hearing quite a few generalizations about men lately, on the TV.
what’s going on?
positive discrimination, some power equalization?
Dunno, dont watch the TV, dont have one.
transition said:
what’s going on?
The damn wall has broken. Starting in film & TV business all the stories of sexual harassment and worse where the victims have felt suppressed have had that burden lifted away from them and they now feel they can speak openly about it and name their accusers. This has spread to other professions – like that US gymnastics doctor touching up dozens of young girls who were too afraid to speak out. Add in the revelations of sexual abuse in religious orders emerging all over the world.
party_pants said:
and name their accusers.
bad edit: you know what I mean.
I read that Bert Newton called someone a poof on the Logies
Bert Newton’s ‘trifecta of insults’ is just one sign of what’s wrong with the Logies
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-02/logies-bert-newton-trifecta-of-insults/9930556
It isn’t about misandry, which is defined as dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men (i.e. the male sex).
Its about improving male behavior in general.
it started with a New York Times article about Harvey Weinstein
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-41594672
Hollywood has been rocked by allegations against film mogul Harvey Weinstein – which first came to light in a New York Times article.
Since then, the story has developed continuously, with a large number of women coming forward to say they were sexually harassed or assaulted by Weinstein – allegations he has denied.
more….
After which lead to the Me Too movement
https://metoomvmt.org/
17,700.000 have reported a sexual assault since 1998
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_Too_movement
Which then spread overseas and to Australia
Such as Craig McLachlan being accused of sexual harassment
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/craig-mclachlan-faces-new-indecent-assault-allegations/news-story/79dfa544eb59613a75dd5b806b6c2f17
17,700.000 women have reported a sexual assault since 1998
https://metoomvmt.org/
I’ve got an idea – How about men stop being a bunch of arseholes? People might feel inclined to speak more kindly toward us….
Rule 303 said:
I’ve got an idea – How about men stop being a bunch of arseholes? People might feel inclined to speak more kindly toward us….
Agree
Tau.Neutrino said:
Which then spread overseas and to AustraliaSuch as Craig McLachlan being accused of sexual harassment
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/craig-mclachlan-faces-new-indecent-assault-allegations/news-story/79dfa544eb59613a75dd5b806b6c2f17
sort of hoping you might contribute something from your personal experience, rather than just regurgitating by quantity something seen in media.
like do you think there’s such a thing as over-heterosexualization, distortions that way? Genderizing perhaps, if you will.
if culture does that, or has done that, then isn’t that in-part because of the excessive power of culture.
I’m probably lucky that I lost my barge pole only last week.
sibeen said:
I’m probably lucky that I lost my barge pole only last week.
There’s pills you can take now.
sibeen said:
I’m probably lucky that I lost my barge pole only last week.
oh go on, you’re in here now.
transition said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Which then spread overseas and to AustraliaSuch as Craig McLachlan being accused of sexual harassment
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/craig-mclachlan-faces-new-indecent-assault-allegations/news-story/79dfa544eb59613a75dd5b806b6c2f17
sort of hoping you might contribute something from your personal experience, rather than just regurgitating by quantity something seen in media.
like do you think there’s such a thing as over-heterosexualization, distortions that way? Genderizing perhaps, if you will.
if culture does that, or has done that, then isn’t that in-part because of the excessive power of culture.
I has some experience of something just recently of bad male behaviour
Humans are naturally receptive to environment/culture, it’s part of our biology. Social environments of past selected for it. The less receptive of our ancestors got to breed less. There are also those over-receptive in some ways. It’s a mixed bag, and makes for broad selection options.
Like young Gog over there otherside the camp fire’s not much gifted, but worse he has little appreciation of the varied gifts of the individuals making up the group, he has to be retaught every day not to shit in the entrance to the cave.
A few others joined in too, seeing it was convenient. Before long there was a mountain of excrement starting to block the cave entrance.
Quite a few had moved out by then, tired of the stench, and in their travels had developed a new appreciation of the sky and stars, the fresh air, wanted for a bigger picture.
Faced with uncertainties they built homes of ideas, beliefs, ways, to elevate their natures.
There’s been steady progress, now you go over and shit in the entrance to the neighbor’s cave.
Tau.Neutrino said:
transition said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Which then spread overseas and to AustraliaSuch as Craig McLachlan being accused of sexual harassment
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/craig-mclachlan-faces-new-indecent-assault-allegations/news-story/79dfa544eb59613a75dd5b806b6c2f17
sort of hoping you might contribute something from your personal experience, rather than just regurgitating by quantity something seen in media.
like do you think there’s such a thing as over-heterosexualization, distortions that way? Genderizing perhaps, if you will.
if culture does that, or has done that, then isn’t that in-part because of the excessive power of culture.
I has some experience of something just recently of bad male behaviour
Humans are naturally receptive to environment/culture, it’s part of our biology. Social environments of past selected for it. The less receptive of our ancestors got to breed less. There are also those over-receptive in some ways. It’s a mixed bag, and makes for broad selection options.
Like young Gog over there otherside the camp fire’s not much gifted, but worse he has little appreciation of the varied gifts of the individuals making up the group, he has to be retaught every day not to shit in the entrance to the cave.
A few others joined in too, seeing it was convenient. Before long there was a mountain of excrement starting to block the cave entrance.
Quite a few had moved out by then, tired of the stench, and in their travels had developed a new appreciation of the sky and stars, the fresh air, wanted for a bigger picture.
Faced with uncertainties they built homes of ideas, beliefs, ways, to elevate their natures.
There’s been steady progress, now you go over and shit in the entrance to the neighbor’s cave.
You could make it into a poem.
Rule 303 said:
I’ve got an idea – How about men stop being a bunch of arseholes? People might feel inclined to speak more kindly toward us….
Yeah. How about men stop blaming women; stop using slurs; stop abusing their “power”; stop thinking women are the enemy; stop making “jokes”……..I could go on.
If you get called out for being a sexist creep, then look at your behaviour and attitudes and maybe make some changes.
>You could make it into a poem.
cross pollination?
Rule 303 said:
sibeen said:
I’m probably lucky that I lost my barge pole only last week.
There’s pills you can take now.
Barge pole for me too.
I’m just waiting until people realise that the problem isn’t money, or religion, or men, or change. The problem is people.
>I’m just waiting until people realise that the problem isn’t money, or religion, or men, or change. The problem is people.
ambivalence about the species?
transition said:
>I’m just waiting until people realise that the problem isn’t money, or religion, or men, or change. The problem is people.ambivalence about the species?
Maybe. Maybe not.
captain_spalding said:
transition said:
>I’m just waiting until people realise that the problem isn’t money, or religion, or men, or change. The problem is people.ambivalence about the species?
Maybe. Maybe not.
reason I mentioned it, was that humans are, as far as I know, the only species capable of that.
some of it, in my opinion, makes it into gender politics, gets directed into it, manifests.
transition said:
hearing quite a few generalizations about men lately, on the TV.what’s going on?
positive discrimination, some power equalization?
You are beginning to notice the implacable march of pro-social justice extremists (we call them Social Justice Warriors) through the institutions of our civilization. In this ideology men (as a general group) are evil and must be derided.
esselte said:
transition said:
hearing quite a few generalizations about men lately, on the TV.what’s going on?
positive discrimination, some power equalization?
You are beginning to notice the implacable march of pro-social justice extremists (we call them Social Justice Warriors) through the institutions of our civilization. In this ideology men (as a general group) are evil and must be derided.
doesn’t bother me, I don’t identify with any such group, does occur to me though it (some of, as a strategy) may be intended to tease out those given to a siege response.
Tau.Neutrino said:
It isn’t about misandry, which is defined as dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men (i.e. the male sex).Its about improving male behavior in general.
it started with a New York Times article about Harvey Weinstein
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-41594672
Hollywood has been rocked by allegations against film mogul Harvey Weinstein – which first came to light in a New York Times article.
Since then, the story has developed continuously, with a large number of women coming forward to say they were sexually harassed or assaulted by Weinstein – allegations he has denied.
more….
Corey Feldman talked about sexual abuse when he was a young star and how a club existed for young Hollywood stars pretty much so they could be drugged and abused
captain_spalding said:
transition said:
>I’m just waiting until people realise that the problem isn’t money, or religion, or men, or change. The problem is people.ambivalence about the species?
Maybe. Maybe not.
LOL
transition said:
esselte said:
transition said:
hearing quite a few generalizations about men lately, on the TV.what’s going on?
positive discrimination, some power equalization?
You are beginning to notice the implacable march of pro-social justice extremists (we call them Social Justice Warriors) through the institutions of our civilization. In this ideology men (as a general group) are evil and must be derided.
doesn’t bother me, I don’t identify with any such group, does occur to me though it (some of, as a strategy) may be intended to tease out those given to a siege response.
It is not targeted at individuals or their specific responses. The philosophy is a collectivist one based on identity politics with the worth of any one group determined by the “progressive stack” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_stack), “which assumes that white males at all times bear noxious degrees of unearned power, which is why they have to get to the back of the line and let all the legless black lesbians speak first.”
It doesn’t matter to these people that you “don’t identify with any such group”. They will put you in a group regardless. That’s how they roll.
esselte said:
In this ideology men (as a general group) are evil and must be derided.
Bull. Shit.
esselte said:
transition said:
esselte said:You are beginning to notice the implacable march of pro-social justice extremists (we call them Social Justice Warriors) through the institutions of our civilization. In this ideology men (as a general group) are evil and must be derided.
doesn’t bother me, I don’t identify with any such group, does occur to me though it (some of, as a strategy) may be intended to tease out those given to a siege response.
It is not targeted at individuals or their specific responses. The philosophy is a collectivist one based on identity politics with the worth of any one group determined by the “progressive stack” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_stack), “which assumes that white males at all times bear noxious degrees of unearned power, which is why they have to get to the back of the line and let all the legless black lesbians speak first.”
It doesn’t matter to these people that you “don’t identify with any such group”. They will put you in a group regardless. That’s how they roll.
Not all white men are tools and some are the opposite and condemn those that act privileged, . You can still be biased and be part of repressed minority group but they are most likely a minority within that minority and not how most think. It could be a good tool by the white privileged to make those fence sitters think “Of these lesbians hate all men” lots of those tricks going around
kii said:
esselte said:In this ideology men (as a general group) are evil and must be derided.
Bull. Shit.
esselte said:
kii said:
esselte said:In this ideology men (as a general group) are evil and must be derided.
Bull. Shit.
Why have you posted those photos?
>It is not targeted at individuals or their specific responses.
I think teasing out siege responses, from the generalization, using it as a device, I could see how that would be very useful, as a strategy.
kii said:
esselte said:
kii said:Bull. Shit.
Why have you posted those photos?
I don’t know but there are some nice tits there.
All stereotypes are bad, negative stereotypes even more so.
It should go without saying (although it seems it doesn’t) that negative stereotypes of disadvantaged groups are much worse than negative stereotypes of advantaged groups.
Nonetheless, we should all speak out against all stereotypes, regardless of the target, if only because when a member of some disadvantaged group stereotypes all members of some advantaged group, it ends up being counter-productive in that some people who would otherwise recognise the disadvantage of that group become alienated.
kii said:
esselte said:
kii said:Bull. Shit.
Why have you posted those photos?
Say no to girl jedi’s ?
The Rev Dodgson said:
All stereotypes are bad, negative stereotypes even more so.It should go without saying (although it seems it doesn’t) that negative stereotypes of disadvantaged groups are much worse than negative stereotypes of advantaged groups.
Nonetheless, we should all speak out against all stereotypes, regardless of the target, if only because when a member of some disadvantaged group stereotypes all members of some advantaged group, it ends up being counter-productive in that some people who would otherwise recognise the disadvantage of that group become alienated.
oh, attacking my stereotype coffee cup, chair, table, dog, cat, you’re shaking my universe with a stereotype of stereotype.
:)
perhaps worse, lost in the divisive gender nonsense, what matters more (to positive change) is men’s attitudes toward men, and women’s attitudes toward women, to the extent anyone does see them (the sexes) as greatly different, which frankly I don’t.
kii said:
esselte said:
kii said:Bull. Shit.
Why have you posted those photos?
The lady in the black shirt is Kathleen Kennedy. She is in charge of Lucasfilm at Disney and is very social-justice-warriory.
The latest of the ‘numbered’ Star Wars films, The Last Jedi, is considered by many to be chock full of social justice messaging. There is a stereotype that the typical social justice warrior is a strong woman with unnaturally coloured hair and a disregard for men or their opinions. In context of the scene, the first photo shows a strong funny hair coloured Kathleen Kennedy stand-in character dominating and condescending to the male chief fighter pilot. The movie provides no explanation for this attitude other than the idea that strong women don’t need to explain their thinking to a mere man, even if the discussion is about a life or death situation. The character interaction between these two throughout the whole movie is based around the idea that the man should shut up and let the woman do all the thinking. Most of the story is built around the idea that men should just shut up and let the women control everything. Women, in general, are presented as simply being better than men.
The Force is “an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together.” Also, apparently now it is female.
transition said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
All stereotypes are bad, negative stereotypes even more so.It should go without saying (although it seems it doesn’t) that negative stereotypes of disadvantaged groups are much worse than negative stereotypes of advantaged groups.
Nonetheless, we should all speak out against all stereotypes, regardless of the target, if only because when a member of some disadvantaged group stereotypes all members of some advantaged group, it ends up being counter-productive in that some people who would otherwise recognise the disadvantage of that group become alienated.
oh, attacking my stereotype coffee cup, chair, table, dog, cat, you’re shaking my universe with a stereotype of stereotype.
:)
Yes, this is a problem.
When I say (as I often do), that all sweeping generalisations are wrong, we need not to forget that this is a sweeping generalisation.
transition said:
perhaps worse, lost in the divisive gender nonsense, what matters more (to positive change) is men’s attitudes toward men, and women’s attitudes toward women, to the extent anyone does see them (the sexes) as greatly different, which frankly I don’t.
Oh I’m pretty sure that when you look at the mean (or even the median), there are some significant differences between men and women, which is no-ones fault, not even the Romans. The thing is, the overlap is huge (for almost everything), so when we talk about what men should do, or what women should do, it is rarely useful.
esselte said:
kii said:
esselte said:
Why have you posted those photos?
The lady in the black shirt is Kathleen Kennedy. She is in charge of Lucasfilm at Disney and is very social-justice-warriory.
The latest of the ‘numbered’ Star Wars films, The Last Jedi, is considered by many to be chock full of social justice messaging. There is a stereotype that the typical social justice warrior is a strong woman with unnaturally coloured hair and a disregard for men or their opinions. In context of the scene, the first photo shows a strong funny hair coloured Kathleen Kennedy stand-in character dominating and condescending to the male chief fighter pilot. The movie provides no explanation for this attitude other than the idea that strong women don’t need to explain their thinking to a mere man, even if the discussion is about a life or death situation. The character interaction between these two throughout the whole movie is based around the idea that the man should shut up and let the woman do all the thinking. Most of the story is built around the idea that men should just shut up and let the women control everything. Women, in general, are presented as simply being better than men.
The Force is “an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together.” Also, apparently now it is female.
He disobeyed orders didn’t he and she was shitty with him for it, she was chewing his arse off
Cymek said:
esselte said:
kii said:Why have you posted those photos?
The lady in the black shirt is Kathleen Kennedy. She is in charge of Lucasfilm at Disney and is very social-justice-warriory.
The latest of the ‘numbered’ Star Wars films, The Last Jedi, is considered by many to be chock full of social justice messaging. There is a stereotype that the typical social justice warrior is a strong woman with unnaturally coloured hair and a disregard for men or their opinions. In context of the scene, the first photo shows a strong funny hair coloured Kathleen Kennedy stand-in character dominating and condescending to the male chief fighter pilot. The movie provides no explanation for this attitude other than the idea that strong women don’t need to explain their thinking to a mere man, even if the discussion is about a life or death situation. The character interaction between these two throughout the whole movie is based around the idea that the man should shut up and let the woman do all the thinking. Most of the story is built around the idea that men should just shut up and let the women control everything. Women, in general, are presented as simply being better than men.
The Force is “an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together.” Also, apparently now it is female.
He disobeyed orders didn’t he and she was shitty with him for it, she was chewing his arse off
Plus the leaders in movies often don’t explain things to subordinates creates tension and the idea that leaders are often idiots
Cymek said:
Cymek said:
esselte said:The lady in the black shirt is Kathleen Kennedy. She is in charge of Lucasfilm at Disney and is very social-justice-warriory.
The latest of the ‘numbered’ Star Wars films, The Last Jedi, is considered by many to be chock full of social justice messaging. There is a stereotype that the typical social justice warrior is a strong woman with unnaturally coloured hair and a disregard for men or their opinions. In context of the scene, the first photo shows a strong funny hair coloured Kathleen Kennedy stand-in character dominating and condescending to the male chief fighter pilot. The movie provides no explanation for this attitude other than the idea that strong women don’t need to explain their thinking to a mere man, even if the discussion is about a life or death situation. The character interaction between these two throughout the whole movie is based around the idea that the man should shut up and let the woman do all the thinking. Most of the story is built around the idea that men should just shut up and let the women control everything. Women, in general, are presented as simply being better than men.
The Force is “an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together.” Also, apparently now it is female.
He disobeyed orders didn’t he and she was shitty with him for it, she was chewing his arse off
Plus the leaders in movies often don’t explain things to subordinates creates tension and the idea that leaders are often idiots
And people disliked the latest movie as it didn’t pander to fanboi’s pet theories of who certain people were and people acted out of character when they didn’t, eg Luke was a grumpy reluctant hermit, just like Ben and Yoda
esselte said:
The lady in the black shirt is Kathleen Kennedy. She is in charge of Lucasfilm at Disney and is very social-justice-warriory.
The latest of the ‘numbered’ Star Wars films, The Last Jedi, is considered by many to be chock full of social justice messaging. There is a stereotype that the typical social justice warrior is a strong woman with unnaturally coloured hair and a disregard for men or their opinions. In context of the scene, the first photo shows a strong funny hair coloured Kathleen Kennedy stand-in character dominating and condescending to the male chief fighter pilot. The movie provides no explanation for this attitude other than the idea that strong women don’t need to explain their thinking to a mere man, even if the discussion is about a life or death situation. The character interaction between these two throughout the whole movie is based around the idea that the man should shut up and let the woman do all the thinking. Most of the story is built around the idea that men should just shut up and let the women control everything. Women, in general, are presented as simply being better than men.
The Force is “an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together.” Also, apparently now it is female.
rofl, someone sits around and comes up with this?
Here is the type of person I am talking about.
http://archive.is/YqM2U
See how she conflates “all white men” with “far right conservatives” spreading “hate and discrimination” all whilst being “racist, sexist, narrow minded imbiciles”. SJW 101 right there!
Any way, Jonathan Pie rants on identity politics, once again gets it right:
esselte said:
Here is the type of person I am talking about.http://archive.is/YqM2U
See how she conflates “all white men” with “far right conservatives” spreading “hate and discrimination” all whilst being “racist, sexist, narrow minded imbiciles”. SJW 101 right there!
Any way, Jonathan Pie rants on identity politics, once again gets it right:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9_bI789Gog
I suppose you will get idiots even amongst minority groups, the current political climate does seem to have a number of “racist, sexist, narrow minded imbiciles “ as nation leaders which wouldn’t help
poikilotherm said:
esselte said:The lady in the black shirt is Kathleen Kennedy. She is in charge of Lucasfilm at Disney and is very social-justice-warriory.
The latest of the ‘numbered’ Star Wars films, The Last Jedi, is considered by many to be chock full of social justice messaging. There is a stereotype that the typical social justice warrior is a strong woman with unnaturally coloured hair and a disregard for men or their opinions. In context of the scene, the first photo shows a strong funny hair coloured Kathleen Kennedy stand-in character dominating and condescending to the male chief fighter pilot. The movie provides no explanation for this attitude other than the idea that strong women don’t need to explain their thinking to a mere man, even if the discussion is about a life or death situation. The character interaction between these two throughout the whole movie is based around the idea that the man should shut up and let the woman do all the thinking. Most of the story is built around the idea that men should just shut up and let the women control everything. Women, in general, are presented as simply being better than men.
The Force is “an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together.” Also, apparently now it is female.
rofl, someone sits around and comes up with this?
What else is a nerd supposed to do with his time since he has no friends?
I do want to make it clear I have no problem with social justice activism, or with the basic precepts of social justice itself.
It’s the extremists, not social justice activists but rather social justice warriors that I don’t like.
To understand the difference between the two:
Imagine a local public library. The only access is up a long flight of stairs to the front entrance
A social justice activist might see that and petition for a ramp or an elevator to be installed so that people in wheelchairs could use the library.
A social justice warrior will petition to have the stairs removed, the library torn down, employees of the library to personally apologize to every single person in a wheelchair, the architect and construction company to be vilified, and a commission established to discover just why it is that libraries everywhere hate the wheelchair-bound.
And the problem is that these maniacs are actually becoming influential in academia, politics, entertainment, social media, journalism etc.
Humanity seems to have a swinging gender preference that swings from male influence to female influence, but with mostly male dominance overall. ?
esselte said:
I do want to make it clear I have no problem with social justice activism, or with the basic precepts of social justice itself.
It’s the extremists, not social justice activists but rather social justice warriors that I don’t like.
To understand the difference between the two:
Imagine a local public library. The only access is up a long flight of stairs to the front entrance
A social justice activist might see that and petition for a ramp or an elevator to be installed so that people in wheelchairs could use the library.
A social justice warrior will petition to have the stairs removed, the library torn down, employees of the library to personally apologize to every single person in a wheelchair, the architect and construction company to be vilified, and a commission established to discover just why it is that libraries everywhere hate the wheelchair-bound.
And the problem is that these maniacs are actually becoming influential in academia, politics, entertainment, social media, journalism etc.
Yes, extremists can overdo things, the moderates then to pull them back in.
esselte said:
I do want to make it clear I have no problem with social justice activism, or with the basic precepts of social justice itself.
It’s the extremists, not social justice activists but rather social justice warriors that I don’t like.
To understand the difference between the two:
Imagine a local public library. The only access is up a long flight of stairs to the front entrance
A social justice activist might see that and petition for a ramp or an elevator to be installed so that people in wheelchairs could use the library.
A social justice warrior will petition to have the stairs removed, the library torn down, employees of the library to personally apologize to every single person in a wheelchair, the architect and construction company to be vilified, and a commission established to discover just why it is that libraries everywhere hate the wheelchair-bound.
And the problem is that these maniacs are actually becoming influential in academia, politics, entertainment, social media, journalism etc.
Yep that’s close enough.
Peak Warming Man said:
esselte said:I do want to make it clear I have no problem with social justice activism, or with the basic precepts of social justice itself.
It’s the extremists, not social justice activists but rather social justice warriors that I don’t like.
To understand the difference between the two:
Imagine a local public library. The only access is up a long flight of stairs to the front entrance
A social justice activist might see that and petition for a ramp or an elevator to be installed so that people in wheelchairs could use the library.
A social justice warrior will petition to have the stairs removed, the library torn down, employees of the library to personally apologize to every single person in a wheelchair, the architect and construction company to be vilified, and a commission established to discover just why it is that libraries everywhere hate the wheelchair-bound.
And the problem is that these maniacs are actually becoming influential in academia, politics, entertainment, social media, journalism etc.
Yep that’s close enough.
esselte said:
Here is the type of person I am talking about.http://archive.is/YqM2U
See how she conflates “all white men” with “far right conservatives” spreading “hate and discrimination” all whilst being “racist, sexist, narrow minded imbiciles”. SJW 101 right there!
Any way, Jonathan Pie rants on identity politics, once again gets it right:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9_bI789Gog
Hmmm.
Jonathon Pie is a satirist.
Sometimes it works.
Sometimes (like this time) he displays the very characteristics he is satirising.
The Rev Dodgson said:
esselte said:
Here is the type of person I am talking about.http://archive.is/YqM2U
See how she conflates “all white men” with “far right conservatives” spreading “hate and discrimination” all whilst being “racist, sexist, narrow minded imbiciles”. SJW 101 right there!
Any way, Jonathan Pie rants on identity politics, once again gets it right:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9_bI789Gog
Hmmm.
Jonathon Pie is a satirist.
Sometimes it works.
Sometimes (like this time) he displays the very characteristics he is satirising.
He comes across to me like a whirlwind most times.
Peak Warming Man said:
esselte said:I do want to make it clear I have no problem with social justice activism, or with the basic precepts of social justice itself.
It’s the extremists, not social justice activists but rather social justice warriors that I don’t like.
To understand the difference between the two:
Imagine a local public library. The only access is up a long flight of stairs to the front entrance
A social justice activist might see that and petition for a ramp or an elevator to be installed so that people in wheelchairs could use the library.
A social justice warrior will petition to have the stairs removed, the library torn down, employees of the library to personally apologize to every single person in a wheelchair, the architect and construction company to be vilified, and a commission established to discover just why it is that libraries everywhere hate the wheelchair-bound.
And the problem is that these maniacs are actually becoming influential in academia, politics, entertainment, social media, journalism etc.
Yep that’s close enough.
Is it.
Wouldn’t it be extraordinary if some particular political groups did not have extremists who displayed the very qualities they decry?
All political groups are composed of humans after all.
The question is, are these people exercising undue influence over political outcomes?
I really can’t see that they are; in fact I think in some areas the opposite is true.
That is not to say that we shouldn’t be free to criticise these people.
But we shouldn’t act as if they represent everyone in that political group, because they don’t.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Peak Warming Man said:
esselte said:I do want to make it clear I have no problem with social justice activism, or with the basic precepts of social justice itself.
It’s the extremists, not social justice activists but rather social justice warriors that I don’t like.
To understand the difference between the two:
Imagine a local public library. The only access is up a long flight of stairs to the front entrance
A social justice activist might see that and petition for a ramp or an elevator to be installed so that people in wheelchairs could use the library.
A social justice warrior will petition to have the stairs removed, the library torn down, employees of the library to personally apologize to every single person in a wheelchair, the architect and construction company to be vilified, and a commission established to discover just why it is that libraries everywhere hate the wheelchair-bound.
And the problem is that these maniacs are actually becoming influential in academia, politics, entertainment, social media, journalism etc.
Yep that’s close enough.
Is it.
Wouldn’t it be extraordinary if some particular political groups did not have extremists who displayed the very qualities they decry?
All political groups are composed of humans after all.
The question is, are these people exercising undue influence over political outcomes?
I really can’t see that they are; in fact I think in some areas the opposite is true.
That is not to say that we shouldn’t be free to criticise these people.
But we shouldn’t act as if they represent everyone in that political group, because they don’t.
Yes, extremists in that group would be a minority.
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Peak Warming Man said:Yep that’s close enough.
Is it.
Wouldn’t it be extraordinary if some particular political groups did not have extremists who displayed the very qualities they decry?
All political groups are composed of humans after all.
The question is, are these people exercising undue influence over political outcomes?
I really can’t see that they are; in fact I think in some areas the opposite is true.
That is not to say that we shouldn’t be free to criticise these people.
But we shouldn’t act as if they represent everyone in that political group, because they don’t.
Yes, extremists in that group would be a minority.
It’s a widely-used and effective method of marginalisation and dismissal to describe an issue in the dialogue of extremism. At best, the technique is intellectually dishonest. Please resist the temptation.
The Rev Dodgson said:
The question is, are these people exercising undue influence over political outcomes?
This is the important question and whilst I’ve obviously come down on one side of that question I acknowledge it is open for debate.
Remember though that political outcomes are not divorced from other aspects of society. If academia is currently brainwashing a generation into becoming SJW’s, for example, the political effect of that will not be seen until those students have graduated, built a career in politics and have reached high levels in the government.
On the Pie video, do you agree with the removal of Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name from the ALA Award? In similair vein do you think Mark Twain novels should be re-written to exclude all uses of the word “nigger”?
The Rev Dodgson said:
esselte said:
Here is the type of person I am talking about.http://archive.is/YqM2U
See how she conflates “all white men” with “far right conservatives” spreading “hate and discrimination” all whilst being “racist, sexist, narrow minded imbiciles”. SJW 101 right there!
Any way, Jonathan Pie rants on identity politics, once again gets it right:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9_bI789Gog
Hmmm.
Jonathon Pie is a satirist.
Sometimes it works.
Sometimes (like this time) he displays the very characteristics he is satirising.
He swears too much and I don’t like his suit.
esselte said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
The question is, are these people exercising undue influence over political outcomes?
This is the important question and whilst I’ve obviously come down on one side of that question I acknowledge it is open for debate.
Remember though that political outcomes are not divorced from other aspects of society. If academia is currently brainwashing a generation into becoming SJW’s, for example, the political effect of that will not be seen until those students have graduated, built a career in politics and have reached high levels in the government.
On the Pie video, do you agree with the removal of Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name from the ALA Award? In similair vein do you think Mark Twain novels should be re-written to exclude all uses of the word “nigger”?
No as they show the attitude at the time plus I imagine more modern novels still use the term
esselte said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
The question is, are these people exercising undue influence over political outcomes?
This is the important question and whilst I’ve obviously come down on one side of that question I acknowledge it is open for debate.
Remember though that political outcomes are not divorced from other aspects of society. If academia is currently brainwashing a generation into becoming SJW’s, for example, the political effect of that will not be seen until those students have graduated, built a career in politics and have reached high levels in the government.
On the Pie video, do you agree with the removal of Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name from the ALA Award? In similair vein do you think Mark Twain novels should be re-written to exclude all uses of the word “nigger”?
“SJWs”, and denouncing the same, is a very American thing. Maybe you spend too much time on the American parts of the internet.
esselte said:
I do want to make it clear I have no problem with social justice activism, or with the basic precepts of social justice itself.
It’s the extremists, not social justice activists but rather social justice warriors that I don’t like.
To understand the difference between the two:
Imagine a local public library. The only access is up a long flight of stairs to the front entrance
A social justice activist might see that and petition for a ramp or an elevator to be installed so that people in wheelchairs could use the library.
A social justice warrior will petition to have the stairs removed, the library torn down, employees of the library to personally apologize to every single person in a wheelchair, the architect and construction company to be vilified, and a commission established to discover just why it is that libraries everywhere hate the wheelchair-bound.
And the problem is that these maniacs are actually becoming influential in academia, politics, entertainment, social media, journalism etc.
never can trust them stairs… always up to something…
Tau.Neutrino said:
After which lead to the Me Too movementhttps://metoomvmt.org/
17,700.000 have reported a sexual assault since 1998
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_Too_movement
That is the reported and it is only some of the reported. I am sure when I went to management in 1977 and reported another worker for following me around, and slipping his hand on my chair while I sat down and having a grope, blocking my path as I was working with his body. I was working shift work with this fellow. Alone in a building with this creep. So I reported him. And they told me he was a good worker and perhaps I should leave. So I quit. And this was a job I was head hunted for. It was a high paid job. And it wasn’t the only job I left because I felt threatened. There was also the guy that liked to straddle the chair I was sitting on and thrust his pelvis into my face. Oh Fun. Hear the other men laugh. Management said it was because he was an islander and they were like that.
It started when I was a child. My brother would thump me whenever my parents weren’t around. I could show them the bruises and it wasn’t darling Drew. It was me! I was clumsy!
Now I am pushing 60. I can look back and I can give you a history of this in my life…until… I became old and undesirable and alone. Which is some ways is good. I no longer have to be worried about being orally raped in the middle of the night.
So Me too. A world wide thing. Perhaps because every woman can say..that happened to me. Then..and then..and then..and then..and then..
It drags it all up again. Look it is happening now.
Do I hate men? No. Is there a whole lot of behaviour men should stop? Yes. It would be nice if it stopped a long time ago. A long long time ago.
Oh. I would also like to say that in the past some men who have claimed to be ‘not like that’ …were actually like that. And that certainly doesn’t make things easier for the men who do the right thing.
Cymek said:
esselte said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
The question is, are these people exercising undue influence over political outcomes?
This is the important question and whilst I’ve obviously come down on one side of that question I acknowledge it is open for debate.
Remember though that political outcomes are not divorced from other aspects of society. If academia is currently brainwashing a generation into becoming SJW’s, for example, the political effect of that will not be seen until those students have graduated, built a career in politics and have reached high levels in the government.
On the Pie video, do you agree with the removal of Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name from the ALA Award? In similair vein do you think Mark Twain novels should be re-written to exclude all uses of the word “nigger”?
No as they show the attitude at the time plus I imagine more modern novels still use the term
Can works of fiction even be labelled as un-PC and racist ?
Tau.Neutrino said:
17,700.000 women have reported a sexual assault since 1998
https://metoomvmt.org/
¿how many were engineers?
sarahs mum said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
After which lead to the Me Too movementhttps://metoomvmt.org/
17,700.000 have reported a sexual assault since 1998
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_Too_movement
That is the reported and it is only some of the reported. I am sure when I went to management in 1977 and reported another worker for following me around, and slipping his hand on my chair while I sat down and having a grope, blocking my path as I was working with his body. I was working shift work with this fellow. Alone in a building with this creep. So I reported him. And they told me he was a good worker and perhaps I should leave. So I quit. And this was a job I was head hunted for. It was a high paid job. And it wasn’t the only job I left because I felt threatened. There was also the guy that liked to straddle the chair I was sitting on and thrust his pelvis into my face. Oh Fun. Hear the other men laugh. Management said it was because he was an islander and they were like that.
It started when I was a child. My brother would thump me whenever my parents weren’t around. I could show them the bruises and it wasn’t darling Drew. It was me! I was clumsy!
Now I am pushing 60. I can look back and I can give you a history of this in my life…until… I became old and undesirable and alone. Which is some ways is good. I no longer have to be worried about being orally raped in the middle of the night.
So Me too. A world wide thing. Perhaps because every woman can say..that happened to me. Then..and then..and then..and then..and then..
It drags it all up again. Look it is happening now.
Do I hate men? No. Is there a whole lot of behaviour men should stop? Yes. It would be nice if it stopped a long time ago. A long long time ago.
Oh. I would also like to say that in the past some men who have claimed to be ‘not like that’ …were actually like that. And that certainly doesn’t make things easier for the men who do the right thing.
I am sure you remember that sorts of behaviour was and still is to a lesser extent excused “As boy’s being boys”
Cymek said:
Cymek said:
esselte said:This is the important question and whilst I’ve obviously come down on one side of that question I acknowledge it is open for debate.
Remember though that political outcomes are not divorced from other aspects of society. If academia is currently brainwashing a generation into becoming SJW’s, for example, the political effect of that will not be seen until those students have graduated, built a career in politics and have reached high levels in the government.
On the Pie video, do you agree with the removal of Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name from the ALA Award? In similair vein do you think Mark Twain novels should be re-written to exclude all uses of the word “nigger”?
No as they show the attitude at the time plus I imagine more modern novels still use the term
Can works of fiction even be labelled as un-PC and racist ?
yes
Cymek said:
sarahs mum said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
After which lead to the Me Too movementhttps://metoomvmt.org/
17,700.000 have reported a sexual assault since 1998
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_Too_movement
That is the reported and it is only some of the reported. I am sure when I went to management in 1977 and reported another worker for following me around, and slipping his hand on my chair while I sat down and having a grope, blocking my path as I was working with his body. I was working shift work with this fellow. Alone in a building with this creep. So I reported him. And they told me he was a good worker and perhaps I should leave. So I quit. And this was a job I was head hunted for. It was a high paid job. And it wasn’t the only job I left because I felt threatened. There was also the guy that liked to straddle the chair I was sitting on and thrust his pelvis into my face. Oh Fun. Hear the other men laugh. Management said it was because he was an islander and they were like that.
It started when I was a child. My brother would thump me whenever my parents weren’t around. I could show them the bruises and it wasn’t darling Drew. It was me! I was clumsy!
Now I am pushing 60. I can look back and I can give you a history of this in my life…until… I became old and undesirable and alone. Which is some ways is good. I no longer have to be worried about being orally raped in the middle of the night.
So Me too. A world wide thing. Perhaps because every woman can say..that happened to me. Then..and then..and then..and then..and then..
It drags it all up again. Look it is happening now.
Do I hate men? No. Is there a whole lot of behaviour men should stop? Yes. It would be nice if it stopped a long time ago. A long long time ago.
Oh. I would also like to say that in the past some men who have claimed to be ‘not like that’ …were actually like that. And that certainly doesn’t make things easier for the men who do the right thing.
I am sure you remember that sorts of behaviour was and still is to a lesser extent excused “As boy’s being boys”
Tau.Neutrino said:
I read that Bert Newton called someone a poof on the LogiesBert Newton’s ‘trifecta of insults’ is just one sign of what’s wrong with the Logies
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-02/logies-bert-newton-trifecta-of-insults/9930556
SCIENCE said:
Cymek said:
Cymek said:No as they show the attitude at the time plus I imagine more modern novels still use the term
Can works of fiction even be labelled as un-PC and racist ?
yes
They are fiction though, what if the novel is about racism of a real people’s as part of a wider story, for example those N people from WWII killing of the Jews and its part of the greater story.
This is Australian-style sexism brought to you by a senator and Sky News
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/03/leyonhjelm-hanson-young-sky-australian-style-sexism#comment-117727104
Cymek said:
I am sure you remember that sorts of behaviour was and still is to a lesser extent excused “As boy’s being boys”
A popular Australian pyjama brand has removed a boys’ jumper emblazoned with the slogan “boys will be boys” from the market after concerned parents complained about the use of the phrase.
The grey pyjama top was marketed in Peter Alexander’s children’s range, and was spotted by Melbourne mother Bridie Harris in a shop last week. She then made a complaint to the company on social media.
“Boy won’t be boys,” she wrote on Facebook on June 20.
“Boys will be held accountable for their actions. I hate to see an Australian store, who makes such great pjs, put such a sexist statement on a t-shirt intended for young boys. Excusing boys of their behaviour is not a step in the right direction. It’s 2018.”
https://www.smh.com.au/national/boys-will-be-boys-pyjama-top-pulled-after-parent-complaint-20180627-p4zo5l.html
esselte said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
The question is, are these people exercising undue influence over political outcomes?
This is the important question and whilst I’ve obviously come down on one side of that question I acknowledge it is open for debate.
Remember though that political outcomes are not divorced from other aspects of society. If academia is currently brainwashing a generation into becoming SJW’s, for example, the political effect of that will not be seen until those students have graduated, built a career in politics and have reached high levels in the government.
On the Pie video, do you agree with the removal of Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name from the ALA Award? In similair vein do you think Mark Twain novels should be re-written to exclude all uses of the word “nigger”?
“The people whom Huck and Nigger Jim encounter on the Mississippi are drunkards, murderers, bullies, swindlers, lynchers, thieves, liars, mows, frauds, child abusers, numbskulls, hypocrites, windbags and traders in human flesh. All are white. The one man of honor in this phantasmagoria is ‘Nigger Jim,’ as Twain called him to emphasize the irony of a society in which the only true gentleman was held beneath contempt.”
esselte said:
Cymek said:I am sure you remember that sorts of behaviour was and still is to a lesser extent excused “As boy’s being boys”
A popular Australian pyjama brand has removed a boys’ jumper emblazoned with the slogan “boys will be boys” from the market after concerned parents complained about the use of the phrase.
The grey pyjama top was marketed in Peter Alexander’s children’s range, and was spotted by Melbourne mother Bridie Harris in a shop last week. She then made a complaint to the company on social media.
“Boy won’t be boys,” she wrote on Facebook on June 20.
“Boys will be held accountable for their actions. I hate to see an Australian store, who makes such great pjs, put such a sexist statement on a t-shirt intended for young boys. Excusing boys of their behaviour is not a step in the right direction. It’s 2018.”
https://www.smh.com.au/national/boys-will-be-boys-pyjama-top-pulled-after-parent-complaint-20180627-p4zo5l.html
I remember it being connected with football and rugby when the players got drunk or not and harassed women and worse
esselte said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
The question is, are these people exercising undue influence over political outcomes?
This is the important question and whilst I’ve obviously come down on one side of that question I acknowledge it is open for debate.
Remember though that political outcomes are not divorced from other aspects of society. If academia is currently brainwashing a generation into becoming SJW’s, for example, the political effect of that will not be seen until those students have graduated, built a career in politics and have reached high levels in the government.
On the Pie video, do you agree with the removal of Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name from the ALA Award? In similair vein do you think Mark Twain novels should be re-written to exclude all uses of the word “nigger”?
What is an SJW?
I have no idea what an ALA Award is, but assuming she was awarded it some time in the past, then I don’t think her name should be removed from the list, probably.
I don’t have any problem with Mark Twain novels being translated into 20th Century English, provided that the original versions are also available.
esselte said:
Cymek said:I am sure you remember that sorts of behaviour was and still is to a lesser extent excused “As boy’s being boys”
A popular Australian pyjama brand has removed a boys’ jumper emblazoned with the slogan “boys will be boys” from the market after concerned parents complained about the use of the phrase.
The grey pyjama top was marketed in Peter Alexander’s children’s range, and was spotted by Melbourne mother Bridie Harris in a shop last week. She then made a complaint to the company on social media.
“Boy won’t be boys,” she wrote on Facebook on June 20.
“Boys will be held accountable for their actions. I hate to see an Australian store, who makes such great pjs, put such a sexist statement on a t-shirt intended for young boys. Excusing boys of their behaviour is not a step in the right direction. It’s 2018.”
https://www.smh.com.au/national/boys-will-be-boys-pyjama-top-pulled-after-parent-complaint-20180627-p4zo5l.html
Seems entirely reasonable that such an expression should be seen as reflecting unacceptable attitudes.
esselte said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
The question is, are these people exercising undue influence over political outcomes?
This is the important question and whilst I’ve obviously come down on one side of that question I acknowledge it is open for debate.
Remember though that political outcomes are not divorced from other aspects of society. If academia is currently brainwashing a generation into becoming SJW’s, for example, the political effect of that will not be seen until those students have graduated, built a career in politics and have reached high levels in the government.
On the Pie video, do you agree with the removal of Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name from the ALA Award? In similair vein do you think Mark Twain novels should be re-written to exclude all uses of the word “nigger”?
What is an ALA Award?
ALA is the American Library Association.
“The Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC), a division of the American Library Association, voted on Saturday to strip the name of Laura Ingalls Wilder from a popular children’s book award, months after a task force set out to consider the long-running scholarly discussion around “anti-Native and anti-Black sentiments” in the author’s work.
“The Laura Ingalls Wilder Award honors an author or illustrator whose books have made “a significant and lasting contribution to children’s literature.” It will now be called The Children’s Literature Legacy Award.”
Pie discussed this in his “Oppression Obsession” video.
Michael V said:
esselte said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
The question is, are these people exercising undue influence over political outcomes?
This is the important question and whilst I’ve obviously come down on one side of that question I acknowledge it is open for debate.
Remember though that political outcomes are not divorced from other aspects of society. If academia is currently brainwashing a generation into becoming SJW’s, for example, the political effect of that will not be seen until those students have graduated, built a career in politics and have reached high levels in the government.
On the Pie video, do you agree with the removal of Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name from the ALA Award? In similair vein do you think Mark Twain novels should be re-written to exclude all uses of the word “nigger”?
What is an ALA Award?
The Wilder Award was an American Library Association award for excellence in children’s literature. The name has now been changed to Children’s literature legacy award:
American librarians defend renaming Laura Ingalls Wilder award
Professional body the ALA says the Little House on the Prairie author’s ‘complex legacy’ of racist attitudes was not consistent with its values
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jun/26/american-librarians-laura-ingalls-wilder-award
Bubblecar said:
Michael V said:
esselte said:This is the important question and whilst I’ve obviously come down on one side of that question I acknowledge it is open for debate.
Remember though that political outcomes are not divorced from other aspects of society. If academia is currently brainwashing a generation into becoming SJW’s, for example, the political effect of that will not be seen until those students have graduated, built a career in politics and have reached high levels in the government.
On the Pie video, do you agree with the removal of Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name from the ALA Award? In similair vein do you think Mark Twain novels should be re-written to exclude all uses of the word “nigger”?
What is an ALA Award?
The Wilder Award was an American Library Association award for excellence in children’s literature. The name has now been changed to Children’s literature legacy award:
American librarians defend renaming Laura Ingalls Wilder award
Professional body the ALA says the Little House on the Prairie author’s ‘complex legacy’ of racist attitudes was not consistent with its values
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jun/26/american-librarians-laura-ingalls-wilder-award
Could probably apply that to Enid Blyton as well
SCIENCE said:
i support removing eponymous nomenclature to the maximal extent possible
i support removing eponymous nomenclature to the maximal extent possible
Bubblecar said:
Professional body the ALA says the Little House on the Prairie author’s ‘complex legacy’ of racist attitudes was not consistent with its values
Book paper catches fire and burns at 451 degrees Fahrenheit.
Cymek said:
esselte said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
The question is, are these people exercising undue influence over political outcomes?
This is the important question and whilst I’ve obviously come down on one side of that question I acknowledge it is open for debate.
Remember though that political outcomes are not divorced from other aspects of society. If academia is currently brainwashing a generation into becoming SJW’s, for example, the political effect of that will not be seen until those students have graduated, built a career in politics and have reached high levels in the government.
On the Pie video, do you agree with the removal of Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name from the ALA Award? In similair vein do you think Mark Twain novels should be re-written to exclude all uses of the word “nigger”?
“The people whom Huck and Nigger Jim encounter on the Mississippi are drunkards, murderers, bullies, swindlers, lynchers, thieves, liars, mows, frauds, child abusers, numbskulls, hypocrites, windbags and traders in human flesh. All are white. The one man of honor in this phantasmagoria is ‘Nigger Jim,’ as Twain called him to emphasize the irony of a society in which the only true gentleman was held beneath contempt.”
So if the meaning of the word “nigger” has changed to such an extent that it changes the reader’s perception of Nigger Jim, would it not be good to replace it with a word that more closely reflects the original meaning, to ensure that the intended irony is not lost on a modern audience?
esselte said:
ALA is the American Library Association.“The Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC), a division of the American Library Association, voted on Saturday to strip the name of Laura Ingalls Wilder from a popular children’s book award, months after a task force set out to consider the long-running scholarly discussion around “anti-Native and anti-Black sentiments” in the author’s work.
“The Laura Ingalls Wilder Award honors an author or illustrator whose books have made “a significant and lasting contribution to children’s literature.” It will now be called The Children’s Literature Legacy Award.”
Pie discussed this in his “Oppression Obsession” video.
OK, in that case I think changing the name of the award is a reasonable thing to do.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Cymek said:
esselte said:This is the important question and whilst I’ve obviously come down on one side of that question I acknowledge it is open for debate.
Remember though that political outcomes are not divorced from other aspects of society. If academia is currently brainwashing a generation into becoming SJW’s, for example, the political effect of that will not be seen until those students have graduated, built a career in politics and have reached high levels in the government.
On the Pie video, do you agree with the removal of Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name from the ALA Award? In similair vein do you think Mark Twain novels should be re-written to exclude all uses of the word “nigger”?
“The people whom Huck and Nigger Jim encounter on the Mississippi are drunkards, murderers, bullies, swindlers, lynchers, thieves, liars, mows, frauds, child abusers, numbskulls, hypocrites, windbags and traders in human flesh. All are white. The one man of honor in this phantasmagoria is ‘Nigger Jim,’ as Twain called him to emphasize the irony of a society in which the only true gentleman was held beneath contempt.”
So if the meaning of the word “nigger” has changed to such an extent that it changes the reader’s perception of Nigger Jim, would it not be good to replace it with a word that more closely reflects the original meaning, to ensure that the intended irony is not lost on a modern audience?
No, the original should remain intact, it’s up to the modern day reader to put it in the context of the era in which it was written, not difficult.
esselte said:
Bubblecar said:
Professional body the ALA says the Little House on the Prairie author’s ‘complex legacy’ of racist attitudes was not consistent with its values
Book paper catches fire and burns at 451 degrees Fahrenheit.
Oh, I didn’t realise they were burning all her books as well.
I’m surprised JP didn’t mention that.
(and what is a SJW?)
Peak Warming Man said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Cymek said:“The people whom Huck and Nigger Jim encounter on the Mississippi are drunkards, murderers, bullies, swindlers, lynchers, thieves, liars, mows, frauds, child abusers, numbskulls, hypocrites, windbags and traders in human flesh. All are white. The one man of honor in this phantasmagoria is ‘Nigger Jim,’ as Twain called him to emphasize the irony of a society in which the only true gentleman was held beneath contempt.”
So if the meaning of the word “nigger” has changed to such an extent that it changes the reader’s perception of Nigger Jim, would it not be good to replace it with a word that more closely reflects the original meaning, to ensure that the intended irony is not lost on a modern audience?
No, the original should remain intact, it’s up to the modern day reader to put it in the context of the era in which it was written, not difficult.
Why do you not want to allow the translation of this particular author’s works?
Peak Warming Man said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Cymek said:“The people whom Huck and Nigger Jim encounter on the Mississippi are drunkards, murderers, bullies, swindlers, lynchers, thieves, liars, mows, frauds, child abusers, numbskulls, hypocrites, windbags and traders in human flesh. All are white. The one man of honor in this phantasmagoria is ‘Nigger Jim,’ as Twain called him to emphasize the irony of a society in which the only true gentleman was held beneath contempt.”
So if the meaning of the word “nigger” has changed to such an extent that it changes the reader’s perception of Nigger Jim, would it not be good to replace it with a word that more closely reflects the original meaning, to ensure that the intended irony is not lost on a modern audience?
No, the original should remain intact, it’s up to the modern day reader to put it in the context of the era in which it was written, not difficult.
It’s still a racist term maybe even more so then as it wouldn’t upset white people as it does now.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Peak Warming Man said:
The Rev Dodgson said:So if the meaning of the word “nigger” has changed to such an extent that it changes the reader’s perception of Nigger Jim, would it not be good to replace it with a word that more closely reflects the original meaning, to ensure that the intended irony is not lost on a modern audience?
No, the original should remain intact, it’s up to the modern day reader to put it in the context of the era in which it was written, not difficult.
Why do you not want to allow the translation of this particular author’s works?
How would it be done though as it was used to dehumanise the man which was the point the writer was trying to show.
I suppose you could use his surname (did he have one) as a way to show he’s unimportant
closer to home, what did Marge say in court
SCIENCE said:
closer to home, what did Marge say in court
“……………and then the deceased yelled out again ‘the rains are here’”
Cymek said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Peak Warming Man said:No, the original should remain intact, it’s up to the modern day reader to put it in the context of the era in which it was written, not difficult.
Why do you not want to allow the translation of this particular author’s works?
How would it be done though as it was used to dehumanise the man which was the point the writer was trying to show.
I suppose you could use his surname (did he have one) as a way to show he’s unimportant
call them immigrants from shithole countries
Cymek said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Peak Warming Man said:No, the original should remain intact, it’s up to the modern day reader to put it in the context of the era in which it was written, not difficult.
Why do you not want to allow the translation of this particular author’s works?
How would it be done though as it was used to dehumanise the man which was the point the writer was trying to show.
I suppose you could use his surname (did he have one) as a way to show he’s unimportant
If it’s an extremist reaction then no but if large numbers of black people are upset then yes.
What does seem to happen is people are outraged on behalf of others whom they don’t even ask they just assume
Cymek said:
esselte said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
The question is, are these people exercising undue influence over political outcomes?
This is the important question and whilst I’ve obviously come down on one side of that question I acknowledge it is open for debate.
Remember though that political outcomes are not divorced from other aspects of society. If academia is currently brainwashing a generation into becoming SJW’s, for example, the political effect of that will not be seen until those students have graduated, built a career in politics and have reached high levels in the government.
On the Pie video, do you agree with the removal of Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name from the ALA Award? In similair vein do you think Mark Twain novels should be re-written to exclude all uses of the word “nigger”?
“The people whom Huck and Nigger Jim encounter on the Mississippi are drunkards, murderers, bullies, swindlers, lynchers, thieves, liars, mows, frauds, child abusers, numbskulls, hypocrites, windbags and traders in human flesh. All are white. The one man of honor in this phantasmagoria is ‘Nigger Jim,’ as Twain called him to emphasize the irony of a society in which the only true gentleman was held beneath contempt.”
I’d agree with that, although Jim is portrayed as a little bit stupid.
esselte said:
Thanks.
ALA is the American Library Association.“The Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC), a division of the American Library Association, voted on Saturday to strip the name of Laura Ingalls Wilder from a popular children’s book award, months after a task force set out to consider the long-running scholarly discussion around “anti-Native and anti-Black sentiments” in the author’s work.
“The Laura Ingalls Wilder Award honors an author or illustrator whose books have made “a significant and lasting contribution to children’s literature.” It will now be called The Children’s Literature Legacy Award.”
Pie discussed this in his “Oppression Obsession” video.
He may well have discussed it in the video. I didn’t watch it. Internet too slow.
https://mymidlifemayhem.wordpress.com/2018/07/03/are-women-really-asking-for-too-much/
mollwollfumble said:
Cymek said:
esselte said:This is the important question and whilst I’ve obviously come down on one side of that question I acknowledge it is open for debate.
Remember though that political outcomes are not divorced from other aspects of society. If academia is currently brainwashing a generation into becoming SJW’s, for example, the political effect of that will not be seen until those students have graduated, built a career in politics and have reached high levels in the government.
On the Pie video, do you agree with the removal of Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name from the ALA Award? In similair vein do you think Mark Twain novels should be re-written to exclude all uses of the word “nigger”?
“The people whom Huck and Nigger Jim encounter on the Mississippi are drunkards, murderers, bullies, swindlers, lynchers, thieves, liars, mows, frauds, child abusers, numbskulls, hypocrites, windbags and traders in human flesh. All are white. The one man of honor in this phantasmagoria is ‘Nigger Jim,’ as Twain called him to emphasize the irony of a society in which the only true gentleman was held beneath contempt.”
I’d agree with that, although Jim is portrayed as a little bit stupid.
Yes it mentioned that
Bubblecar said:
Michael V said:
esselte said:This is the important question and whilst I’ve obviously come down on one side of that question I acknowledge it is open for debate.
Remember though that political outcomes are not divorced from other aspects of society. If academia is currently brainwashing a generation into becoming SJW’s, for example, the political effect of that will not be seen until those students have graduated, built a career in politics and have reached high levels in the government.
On the Pie video, do you agree with the removal of Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name from the ALA Award? In similair vein do you think Mark Twain novels should be re-written to exclude all uses of the word “nigger”?
What is an ALA Award?
The Wilder Award was an American Library Association award for excellence in children’s literature. The name has now been changed to Children’s literature legacy award:
American librarians defend renaming Laura Ingalls Wilder award
Professional body the ALA says the Little House on the Prairie author’s ‘complex legacy’ of racist attitudes was not consistent with its values
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jun/26/american-librarians-laura-ingalls-wilder-award
Doesn’t sound entirely unreasonable, with just that background.
kii said:
https://mymidlifemayhem.wordpress.com/2018/07/03/are-women-really-asking-for-too-much/
seems beside the point, surely asking is maintaining the subordinate positioning
so yes women really are asking for too much
Having binged, I’m guessing that SJW stands for Social Justice Warrior, rather than Secret Jehova’s Wittness, as I first thought.
In that case, I think we should all be SJWs.
In the pacifist meaning of “warrior” of course.
Michael V said:
Bubblecar said:
Michael V said:What is an ALA Award?
The Wilder Award was an American Library Association award for excellence in children’s literature. The name has now been changed to Children’s literature legacy award:
American librarians defend renaming Laura Ingalls Wilder award
Professional body the ALA says the Little House on the Prairie author’s ‘complex legacy’ of racist attitudes was not consistent with its values
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jun/26/american-librarians-laura-ingalls-wilder-award
Doesn’t sound entirely unreasonable, with just that background.
but what about the arena
The Rev Dodgson said:
esselte said:
Bubblecar said:
Professional body the ALA says the Little House on the Prairie author’s ‘complex legacy’ of racist attitudes was not consistent with its values
Book paper catches fire and burns at 451 degrees Fahrenheit.
Oh, I didn’t realise they were burning all her books as well.
I’m surprised JP didn’t mention that.
(and what is a SJW?)
Social Justice Warrior. A pejorative term for someone who espouses social equality.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Having binged, I’m guessing that SJW stands for Social Justice Warrior, rather than Secret Jehova’s Wittness, as I first thought.In that case, I think we should all be SJWs.
In the pacifist meaning of “warrior” of course.
yes dan millman
http://janegilmore.com/fixedit-idiotic-ideological-battles-are-not-an-excuse-for-violence/
SCIENCE said:
closer to home, what did Marge say in court
I don’t know. Do you have some background information?
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Having binged, I’m guessing that SJW stands for Social Justice Warrior, rather than Secret Jehova’s Wittness, as I first thought.In that case, I think we should all be SJWs.
In the pacifist meaning of “warrior” of course.
yes dan millman
Had to binge that as well.
Doesn’t seem too insulting, at first glance :)
SCIENCE said:
Michael V said:
Bubblecar said:The Wilder Award was an American Library Association award for excellence in children’s literature. The name has now been changed to Children’s literature legacy award:
American librarians defend renaming Laura Ingalls Wilder award
Professional body the ALA says the Little House on the Prairie author’s ‘complex legacy’ of racist attitudes was not consistent with its values
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jun/26/american-librarians-laura-ingalls-wilder-award
Doesn’t sound entirely unreasonable, with just that background.
but what about the arena
Which arena?
kii said:
http://janegilmore.com/fixedit-idiotic-ideological-battles-are-not-an-excuse-for-violence/
i read somewhere that this is an issue of criminality, and the moment we start playing it as a national gender issue, we risk any real attempt to address the root cause of the problem
SCIENCE said:
kii said:
http://janegilmore.com/fixedit-idiotic-ideological-battles-are-not-an-excuse-for-violence/
i read somewhere that this is an issue of criminality, and the moment we start playing it as a national gender issue, we risk any real attempt to address the root cause of the problem
At the risk of agreeing with SCIENCE, that seems to me a real risk and reasonable comment.
Bubblecar said:
“SJWs”, and denouncing the same, is a very American thing. Maybe you spend too much time on the American parts of the internet.
My paranoia most likely comes from being an avid reader of science fiction.
Bradbury, Huxley, Orwell…
Speaking of Orwell:
A United Nations inspector has accused the British government of straying towards “thought crime” with a proposed law criminalising the repeated viewing of terrorist material.
At the end of his UK visit, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy raised concerns about plans to make accessing propaganda “on three or more different occasions” an offence.
Professor Joe Cannataci said the benchmark seemed “arbitrary” and added: “It seems to be pushing a bit too much towards thought crime…the difference between forming the intention to do something and then actually carrying out the act is still fundamental to criminal law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/thought-crime-uk-un-terrorism-government-viewing-material-offence-law-a8423546.html
But apparently many here think it’s perfectly fine for Nigger Jim’s name to be subject to Newspeak, so maybe Orwell is what we all want after all? Control the language and you control the people.
esselte said:
Bubblecar said:
“SJWs”, and denouncing the same, is a very American thing. Maybe you spend too much time on the American parts of the internet.
My paranoia most likely comes from being an avid reader of science fiction.
Bradbury, Huxley, Orwell…
Speaking of Orwell:
A United Nations inspector has accused the British government of straying towards “thought crime” with a proposed law criminalising the repeated viewing of terrorist material.
At the end of his UK visit, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy raised concerns about plans to make accessing propaganda “on three or more different occasions” an offence.
Professor Joe Cannataci said the benchmark seemed “arbitrary” and added: “It seems to be pushing a bit too much towards thought crime…the difference between forming the intention to do something and then actually carrying out the act is still fundamental to criminal law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/thought-crime-uk-un-terrorism-government-viewing-material-offence-law-a8423546.html
But apparently many here think it’s perfectly fine for Nigger Jim’s name to be subject to Newspeak, so maybe Orwell is what we all want after all? Control the language and you control the people.
Something never mentioned is what created these terrorists in the first place, lots of blame can be placed at interference in others nations inner workings in the hope they are destabilised and not a potential threat in the future.
kii said:
http://janegilmore.com/fixedit-idiotic-ideological-battles-are-not-an-excuse-for-violence/
Well done.
Pity it has to be done.
esselte said:
Bubblecar said:
“SJWs”, and denouncing the same, is a very American thing. Maybe you spend too much time on the American parts of the internet.
My paranoia most likely comes from being an avid reader of science fiction.
Bradbury, Huxley, Orwell…
Speaking of Orwell:
A United Nations inspector has accused the British government of straying towards “thought crime” with a proposed law criminalising the repeated viewing of terrorist material.
At the end of his UK visit, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy raised concerns about plans to make accessing propaganda “on three or more different occasions” an offence.
Professor Joe Cannataci said the benchmark seemed “arbitrary” and added: “It seems to be pushing a bit too much towards thought crime…the difference between forming the intention to do something and then actually carrying out the act is still fundamental to criminal law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/thought-crime-uk-un-terrorism-government-viewing-material-offence-law-a8423546.html
But apparently many here think it’s perfectly fine for Nigger Jim’s name to be subject to Newspeak, so maybe Orwell is what we all want after all? Control the language and you control the people.
Putting Bradbury in the same category as Orwell and Huxley troubles me… :-)
Witty Rejoinder said:
esselte said:
Bubblecar said:
“SJWs”, and denouncing the same, is a very American thing. Maybe you spend too much time on the American parts of the internet.
My paranoia most likely comes from being an avid reader of science fiction.
Bradbury, Huxley, Orwell…
Speaking of Orwell:
A United Nations inspector has accused the British government of straying towards “thought crime” with a proposed law criminalising the repeated viewing of terrorist material.
At the end of his UK visit, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy raised concerns about plans to make accessing propaganda “on three or more different occasions” an offence.
Professor Joe Cannataci said the benchmark seemed “arbitrary” and added: “It seems to be pushing a bit too much towards thought crime…the difference between forming the intention to do something and then actually carrying out the act is still fundamental to criminal law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/thought-crime-uk-un-terrorism-government-viewing-material-offence-law-a8423546.html
But apparently many here think it’s perfectly fine for Nigger Jim’s name to be subject to Newspeak, so maybe Orwell is what we all want after all? Control the language and you control the people.
Putting Bradbury in the same category as Orwell and Huxley troubles me… :-)
Who deems something propaganda, if you watch a recruiting video for the UK armed forces is that considered terrorist material
Witty Rejoinder said:
esselte said:
Bubblecar said:
“SJWs”, and denouncing the same, is a very American thing. Maybe you spend too much time on the American parts of the internet.
My paranoia most likely comes from being an avid reader of science fiction.
Bradbury, Huxley, Orwell…
Speaking of Orwell:
A United Nations inspector has accused the British government of straying towards “thought crime” with a proposed law criminalising the repeated viewing of terrorist material.
At the end of his UK visit, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy raised concerns about plans to make accessing propaganda “on three or more different occasions” an offence.
Professor Joe Cannataci said the benchmark seemed “arbitrary” and added: “It seems to be pushing a bit too much towards thought crime…the difference between forming the intention to do something and then actually carrying out the act is still fundamental to criminal law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/thought-crime-uk-un-terrorism-government-viewing-material-offence-law-a8423546.html
But apparently many here think it’s perfectly fine for Nigger Jim’s name to be subject to Newspeak, so maybe Orwell is what we all want after all? Control the language and you control the people.
Putting Bradbury in the same category as Orwell and Huxley troubles me… :-)
The speed skater?
Michael V said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
esselte said:My paranoia most likely comes from being an avid reader of science fiction.
Bradbury, Huxley, Orwell…
Speaking of Orwell:
A United Nations inspector has accused the British government of straying towards “thought crime” with a proposed law criminalising the repeated viewing of terrorist material.
At the end of his UK visit, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy raised concerns about plans to make accessing propaganda “on three or more different occasions” an offence.
Professor Joe Cannataci said the benchmark seemed “arbitrary” and added: “It seems to be pushing a bit too much towards thought crime…the difference between forming the intention to do something and then actually carrying out the act is still fundamental to criminal law.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/thought-crime-uk-un-terrorism-government-viewing-material-offence-law-a8423546.html
But apparently many here think it’s perfectly fine for Nigger Jim’s name to be subject to Newspeak, so maybe Orwell is what we all want after all? Control the language and you control the people.
Putting Bradbury in the same category as Orwell and Huxley troubles me… :-)
The speed skater?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Bradbury
Fish and chips tonight, might go the mackerel.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Michael V said:
Witty Rejoinder said:Putting Bradbury in the same category as Orwell and Huxley troubles me… :-)
The speed skater?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Bradbury
Is he the one that’s a glass and half short of a litre bottle
Peak Warming Man said:
Fish and chips tonight, might go the mackerel.
Just a cheese roll here, I had a pasta feast this morning.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Michael V said:
Witty Rejoinder said:Putting Bradbury in the same category as Orwell and Huxley troubles me… :-)
The speed skater?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Bradbury
:)
