Hayley Williams: Babe of the week #35 (Aug. 2012)

[iguana_tonante]

Captain Craig wrote:

---

With that I'll look forward to the hint next Thursday cause I'm done with this superfluous side bar.

Sorry for interrupting your mindless drooling over pictures of women with actual thoughts and stuff.

Forbin wrote:

---

I think this herd needs to be thinned of people who go out of their way to get offended over things that aren't meant to be offensive.

Can we just DROP that completely annoying sidebar please?

... and get back to objectifying women?

[Ethros]

Definitely up

[Balrog]

This is no sidebar on the topic at hand. The BOTW threads have been about objectifying women, so questioning said objectification is in play here as well.

[doubleohfive]

Maybe the Internet isn't for you if you are so thin-skinned you can't take any criticism of your comments.

If the consequence is conjured out of thin air by someone else's own internal biases that's on them not me. [/quote]

What "thin air" ? All I did was post a one word comment on your initial post in this thread, and you took the nosedive into imaginary persecution land. Who's thin skinned again?

This isn't about "taking criticism" this is about clarifying intent. 005 is trying to tell me my intent and that's a joke.

For the last fucking time, I'm not trying to tell you your "intent." I'm trying to point out how stupid and hateful your comment sounded, whether intentionally or not. God forbid someone else interpret your words in a manner differently than you intended, because as we all know, that never happens on the internet.

With that I'll look forward to the hint next Thursday cause I'm done with this superfluous side bar.

Ah. The old "Screw you guys, I'm going home!" routine. Rather than acknowledge or be open to someone else's interpretation of your words, or even being open to the possibility that your attitude is in fact outmoded and sexist, you'd rather just kick up the sand and storm off.

Classy.

[RJDiogenes]

Captain Craig wrote:

---

Teacake seems to be the only one that understands the usage of the phrase.

No, I think it's obvious to most people that it's just a conversational turn of phrase. My old boss, who was a women, would always talk about "thinning the herd" when we were interviewing candidates, who were all women, for an open position. In addition, her favorite phrase in describing the regular staff, who were all women, was "herding cats." This is just another manufactured controversy.

[iguana_tonante]

Tell us again that you worked with women and the special insight it gave you, because that's something that never happened to anyone else in the history of mankind.

[Gil T.Azell]

Never heard of here but she's cute so

[Balrog]

iguana_tonante wrote:

---

Tell us again that you worked with women and the special insight it gave you, because that's something that never happened to anyone else in the history of mankind.

This.

[Kestrel]

iguana_tonante wrote:

---

Intent is irrelevant. Only consequences matters.

Don't be silly, of course intent isn't irrelevant. There's a difference between being careless or accidentally insulting and being an asshole (though the former of course will usually apologize when his words aren't taken as intended). I basically agree with teacake here; CC probably didn't intend offense (either time) and in another thread his comment might have passed without comment. Of course, people interpreted it offensively and you can't control that (and there, intent doesn't matter) so it would have been better to apologize even if he didn't mean to be insulting.

Also, since I do like her music...

[Worf2DS9]

Up! Really only like a couple of Paramore's songs, but Hayley is very cute. Love the shots of her in the purple t-shirt.

[iguana_tonante]

Kestrel wrote:

---

Don't be silly, of course intent isn't irrelevant. There's a difference between being careless or accidentally insulting and being an asshole (though the former of course will usually apologize when his words aren't taken as intended).

You know, there is an interesting ethical discussion hidden here.

Personally, I think that intent is more or less impossible to prove. It's all inside a person's head, so there is no way to know, one way or the other. It's basically unprovable, and as such I don't think it's particularly useful to dwell on it.

Now, there might be external signs that can be used as evidence of intent. For example, apologizing after causing offence can be taken as an evidence that the offence wasn't intentional, but still far from a hard fact. So, it would be nice if the offended party took your word at face value that it wasn't your intention, but it doesn't lessen the offensiveness of the words, and it's all up to the offended party if the want to believe the intent was sincere. Moreover, itt might be easier to forgive an offence if it wasn't intentional, but it sure doesn't negate its offensiveness, or the need for forgiveness.

I know it runs contrary to common sense and common mores, but the idea that "I didn't mean to!" can be used as a excuse to behave like an arsehole and never bear the consequence of it, doesn't sit well with me.

Now, as with many ethical stuff, I might have not thought it through, so please feel free to demolish my argument. It won't be the first time!

[Gary Mitchell]

^ How about giving people the benefit of the doubt?

[doubleohfive]

Gary Mitchell wrote:

---

^ How about giving people the benefit of the doubt?

The benefit of the doubt for who? The people who outright dismiss the possibility that this thread has become mainly a proving ground for a bunch of sexist, misogynist people to wolf whistle and objectify women freely?

Cool story bro, but no thanks.

[Gary Mitchell]

doubleohfive wrote:

---

The benefit of the doubt for who? The people who outright dismiss the possibility that this thread has become mainly a proving ground for a bunch of sexist, misogynist people to wolf whistle and objectify women freely?

Cool story bro, but no thanks.

Nah, we wouldn't want to do that, would we? It's much more fun to stir things up even when no one was causing a problem.

[doubleohfive]

Who stirred up a problem? This permutation got kicked up because Captain Craig couldn't handle/process some minor sarcasm.

Why is it that it's acceptable for someone to post objectionable content but it isn't acceptable for someone else to point it out?