, whereas Jada is not actually GI Jane, so they're not the same thing

Mickey wrote:That was a joke though

Ms Harmless wrote:if an old man says to a woman at a posh event "hey Pammy, wanna go back to mine?" and she slaps him, is she acting in "poor taste"? he'll think so