It is ok to say that you didn't like it. The line is when you imply that it was wrong to have made it.

I feel like saying "Someone thinks it's a good and funny idea..." Carries the implication of distain and that the joke shouldn't have been made.

Express yourself, but be compassionate, don't bully, shame, school, or any other emotive attack.

Am I understanding this right?

     OK Making a joke
     OK Criticizing a joke
     x  Implying disdain for a joke
     x  Implying a joke should not be made
     OK Implying disdain for a criticism
     OK Implying a criticism should not be made

I'm the person who originally called out the response. The issue I had with it was related to the "Implying a joke should not be made", but one step further. It's this common pattern I feel like has popped up in the last 10 years with social media that I find really annoying and manipulative.

The person in the post was implying that the joke shouldn't be made because some theoretical person somewhere might be offended by it. They aren't saying they're offended by it because most people don't care if they offend some random person on the internet. Instead they try to find a group that is disadvantaged and frame their offense at the joke as a attempt to protect that group. They're trying to create a scenario where either you agree with them or you're punching down. It's manipulative and gross and it's become such a staple of social media debates that I don't even think people realize when they do that.

I would actually have no problem if that person said, "I think it's offensive to make jokes about Enron and you shouldn't do that", but that isn't what they did. They're essentially trying to guilt trip people into agreeing with their opinion.

I think I basically agree with you, it raises my hackles when I see rhetorical devices being used to push positions I disagree with, it feels transparently manipulative in a way that is disrespectful to the audience (me)

But I think that you're overlooking some of the specifics of Molly's post, and this particular joke.

Molly believes that memecoins are basically Ponzi schemes. So what she claims that this joke is in bad taste it is not just because it is making fun of a famous case of financial fraud which ruined people, but crucially because of the context of launching and promoting another financial fraud.

edit: in her own words

  > fwiw i don't really have an issue with someone doing an enron parody for parody's sake
  > 
  > however i am concerned about a very suspiciously-timed memecoin that cropped up, and the possibility that this is all just a play to go viral to pump a token.

https://bsky.app/profile/molly.wiki/post/3lcdurxh5mk2m

Ah, with the additional context that makes a little more sense. I just saw the single post and wasn’t aware that it was a bit tongue in cheek

In general, I don't think you should distain or imply distain for much at all. Similarly dictating the actions of others should probably have a high bar.

If you are suggesting that I am implying distain for criticism or that critism should not be made, that was certainly not my intent. I would much rather question why it is happening, place it in context, and perhaps suggest alternatives, instead of taking a knee jerk "This is bad, you are bad" approach.

Have I not done that?

> Have I not done that?

No. My impression was that you were saying Molly's comment went too far and that she shouldn't have made it.

> It is ok to say that you didn't like it. The line is when you imply that it was wrong to have made it.

Maybe we have different ideas about what it means to "cross a line", it's an imprecise idiom.

Everyone wants to hear you laugh, many are willing to hear you out if you suffer, nobody wants to hear anyone whine or bitch.

I think there is a difference between "I don't like the joke/topic" and "apparently..."

The latter points out the obvious (of course someone wanted to make the joke, it was made) simply to try to garner sympathy and paint the joke-teller in a negative light.

Do you mean that Molly is going too far by not just criticizing the joke, but also, by implication, criticizing the joke-teller?

If Molly had said "I don't think that this joke is funny, and it is in poor taste to make light of victims of accounting fraud" do you think that would have been better and wouldn't have implied anything about the joke-teller?

I believe that's the crux, though I don't have a dog in the fight either way so I'm just guessing.

Without reason, you should assume that an intelligent audience can identify humor from malice or ignorance.

I mean you're allowed to do pearl clutching just don't be surprised when people call you out on it.