But I will say that's clearly intended as a throwaway joke, whether anyone finds it funny or not.
(, Thu 9 May 2019, 22:38, Reply)
But I'd say that given the context, you'd have to either be pretty thick or willfully obtuse not to also see that.
(, Thu 9 May 2019, 22:57, Reply)
as though its weighty and thoughtful. Is it a placeholder, or the end of the discussion?
(, Thu 9 May 2019, 23:10, Reply)
that Jess Philips was talking about receiving threats on Twitter, and he @d her to say he'd not rape her, then encouraged a pile-on.
"Banter"
(, Fri 10 May 2019, 0:15, Reply)
or he intended it to be seen by his followers, and he must know that his fans will pile on because they always do. I mean, why else would he put "Please do not contact the subjects of any of my videos, ever" on his YouTube channel if he wasn't looking to shirk responsibility for something he knows will happen anyway - it's a shitty disclaimer. And if he didn't expect his fans to see the message, what response do you think he wanted to his 'joke' in the first place?
Besides, he @ed in someone with something he knew would upset her, which I'd say *contextually* makes it not "clearly intended as a throwaway joke".
He's a bully. Most bullying behaviour is technically 'jokes' - bullies laugh when they bogwash someone. I'm not sure when something being a joke became an excuse for anything. I wouldn't read it as a *literal* rape threat, but I would read it as malicious communications.
(, Fri 10 May 2019, 13:18, Reply)
The test is, if you 'joke' back they get very upset.
(, Fri 10 May 2019, 14:56, Reply)
Also he didn't bogwash anyone (which would of course actually be assault), which is an entirely different thing.
And also, the answer is no, he did literally the opposite of inciting a pile on.
(, Fri 10 May 2019, 15:08, Reply)
The context was @ing someone in with abuse, which clearly falls under the malicious communications act.
You haven't said why it is clearly a joke given that context.
(, Fri 10 May 2019, 16:54, Reply)
There's no threat there. There's no profanity. According to case law it would not be considered grossly offensive. The only thing it actually contains is an implication that she's ugly. I think you'd need some pretty interesting chicanery to actually classify this as abuse from a legal standpoint.
(, Fri 10 May 2019, 17:05, Reply)
your neighbours' letterbox with his joke on them. See how you get on.
(, Fri 10 May 2019, 19:18, Reply)
doesn't mean it isn't a joke. Your face for example.
(, Fri 10 May 2019, 19:28, Reply)
Something that disproportionately effects one side of the population - many on a day to day level because of trauma - is funny to the other side!
Da boom tish. /s
As a side note; I think it's probably funny to some ill informed, lucky or naive people because they don't understand that yes; at various parties, functions, "comings of age" men have pressured other men into raping women.
[EDIT: You're a man, because you hurt someone who isn't. Is probably the most essential motto of this ethos/thinking.]
(, Fri 10 May 2019, 3:38, Reply)
this fucking thread. fuck off edgelord
(, Fri 10 May 2019, 16:27, Reply)
Also, a bit rich coming from you Coulter, don't you think?
(, Fri 10 May 2019, 17:07, Reply)
I'm the fluffiest bunnie in the whole warren. And I've never found 'I'd smash the back doors off that' or 'wouldn't even rape her' remotely amusing. The guy is a fucking cock and deserves ever milkshake he gets.
(, Fri 10 May 2019, 17:23, Reply)
She really does deserve worse.
(, Fri 10 May 2019, 18:10, Reply)
Does this you mean you're actually concerned what people around think of you? That would be tragic for many reasons.
(, Fri 10 May 2019, 19:29, Reply)
Does Jess Philips deserve 'worse' than rape threats for the crime of not agreeing with vile-edgelord?
(, Fri 10 May 2019, 19:27, Reply)
1. It was never a threat.
2. That isn't the reason.
Why you so bummed dude? I thought being an edgelord was kinda your thing? Anyway just click ignore and it's over, instead of replying with something you know doesn't make any sense.
(, Fri 10 May 2019, 19:33, Reply)
1. By saying you *wouldn't * rape someone, you're saying you would rape someone else
2. Then saying you would rape them if you were drunk enough is a rape threat
3. It's vile,stupid and unfunny whether you accept the above or not
4. saying she deserves worse is bone-heaed , tone-deaf vile, stupid etc
5. Why is the onus on me to leave the room rather than making you stop saying shit - after all if this was a pub car park at closing time, you would not be saying this.
6. Stop talking shit.
(, Fri 10 May 2019, 20:42, Reply)
1. Not actually correct.
2. Arguable, though I disagree in this case.
3. Subjective.
4. Subjective.
5. You don't have to read it or reply. This is not even slightly like a room, nor a pub car park. You're dangerously close to being a hard man on the internet.
6. You too.
(, Fri 10 May 2019, 21:18, Reply)
Against the most dreary fuckers on the board. I think he can handle it.
(, Fri 10 May 2019, 19:04, Reply)
Too many things to reply to, its easy to miss a few or not give them all due consideration.
(, Fri 10 May 2019, 19:38, Reply)