Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Vambo said:

Well you sure found a long winded way of saying it.

Yet another label to go with all the others but I'll put it on my CV!:D

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Oxford said:

Yet another label to go with all the others but I'll put it on my CV!:D

:biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bob8 said:

It is not really an issue in the UK, is it?

The example you give would be considered very naff rather than anything else.  Have you any direct experience of your life being hampered by accusations of cultural appropriation?

Personally I think anyone that believes in cultural appropriation as a concept is a racist (unless you have a very strict definition e.g. people profiteering from stolen or fake Native American or Aboriginal artifacts). I believe it's natural that in a multi-ethnic society that people will start to practice aspects of each other's culture. To want to stop that is effectively ethnic segregation.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bob8 said:

It is not really an issue in the UK, is it?

Yes it is, particularly in our universities and particularly in relation to themed parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Farmduck said:

Our taxpayer-funded ABC spews endless piles of this rubbish. A prime example was this piece of garbage:

Three obvious things wrong with this story:

Quote

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-17/record-sale-of-indigenous-womans-artwork-highlights-gender-gap/9161984

The record sale of an artwork by an Australian woman has drawn attention to the gap between male and female artists in the industry.

Few Australians may have heard of Emily Kngwarreye, but her painting, Earth's Creation 1, sold for $2.1 million at auction in Sydney last night.

- Emily Kngwarreye sold the painting 20 years ago so the she wasn't going to get anything from this sale.

- Just because a painting by a male Australian painter sold for $4.1 million that says nothing about the gender of the artist because there is no fixed price for paintings.

- It doesn't, as the article states, highlight the pay gap between male and female artists because both artists had already sold their paintings years ago so they got nothing and both artists are dead so they would have got nothing anyway. If anything it shows that their is no pay gap between female and male dead artists. Also let's not forget that the male artist Sidney Nolan sold his painting in 1946 and Emily Kngwarreye sold hers in 1995 so I'm guessing she got substantially more for hers.

Labour and The Guardian appear to be jumping on a similar bandwagon over here.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit that I find this thread is a vehicle for something I'm not at all sure about at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Saintslass said:

Yes it is, particularly in our universities and particularly in relation to themed parties.

DO you have direct experience of being accused of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Bob8 said:

DO you have direct experience of being accused of it?

Good heavens no.  I know exactly where not to tread as I've spent most of my erratic 'career' in the public sector.  But there have been a few instances reported in the media over the last couple of years, some of which really do stretch credibility.  I could dig out some examples if you wish to pursue the point.

Edited by Saintslass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Oxford said:

I must admit that I find this thread is a vehicle for something I'm not at all sure about at all.

I think this thread has a slight whiff of the intellectual about it which I must say I find a tad sexy (and very unusual on these boards!). :wink:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Maximus Decimus said:

... There are now people who self identify as SJWs and I think we'll continue to see this as a trend.

 

7 hours ago, Vambo said:

I bet they're fun at parties.

When I accepted that I would be an anti-Semite for not considering Catholics or Jews to be inherently inferior, I was pretty much doing the same thing.  If that makes me anti-semite, I will accept the term.  I has a fair old history, I was taught that it was the origin of the term "bear your cross".

I had a few feminists at parties at my house over Christmas.  But Scandinavian feminists tend to be a whole lot less angry!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Oxford said:

I must admit that I find this thread is a vehicle for something I'm not at all sure about at all.

Without realising it you are touching upon one of the main problems around this whole topic. 

The idea that there we shouldn't really be talking about issues that the general public have yet to completely agree on is what causes much of the annoyance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Oxford said:

Quite a big difference between those two examples and any pejorative/stereotype is is easy pickings, serves a purpose that is questionable at best, and does nothing to change the situation.

 

Only because they'd use Pie in the Skyer for an expansionist and a cloth capper or some such other epithets, which would fit what you're describing.

And there's the big difference the label you give yourself that you see as complimentary can hardly be described as an insult with the same kind of power and targeting.

They are all problematic because of the way they're used. And Tory may have started out as an insult but it's become a much more accurate one since then.

Social justice is something worth aspiring to unless you're the kind of person who couldn't care less.

I presume you think the Ministry for Truth can only be a good thing then? Should socialists stop using Nazi because national socialism should be something we should also aspire to?

Labels are a fact of life and a necessity if we are to discuss patterns of similar behaviour in people without having to go to ridiculous linguistic lengths to try and avoid a label that everybody understands.

I find it quite funny that my comment on expansionists was actually censored, I meant to write a shortened version of expansionationalsocialist. This is a good example of a pejorative term that was used when there was a non pejorative one. Feminist vs feministasi is another.

I've been called alt-right and an SJW. Neither were a label that I have myself and both were meant as an insult. The origin is irrelevant, I didn't feel better being called alt-right because some people initially chose that label. With both I knew what they were trying to imply that I was.

I would be interested to hear what you would use instead of SJW. As I said before, pejorative or not, people largely understand what it means and the behaviour it refers to. As far as I'm aware there is nothing else that is an effective descriptor for this relatively new very specific cultural phenomenon. The alternative of not using a label would just make things needlessly awkward. 

 

Edited by Maximus Decimus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that there are many Celebrity Big Brother watchers on this forum but sadly I am one of them! If I'm not watching subtitled foreign art then I'm watching trash TV, I'm a complicated beast.

This year's series is focused on women and they even started the series with an exclusively female house. When the men entered they were asked questions about women's rights etc. Unlike some (who have probably never watched an episode) this doesn't bother me one jot. I understand the idea that it is pushing a certain political agenda but as long as it's not too obvious I can watch it without getting wound up.

As part of the female house they included a trans woman (India Willougby) which has caused some issues. This wasn't particularly controversial and all of the house accept her and the decision she has made (including Ann Widdicombe!) to transition. However, since entering the house she has been accidentally misgendered a few times. Initially she took this relatively well but last night she let rip on Amanda Barrie (a woman in her 80s) and refused to accept her apology even though it was clearly an innocent mistake. Then as the men have entered the house she has been offended by an American rapper who said he wouldn't date a Trans woman. The other housemates are fawning over her for fear of being labelled as a transphobe.

The result is that she is getting heavily criticised on social media. This is much of what characterises issues around the CW. Whilst the vast majority are accepting of an issue such as trans people, they are called bigots if they have not adapted to this issue as quickly as some would like them to. There is also the disconnect between what people think they should say and what many people actually think. I've no doubt that many in the house think India is being completely out of order but few would voice it for fear of the public backlash if they do. I've no doubt that if India is first out it will used as proof that Britain is deeply transphobic (despite a transwoman winning one of the original BB series). I also suspect that probably 95%+ of heterosexual men wouldn't date a trans woman and not because they are bigots but because it is a far more complicated issue.

Edit: It's probably worth pointing out that I think Channel 5 have deliberately stirred the pot a little by bringing a drag queen in with the men to spend their time exclusively in their drag persona. This is only likely to cause more confusion pronoun wise.

Edited by Maximus Decimus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Farmduck said:

1. I would dispute that. The split was over whether Atheism is a stand-alone position, which it is, or whether it should become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Intersectional Feminism. Atheism, IMO, should exist outside any other political considerations. Allowing it to be caught up in every trivial 3rd-Wave Feminist issue could only damage Atheism and add nothing. There is no Atheist position on manspreading or multiple genders. Atheism has no dogma and, by virtue of it's lack of belief in theism, it shouldn't have any dogma which it would have been forced to adopt in any takeover by Feminism.

2. Drifting away from SJW-ism and 3rd Wave Feminism isn't drifting to the right. Some people did drift to the right but it's not possible for any rational, evidence-based thinker to support notions like Islam, the gender wage gap, the Rape Culture Myth, the constant blurring of terms like sex, gender and sexuality, the denunciation of everybody as Nazis and the sheer hypocrisy of Black Lives Matter.

Richard Spencer is on record as saying that he sees the anti-SJW crowd as a gateway to the Alt-Right and he mentioned Sargon as one of the better channels in this regard. Back in 2016 the Daily Dot listed Sargon in the same article as Richard Spencer and Paul Joseph Watson. Groups like Media Matters have grouped the whole Manosphere into the Alt-Right.

I see it more as a rejection of some of the idiocy propagated by various "left" groups in USA.

Trump's election was a combination of so many factors that it is almost impossible to judge the role played by the Culture War. Hillary Clinton blatantly pandered to all the Identity Politics demographics and told everyone who disagreed with those movements that they were sexist, racist, homophobic, Islam-hating, transphobes. Didn't anyone tell her that a lot of the camp followers in these groups aren't old enough to vote and that most YouTube followers probably weren't going to vote anyway?

3. My main reaction to the sexual harassment allegations was two-fold: Firstly, aside from those men who immediately admitted it and got fired, where was the due process for the others? Harassment is such a vague term in many cases that to say it's an automatic sacking and career-destroying offence is absurd. There has to be an agreed gradation of offences and penalties. There needs to be a minimum standard of evidence not just, "I felt uncomfortable."

As for BAME or "Persons of Colour" as is de rigeur in USA right now (not to be confused with Coloured People, which was a racial slur back in the 1960s) what are these magical rights that they are denied?

 

I don't have any simple label either. For the last 20 years I have been a Greens voter but the NSW Greens have always been the remnants of old Communist Parties masquerading as Environmentalists. They've all been purged now and the  Greens have slipped so far into Identity Politics that I can't support them anymore. I'm more of a nuts-and-bolts Marxist with a Trotskyist tendency. Nearly 50 years ago I read "Wage, Labour and Capital" and the "Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State," and I haven't seen anything during that period which debunks basic Marx and Engels. Other than that I would consider myself maybe higher-level MGTOW, an Atheist, an environmentalist, a fairly strong Biological Determinist and a staunch believer in the Scientific Method.

To be fair to the Alt-Right, and I think we should acknowledge that people have the right to believe and say whatever they believe, subject to the basic laws on violence, they are so poorly understood by American commentators that nearly every attack on them is just a cavalcade of strawmen. Nothing has contributed more to my detestation of the American Left than their pathetic attacks on "the Alt-Right." They are like those people who write damning reviews of books they haven't read or movies they haven't watched. I've never seen a 3rd Wave Fem or SJW or gender-trender who could successfully graduate from Remedial Logic class without a quota.

I don't think anyone over 15 watches Bearing for anything other than the lulz. His interview with Based Mama was probably the best performance he has ever put in and showed, as some of his live streams on serious topics have shown, that he is tailoring his content to suit his market and is capable of rising well above that level.

All the OZ YTers, the conservatives, the anti-Fems, the MRAs, even the Hans Hermann Hoppe fringe disagreed with Bearing over the gay marriage issue. I agreed with the points he made but not the conclusion. The intellectual tenor of much of the pro-gay-marriage crowd was down around the level of moderate-to-severe mental retardation.

 

No, the really scary part of the sub-intelligent end of the YT commentariat is that they are perfectly representative of the voting public.

 

And this is why the Intersectional crowd should be avoided at all costs. Their constant purity testing and purging of their own ranks would make Stalin and Beria squirm.

 

Wow, what a huge reply! I'll only pick up on a few points mainly because of time restrictions.

1. My recollection of the atheist split was that it escalated quickly from a quite specific issue about conferences. The most high profile of these was the Rebecca Watson situation which fed into the idea that women were unsafe at atheist conferences. This provoked a predictable backlash which further seemed to justify what they were saying. This led to the idea that there was specific problem within the atheist community with misogyny. This then directly fed into the atheist+ debacle and the idea that being an atheist should be more than just not believing in God. My initial point is true in that prior to this, the community was almost exclusively left of centre (pro-LGBT, pro-abortion, pro-equality, pro-science, anti-gun, democrat etc), the enemy was the Christian right. I remember being shocked at a concordance video where he stated he was a libertarian. 

2. I've noticed this is the second time that you've responded to my comment about moving to the right. I think you've misunderstood me here. I'm not saying that being anti-SJW moves you to the right, I'm expressing my bemusement at how (not all, myself included) many have moved to the right politically as a result of the CW. Rubin is the perfect example of this, disillusionment with identity politics led him to leave the Young Turks but within a couple of years he is agreeing with right-wing economists about free markets, government intervention and defending Trump. 

3. I couldn't agree more. One of the reasons I've said it feels like a witch-hunt and moral panic is the way that the rule of law doesn't seem to matter. An accusation is enough to see somebody found guilty.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Oxford said:

I must admit that I find this thread is a vehicle for something I'm not at all sure about at all.

Which part are you unsure about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Maximus Decimus said:

The idea that there we shouldn't really be talking about issues that the general public have yet to completely agree on is what causes much of the annoyance.

No I'm neither worried nor put off talking about anything with anyone I simply said that I felt this thread was a vehicle for something(s) I'm not too sure about.

I didn't particularly want to say why, I just wanted to see how the thread develops. Also it does seem to be leading to so many different and unrelated issues that it may as well be a conversation between Jean Paul Sartre, Donald Trump and Charlie Drake.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Maximus Decimus said:

Without realising it you are touching upon one of the main problems around this whole topic. 

The idea that there we shouldn't really be talking about issues that the general public have yet to completely agree on is what causes much of the annoyance.

The part that annoys me most is that political decisions are not made on the basis of facts and evidence but simply, "Which group do we need to pander to to get them to shut up?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Oxford said:

No I'm neither worried nor put off talking about anything with anyone I simply said that I felt this thread was a vehicle for something(s) I'm not too sure about.

I didn't particularly want to say why, I just wanted to see how the thread develops. Also it does seem to be leading to so many different and unrelated issues that it may as well be a conversation between Jean Paul Sartre, Donald Trump and Charlie Drake.

 

A thread is a thread about the material in that thread. The word "vehicle" implies that a thing doesn't exist for it's overt purpose but to serve some secondary agenda. The movie Pal Joey ostensibly had some plot about something but it was really just a vehicle for Frank Sinatra to sing a heap of Rodgers and Hart songs.

Which are the "different and unrelated issues?" Everything I've read thus far, apart from your posts, seems to refer directly to some aspect of the Culture Wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see how a gathering of atheists is an issue - it's hard enough to get consensus between a group of people who are supposed to believe in the same thing without trying to gain some kind of global consensus from people whose only common ground is non-belief in a specific thing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Maximus Decimus said:

I'm not sure that there are many Celebrity Big Brother watchers on this forum but sadly I am one of them! If I'm not watching subtitled foreign art then I'm watching trash TV, I'm a complicated beast.

This year's series is focused on women and they even started the series with an exclusively female house. When the men entered they were asked questions about women's rights etc. Unlike some (who have probably never watched an episode) this doesn't bother me one jot. I understand the idea that it is pushing a certain political agenda but as long as it's not too obvious I can watch it without getting wound up.

As part of the female house they included a trans woman (India Willougby) which has caused some issues. This wasn't particularly controversial and all of the house accept her and the decision she has made (including Ann Widdicombe!) to transition. However, since entering the house she has been accidentally misgendered a few times. Initially she took this relatively well but last night she let rip on Amanda Barrie (a woman in her 80s) and refused to accept her apology even though it was clearly an innocent mistake. Then as the men have entered the house she has been offended by an American rapper who said he wouldn't date a Trans woman. The other housemates are fawning over her for fear of being labelled as a transphobe.

The result is that she is getting heavily criticised on social media. This is much of what characterises issues around the CW. Whilst the vast majority are accepting of an issue such as trans people, they are called bigots if they have not adapted to this issue as quickly as some would like them to. There is also the disconnect between what people think they should say and what many people actually think. I've no doubt that many in the house think India is being completely out of order but few would voice it for fear of the public backlash if they do. I've no doubt that if India is first out it will used as proof that Britain is deeply transphobic (despite a transwoman winning one of the original BB series). I also suspect that probably 95%+ of heterosexual men wouldn't date a trans woman and not because they are bigots but because it is a far more complicated issue.

Edit: It's probably worth pointing out that I think Channel 5 have deliberately stirred the pot a little by bringing a drag queen in with the men to spend their time exclusively in their drag persona. This is only likely to cause more confusion pronoun wise.

Yes you're right. I wouldn't watch any Big Brother unless I was strapped in a chair with my eyelids surgically removed. One of the interesting and most vocal anti-trans groups is lesbians or, more specifically, TERFs - Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists. Magdalen Berns, a lesbian from Edinburgh whom I followed for about a year until she got cancer and stopped making videos, was particularly clear on this. Her attitude is that if you've lived all your life as a man then started cross-dressing and calling yourself a woman 10 minutes ago, you're trans but you're not a woman.

My stance on trans people is very simple. They have all the same rights as everyone else and that's all. They're not special, we already have legislation banning discrimination against them in the workplace and other areas of social interaction, case closed. We wouldn't expect society to stop and stand on its head to accommodate any other 1% of the population so why should we do it for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, tim2 said:

I can see how a gathering of atheists is an issue - it's hard enough to get consensus between a group of people who are supposed to believe in the same thing without trying to gain some kind of global consensus from people whose only common ground is non-belief in a specific thing.

 

Atheism and atheists are not an issue anymore than TGG and RL fans and in fact would probably seem a lot less prone to  belligerence except a lot of them fall into both camps.

What does bother me is this adherence to labels, and the use they're put to.

"I also suspect that probably 95%+ of heterosexual men wouldn't date a trans woman and not because they are bigots but because it is a far more complicated issue. "

And part of that complicated issue is the spectrum and varying levels of prejudice which 100% of heterosexual men carry with them as do 100% of any gender grouping. 

Edited by Oxford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, tim2 said:

I can see how a gathering of atheists is an issue - it's hard enough to get consensus between a group of people who are supposed to believe in the same thing without trying to gain some kind of global consensus from people whose only common ground is non-belief in a specific thing.

 

It was America though. Only about 5% of Yanks are atheists so for them I guess they needed to form groups. I've been an atheist for about 50 years and I've never considered joining a group based on that. I see that like joining a group for people with brown hair or people with scars on their right arm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Life is getting better but people want to maintain the rage so it takes less and less to trigger anger.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On one hand we now have lots of genders while on the other hand we have a gender pay gap which is only between men and women. I don't get how the same people can argue for all these different genders and then forget about all but two when arguing about pay, and keep a straight face.

 

I don't get this guy either. Does he not see the irony? (contains swearing) 

Also he (if that is how "he" identifies) is assuming that the white male, that he's accusing of being a white male, doesn't identify as a black lesbian. What a,  potentially, racist homophobe! :ph34r:

 

It's all very confusing! :D

Edited by Wiltshire Rhino
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologise if I'm missing something here because I've skim read a lot of it but this seems to be a lot less about culture and a lot more about what rights, respect and responsibility people have to other people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


League Express Yearbook 2018/19 - Order Now


Rugby League World - Nov 2018

Rugby League World - Nov 2018



League Express - Online Now

League Express - Every Monday