However in the context of the GP, they're 100% correct in the sense that this isn't appropriate for the workplace. So it's kind of a shame that it's actually technically very good/useful.

The author is free to do whatever they want. I'm not asking them to change, but it's definitely a shame to tie this otherwise good code to this meme.

Maybe that meaning wasn't in the mind of the creator at all. Or maybe the people who you believe think a certain way actually feel another way about it. Whatever the "meme trope" or specific "meme instance" creator intended it to mean (if anything), that doesn't mean that's the "only" meaning a thing can have.

It might mean one thing to some person or group and something to you. To me it's funny that they think associating negative traits with "virgin" is a valid comparison. To me, it's obviously not but so laughable that while the jokes the people are making about coding, to me, are funny, the ways they frame it, is funny for being so immature.. But it's humour, I don't want to "explain" it. Maybe they use this meme with irony, appropriate the "chad-virgin" dichotomy, in a satirical way, as they think it's false.

Seriously, who cares? Who cares what the creator made it mean, in the basic sense. Because you have the power to interpret it your way. Why limit your joy by thinking, someone somewhere might see this in a way they dislike, therefore I cannot enjoy it. I know it's not easy, because you can be aware of how other people might take it, but that doesn't mean you have to align with that. Otherwise the world is this network where everyone's watching everyone else for "heretical behavior or thought" and trying to bizarrely punish that, just because they can't make a good boundary between their thoughts and feelings, and everyone else's. Everyone can make it mean what they want. It's a subtle point, easy to nod at but hard to actually grok what that means. You're judging this work, and this meme based on what you're making it mean, based on how you're choosing to interpret what you believe some other group of people, who you believe it's connected to, makes it mean. You're hostage to what you think are the beliefs of some other group. I don't think you're crazy, but I think that idea is crazy, because you're free to make it mean what you want. It's pretty common nowadays tho I think.

Again saying it's not appropriate to the workplace is a whole other set of relative value judgments and interpretations. Because the word "virgin" is included and maybe someone can connect this meme to some group they're afraid of or they judge as bad, therefore a workplace is unable to handle that? I think that says something about the toxic/unworkable fragility of workplaces. We should be robust enough to be able to consider these cultural artefacts without creating danger or toxicity. If we cannot consider something, we're unable to really reflect on that, and I believe the workplace culture can be at risk of emanating those things it will not allow itself to really engage with or see. To be it's an obvious but also subtle point. We won't allow ourselves to look at a sort of implicit bias that might be present somehow in one interpretation of a meme? Then we also won't see it in the workplace. And "everything's fine" when really a workplace culture is toxic. Introspection and criticism can be shielded behind the arbitrary "area denial" system of "inappropriate for workplace". There's clearly lines (i.e, people just casually sharing porn in a non-porn-industry workplace, totally uncool, right? because that's some private intimate activity related thing that has nothing to do with sort of workplace relationships)...but sharing memes and humour? That's not ok? I've noticed European commenters say before that American workplaces are too afraid of themselves. I don't know if you're view comes from that basis or not, and while it's subtle I believe these sorts of dynamics (of workplaces creating traits they censor from consideration) operate. I think the notion that they simply must be censored from the workplace is false, and relates to that bad idea of ideological purity I was talking about. Our workplace should be robust enough to view the thing in the frame we choose, not hostage to the frame we are "afraid to name".

You've pretty clearly stated how you feel in no uncertain terms. I understand that and I accept that. I have clearly stated how I feel. My thoughts/feelings are my own, and I don't need to radically change the way I think or view the world because I'm being held under some yoke of some imposed belief or way of thinking. We disagree. That's fine. It's obviously not going to change but please don't proceed with this idea that I just don't "get it".

The work is intrinsically tied to the meme. That is how I feel about the meme. Authorial intent, whatever it may be, isn't particularly relevant in criticism beyond the subjective interpretation of whether they achieved it or not. I don't know and neither do you as neither of are the author and I don't see them spelling it out. I'm sure they mean it as a light-hearted joke, but I still disagree with the idea that it is funny.

I'm not here to change (and am certainly not able to change) what does or doesn't fly in the offices of Corporate America. Culture vary (as do opinions as previously stated), but even if you think this is funny I wouldn't recommend you use it or share it around in the office for due to the potential consequences of the implications and language it contains. Whether that is good or bad morally or for our society or culture is also a matter of opinion and beside the point.

Personally I find a lot of humor in other things that I don't think are appropriate for the workplace or a professional setting. I don't feel restrained under some yoke of society, there is just a time and place for certain things. People very naturally change mannerisms and ways of speaking to tailor them to whoever is on the receiving end. There is a pretty obvious and the reason is pretty simple.

I guess if you really want to push it all the way out sure, I'm crushed under the yoke of caring about other people and having empathy. I guess I'm okay with that. But I'm not a hostage to what I think someone else beliefs are. I'm a hostage to my own, which include generally trying not to be an asshole.

Make of that what you will, but I am my own person. I'm not missing some greater truth or liberated way of thinking. You're quite literally also evaluating things based on a relative set of value judgements and interpretations the same way I am, they're just the ones you have and ours are different.

As previously stated, I'm not asking/imploring/demanding the author to change anything. I'm just sharing how I feel about it.

Am I hearing you right?

Yeah, I agree with you about most of that (not that agreement is important, disagreement is to be expected, everyone's different). The way your first two responses came across to me (my interpretation ;) ;p)) was that "this is how it is. No questions." I didn't detect that qualifying and empathetic, "This is how I feel, but I get and respect other's may feel differently about that." If you had that expressed in there, I missed that and if so I'm sorry that I did! :p ;) xx

While you did did mention your personal reaction to the joke itself, you seemed to frame as objective your beliefs about the larger "memetic context", to me at least.

You raise an interesting point that I was thinking about as I wrote but struggling to express in my responses. What's the connection between "being an inconsiderate asshole", "empathy" and "having proper boundaries / personal responsibility for your own thoughts and feelings" ? I'm glad you raised it. I'll try to think some more about it and write some clarity. I've been thinking about this for a while, but haven't really tried to write something clear about it. This could be a good chance, have a great day! :P ;) xx

edit: I think some clarity about the above is, you can have empathy for how other people think and feel, but that doesn't make what they think and feel neither "objectively good" nor "good for you". One extreme example: you have empathy for the rapist who is raping you, you feel their loneliness, fear of weakness and desire for love and validation, but that doesn't mean you need to "not be an asshole" and "consider their feelings" in terms of "act in line with their feelings." You can consider someone's thoughts and feelings and have empathy for that but that needn't constrain your behavior at all.

It's interesting to me that you seem to conflate the two, vis: "I guess if you really want to push it all the way out sure, I'm crushed under the yoke of caring about other people and having empathy. I guess I'm okay with that. But I'm not a hostage to what I think someone else beliefs are. I'm a hostage to my own, which include generally trying not to be an asshole."

The moral compass that constrains behavior is not set by what other people decide their feelings and thoughts are. Otherwise everyone's moral compasses are in the Bermuda triangle, never knowing which was is up. You need something more than subjective feelings and personal thoughts, as important as those things are to consider, to set morality for the bounds of behavior.

I think caring about other people, and empathy does not imply, acting in line with how other people think and feel. But it seems from your responses, that you do think that: We shouldn't enjoy this meme, or this code, or share it at work, because people might interpret it in a way where they have "negative" thoughts and emotions about it. That's basically how what you're saying seems like to me.

Perhaps we simply disagree on this point, and that's cool. What I see you saying is (ignoring further nuance I'm sure you use in practice), "Before taking any action, I must assess the thoughts and feelings of those around me, and if there's any chance I may upset someone, or they may otherwise call me an asshole, then there's no chance I will take this action."

I would love you as a friend, as I'm sure most people would. But you seem a bit of a pushover people pleaser. I'm worried for you that you'd get yourself in situations where you're always saying yes to people, have a hard time setting your boundaries, and slowly build up resentment because you didn't learn how to hold your space or your frame. I'm not trying to generalize or say that's who you are, just moving on from the "decision process" I (perhaps mistakenly) characterize about you above.

I suppose for me, I also struggle with this, and I'm still a work in progress and working it out, but my "analogous decision process" I think is more like, "Before taking any action, I empathize with the thoughts and feelings of those around me, and if there's a chance of them being upset, I consider whether there is a some basis in reality for them having that reaction, which I also agree with, and if so I'll reconsider what I do. Otherwise, then do it."

Also, personally, being a supermpath, I'm aware how people who are not great, can use that empathy against me. They can blame me for how they feel, knowing that I will readily see their side of it, and effortlessly feel their feelings about it. It took me a long time to learn the importance of that boundary that other people are responsible for their thoughts and feelings, as well as to stay in touch clearly with my own. Not I think it's something really important. I suppose that's why I'm so engaged in this topic.

So I see you characterizing the alternative to your preferred route (a route which you see as having "empathy", and which includes not sharing this, not enjoying this work, and warning other people about this work), as being an "asshole".

I think I get where you're coming from, you just don't want to see anyone upset, nor anyone who you consider "not good" enjoying what you perceive as a bad joke. But to me, that perspective is missing something. It still goes back to what I said at the start about trying to ensure everyone feels the same about it as you. A lack of tolerance for the other viewpoints, because you've prejudged the one true meaning of this as something absolutely bad and inappropriate.

To me it seems like assuming other's will share the narrow reaction that you (and which you believe, the people you care about) have to it, is actually tthe perspective lacking empathy for the diversity of other people out there. Likewise with characterizing people who act differently to you as "assholes", who by implication, don't have "empathy" you profess to have in your responses. It seems that very characterization is what lacks empathy in this scenario. Unfortunately for you, because I think that's quite sad, to be accusing other's of being asssholes and of lacking emapthy because they differ from your view, and preferred course of action, which in fact seems like a very selfish, and self-centered position to take. And seems to be not seeing that perhaps that accusation is levelled without empathy and without awareness of being an asshole in the levelling of it. It seems like a way to hide behind something, or perhaps hide from self-reflection, so it's "others" who do wrong, and "you" who are right. As if it's inconceivable that other responses to this could exist which are not "assholes without empathy", because if any dare's step outside the line of what you feel about it, they are assholes without empathy. But you're the asshole without empathy to make that characterization, I think, and provide that shield against self reflection is dangerous.

But like I said, I'm not an expert in this an am actively, if not working this stuff out, then working out how to clearly express how I feel about it. I just think you could benefit from opening up to a diversity of viewpoints about it rather than being so absolutist in how you feel, while pretending that's having empathy. It's not. You can be sure of how you feel, but also not pretend that sets the moral compass for everyone else.