zlacker

>>Strato+(OP)
I'm a little bit aghast at all the comments saying this is normal or no big deal. Maybe it is normal (or at least common), but it shouldn't be. If you believe it's no big deal, I can't agree. I can see this kind of behaviour from adolescents, but adults should understand that words are meaningful and have consequences, and that even if you disagree with someone, they're still a human being who deserves some modicum of respect, or at least decency. Wishing a slow death on someone, even rhetorically, shows neither, to put it mildly.

>>tempes+EM
>but adults should understand that words are meaningful and have consequences

What consequences should Gary face?

>>s_dev+US
The main consequence to him so far has been a lot of people thinking less of him. It was also consequential for the subjects of the tweet, and to a much lesser extent, to all of us who've been exposed to it.

>>tempes+rU
Okay sounds like he faced those exact consequences and a bunch of people are acting like victims because they chose to take him too literally. I don't think Gary really cares what you or some others think. He's developed a thick skin for this sort of stuff maybe others should too.

I think more of him though. Sort of like when a polite old woman tells someone to fuck off and they're literally shook. A lot of people could do with hardening up a bit.

>>s_dev+9W
My general rule is sort of a variant of Godwin’s Law:

“The first person to tell their opponent ‘you shouldn’t be so sensitive’ forfeits the debate.”

There are of course exceptions. But obnoxious people think that every time they say something offensive or awful, the onus is on others to make allowances.

>>sherma+Lj2
I have a similar rule: "The first person to tell their opponent 'your ideas are offensive' forfeits the debate".

I believe my rule prevents more bad arguments.