Rosetta scientist breaks down in tears after being bullied by puritanical SJWs

It is it a pretty dismal affair. I don't think insulting the people who are making this silly claims is particularly helpful since it's just going to strengthen their conviction that men are evil but obviously what they are saying is absurd, pathetic and totally unfair. Poor man.

I'm disgusted he felt the need to apologise. The people who should apologise are the social justice warriors who seem to get away with their bigotry.

You're probably right, but I find it hard not to be angered. I'm sick of being made to feel as if I'm the immoral one because I'm not bullying some guy to tears for an ironic shirt he was wearing. It just seems like we live in a culture of moral one-up-man-ship. Many insecure people have a paranoia about appearing immoral, and a desperate, neurotic, and narcissistic desire to appear as moral as possible. But what makes this so damaging is that a person's morality is no longer rated on how kindly or compassionate they are, but rather on how readily they criticize, chastize, and demonize people.

Puritan really is the most apt word for these people. I can really see them slaughtering Catholics and banning Christmas.

Taking highly moralising positions, even on behalf of the genuinely weak, is generally a sublimation of a need for power and control for sociopaths who have little natural conscience but through education have developed an intellectualised facsimile of one.

Still, they aren't cartoon villains: this impulse is present in probably every one of us here too: if you enjoy debating issues it is inherently a moralising act. I may be projecting, but I expect few of the accomplished debaters on this site are truly emotion/relationship/people-oriented types. As ever the difference is only a matter of degree and socialisation.

Very true. But I do feel I can draw a distinction between my morality and there's. With my own morality, I try and think things all the way through. My ideas based on my own critical thinking. With these people, I feel they consider their morality as an accessory, something to be worn and shown off. They only half think things through, considering certain rhetoric to be fundamental and unquestionable. For instance, I bet half these people have never even looked up what 'objectification' actually means, and even fewer have questioned it and properly considered its significance.

Yeah sure everyone thinks that of themselves, I expected a response like that. It's how those with consciences justify authoritarian moralising views - not that I'm attacking yours personally.

I would say morality is always based on some combination of logic, dogma and wanting to impose control. An objective distinction can be made on how much critical thinking you do but it is pretty fuzzy I think. It's pretty easy to become radicalised.

I like his shirt.

But if I can't make a distinction between the way these people make conclusions and I do then it makes no sense for me to believe that I am right and they are wrong, and therefore all opinions are just as valid/invalid as each other. If you agree with me about this (which you seem to), and disagree with them, then you must believe there is some kind of malfunction in their way of thinking for them to have come to these conclusions.

I would say morality is always based on some combination of logic, dogma and wanting to impose control.