All you have to do to be considered a cuckold now? Have a job....

[Reasonable Atheist]

Someone catch me up, I thought cucking was adultery or something

 

[Michael Legault]

I swear I never heard of that stupid word "Cuck," before this idiotic election took place. Now its everywhere on the web.

I had initially assumed people were just misspelling "cock".

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

And then all these sadistic elites who decide they get to determine who is acceptable. Then if you aren't "acceptable" they advocate punching you, getting you fired, or CULLING you. Yet they aren't fascist at all somehow. Seems like some people just want to justify horrible sadistic actions because it is ok because they are "acceptable." Some of us don't "accept" that hypocrisy.

Religious freedom, yo. Your boss should totally be able to fire your arse solely for being gay or trans like they do in 31 states in the U.S. ... Oh, I'm sorry-- Wrong topic. SJWs are totally the problem.

After all... the case of a neo-Nazi getting punched in a city of millions advocating for murdering unacceptable people is is now acceptably unacceptably acceptable? After all ... anti-fascism is the same as fascism now! Rather than, you know ... saying that punching prople is wrong, but not pretending as if it's always unacceptable the use of force. After all... hard to say punching people is uncalled for when you have a government mass killing huge swathes of benign, unacceptable people.

Bit more grey scale, then.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I'm loathe to reply since you have vociferously attacked me before in a hurtful and disingenuous way but lets be optimistic for now and hope you can be civil to me.

People getting fired for being gay does not negate the sadistic mob doxxings firings that many sjws encourage.
The other side doing horrible stuff doesn't excuse the sadistic practices of your side.

I had an issue when the drupal community recently mobbed a bdsm friendly member and got them fired for their sexuality. This was done at the behest of an SJW who disliked this drupal members sexuality. I don't think people getting people fired for legal stuff they do outside of work is right.
NO. MATTER. WHAT. SIDE. DOES. IT.
Part of that is because I have issues with how much of our personal life current jobs are able to have control over. Part of that is because trying to get someone fired increases the chances of them dying or their family falling into poverty. Getting someone fired for saying something offensive is disgusting and inhumane, much more so than saying despicable things online (that aren't legally threats.)


I can dislike both tactics 100% and take issue with the side that says they have empathy then using tactics devoid of empathy. Firing mobs activated for saying something mean online are no better or worse than firing mobs for someone's expressed sexuality. People shouldn't be fired for things outside of their job. Your sexuality and private life shouldn't affect your job. Now if you indicate that you are unprofessional because you do something as disgusting as recommending kids who aren't pro-refugee to be psychologically evaluated (as someone here has done - indicating that they are in fact unprofessional and bad at their job) or sticking someone with needles extra times because you don't like their politics (as a member of another forum indicated they did to conservatives- they should be prosecuted and fired for that btw) or being rude to or giving unprofessional service to someone based on their sexuality or identity (sick and just as wrong) then firing is reasonable.
Conservative and liberal firing mobs for voicing opinions or saying mean things online is just plain bs. I hate Manveer Heir's anti-white racism. It is disgusting. I think he is a disgusting, hypocritical person who I would never wish to talk to irl. I don't like anyone advocating to get him fired for those tweets. The mobs to get Manveer fired are just as bad as the mobs trying to get a shitlord fired for saying something controversial online.

Telling someone you dislike what they say, no problem. Trying to get someone fired or harmed for what they say? You are a horrible intolerant sadistic hypocrite who doesn't care about eliminating ideological opponents and thus has no scruples.
Trying to get someone fired for their sexuality? It is horrible too. I hated it when it happened decades ago to lgbt members, I hate it today when it happens today lgbt and to anyone with a non-vanilla sexuality.

Edit: since you added:

After all... the case of a neo-Nazi getting punched in a city of millions advocating for murdering unacceptable people is is now acceptably unacceptably acceptable? After all ... anti-fascism is the same as fascism now! Rather than, you know ... saying that punching prople is wrong, but not pretending as if it's always unacceptable the use of force. After all... hard to say punching people is uncalled for when you have a government mass killing huge swathes of benign, unacceptable people.

Bit more grey scale, then.

This argument is gibberish. The grey scale jibe is utter bs. Sorry if you are trying to advocate punching people as being grey. Punching people not trying to attack you is wrong. Even if they say something you find offensive or endangering to others. If it is actually harming others then involve the police. You do not have the right to inflict physical harm on someone as a vigilante would. It isn't grey, it is using violence in response to offensive terms which is what a fascist would do.

Anti-fa is truly fascist since they adopted violent silencing tactics. doing it for a "good cause" doesn't negate their fascist inclinations and violent tactics. If you don't get how antifascists utilizing fascist and draconian rules and countermeasures doesn't make them fascist vigilantes then we won't come to an agreement on this. you can say the use of violence in response to speech is grey, I say the argument of violence in response to words is a coward's justification for harming those they dislike. If you want to ignore my points and misrepresent them then don't be surprised if I just begin ignoring any "point" which carries no weight and respond with the nothing the point deserved.
Justifying violence in response to offensive speech isn't grey. It is wrong. Why justify sadistic and violent tactics when other tactics are readily available and won't turn you into a hypocrite and a monster by engaging in them?

Many of the people trying to justify punching people are just sadists who want to see people punched. Their supporting reasons are just trying to make their violence seem ok but don't miss the truth that they are just sadistic monsters who wish to see others hurt.

Oh sweetheart, vociferously attacked you? Is this the time I asked you to cite your sources or when I challenged your rhetoric? Given that 3/4s of this post is how I'm a horrible person I'll address the primary points of your post.

The difference is that one is embraced by law. That is part of actual acceptable legal defence that you can void a workplace agreement for things people have not right or rightly demands or credulity in the merit of sale. Outlirrs does not an acceptable legal defence of religious sensinilities in the marketplace make.

If one party is more guilty of this then why have I never seen you defend them? I might be in the wrong here, but the solution I put forward (enforcing equitable exchange and strong defence of the written contract to the exclusion of arbitrary nonsense). As I said before, one neo-Nazi in a city of millions getting punched is little compared to people who are beaten by police and murdered for conditions they have no means to acceptably relinquish or can do to begin with. The difference is that it still comes down to a freedom of expression. The bearing being that I am advocating that freedom of expression, at us core, is the capacity of self expression and its moral right is in the pursuit of self-construction as per an existential authenticity of self as put forward by philosophers like Sartre and Beauvoir.

The importance is profound, that person punching a neo-Nazi will be charged with assault. An employer who fires an LGBTQ person who comes out about it will get defended by government saying that's okay. Also... when you speak of misrepresentation, how about not doing so right here... eh? My argument is that the reason for striking the neo-Nazi comes from a different place than a government that caters to the special snowflakes in 31 U.S. ... states (argh... I refuse to just say 'American' because that's equally weird) ... who seem to think the marketplace should be a church.

 

[Silvanus]

I'm loathe to reply since you have vociferously attacked me before in a hurtful and disingenuous way but lets be optimistic for now and hope you can be civil to me.

Ahh, maybe this is an attempt to discuss the issue with some civility. Let's see--

People getting fired for being gay does not negate the sadistic mob doxxings firings that many sjws encourage.
The other side doing horrible stuff doesn't excuse the sadistic practices of your side.

...Ah.

If you were genuinely interested in discussing this like an adult, you wouldn't be resorting quite so immediately to the same tired old political insults and guilt-by-association ("your side").

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Oh sweetheart, vociferously attacked you? Is this the time I asked you to cite your sources or when I challenged your rhetoric? Given that 3/4s of this post is how I'm a horrible person I'll address the primary points of your post.

So you ignored the times you been directly hurtful and abusive and instead try and put up other times when you were merely rude and disingenuous but we still engaged each others points.
I do refer to the times you kept referring to me as stupid for disagreeing with your wholehearted embrace of utilitarianism. I refer to the times you have been directly abusive to me and directly insulted me. As soemoen that tries to mock my "rhetoric" you sure do use the ad hominem fallacy and employ an insulting rhetorical tone to your "arguments."

Since you refuse to engage with civility and are mocking me then I will interpret the "points" you made as being as much of a joke as that rude response and thus are not in need of a reply since they lack any logical support. If gambling were legal here I'd bet you would reply with another stream of abuse, mockery, or hateful invective. Seems to be your m.o.

Wow... see ... here you do it again. Shots fired, ignore the rest of the post when I said that I was over it. How about addressing the rest of the post where I said I wasn't interested in playing this game? You spent three paragraphs calling me out, I spent 1 saying I wasn't interested. Do you have an argument or is this all you are going to do? I'm getting pretty fucking tired with the emotionality when it has nothing to do with the topics around this place.

I mean this is a perfect example of what you did in the other post as well.

Deflection, sophistry, rhetoric.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Hmm, that doesn't make sense, because if you are working for someone you're the one getting screwed.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

After you insulted me I ignored the rest. If you said you were over it you should apologize for insinuating that I was stupid and uneducated instead of attacking me more. If you are over it thenstop insulting me. Simple.
I have an argument, you keep ignoring it.
You keep committing the same fallacies and being abusive to me so we likely won't getting anything interesting or productive out of this by going any further. Seeing how you massively cursed out people a few days ago for disagreement in what seemed like a very emotional and hateful manner I find you getting tired of emotionality to be ironic. If you are over it then just move on. Taking more potshots just proves my point.

The difference is that one is embraced by law. That is part of actual acceptable legal defence that you can void a workplace agreement for things people have not right or rightly demands or credulity in the merit of sale. Outlirrs does not an acceptable legal defence of religious sensinilities in the marketplace make.
If one party is more guilty of this then why have I never seen you defend them? I might be in the wrong here, but the solution I put forward (enforcing equitable exchange and strong defence of the written contract to the exclusion of arbitrary nonsense). As I said before, one neo-Nazi in a city of millions getting punched is little compared to people who are beaten by police and murdered for conditions they have no means to acceptably relinquish or can do to begin with. The difference is that it still comes down to a freedom of expression. The bearing being that I am advocating that freedom of expression, at us core, is the capacity of self expression and its moral right is in the pursuit of self-construction as per an existential authenticity of self as put forward by philosophers like Sartre and Beauvoir.
The importance is profound, that person punching a neo-Nazi will be charged with assault. An employer who fires an LGBTQ person who comes out about it will get defended by government saying that's okay. Also... when you speak of misrepresentation, how about not doing so right here... eh? My argument is that the reason for striking the neo-Nazi comes from a different place than a government that caters to the special snowflakes in 31 U.S. ... states (argh... I refuse to just say 'American' because that's equally weird) ... who seem to think the marketplace should be a church.

Insulted you? You spent 3 paragraphs calling me a horrible person before I ever made a quip about it ... either that or for making a joke about religious freedom, because you apparently have a beef. How the fuck was any original joke targeted at you (beyond pointing out how ridiculous the rhetoric has become, how punching is bad but no one seems to argue how institutionalised discrimination isn't somehow worse for the same reasons)? My reply to that was how I was going to let that slide for the sake of the argument.

For the sake of trying to salvage the thread... I'M NOT GOING TO ENTERTAIN IT. So how about if we both drop it and maintain a cohesive argument here?

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

The insults I am referring to is how you have on multiple occasions portrayed me (or occasionally just my arguments) as stupid or uneducated. This happened a lot right after I critiqued utilitarianism. I don't see what there is to salvage. You seem to behave as if I was a buffoon and I see you as being inherently insulting and condescending when you reply to me. I'm happy to find others who are as interested in philosophy (perhaps more so) than I am but this mutual hostility between us makes it difficult to achieve a true discussion where we are not trying to score "points" at the expense of the other. I engage in this too since it is a mutual phenomenon.

Perhaps I will jump back in later when I am not as annoyed and thus am able to keep the discussion purely intellectual. I fear it has devolved to the point of mutual hostility.

Mutual hostility? W/e. I said multiple times that I'm not interested in this dialogue. Multiple times. If you need a break, take one... but don't pretend my joke about religious freedom was me triggering that outburst, darling. This was all you. Even afterwards I let it slide and said I'll simply ignore it. Then you accuse me of not engaging honestly? You pulled this stunt before.

I don't hate you. I don't. Don't presume 'hostility' when it's plainly enough on record.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Hmm, that doesn't make sense, because if you are working for someone you're the one getting screwed.

Isn't that the truth of the modern worker?
Unless I am misinterpreting your point in which case sorry for saying something irrelevant.

Yeah, but a cuckold is someone who gets off of watching their significant other getting screwed, and not getting screwed themselves. Or something like that.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

That's strange, usually the SJW stereotype is the person with gender studies degrees and no job, not the actually working people.

Like I said, it's tough to keep up with actually being an acceptable member of the human race these days.

And then all these sadistic elites who decide they get to determine who is acceptable. Then if you aren't "acceptable" they advocate punching you, getting you fired, or CULLING you. Yet they aren't fascist at all somehow. Seems like some people just want to justify horrible sadistic actions because it is ok because they are "acceptable." Some of us don't "accept" that hypocrisy.

Of course not. You've got your own culling, firing, and punching oyu want to do. Day of the Rope, Free Helicopter Rides, ect. Can't have competition.

 

[The Lunatic]

Fucking wagecucks shitting up my vidya board.

Reeeeeeeeeeeeee



It's just people goofying off and making light of the whole neetdom thing that's come about in the past few years.

It's based on the whole Neet vs Normie memes that've been going for years.

Spoiler: See as followed.

It's self-deprecating in a lot of ways. Memeology is a seriously under-studied field.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

It's just people goofying off and making light of the whole neetdom thing that's come about in the past few years.

Light? This is about as light as fish and chip batter.

Spoiler: See as followed.

Well, way to drive it home how apparently now people with jobs are the outcasts and the undesirables in society. Another bottle of Jack down...

Memeology is a seriously under-studied field.

What's there to study?

 

[The Lunatic]

What's there to study?

Oh, well, it's quite simple really.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

What's there to study?

Oh, well, it's quite simple really.

Platnium Games are garbage. I'm not even allowed to go to them for entertainment, so why would I go to them for philosophy?

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

What's there to study?

Poe's Law? Both you and a certain Marvel-hater around here have a bad habit of taking everything too seriously. Finding it bothersome, I get because this pollution of ideas is bad comedy at best; but then you go and let it actually bother you.

How do you know they're not serious?

 

[somonels]

I swear I never heard of that stupid word "Cuck," before this idiotic election took place. Now its everywhere on the web.

Cuckoo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8dEo1nCnAI

 

[springheeljack]

and lets me do things other than sit in a basement drying my wanking sock on a radiator.

Oh Mr lah-di-dah owning his own wank-sock. Some of us have to rent.

Renting one? That's lucky I'm just stuck with the communal wank sock

 

[Marik2]

WTF is a "cuckold?" Hang on...
*googles*
So having a job makes me the husband of an unfaithful wife? What??

Wait, cuckold is just cheating? I thought it was a fetish were a guys wife "cheats" on him with another guy, but the husband watches and gets off to it.

Edit: Oh holy crap, I just realized that people who use 'cuckold' as an insult are even bigger shits then I initially assumed. They are also misogynists. Cause the way I see it tend to be used would mean that the man can't keep his property to himself.

You know how I mentioned I saw a webcomic explaining what cuckold is that I couldn't tell if it was meant to explain it or mock it?

Well, according to it, it's not just watching someone else fuck your wife/girlfriend. It's actually submitting to some rather serious emotional abuse. Not even kidding, according to the comic, the other guy can just push you around and give you ridiculous orders just to demean you. Anything from kicking you out of the room to have sex with your significant other to forbidding you from having sex with her for a week. It can also mean having your significant other mock you as well.

Seriously, despite still being unclear on whether it was actually intended to mock or clarify the fetish, I actually felt bad for the character in the comic. It looked to me like he was being emotionally abused and was simply too meek to stand up for himself and claimed it was a fetish as a defense mechanism.

I'd link the comic, but it does contain nudity. Pretty sure that would get moderated even in the Wild West.

Can you give me the name?

I want to laugh at something bad.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

That's strange, usually the SJW stereotype is the person with gender studies degrees and no job, not the actually working people.

Like I said, it's tough to keep up with actually being an acceptable member of the human race these days.

And then all these sadistic elites who decide they get to determine who is acceptable. Then if you aren't "acceptable" they advocate punching you, getting you fired, or CULLING you. Yet they aren't fascist at all somehow. Seems like some people just want to justify horrible sadistic actions because it is ok because they are "acceptable." Some of us don't "accept" that hypocrisy.

Of course not. You've got your own culling, firing, and punching oyu want to do. Day of the Rope, Free Helicopter Rides, ect. Can't have competition.

No, I don't and that is disgusting and preposterous to assume so. S I thought you had some semblance of decency and moderation in your arguments. I feel like I am now wrong about that.

Decency and moderation? That's apparently for cuckolds and SJW's, so I ditched it.