Atomic Playboy
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2007
- 16,432
- 1
- 81
With Matt, I bet his feelings did not matter to those who scolded him.
Nobody has a right not to have their feelings hurt.
OK then.
Last edited:
With Matt, I bet his feelings did not matter to those who scolded him.
Nobody has a right not to have their feelings hurt.
OK then.
Matt wore a shirt that offended certain people.
Those people have no right not to have their feelings hurt.
Those same people have no right to retaliate against Matt.
I just see a bunch of people voicing their opinions (pretty much scolding him).
Which they have no right to do.
They have no right to retaliate against him with physical violence or threats, sure. But you're coming at this from the "nobody has a right to criticize" angle, and that's completely wrong.
We all have the right to form our own opinions and we have the right to voice our opinions.
If someone does something that offends us, we're allowed to voice our discontent, even if the cause of the offense seems benign to most people. That's the whole point of free speech; it's not just "whoever speaks first wins since no one is allowed to disagree." The free exchange of ideas will sometimes end with hurt feelings; it's just how freedom of expression works.
I should have been more clear.
Offendees have no right to scold the offendors.
What you end up with are special classes who feelings are more important than others.
since when?
and no, you did not "make it more clear."
What society ends up with are privileged groups who have more rights than others.
Kim kardashian can flash her ass all over the internet, and that is acceptable.
Man wears shirt with shanty clothed women, people are offended?
If women do not want to be treated as sex objects, do not act like one.
No one is forcing you or any other person to view/treat women as sex objects, that's a choice you and others make.
Live with the consequences, i.e. hearing/reading others' opinions, of the choice made.
Don't like the consequences, change the behavior brought on by the choice.
Don't like the consequences, change the behavior brought on by the choice.
fucking moutbreathers.
this guy is a ROCKET SCIENTIST.
he is way smarter than anyone who was "offended" by his shirt.
give it the fuck up.
if it weren't for guys like him they wouldn't be able to tweet their "feelings" on their smart phones.
in short FUCK OFF!
What society ends up with are privileged groups who have more rights than others.
Kim kardashian can flash her ass all over the internet, and that is acceptable.
Man wears shirt with shanty clothed women, people are offended?
If women do not want to be treated as sex objects, do not act like one.
There's just so much wrong with this logic, I don't know where to begin...
First off, time and place are important for the context of any expression. If someone was wearing this shirt in a strip club, no one would bat an eye. This is a professional scientist in a professional setting giving an interview on an international news network; wearing ANY bowling shirt comes across as unprofessional, let alone one adorned with half-naked women. Contextually, this man should have been more sensitive about the professionalism of his appearance given the setting he was appearing in.
Second, just because one person does something, it doesn't mean you can stereotype an entire group. Kim Kardashian chooses to appear naked, therefore all women can be treated like sex objects? That's patently absurd. Kim Kardashian has absolutely nothing to do with the illustrated woman on this man's shirt. And, hey, I bet you, even if this man was wearing a shirt with Kim Kardashian's giant naked ass on it, he still would have caught grief for the reason I outlined above; it's entirely unprofessional to wear sexually provocative attire. If a female scientist was giving this interview wearing PVC lingerie, no one would take her seriously, but if a man wears a picture of a woman in that outfit, he's given a pass... because Kim Kardashian posed naked? What in the actual fuck are you on about?
Fuck the feminazis.
You don't know because you are an idiot.
Fuck the feminazis.
A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.
First off, time and place are important for the context of any expression. If someone was wearing this shirt in a strip club, no one would bat an eye.
Second, just because one person does something, it doesn't mean you can stereotype an entire group. <snip>
It is a double standard.
Woman has nude pictures of herself posted on internet, that is acceptable.
Man wears shirt with clothed women, oh the outrage.
Reasonable individuals disagree with me? If you are offended by a shirt with scantily glad members of either gender, especially when no genitalia is shown, you are not a reasonable person. And, claiming that due to wearing that shirt, the "offender" doesn't care about women in the STEM community is even further beyond reasonable.
Is the shirt appropriate? Not particularly. Is it some huge scandal, exposing another woman hater holding women in the STEM community, and the world, back? Hardly.
But, that isn't what happened. If you did a bunch of charity work in a t-shirt with a picture of a fucking woman on it, anyone offended is a fucking idiot.
What happened to freedom of expression?
What bothers me is no one really seems interested in how his coworkers actually feel about this, either in asking them or just plain bringing it up. There's an assumption that they hate the atmosphere that the scientist is creating but are too cowed and oppressed to say anything about it. But this is something I feel needs to be a bigger component of social activism: encouraging people to (calmly, politely, and with empathy) voice concerns directly to the people who are offending them. Instead of acting with passive aggression, which often boils over to the media picking it up and pushing it on the court of public opinion. A court that often seems to care more about gaining more lines on its oppression portfolio than actually asserting positive change.