Kevin Hart

[bushwackerbob]

I am going to lay all of my cards on the table. I am not particularly a Kevin Hart fan and I am Pro gay marriage and I am with the LGBTQ community on some issues. Live and let live. Having said that, I believe it is unfair that Hart was made to relinquish his hosting duties at the Oscars due to past homophobic tweets. The first thing that I hate about this is this foraging through people's social media history in order to dig up something harmful. What kind of twisted motive must someone have to do a dumpster dive on someone's online history. My second point is that there has been a remarkable cultural shift change in attitudes towards gay marriage and LGBTQ issues in the last thirty years or so. Thirty years ago I was against gay marriage, in 1996 a Democrat President signed the Defense of Marriage Act (one man one woman), and as late as 2008, President Obama was publicly against gay marriage. My point is that this cultural transformation has taken some longer than others, that there are people coming a little late to the party. Is the Kevin Hart of today the same person that tweeted those dumb, stupid , ignorant remarks of 2008-2011? I suppose none of us knows the answer to that question but I would like to think the answer to that question is no. Instead of punishing people for their past ignorance, let us encourage growth, social awareness, and a greater understanding of our fellow human beings, let us build bridges instead of tearing them down.

[Dogfish]

Thing is he hasn't grown. And he didn't take the opportunity to. He got the job. People said, "Hey didn't you say loads of massively homophobic shit about ten years ago on social media?" and he went, "Yeah." and quit. He could have said sorry, he could have claimed to have changed, he decided to walk away, which is fine, but that doesn't make him a victim.

[bushwackerbob]

Thing is he hasn't grown. And he didn't take the opportunity to. He got the job. People said, "Hey didn't you say loads of massively homophobic shit about ten years ago on social media?" and he went, "Yeah." and quit. He could have said sorry, he could have claimed to have changed, he decided to walk away, which is fine, but that doesn't make him a victim.

If you take a look at his tweets yesterday he did apologize to the LGBTQ community yesterday and also said that he has evolved and will continue to evolve as a human being. I am guessing that it was made clear to him that if he did not quit the Oscars that he would be removed. Yes, the apology was a little late but at least it is out there. What he said in the past was incredibly stupid and ignorant, but what I hope for in the future is that we make a clear distinction between those who make those kind of comments and can possibly be redeemed and "saved", and those who utter hateful and intolerant words who have no better angels on their shoulders who have black hearts and no social conscience. Right now we sort of lump those two groups together in the same category.

[Dogfish]

Thing is he hasn't grown. And he didn't take the opportunity to. He got the job. People said, "Hey didn't you say loads of massively homophobic shit about ten years ago on social media?" and he went, "Yeah." and quit. He could have said sorry, he could have claimed to have changed, he decided to walk away, which is fine, but that doesn't make him a victim.

If you take a look at his tweets yesterday he did apologize to the LGBTQ community yesterday and also said that he has evolved and will continue to evolve as a human being. I am guessing that it was made clear to him that if he did not quit the Oscars that he would be removed. Yes, the apology was a little late but at least it is out there. What he said in the past was incredibly stupid and ignorant, but what I hope for in the future is that we make a clear distinction between those who make those kind of comments and can possibly be redeemed and "saved", and those who utter hateful and intolerant words who have no better angels on their shoulders who have black hearts and no social conscience. Right now we sort of lump those two groups together in the same category.

He apologised a bit, but he still seemed annoyed that he was getting called out for being a bigoted piece of shit eight years ago. He says he's grown, good for him, but there's not much evidence of that based on how he reacted.

It is tricky though and there's not a one-size-fits-all solution. Folks should be allowed to redeem themselves, of course, but I think there's more to redemption than just not tweeting really bigoted stuff for a few years.

Ironically the only person I can think of who did redeem themselves properly for an earlier social media controversy was James Gunn, and he stayed fired.

But if we've learned anything about Hollywood in recent years is a man can get away with pretty much anything and still have a career. Wouldn't be surprised to see Kevin Spacey back on the screen within five years.

Maybe the lesson to take from this is to not be a bigoted dick on social media. It's not that difficult really.

[bushwackerbob]

Thing is he hasn't grown. And he didn't take the opportunity to. He got the job. People said, "Hey didn't you say loads of massively homophobic shit about ten years ago on social media?" and he went, "Yeah." and quit. He could have said sorry, he could have claimed to have changed, he decided to walk away, which is fine, but that doesn't make him a victim.

If you take a look at his tweets yesterday he did apologize to the LGBTQ community yesterday and also said that he has evolved and will continue to evolve as a human being. I am guessing that it was made clear to him that if he did not quit the Oscars that he would be removed. Yes, the apology was a little late but at least it is out there. What he said in the past was incredibly stupid and ignorant, but what I hope for in the future is that we make a clear distinction between those who make those kind of comments and can possibly be redeemed and "saved", and those who utter hateful and intolerant words who have no better angels on their shoulders who have black hearts and no social conscience. Right now we sort of lump those two groups together in the same category.

He apologised a bit, but he still seemed annoyed that he was getting called out for being a bigoted piece of shit eight years ago. He says he's grown, good for him, but there's not much evidence of that based on how he reacted.

It is tricky though and there's not a one-size-fits-all solution. Folks should be allowed to redeem themselves, of course, but I think there's more to redemption than just not tweeting really bigoted stuff for a few years.

Ironically the only person I can think of who did redeem themselves properly for an earlier social media controversy was James Gunn, and he stayed fired.

But if we've learned anything about Hollywood in recent years is a man can get away with pretty much anything and still have a career. Wouldn't be surprised to see Kevin Spacey back on the screen within five years.

Maybe the lesson to take from this is to not be a bigoted dick on social media. It's not that difficult really.

Come on now, let us not be obtuse. It is perfectly plausible for Hart to be genuinely remorseful for his past comments and still pissed off at how those comments came to light. If someone damaged your ability to make a living, you would be pretty annoyed as well. Yes, he deserves all the criticism in the world for his comments, but I think that how these comments came to light is an entirely different conversation.

[Femina]

Thing is he chose to quit which is... weird. First he said he wouldn't apologize cause he already had (A lie, all he'd said was 'I wouldn't say those things today cause the audience is different'... True perhaps, but not 'an apology' or remorse) then he was told by the academy to apologize OR quit... so he quit.... and THEN apologized when he could have just apologized and not quit.

Bottom line is, he wasn't fired. He quit.

But to reiterate what I said during the great Guardians of the Galaxy crisis of James Gunn's tweets.... Twitter is stupid and everybody should quit it before it destroys their career because you wrote something stupid in your stream of conscious tweeting.

[Dogfish]

Thing is he chose to quit which is... weird. First he said he wouldn't apologize cause he already had (A lie, all he'd said was 'I wouldn't say those things today cause the audience is different'... True perhaps, but not 'an apology' or remorse) then he was told by the academy to apologize OR quit... so he quit.... and THEN apologized when he could have just apologized and not quit.

Bottom line is, he wasn't fired. He quit.

But to reiterate what I said during the great Guardians of the Galaxy crisis of James Gunn's tweets.... Twitter is stupid and everybody should quit it before it destroys their career because you wrote something stupid in your stream of conscious tweeting.

Although if his stream of consciousness pings out homophobic slurs like a 12 year old Call of Duty player then maybe his career isn't a great loss to the world. It's not like he's somebody who found out that his old jokes didn't age well. He just liked to use homophobic slurs as his goto insult.

As a great philosopher once wrote, 'Chat shit get banged'.

[ivandobsky]

Thing is he hasn't grown.

Shortist.

Today's purity testing is tedious. The Oscars seems like one big corporate virtue signal now.

The silver lining about the mainstream Overton window collapsing down to nothing is that at some point the pariahs will outnumber those that remain, which makes alternatives more viable.

[Femina]

Thing is he hasn't grown.

Shortist.

Today's purity testing is tedious. The Oscars seems like one big corporate virtue signal now.

The silver lining about the mainstream Overton window collapsing down to nothing is that at some point the pariahs will outnumber those that remain, which makes alternatives more viable.

Every time I see the words 'Virtue signaling' written out I'm reminded of an elephant seal puffing themselves up to impress the other seals and getting nowhere.

Stupid phrase for a conspiracy theory.

[ivandobsky]

Every time I see the words 'Virtue signaling' written out I'm reminded of an elephant seal puffing themselves up to impress the other seals and getting nowhere.

Stupid phrase for a conspiracy theory.

You may also dislike the word pairing "language policing". The seal in your example is sending a form of virtue signal, which you appear to dislike.

Do you prefer the sentence after substitution?:
"The Oscars seems like one big corporate seal-puff signal now.

[Dogfish]

When I see the words 'virtue signalling' it always figure it's projection. Somebody who doesn't have much in the way of empathy or social conscience of their own assuming that the only reason for people to do nice things is performative.

In reality people do nice things because it's good to do nice things. It's good to be a good person. To do a good deed is the point of doing a good deed and if people think you're cool afterwards that's gravy.

Speaks to how toxic discourse has got when we've got a phrase in common use that was specifically coined to attack people for doing the right thing. Like anybody who conducts themselves in a fitting manner for a member of a civilised society is up to no good.

[ivandobsky]

Words and phrases have different connotations. There is a natural tendency to assume things are meant a certain way, which is informed by how the person making the assumption has seen words and phrases used before. For some, terms like "virtue signalling" are predominantly seen used unironically by the unreasonable. It's a function of the media you consume, and social circle. That's not to say it's an invalid concept.

For me, terms like "patriarchy", or "white privilege" carry connotations of mad conspiracy theory, and are usually accompanied by idiocy when I read them, but that's not to say they can't be used in a sensible way.

Being nice and reaping the benefits of being seen to be nice is natural and laudable. That's generally not what is meant by "virtue signalling", which refers more to a tedious, preachy flavour of "look at me I'm so nice", often accompanied by "and i really hate those other guys".

[Femina]

Every time I see the words 'Virtue signaling' written out I'm reminded of an elephant seal puffing themselves up to impress the other seals and getting nowhere.

Stupid phrase for a conspiracy theory.

You may also dislike the word pairing "language policing". The seal in your example is sending a form of virtue signal, which you appear to dislike.

Do you prefer the sentence after substitution?:
"The Oscars seems like one big corporate seal-puff signal now.

Of course the seal is sending a form of virtue signal... I guess that's my point isn't it? Except that a seal is a stupid animal that operates entirely on instinct, while human beings have the capacity to be smarter and question their stupid behavior. Anyone crying 'virtue signal!' are in essence 'signalling' their anti virtue signaling propagandist behavior in precisely the same way they are decrying the terrifying 'SJW's for signaling... just with an added helping of smugness and self indulgence. Does anyone REALLY believe there's any difference WHATSOEVER in an 'SJW' saying 'that dudes a racist' to get the 'clicks' than there is in someone crying 'Virtue signalling!' to acquire the nodding respect of their fellow 'anti-sjw' crowds favor? Cause there isn't.

The only difference is, those malignant sub-human pustules (the aforementioned SJW's... at least in so many peoples fraked up perspective) don't wander around creating a veritable lexicon of stupid phrases for whatever 'signalling' people are doing when they say things like 'virtue signalling' ''beta male' 'cuck 'libtard' PC' 'regressive left' 'snowflake' etc. etc. etc. (Seriously the list goes on and on and on, its truly comical how long the list has grown) in order to speak a language only they themselves can respect.

I'ts a stupid lexicon, you can do whatever you like, but if it were me the next time I thought about writing out the words 'virtue signaling' I'd just say what it is 'posturing'.

For me, terms like "patriarchy", or "white privilege" carry connotations of mad conspiracy theory, and are usually accompanied by idiocy when I read them, but that's not to say they can't be used in a sensible way.

This is fair I suppose, but somehow 'Patriarchy' seems like a word constructed using the rules of the English language, while say... 'libtard' just screams of immaturity... the sheer SCALE of the anti-sjw lexicon is tiresome, full of made up words that read like an angry thirteen year old online XBOX gamer wrote them... and when SO many of them are point blank insults (Snowflake, libtard, cuck, etc. can't be read as anything other than insults) and little else, it is VERY difficult to even look at the more conservatory terms in that lexicon as anything less than its own sort of 'signaling' and with hostile intent.

[Void]

I think the term is used almost exclusively towards what people *say* rather than what they *do* - which incidentally is what all these storms in tea cups tend to be about. In this case, I think it's a nasty, disparaging term that pre-supposes intent without any basis for doing so.

But Kevin Hart losing this gig over all of this is some pretty weak sauce, in my opinion. His comments, in their context, are on the very, very mild end of the offensive spectrum, and don't qualify him as being a genuine bigot - nor as being a piece of shit, while we're at it. The beam of conduct that is considered fitting for a civilised society may be a little bit too narrow if you can fall off of it this easily.

Ah well - who's watching the Oscars anyways? They probably could have used some spicy controversy to get people tuning in!

[Femina]

I think the term is used almost exclusively towards what people *say* rather than what they *do* - which incidentally is what all these storms in tea cups tend to be about. In this case, I think it's a nasty, disparaging term that pre-supposes intent without any basis for doing so.

But Kevin Hart losing this gig over all of this is some pretty weak sauce, in my opinion. His comments, in their context, are on the very, very mild end of the offensive spectrum, and don't qualify him as being a genuine bigot - nor as being a piece of shit, while we're at it. The beam of conduct that is considered fitting for a civilised society may be a little bit too narrow if you can fall off of it this easily.

Ah well - who's watching the Oscars anyways? They probably could have used some spicy controversy to get people tuning in!

He didn't lose his gig over it. He quit. That's the deciding factor here. He was given a CHOICE to apologize or quit, he refused to apologize or something and so he quit... and THEN APOLOGIZED. I'm all for a person getting the chance to apologize and grow, but I'm not going to lament that his behavior got him fired when in fact, his behavior did NOT get him fired, he quit presumably just so that he wouldn't have to apologize before then apologizing anyway... so I simply can't get behind the 'poor dude lost his job cause of the SJWs!' train here... especially when a dude very recently was FIRED for basically the same thing over at Disney because of a Trump activist dug up his tweets (and was given no opportunity to apologize).

I don't actually feel bad for either Heart or Gunn mind you, both were stupid enough to write stupid things on Twitter. Just... you know, I see hypocrisy I'm gonna point it out.

[Void]

I'm not suggesting he had no agency over what happened - just that the chain of events that resulted in him no longer doing the gig was lame. That he refused, quit, and then apologised is such a mess... Though it is kind of funny.

[ivandobsky]

I don't actually feel bad for either Heart or Gunn mind you, both were stupid enough to write stupid things on Twitter. Just... you know, I see hypocrisy I'm gonna point it out.

The sets of people who objected to Hart and Gunn losing their gigs aren't mutually exclusive.

[Femina]

I don't actually feel bad for either Heart or Gunn mind you, both were stupid enough to write stupid things on Twitter. Just... you know, I see hypocrisy I'm gonna point it out.

The sets of people who objected to Hart and Gunn losing their gigs aren't mutually exclusive.

I can respect that. In fact it'd be nice if that were the case all around wouldn't it?

I still just can't xD I HATE twitter, its the devil. Anyone who screws themselves with twitter need to mark it up as a learning experience and get the hell out of twitter while they still have their arms, and anyone whose STILL THERE after all the trouble its been causing are playing a foolish game of Russian roulette.

[ivandobsky]

That's fair. Twitter has some funny content, but to post something funny with your real world identity there is asking for trouble.

[bushwackerbob]

The way I look at Kevin Hart and the issue of tolerance of LGBTQ issues is kind of like the game of musical chairs and Kevin Hart has been left without a chair. In one sense I love the reaction that Hart's comments elicited because we should all respect and love one another and respect our differences, not mock and disparage people because of them. So what do we do with Kevin Hart? What would make people happy? Do we disparage him for the end of times? What is the expiration date for his punishment. I think that it is great that we agree that what he tweeted in the past is unacceptable, but I also think that the echo chamber of social media sometimes leads to such an avalanche of feedback that it leads to a disproportionate response.

[Femina]

The way I look at Kevin Hart and the issue of tolerance of LGBTQ issues is kind of like the game of musical chairs and Kevin Hart has been left without a chair. In one sense I love the reaction that Hart's comments elicited because we should all respect and love one another and respect our differences, not mock and disparage people because of them. So what do we do with Kevin Hart? What would make people happy? Do we disparage him for the end of times? What is the expiration date for his punishment. I think that it is great that we agree that what he tweeted in the past is unacceptable, but I also think that the echo chamber of social media sometimes leads to such an avalanche of feedback that it leads to a disproportionate response.

You don't get an expiration date for screwing up is the problem. If you ever apologized, and meant it sincerely, then you shouldn't be afraid or offended to apologize again if the need ever arises. In any case his punishment was self inflicted. All the academy was asking him to do was apologize so they could get on with the show, he refused... and then... apologized... which he could have just done and not quit. I mean... if he'd quit and then refused to apologize there might be a question of if he'd been sacked, but as its gone, he just quit.... people quit their jobs all the time I guess, I certainly don't begrudge him the opportunity to host the Oscars, the only thing strange here is why he chose to quit and THEN apologize.

Sincerity may be the qualifying factor here? Maybe he thought apologizing and then hosting would make people think it wasn't genuine (probably a correct assumption) maybe the whole 'apologize or quit' is a story and they just tried to engineer a method for him to step down gracefully, we'll probably never know the TRUTH but the truth that we have is one that makes this particular story more complicated than your ordinary 'guy looses his job cause of social media' story.

[Dazzle1]

I think the term is used almost exclusively towards what people *say* rather than what they *do* - which incidentally is what all these storms in tea cups tend to be about. In this case, I think it's a nasty, disparaging term that pre-supposes intent without any basis for doing so.

But Kevin Hart losing this gig over all of this is some pretty weak sauce, in my opinion. His comments, in their context, are on the very, very mild end of the offensive spectrum, and don't qualify him as being a genuine bigot - nor as being a piece of shit, while we're at it. The beam of conduct that is considered fitting for a civilised society may be a little bit too narrow if you can fall off of it this easily.

Ah well - who's watching the Oscars anyways? They probably could have used some spicy controversy to get people tuning in!

He didn't lose his gig over it. He quit. That's the deciding factor here. He was given a CHOICE to apologize or quit, he refused to apologize or something and so he quit... and THEN APOLOGIZED. I'm all for a person getting the chance to apologize and grow, but I'm not going to lament that his behavior got him fired when in fact, his behavior did NOT get him fired, he quit presumably just so that he wouldn't have to apologize before then apologizing anyway... so I simply can't get behind the 'poor dude lost his job cause of the SJWs!' train here... especially when a dude very recently was FIRED for basically the same thing over at Disney because of a Trump activist dug up his tweets (and was given no opportunity to apologize).

I don't actually feel bad for either Heart or Gunn mind you, both were stupid enough to write stupid things on Twitter. Just... you know, I see hypocrisy I'm gonna point it out.

------------

not a fan of his or the awards either

But the language police and the SJW community are very selective

Where is the outrage from the women's movement on the anti-semitism of Linda Sansour and Tamika Mallory
or the white christian bashing of Joy Behar or Bill Mahr

[Dogfish]

Pretty sure everybody thinks Bill Maher is a turd tbh.

[Femina]

not a fan of his or the awards either

But the language police and the SJW community are very selective

Where is the outrage from the women's movement on the anti-semitism of Linda Sansour and Tamika Mallory
or the white christian bashing of Joy Behar or Bill Mahr

TBH I don't hear about any of that so I can't form an oppinion? Bill Mahr is the only name of those four I even recognize. Could mean my sphere of media is limited... possible since I don't actually watch much TV (but I DO get around the web pretty extensively so... ?) but it may also be that the 'language police' are selective or it could mean that as an issue, people think other things are more worth their time arguing for? I can't say.

I just can't really have an opinion on something I don't know anything about, I'd wager basic ignorance is a primary factor in the lack of outrage over a lot of things.

[Dazzle1]

not a fan of his or the awards either

But the language police and the SJW community are very selective

Where is the outrage from the women's movement on the anti-semitism of Linda Sansour and Tamika Mallory
or the white christian bashing of Joy Behar or Bill Mahr

TBH I don't hear about any of that so I can't form an oppinion? Bill Mahr is the only name of those four I even recognize. Could mean my sphere of media is limited... possible since I don't actually watch much TV (but I DO get around the web pretty extensively so... ?) but it may also be that the 'language police' are selective or it could mean that as an issue, people think other things are more worth their time arguing for? I can't say.

I just can't really have an opinion on something I don't know anything about, I'd wager basic ignorance is a primary factor in the lack of outrage over a lot of things.

Let see Kevin hart's tweets were 10 years ago

Last year Sansour and Mallory were two of the leader of the 2017 Women's march
Sansour is a rabid anti-Semite who supports terrorism against Israel and Jews in general
Mallory is an active supporter of Louis Farhakhan one of the most vile racist and haters in the last centruy
Behar is one of the host of The View

[saxman314]

He quit because he wasn't about to let them force him into an apology. THEN he apologized because he actually meant it. TBH he dealt with it in a classy way. The whole thing is a pile of drummed up bullshit, though. We all said shit when we were younger that we disagree with now.

[Femina]

He quit because he wasn't about to let them force him into an apology. THEN he apologized because he actually meant it. TBH he dealt with it in a classy way. The whole thing is a pile of drummed up bullshit, though. We all said shit when we were younger that we disagree with now.

which is why you should never tweet whats on your mind.

[bushwackerbob]

He quit because he wasn't about to let them force him into an apology. THEN he apologized because he actually meant it. TBH he dealt with it in a classy way. The whole thing is a pile of drummed up bullshit, though. We all said shit when we were younger that we disagree with now.

which is why you should never tweet whats on your mind.

Sounds like George Orwell's 1984 "thought police". I tell my nieces and nephews all the time to be careful what they post on social media because you never know when someone will dumpster dive through your history In order to mess with you. While there are unfortunately many people out there willing to tweet ignorant, stupid things, it is also true that there are internet garbage collectors out there whose sole motive seems to be to unearth damaging information regarding someone's history. As I said before, I am not a Kevin Hart fan, but what bothers me about this controversy is that it is part of a bigger problem. When his past remarks come to light, we have this communal national outrage at his remarks, then it almost becomes a contest of who is offended more, it becomes a ball rolling down the hill with no stopping it. Yes Kevin Hart will have to live with the fact that he made those comments for the rest of his life and the American people can decide whether his career has any real future by deciding whether or not to attend his shows or movies. That is what should ultimately decide his fate, not this trial by social media.

[lionbadger]

Meh, hard to work up any interest in the ongoing conservative civil war, blue team is best! No red team is best! Ha! We got one of your guys! Well we got two of your guys!

Would be nice if they could all lose.

[Imagineer]

Tempest in a teacup. The gig sucks, and Kevin Hart is probably glad to be rid of it.

[Femina]

He quit because he wasn't about to let them force him into an apology. THEN he apologized because he actually meant it. TBH he dealt with it in a classy way. The whole thing is a pile of drummed up bullshit, though. We all said shit when we were younger that we disagree with now.

which is why you should never tweet whats on your mind.

Sounds like George Orwell's 1984 "thought police". I tell my nieces and nephews all the time to be careful what they post on social media because you never know when someone will dumpster dive through your history In order to mess with you. While there are unfortunately many people out there willing to tweet ignorant, stupid things, it is also true that there are internet garbage collectors out there whose sole motive seems to be to unearth damaging information regarding someone's history. As I said before, I am not a Kevin Hart fan, but what bothers me about this controversy is that it is part of a bigger problem. When his past remarks come to light, we have this communal national outrage at his remarks, then it almost becomes a contest of who is offended more, it becomes a ball rolling down the hill with no stopping it. Yes Kevin Hart will have to live with the fact that he made those comments for the rest of his life and the American people can decide whether his career has any real future by deciding whether or not to attend his shows or movies. That is what should ultimately decide his fate, not this trial by social media.

Trial by social media IS 'decision by the American People'? The alternative is something like... sending Hard to a court of law to decide how the people feel about his words which is legal consequence for speaking directly forbidden by the freedom of speech. Social media outrage is the only real tool human beings use to express the social beliefs of a populace WITHOUT dropping legal consequences... and to be fair, refusing to watch someones movies IS social media outrage and will result in the same thing 'Hart being fired/losing his job' just with a bit of a delay.

I didn't say 'You CANNOT tweet whats on your mind' for a reason. I said that you SHOULDN'T tweet whats on your mind. By which I mean, you shouldn't tweet whatever stream of conscious random thoughts that cross your mind when you just wake up from a bizarre dream, have been drunk for the last thirty minutes, are high or otherwise impaired.

There isn't a single human being alive who hasn't THOUGHT something horrible in their stream of conscious. Free speech is fine, but freedom of speech is NOT freedom of consequence. It means no LEGAL repercussions for the things you say, but nobody can predict social consequences which is why its up to the individual to decide how much of themselves they are willing to scream out into society, and if you use twitter, you're encouraged to write whats on your stream of conscious so that it can be saved there, in twitters hard drive and freely accessible by absolutely anyone with an internet connection indefinitely.

So just to be clear, everyone is free to do whatever they want, BUT they SHOULD never tweet whats on their mind. I'll put up an addendum perhaps that maybe they shouldn't tweet whats on their mind unless they've thought DAMN good and hard about it... but in any case, once its been tweeted its out there, and rest assured there's no greater thought police than every single human being with their own thoughts and opinions witnessing a thought they disagree with, and if that disagreement is the majority, no amount of 'wishing' that your thoughts could be uttered with freedom of consequence will make it so. That isn't my opinion, that isn't how I wish it was, that's just reality.

[bushwackerbob]

I do not really disagree with what you said. I guess where I am coming from is that I am old enough to remember a world before the social media echo chamber where when people screwed up they were taken to the woodshed, a pound of flesh was taken, some idiots lost jobs, while others were tarnished forever. People were rightly criticized when they said stupid stuff. Nowadays thanks to social media everybody has an opinion and the sheer volume of sentiment on stories like these creates a disproportionate response that would not have happened even twenty years ago. Yes it I unrealistic that any words could be used with freedom of consequence, but is it too much to ask that while we condemn intolerant remarks, that we can show a way forward, a path to redemption and forgiveness instead of this avalanche of disapproval. Yes this is our reality but it was not always like this and it does not have to be this way.

[Damselbinder]

I think 'virtue signalling', ironically, is only a meaningful expression when it's describing the signalling of virtue which doesn't exist. So, say, Shell or BP putting out publicity about how eco-friendly they are while simultaneously lobbying for aggressively pro-fossil fuel taxes/laws/whatever. An awards ceremony threatening someone with firing them because they said something contrary to that ceremony's advertised virtues isn't virtue SIGNALLING, it's just...having virtues.

I notice, though, that nobody criticised Chick-Fil-A for 'virtue signalling' about their views on homosexual marriage, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

[Femina]

I think 'virtue signalling', ironically, is only a meaningful expression when it's describing the signalling of virtue which doesn't exist. So, say, Shell or BP putting out publicity about how eco-friendly they are while simultaneously lobbying for aggressively pro-fossil fuel taxes/laws/whatever. An awards ceremony threatening someone with firing them because they said something contrary to that ceremony's advertised virtues isn't virtue SIGNALLING, it's just...having virtues.

I notice, though, that nobody criticised Chick-Fil-A for 'virtue signalling' about their views on homosexual marriage, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

That's an interesting thought... though it requires the words be taken ironically which they aren't inherently ironic words. Just splashed together they basically imply that one is signaling their virtue... and frankly, taken at their absolute meaning, it indicates that there actually exists virtue to be signaled (which also somewhat invalidates the terms usage as an insult)

I think my beef with this phrase, phrases like it, and the torrent of made up words and phrases made up for this bizarre chest pounding, fist pumping community is that there generally already exist words and phrases for the things they are trying to say... and which read as more academic. Virtue Signalling is (as used by the people who think virtue signaling is an insult) just posturing (which is a word that better expresses that it doesn't matter if what they are posturing about is valid or not... its still being rubbed on a bit thick... its also less to write out if that matters) Libtard, cuck... snowflake... well those are words that can't be read as anything but a childish insult and stand out strongly when slipped into an otherwise intelligible and seeming 'level toned' write up as words the author either didn't think very hard about including or else was so ingrained into that strange culture as to think they were just ordinary and acceptable terms to bring into a debate... and I mean... if you really need to slip in an insult into your responses... why not just stick with the classics? Don't even get me started on the dumb 'Beta Male' BS for men who don't happen to agree with them, don't think people quite realize how high up the pack a Beta wolf really is... I mean 'First Officer' isn't an insult on a ship is it?

[Imagineer]

Cults thrive on jargon. Jargon makes dismissal of outsiders easy and rebuttal of cult teachings tedious. It's basic social engineering.

[bushwackerbob]

Ellen DeGeneres is not one of my favorite people but I sure have to give her props for standing up to the twitter outrage mafia herd for her support of Kevin Hart. Some people do deserve a second chance. I think she is very brave and courageous for taking this stand.