Evolve Community Mgr Fired After Tweet on Donald Sterling - Update

[Spearmaster]

Case and point: someone is a racist...OK, now I guess its OK to treat that person as poorly as possible within the limits of the law, to some its not only OK its required to teach said person a lesson. If you think that's OK try replacing "racist" with black, Jewish, woman and so on. Is that train of logic still OK, because its the same train of logic that the racists, sexists and Nazis used. Don't give me the "breaking the law" excuse either because morals exist separate from laws and laws were created to enforce certain morals.

Oh so black people are all racists now!

No, that's not really how I'm interpreting it. But nothing requires us to treat black people and racists the same. There are differences that are actually relevant. Like that racists tend to treat people badly without a reason for it.

Not true they make up several "moral" reasons for it.

It's absurd to think you can just swap in one noun for another regardless of any differences.

It's easy to see why what you've said fails: People don't have to think that you should treat black people and racists the same.

How does it fail? People are using a moral to rationalize treating someone poorly for what they are, its the same.

 

[Spearmaster]

I don't think this is going anywhere, to many people subscribe to the idea that something is only moral if it aligns with their morals, also that if someone has done something they consider immoral that it excludes that person from receiving any moral treatment.

Case and point: someone is a racist...OK, now I guess its OK to treat that person as poorly as possible within the limits of the law, to some its not only OK its required to teach said person a lesson. If you think that's OK try replacing "racist" with black, Jewish, woman and so on. Is that train of logic still OK, because its the same train of logic that the racists, sexists and Nazis used. Don't give me the "breaking the law" excuse either because morals exist separate from laws and laws were created to enforce certain morals.

All this is coming from people who are using the "treating people decently" defense to rationalize not treating people decently. Morals don't just go away when someone else does something immoral, you cant just claim because someone does something you deem immoral then that person is not due any moral treatment. Saying its moral to be immoral is a lame attempt to rationalize reacting based on emotion, bandwagons or to conceal ones own amorality.

Treating people the way you want to be treated or treating people how you think they should be treated? There's a difference.

Did....you just try to compare racists to blacks,jews,and women in terms of how they should be treated?That logic is so ass backwards I'm not even going to bother shredding it.

Explain how the logic is unsound in treating people equally then. It would be really hard to shred it when you apparently didn't even understand it.

If you think racists deserve to be treated decently and their actions are moral then I almost pity you.They sure as hell would'nt afford the same decency and morality to you,me,or anyone else who is different from them.

Again you didn't even comprehend what I said. They rationalize their racism as a moral code which they use to mistreat people of other races. You are doing the exact same thing to them, the only difference is you are claiming a different moral code. The action itself is no different.

Too many goddamn people in society are willing to bend over backwards for the racists and bigots,while anyone who does stand up to them are labelled "politically correct" or a "social justice warrior".Keeping speaking up for the rights of bigots/racists,you better hope that one day they do the same....that is unless you're a different skin color.

You cant pick and choose who you want to treat decently and claim some moral high ground, its exactly what the racists have done.

I strive to treat "ALL" people decently and with respect even if I don't agree with them.

 

[Spearmaster]

I don't think this is going anywhere, to many people subscribe to the idea that something is only moral if it aligns with their morals, also that if someone has done something they consider immoral that it excludes that person from receiving any moral treatment.

Case and point: someone is a racist...OK, now I guess its OK to treat that person as poorly as possible within the limits of the law, to some its not only OK its required to teach said person a lesson. If you think that's OK try replacing "racist" with black, Jewish, woman and so on. Is that train of logic still OK, because its the same train of logic that the racists, sexists and Nazis used. Don't give me the "breaking the law" excuse either because morals exist separate from laws and laws were created to enforce certain morals.

All this is coming from people who are using the "treating people decently" defense to rationalize not treating people decently. Morals don't just go away when someone else does something immoral, you cant just claim because someone does something you deem immoral then that person is not due any moral treatment. Saying its moral to be immoral is a lame attempt to rationalize reacting based on emotion, bandwagons or to conceal ones own amorality.

Treating people the way you want to be treated or treating people how you think they should be treated? There's a difference.

I call bull. You're basically saying: You don't want to put rubber in your salad, well then imagine if someone said that about fruits, vegetables, or cheeses, that would be a crappy salad. One of these things just doesn't belong. You CAN put a Jew, a woman, and a black person together in the same room, but you CANNOT put a bigot together with them (that assumes that neither of those is a bigot of course). And I guess the salad is then society? Society tastes better without rubber? I think I've lose myself there.

I'm not talking about liking, embracing or agreeing racists and the like, just treating them with decency. If you don't like rubber in your salad do you also go around slashing everyone's tires, burning all the rubber trees and claiming that rubber is evil and should not exist?

Anyhow, the concept of "tolerating intolerance" is so mind-bendingly paradoxical to what tolerance means from my moral perspective that I just fundamentally disagree with you regarding what morality even means.

Everyone is entitled to their own moral beliefs, that is fine, its when people use their moral beliefs as the reason for their moral beliefs being superior to those of others is when it becomes paradoxical. Morals are to arbitrary and subjective to use as a reason to treat others poorly. Only as a way to conduct yourself better.

The consequences of the act is faaaar more important than the act itself, and complex utilitarianism is all that matters. If we treat humanity as various associations, as opposed to population, the bigot that is causing social harm to most associations should be caused social harm for the benefit of most associations, even if said associations are smaller in population than the bigot population.

Well its easy to claim utilitarianism when you are in the majority, personally I find utilitarianism lazy and reckless for that reason. Its tough for me to embrace a moral code that says its OK to do anything as long as more people like it than are harmed by it.

Example: Utilitarianism says nothing is wrong, say you get 30 guys together to gang rape a woman, 30 guys gain pleasure from the act, only 1 woman is harmed. Utilitarianism says the act was moral. Not a code I can agree with.

 

[Spearmaster]

Case and point: someone is a racist...OK, now I guess its OK to treat that person as poorly as possible within the limits of the law, to some its not only OK its required to teach said person a lesson. If you think that's OK try replacing "racist" with black, Jewish, woman and so on. Is that train of logic still OK, because its the same train of logic that the racists, sexists and Nazis used. Don't give me the "breaking the law" excuse either because morals exist separate from laws and laws were created to enforce certain morals.

Oh so black people are all racists now!

No, that's not really how I'm interpreting it. But nothing requires us to treat black people and racists the same. There are differences that are actually relevant. Like that racists tend to treat people badly without a reason for it.

Not true they make up several "moral" reasons for it.

It's absurd to think you can just swap in one noun for another regardless of any differences.

It's easy to see why what you've said fails: People don't have to think that you should treat black people and racists the same.

How does it fail? People are using a moral to rationalize treating someone poorly for what they are, its the same.

No,it's not.Racists/bigots don't need morals to treat people poorly since it's all hate.There's no comparison to the racists/bigots and the people who condemn them for their despicable behaviour.To even suggest there is one means ignoring centuries of history regarding racism and hatred.

And yet they still use morals as an excuse, much the same way people use morals as an excuse to hate racists.

 

[Spearmaster]

I don't think this is going anywhere, to many people subscribe to the idea that something is only moral if it aligns with their morals, also that if someone has done something they consider immoral that it excludes that person from receiving any moral treatment.

Case and point: someone is a racist...OK, now I guess its OK to treat that person as poorly as possible within the limits of the law, to some its not only OK its required to teach said person a lesson. If you think that's OK try replacing "racist" with black, Jewish, woman and so on. Is that train of logic still OK, because its the same train of logic that the racists, sexists and Nazis used. Don't give me the "breaking the law" excuse either because morals exist separate from laws and laws were created to enforce certain morals.

All this is coming from people who are using the "treating people decently" defense to rationalize not treating people decently. Morals don't just go away when someone else does something immoral, you cant just claim because someone does something you deem immoral then that person is not due any moral treatment. Saying its moral to be immoral is a lame attempt to rationalize reacting based on emotion, bandwagons or to conceal ones own amorality.

Treating people the way you want to be treated or treating people how you think they should be treated? There's a difference.

Did....you just try to compare racists to blacks,jews,and women in terms of how they should be treated?That logic is so ass backwards I'm not even going to bother shredding it.

Explain how the logic is unsound in treating people equally then. It would be really hard to shred it when you apparently didn't even understand it.

If you think racists deserve to be treated decently and their actions are moral then I almost pity you.They sure as hell would'nt afford the same decency and morality to you,me,or anyone else who is different from them.

Again you didn't even comprehend what I said. They rationalize their racism as a moral code which they use to mistreat people of other races. You are doing the exact same thing to them, the only difference is you are claiming a different moral code. The action itself is no different.

Too many goddamn people in society are willing to bend over backwards for the racists and bigots,while anyone who does stand up to them are labelled "politically correct" or a "social justice warrior".Keeping speaking up for the rights of bigots/racists,you better hope that one day they do the same....that is unless you're a different skin color.

You cant pick and choose who you want to treat decently and claim some moral high ground, its exactly what the racists have done.

I strive to treat "ALL" people decently and with respect even if I don't agree with them.

There is so much wrong with this entire post...racists don't justify their racism with a moral code, they do it with their hatred.

They use a moral code to justify their hatred.

Like I said before you are trying to argue for them to be treated equally like everyone else, when the racists/bigots would'nt give you or anyone else the same treatment unless you're the same skin color as them.

Completely irrelevant to anything I have said. You seem to be arguing this from a point of spite rather than anything else.

Equality is something racists and bigots don't want.That is why segregation and slavery existed,it's why gays and people of color are still being discriminated against today.

Wow, have I ever defended the viewpoint of racists/bigots? What does any of this have to do with anything I have said?
Your only reply seems to be that racism is bad, congratulations on figuring that out, the internet owes you a debt.

 

[Spearmaster]

Case and point: someone is a racist...OK, now I guess its OK to treat that person as poorly as possible within the limits of the law, to some its not only OK its required to teach said person a lesson. If you think that's OK try replacing "racist" with black, Jewish, woman and so on. Is that train of logic still OK, because its the same train of logic that the racists, sexists and Nazis used. Don't give me the "breaking the law" excuse either because morals exist separate from laws and laws were created to enforce certain morals.

Oh so black people are all racists now!

No, that's not really how I'm interpreting it. But nothing requires us to treat black people and racists the same. There are differences that are actually relevant. Like that racists tend to treat people badly without a reason for it.

Not true they make up several "moral" reasons for it.

It's absurd to think you can just swap in one noun for another regardless of any differences.

It's easy to see why what you've said fails: People don't have to think that you should treat black people and racists the same.

How does it fail? People are using a moral to rationalize treating someone poorly for what they are, its the same.

No,it's not.Racists/bigots don't need morals to treat people poorly since it's all hate.There's no comparison to the racists/bigots and the people who condemn them for their despicable behaviour.To even suggest there is one means ignoring centuries of history regarding racism and hatred.

And yet they still use morals as an excuse, much the same way people use morals as an excuse to hate racists.

Hatred isn't a moral,it's a negative emotion.Racists don't need morals for a excuse to hate,they just do.Also you seem to be confusing condemnation of racist behaviour for hate.Society has advanced enough to the point where treating people like animals based off the color of their skin is looked down upon.

Its more than look down upon thought, like you said its condemed...but not just the act but also the people that have that view.

Most racists have kept their hate secret and use the internet to spew it without fear of being judged.

Honestly at this point I don't know what you're arguing for anymore,

And yet you keep arguing the same points that have nothing to do with anything Ive said. If you dont understand the content why keep it up?

you seem to have a problem with racism and bigotry getting the treatment it deserves.

Deserves? You are qualified to make that call? I believe racists have said the same thing to people to justify their behavior.

 

[AgedGrunt]

Where is the PC crowd or this so called "Justice Squad"?It's easy to make up imaginary groups or problems when there aren't any.Who the hell got murdered here?

No one was murdered [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech], but if you're looking around wondering where all "these people" are, you're probably one of them. 12 pages and 400 replies is not an imagination, it's pretty much the norm for these controversies, as is the schadenfreude from self-righteous, tumblr-like intellects who have a psychological dysfunction when it comes to understanding and coping with society.

 

[Cliff_m85]

Where is the PC crowd or this so called "Justice Squad"?It's easy to make up imaginary groups or problems when there aren't any.Who the hell got murdered here?

No one was murdered [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech], but if you're looking around wondering where all "these people" are, you're probably one of them. 12 pages and 400 replies is not an imagination, it's pretty much the norm for these controversies, as is the schadenfreude from self-righteous, tumblr-like intellects who have a psychological dysfunction when it comes to understanding and coping with society.

I believe in people not being treated like non humans by others just because of their skin color or sexual orientation.If that makes me "politically correct" then I'm freaking glad that I'm not on the side that has a problem with that.Also this is called a discussion and not some imagined PC group or Social Justice Warrior bullshit you seem to think it is.

I feel bad for the anti PC group,it must suck that they're not allowed to be a asshole or bigot without people doing or saying anything about it .The only people who complain about "political correctness" are those who fit either of the two catagories.

False. I'm pretty much down with PC until it invades satire and comedy. When people get upset over an obvious joke and demand a television host gets fired or a comedian apologize, that's when my eyes roll and I have to sigh.

 

[Spearmaster]

I don't think this is going anywhere, to many people subscribe to the idea that something is only moral if it aligns with their morals, also that if someone has done something they consider immoral that it excludes that person from receiving any moral treatment.

Case and point: someone is a racist...OK, now I guess its OK to treat that person as poorly as possible within the limits of the law, to some its not only OK its required to teach said person a lesson. If you think that's OK try replacing "racist" with black, Jewish, woman and so on. Is that train of logic still OK, because its the same train of logic that the racists, sexists and Nazis used. Don't give me the "breaking the law" excuse either because morals exist separate from laws and laws were created to enforce certain morals.

All this is coming from people who are using the "treating people decently" defense to rationalize not treating people decently. Morals don't just go away when someone else does something immoral, you cant just claim because someone does something you deem immoral then that person is not due any moral treatment. Saying its moral to be immoral is a lame attempt to rationalize reacting based on emotion, bandwagons or to conceal ones own amorality.

Treating people the way you want to be treated or treating people how you think they should be treated? There's a difference.

Did....you just try to compare racists to blacks,jews,and women in terms of how they should be treated?That logic is so ass backwards I'm not even going to bother shredding it.

Explain how the logic is unsound in treating people equally then. It would be really hard to shred it when you apparently didn't even understand it.

If you think racists deserve to be treated decently and their actions are moral then I almost pity you.They sure as hell would'nt afford the same decency and morality to you,me,or anyone else who is different from them.

Again you didn't even comprehend what I said. They rationalize their racism as a moral code which they use to mistreat people of other races. You are doing the exact same thing to them, the only difference is you are claiming a different moral code. The action itself is no different.

Too many goddamn people in society are willing to bend over backwards for the racists and bigots,while anyone who does stand up to them are labelled "politically correct" or a "social justice warrior".Keeping speaking up for the rights of bigots/racists,you better hope that one day they do the same....that is unless you're a different skin color.

You cant pick and choose who you want to treat decently and claim some moral high ground, its exactly what the racists have done.

I strive to treat "ALL" people decently and with respect even if I don't agree with them.

There is so much wrong with this entire post...racists don't justify their racism with a moral code, they do it with their hatred.

They use a moral code to justify their hatred.

Like I said before you are trying to argue for them to be treated equally like everyone else, when the racists/bigots would'nt give you or anyone else the same treatment unless you're the same skin color as them.

Completely irrelevant to anything I have said. You seem to be arguing this from a point of spite rather than anything else.

Equality is something racists and bigots don't want.That is why segregation and slavery existed,it's why gays and people of color are still being discriminated against today.

Wow, have I ever defended the viewpoint of racists/bigots? What does any of this have to do with anything I have said?
Your only reply seems to be that racism is bad, congratulations on figuring that out, the internet owes you a debt.

Being snarky does'nt help your argument.I'm speaking from a position of facts

Which facts?

and not spite,racists/and bigots would find the idea of being equal to the "lesser races" insulting which is exactly what you were arguing for in your previous posts.

So whats the problem with that? I'm not punishing them, they are punishing themselves and I am treating everyone equally. Where does any of this conclude that its OK to treat these people poorly and bad to treat them equally?

 

[Spearmaster]

Case and point: someone is a racist...OK, now I guess its OK to treat that person as poorly as possible within the limits of the law, to some its not only OK its required to teach said person a lesson. If you think that's OK try replacing "racist" with black, Jewish, woman and so on. Is that train of logic still OK, because its the same train of logic that the racists, sexists and Nazis used. Don't give me the "breaking the law" excuse either because morals exist separate from laws and laws were created to enforce certain morals.

Oh so black people are all racists now!

No, that's not really how I'm interpreting it. But nothing requires us to treat black people and racists the same. There are differences that are actually relevant. Like that racists tend to treat people badly without a reason for it.

Not true they make up several "moral" reasons for it.

It's absurd to think you can just swap in one noun for another regardless of any differences.

It's easy to see why what you've said fails: People don't have to think that you should treat black people and racists the same.

How does it fail? People are using a moral to rationalize treating someone poorly for what they are, its the same.

No,it's not.Racists/bigots don't need morals to treat people poorly since it's all hate.There's no comparison to the racists/bigots and the people who condemn them for their despicable behaviour.To even suggest there is one means ignoring centuries of history regarding racism and hatred.

And yet they still use morals as an excuse, much the same way people use morals as an excuse to hate racists.

Hatred isn't a moral,it's a negative emotion.Racists don't need morals for a excuse to hate,they just do.Also you seem to be confusing condemnation of racist behaviour for hate.Society has advanced enough to the point where treating people like animals based off the color of their skin is looked down upon.

Its more than look down upon thought, like you said its condemed...but not just the act but also the people that have that view.

Most racists have kept their hate secret and use the internet to spew it without fear of being judged.

Honestly at this point I don't know what you're arguing for anymore,

And yet you keep arguing the same points that have nothing to do with anything Ive said. If you dont understand the content why keep it up?

you seem to have a problem with racism and bigotry getting the treatment it deserves.

Deserves? You are qualified to make that call? I believe racists have said the same thing to people to justify their behavior.

No,but society is.

So I am to believe that because enough people agree that it must be right? There is more evidence throughout history of "society" being wrong than right. And plenty of people like you that have went along with it. Do you always believe as your told by the largest group of people?

Racism and bigotry should'nt be condoned nor tolerated

Racism and Bigotry are NOT condoned, who was advocating for that? How would not destroying people lives be condoning racism?
And you do know that not tolerating bigotry is a paradox right?

,these people treat others like they're not even human based on skin color or sexual orienation.They deserve to be criticized and condemned by society at large.

"These people"?
"Treat" others?
So every racist/bigot has acted on their views? You realize that this whole thing started around a guy who "did" nothing right? He said something and you are actually drawing the collusion that he is a full fledged, cross burning, sheet wearing Klansman?

 

[Spearmaster]

I don't think this is going anywhere, to many people subscribe to the idea that something is only moral if it aligns with their morals, also that if someone has done something they consider immoral that it excludes that person from receiving any moral treatment.

Case and point: someone is a racist...OK, now I guess its OK to treat that person as poorly as possible within the limits of the law, to some its not only OK its required to teach said person a lesson. If you think that's OK try replacing "racist" with black, Jewish, woman and so on. Is that train of logic still OK, because its the same train of logic that the racists, sexists and Nazis used. Don't give me the "breaking the law" excuse either because morals exist separate from laws and laws were created to enforce certain morals.

All this is coming from people who are using the "treating people decently" defense to rationalize not treating people decently. Morals don't just go away when someone else does something immoral, you cant just claim because someone does something you deem immoral then that person is not due any moral treatment. Saying its moral to be immoral is a lame attempt to rationalize reacting based on emotion, bandwagons or to conceal ones own amorality.

Treating people the way you want to be treated or treating people how you think they should be treated? There's a difference.

Did....you just try to compare racists to blacks,jews,and women in terms of how they should be treated?That logic is so ass backwards I'm not even going to bother shredding it.

Explain how the logic is unsound in treating people equally then. It would be really hard to shred it when you apparently didn't even understand it.

If you think racists deserve to be treated decently and their actions are moral then I almost pity you.They sure as hell would'nt afford the same decency and morality to you,me,or anyone else who is different from them.

Again you didn't even comprehend what I said. They rationalize their racism as a moral code which they use to mistreat people of other races. You are doing the exact same thing to them, the only difference is you are claiming a different moral code. The action itself is no different.

Too many goddamn people in society are willing to bend over backwards for the racists and bigots,while anyone who does stand up to them are labelled "politically correct" or a "social justice warrior".Keeping speaking up for the rights of bigots/racists,you better hope that one day they do the same....that is unless you're a different skin color.

You cant pick and choose who you want to treat decently and claim some moral high ground, its exactly what the racists have done.

I strive to treat "ALL" people decently and with respect even if I don't agree with them.

There is so much wrong with this entire post...racists don't justify their racism with a moral code, they do it with their hatred.

They use a moral code to justify their hatred.

Like I said before you are trying to argue for them to be treated equally like everyone else, when the racists/bigots would'nt give you or anyone else the same treatment unless you're the same skin color as them.

Completely irrelevant to anything I have said. You seem to be arguing this from a point of spite rather than anything else.

Equality is something racists and bigots don't want.That is why segregation and slavery existed,it's why gays and people of color are still being discriminated against today.

Wow, have I ever defended the viewpoint of racists/bigots? What does any of this have to do with anything I have said?
Your only reply seems to be that racism is bad, congratulations on figuring that out, the internet owes you a debt.

Being snarky does'nt help your argument.I'm speaking from a position of facts

Which facts?

and not spite,racists/and bigots would find the idea of being equal to the "lesser races" insulting which is exactly what you were arguing for in your previous posts.

So whats the problem with that? I'm not punishing them, they are punishing themselves and I am treating everyone equally. Where does any of this conclude that its OK to treat these people poorly and bad to treat them equally?

The fact that racists and bigots will never be for equal rights and will continue to mistreat others no matter what you do.

And neither will you apparently. Being bigoted towards everyone "you" feel is a bigot and all.

So society needs to make sure they know their views will not and shall not be tolerated.Coddling them won't do a damn thing because they'll just take advantage of your kindness and continue to spread their hatred without fear.

So your solution is to be the bigger bigot not the bigger person, now I understand.

 

[maxben]

I don't think this is going anywhere, to many people subscribe to the idea that something is only moral if it aligns with their morals, also that if someone has done something they consider immoral that it excludes that person from receiving any moral treatment.

Case and point: someone is a racist...OK, now I guess its OK to treat that person as poorly as possible within the limits of the law, to some its not only OK its required to teach said person a lesson. If you think that's OK try replacing "racist" with black, Jewish, woman and so on. Is that train of logic still OK, because its the same train of logic that the racists, sexists and Nazis used. Don't give me the "breaking the law" excuse either because morals exist separate from laws and laws were created to enforce certain morals.

All this is coming from people who are using the "treating people decently" defense to rationalize not treating people decently. Morals don't just go away when someone else does something immoral, you cant just claim because someone does something you deem immoral then that person is not due any moral treatment. Saying its moral to be immoral is a lame attempt to rationalize reacting based on emotion, bandwagons or to conceal ones own amorality.

Treating people the way you want to be treated or treating people how you think they should be treated? There's a difference.

I call bull. You're basically saying: You don't want to put rubber in your salad, well then imagine if someone said that about fruits, vegetables, or cheeses, that would be a crappy salad. One of these things just doesn't belong. You CAN put a Jew, a woman, and a black person together in the same room, but you CANNOT put a bigot together with them (that assumes that neither of those is a bigot of course). And I guess the salad is then society? Society tastes better without rubber? I think I've lose myself there.

I'm not talking about liking, embracing or agreeing racists and the like, just treating them with decency. If you don't like rubber in your salad do you also go around slashing everyone's tires, burning all the rubber trees and claiming that rubber is evil and should not exist?

Anyhow, the concept of "tolerating intolerance" is so mind-bendingly paradoxical to what tolerance means from my moral perspective that I just fundamentally disagree with you regarding what morality even means.

Everyone is entitled to their own moral beliefs, that is fine, its when people use their moral beliefs as the reason for their moral beliefs being superior to those of others is when it becomes paradoxical. Morals are to arbitrary and subjective to use as a reason to treat others poorly. Only as a way to conduct yourself better.

The consequences of the act is faaaar more important than the act itself, and complex utilitarianism is all that matters. If we treat humanity as various associations, as opposed to population, the bigot that is causing social harm to most associations should be caused social harm for the benefit of most associations, even if said associations are smaller in population than the bigot population.

Well its easy to claim utilitarianism when you are in the majority, personally I find utilitarianism lazy and reckless for that reason. Its tough for me to embrace a moral code that says its OK to do anything as long as more people like it than are harmed by it.

Example: Utilitarianism says nothing is wrong, say you get 30 guys together to gang rape a woman, 30 guys gain pleasure from the act, only 1 woman is harmed. Utilitarianism says the act was moral. Not a code I can agree with.

Which is why I spoke about associations and not populations in my conception of complex utilitarianism. The 30 guys here are doing damage through the girl the whole association of women as a gender class. Similarly, if 90% are white and they want to attack all minority groups, by association utilitarianism they are causing MORE damage because the minority groups are diverse associations. A tolerant society must therefore allow for the most amount of happy legitimate associations as possible (what is legitimate is the real weakness of my moral theory by the way because how do you make a difference between essential categories like gender and non-essential categories like nerds?), and so a society of a million happy bigots is worse off morally than a society of 100 different happy associations with a total population of 1000.