Jon Pretty

If I'm read the situation correctly, and knowing who @scala_the is, I think that they feel like the original tweet—which labels a member of the community "toxic" after they make a joke (and even includes a winking emoji)—creates unnecessary ill-feeling in the community.

i didn't read the tweet as a joke, @LiquidSloshalot didn't either, and wanted to protect those who wouldn't read it as a joke. @jdegoes hasn't done anything about but issue platitudes, never apologized for his behaviors, so we can't stop trying to protect others from him.

But I'm not sure how else to read it... I'm not an expert at emojis, but there's are two at the end: I think the first one means "I'm being evil," which, by its very nature implies a lack of seriousness because people don't admit it when they're genuinely evil, and the second...

... is a sarcasm smiley which has been in use for decades, and whose meaning isn't in doubt. I really don't know how anyone can take this as anything other than whimsy. Imagine the tweet without the emojis, and that's a different story: they make a material difference.

There's a legitimate concern that even as a joke, the implied "truth" in the implication that the point is so obvious it deserves ridicule, can be made. But I think it would be overconfident to treat this nuance as the main intent.

I don't give people the benefit of the doubt with "jokes" like this. I see a lot of casual bigotry expressed as "jokes" that cloud their underlying intent with emojis and "it's just a joke" responses. I think in this case what matters isn't intent but how it's understood.

The conversation I'd like to be having w.r.t. these kinds of statements is how they affect people, not whether or not the people they affect are just "trying to be offended" (because, usually, nobody is).