Telefrog
1961
You’re precious. Never change.
Busbecq
1962
Hey, no one likes getting called on their shittiness. The important thing to accept is that you were shitty, are shitty, and commit to not being shitty in the future, and accept that I’m entitled to tell you you’re shitty whenever my ego needs a re-up.
You really like saying that particular word today, as evidenced in your reply to my earlier post that somehow got deleted:
People who disagree with me are like SLAVEHOLDERS. Slaveholders raped their slaves. Therefore, people who aren’t bothered by retro t-shirts support and enable rapes. QED, my logic is infallible.
1000 industries in 100 cultures, but not your culture it seems, until it is imposed on us all of course.
and there we have it, cultural imperialism at its finest.
Oh yeah, I forgot I’m talking to the guy who thinks covering up sexual assault is a-ok and complaining about it is out-of-control feminism.
The shirt is sexual assault now?
Busbecq
1968
Y chromosomes are violence against women. Literally. You would have been a happy bearer of 2 x-chromosomes had not your Y chromosome violently exercised control over your sexual differentiation. Male oppression of women is literally encoded into our genetics. Only in a future of double X parthenogenesis can we escape our patriarchal heritage.
magnet
1969
Pro-tip: Reductio ad absurdum is effective only when there is a clear inescapable link between what you conclude and what your opponent argued.
Example of ineffective technique (try to spot the flaw!):
Let the physicist wear what he wants. We don’t want to diminish our scientific triumph. Even if he crushes a puppy’s head into pulp under a vintage Nazi jackboot on live television while shouting "Vladimir Putin uber alles! ", we must be tolerant of others because hooray for science.
If but one person takes a minute to stop reinforcing the threadpocalypse that this has become and reads this article, some good may yet arise from all the willful ignorance, outright trolling, and utter bullshit going on up in here.
Thanks for linking, magnet.
I’m talking about you claiming that women (and men) speaking out against an attempted coverup of sexual assault constituted a 3rd wave feminist assault on the atheist community.
Bah forget it I was just annoyed I don’t think you are ok with covering for sex offenders. But you are being deliberately obtuse I think.
This is kind of an aside, but if we could get a scientist to talk about global warming in a Klan hood, I bet we could get the right wing on board with the scientific consensus on climate change. We’ve learned that they rank culture war over ludditism. This is a valuable insight.
Aha. But uhm… Especially in the context of one of your previous posts (“prudishness is OK”), you’ll have to forgive me for misreading your intent.
Ken White also happens to be a lawyer, and his post has a more nuanced view of dress codes than my bullet point quotes.
Indeed, but I’m loath to agree. Partly because I think the primary function of dress codes is to erase the identity of those subject to them, and partly because dress codes undermine people’s ability to express their opinions.
Mind that I’m not saying people shouldn’t be called on whatever they’re signalling.
I’m speaking about business only, but you really need a dress code in many businesses because people represent your company. You don’t want them expressing opinions that can be misinterpreted, are detrimental to forming or keeping partnerships, or distracting from the matter at hand. Look at the discussion we’re having right now for an example.
Not many people would trust a real estate agent wearing a tube-top and denim skirt. (Let’s face it, real estate agents have an uphill battle earning trust anyway.) That person could be the best real estate agent ever, but they’re going to be hurting for clients.
Aszurom
1975
This sounds like my question about whether the editor/site is held responsible for the things their writers say. It’s kinda like your business doesn’t want someone wearing a shirt that says “Gamers are Dead” on it to a press conference, because it shows contempt for the audience. So, probably unprofessional. But, we’re not holding his scientific institution responsible for his apparel either - so maybe I can’t blame Gamasurta for the ridiculous shit Alenxander writes.
Is a site’s style guide kind of like a dress code for writers?
I’ll be under my bridge if you need me.
magnet
1976
Prudishness is OK when it’s voluntary. And every employment contract is voluntary.
Being summoned to court as a defendant or witness is usually involuntary, so dress codes are harder to defend.
Partly because I think the primary function of dress codes is to erase the identity of those subject to them, and partly because dress codes undermine people’s ability to express their opinions.
As others have pointed out, reining in individuality in the workplace is a valid goal for employers. Particularly when the employer is the government.
Has anyone actually disagreed with the basic premise of “Wearing that shirt on TV was a bad call?” (here, that is; I’m sure in the broader intrawebs there’s plenty who do).
In the midst of all the name-calling and such it’s hard to tell what folks are actually fighting about sometimes.
The basic premise was not that wearing that shirt was inappropriate or a “bad call”. The basic premise is that wearing that shirt was sexist.
Aleck
1979
I think everyone agrees it was a bad call. Whether it was sexist and offensive – and should have, for a brief moment, outshone the accomplishment of landing a probe on a comet – seems to be the real point of argument, if there is such a thing.
It certainly wasn’t “three steps back for humankind.”
