Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

...and a lot more about what rights, respect and responsibility people have to other people...

...who agree with them! 

 

GJ, you are right. It should be about that but, for people on the extreme of both sides, it's not. Most people still sit quite comfortably in-between the extremes but the extremes shout the loudest.

Share this post


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

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.

It is another example of transferring American culture to the UK.  There is something to be said in much of the USA for atheism being a statement.  When someone in the UK thinks that being atheist makes them the intellectual and moral heir apparent of Voltaire, you are dealing with a prat.

Share this post


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

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

The words that launched a thousand memes. That guy is known on the internet as AIDS Skrillex, the black guy in front is called Tyrese the Urban Zulu and the guy with glasses in the middle is called Carl the Cuck.

The entire hierarchy of victimhood is very confusing. One example of this in Australia would go like this:

- We are all living on stolen Aboriginal land

- We should take very refugee in the World

- But the only way to build enough housing for all the refugees would be to steal more Aboriginal land OR

- But don't refugees understand that by coming to Australia they are complicit in the theft of Aboriginal land? Wouldn't that make the Oppressed refugees the Oppressors of Indigenous people? AND

- If refugees are happy to come here and steal more land from Indigenous people, are they really the sort of people we should be letting in?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Farmduck said:

The words that launched a thousand memes. That guy is known on the internet as AIDS Skrillex, the black guy in front is called Tyrese the Urban Zulu and the guy with glasses in the middle is called Carl the Cuck.

The entire hierarchy of victimhood is very confusing. One example of this in Australia would go like this:

- We are all living on stolen Aboriginal land

- We should take very refugee in the World

- But the only way to build enough housing for all the refugees would be to steal more Aboriginal land OR

- But don't refugees understand that by coming to Australia they are complicit in the theft of Aboriginal land? Wouldn't that make the Oppressed refugees the Oppressors of Indigenous people? AND

- If refugees are happy to come here and steal more land from Indigenous people, are they really the sort of people we should be letting in?

At which point, who cares.

The same people who are daft above are also the ones who get upset at them.  SJW is a well placed insult when it is playing a computer game rather than dealing with real life.  Signing a petition, rather than volunteering to improve things.  Because, when we get to ground level work, a few Twitter or YouTube accounts do not matter much.

I see little difference between the SJW and the person who complains bitterly about how they would be banned from saying things if that were actually true rather than something they read in the Mail.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

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.

The Culture War is a term used to describe the overall discussion which occurs across multiple platforms, including Academia, YouTube, various websites like 4chan, Reddit, Tumblr, Everyday Feminism.

It is played out as Oppressor v Oppressed and the distinction is very rubbery:

- White man on $500K/year - Oppressor

- Gay white man on $500K/year - Oppressed

- White woman on $500K/year - Oppressed

- White man on minimum wage supporting family of 4 - Oppressor

- Single black man with no kids on $500K/year - Oppressed

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 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.

I've actually seen adults on social media accusing teenage schoolgirls of being transphobic because they wouldn't have a naked shower with someone biologically male. The transgender pupil had been offered their own private changing room, but insisted on showering with the girls. I'm quite happy to accept transgender people as representing extra genders of people, and finding some sensible way of accommodating them, but to pretend biological sex doesn't exist at all is ridiculous.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bowes said:

I've actually seen adults on social media accusing teenage schoolgirls of being transphobic because they wouldn't have a naked shower with someone biologically male. The transgender pupil had been offered their own private changing room, but insisted on showering with the girls. I'm quite happy to accept transgender people as representing extra genders of people, and finding some sensible way of accommodating them, but to pretend biological sex doesn't exist at all is ridiculous.

Its already gotten a little silly hasn't it...it really boils down to an argument about collective vs.individual rights (and who,of course, pays for it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

Its already gotten a little silly hasn't it...it really boils down to an argument about collective vs.individual rights (and who,of course, pays for it).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40899902

Often the same people arguing against gender segregated toilets are the ones arguing for women only seats in parliament etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bowes said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40899902

Often the same people arguing against gender segregated toilets are the ones arguing for women only seats in parliament etc.

 

Interesting article...why no just put in more women toilets? Let people vote for who they want?

Problem solved.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just started watching Accidental Courtesy on Netflix. Daryl Davis is an amazing man. Talk to people, including people who disagree with you. While this just covers the race side of things, the message talk to each other shines through.

 

Only 20mins into it but well worth a watch.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours 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.

 

It is a broad term I agree, but it is something that is concrete and real. I would also argue that there are similar themes that underpin a lot of the discussions. 

Take for instance race, gender and trans rights. They are distinct issues but their grievances are often underpinned by the belief that their issues are mainly caused by cisgendered white men and that society is structurally sexist, racist and transphobic. The rejection of this for one issue usually means a rejection for all.

Share this post


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

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.

I completely disagree.

Barring a very small number on the extreme right, most people are in agreement that everybody regardless of race, gender or sexuality should have equality.

The issues come out of fundamental differences on what this equal society would look like and how we would get there.

To a hardcore SJW, this requires fundamental changes to a society that is set up to oppress women and BAME people. Positive action needs to be taken to dismantle this oppression and there is no room for debate in areas that have already been decided. The result would be a world of complete equality of opportunity and outcome. This would require huge cultural changes, the almost complete elimination of traditional gender differences for instance.

To the other end of the spectrum, we are well on the way to as close an equal society as we will get. Equality of opportunity will not necessarily mean equality of outcome. This society doesn't prevent anybody from doing what they want but accepts that biological differences between the sexes will continue to lead to differences in outcome.

It is far more about what we want our society to look like than rights and responsibilities.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

...who agree with them! 

 

GJ, you are right. It should be about that but, for people on the extreme of both sides, it's not. Most people still sit quite comfortably in-between the extremes but the extremes shout the loudest.

This is true. Rachel Dolezal was an interesting example. Whilst identifying as whatever gender you like is a huge issue right now many of the same people had zero respect for her decision to identify as another culture. 

Share this post


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

The Culture War is a term used to describe the overall discussion which occurs across multiple platforms, including Academia, YouTube, various websites like 4chan, Reddit, Tumblr, Everyday Feminism.

It is played out as Oppressor v Oppressed and the distinction is very rubbery:

- White man on $500K/year - Oppressor

- Gay white man on $500K/year - Oppressed

- White woman on $500K/year - Oppressed

- White man on minimum wage supporting family of 4 - Oppressor

- Single black man with no kids on $500K/year - Oppressed

A good example is the attempt to redefine racism so that minorities cannot be racist and only white people can be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Just started watching Accidental Courtesy on Netflix. Daryl Davis is an amazing man. Talk to people, including people who disagree with you. While this just covers the race side of things, the message talk to each other shines through.

Yes he's brilliant isn't he?

Share this post


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

Most people still sit quite comfortably in-between the extremes but the extremes shout the loudest.

Not on a TGG forum necessarily!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posed a question to my girlfriend.  I asked whether "Cat calling is a problem in London and even worse in Rome" would seem sexist.

The answer was no.

I then asked whether ""Cat calling is a huge problem in Rome and less of a problem in London".

With self-awareness of the contradiction, she said yes.  The problem is trusting each others motives and understanding when we are generally right to have some suspicion.   In that example, her suspicion of the motive for the statement would make the debate difficult.

I think there is a specific issue in the USA and UK with sexual politics.  Red-pill, MRA, PUA and MGTOW have faults, but compared to what is repsectable relationship advice in the UK, they are certainly no worse.   A refusal to consider that the woman might be at fault, bring her own insecurities or that the man might be at all genuine does mean it is idiotic and men who have had bad relationships will find better insight and advice with MRA.  And that is a shame. 

If we accept that women have different social pressures and concerns, then men would be able to understand why she ignores him when he has time, then wants his full attention when his TV programme starts and then immediately loses interest during the ad break.  Instead, he is told this does not happen and he is a sexist for witnessing it.  It is revealing how Englishmen who have been to relationship cousellors in Denmark rave about it.

I can think of two on this forum who are very convinced they are rational thinkers.  If they see the same debate, I imagine one would tell us that the left wing person one and the right wing person made a fool of themselves.  The second would tell us that the right wing person one and the left wing person made a fool of themselves.  Both would laugh at the other for clearly allowing themselves to be led by their prejudice. 

Again, "culture wars" is imported from the USA and it is a nonsense to pretend we have the same position.  A little over a hundred years ago, North USA was a purer capitalist and more modern version of the UK and the South was more akin to modern day Saudi Arabia in terms of economy, society and education.  We do not have the same situation in the UK nor in Australia.

Where we are all the same is how we get our beliefs in the world.  I have mentioned how I sympathise with creationism.  Clearly, creationism is nonsense.  But most people who believe in evolution do not actually understand it any better than those who don't, they just trust different people.  Similarly with anti-vaccine people.

Those who value certainty will often be nostaligic for the days of the Encylopedia Brittanica compared to Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is no worse.  Now, there is less certainty with whom to trust.  These days, we have the choice of whom we trust, which makes the other side seem mad ("Really!  You think mega-pharma cares about your health more than money and that the chimpanzees died out and we are their descendants!").

 

 

 

Share this post


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

...who agree with them! 

 

GJ, you are right. It should be about that but, for people on the extreme of both sides, it's not. Most people still sit quite comfortably in-between the extremes but the extremes shout the loudest.

True.  But, it takes time to write something considered and time to read and digest it....

47 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

A good example is the attempt to redefine racism so that minorities cannot be racist and only white people can be.

...whereas "only white people" can be racist is clearly idiotic and very much held by a tiny minority.  But only takes a few seconds to say or write down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.beliefnet.com/news/2008/12/rick-warren-transcript.aspx?p=7

I attach an interview in which a rather conservative man called Rick Warren compares gay marriage to siblings getting married.  I attach this as it caused controversy, but I find it a reasonable comparison, even as someone who supports gay marriage.

We have a big cultural taboo against incest.  It is disgusting to many of us.  Clearly, they should not be able to have kids.

So far, it is similar to previous taboos against gay marriage. 

With couples often deciding not to have kids and other couples having IVF, there will be more cases of half siblings meeting and falling in love.  If they do not wish to have kids, is the law reasonable in banning them from having a sexual relationship?  And it marriage is the legal recognition of a commited sexual relationship between consenting equals, then surely marriage between half siblings should be legal.

So, on this, I agree with Rick Warren.

I agree with gay marriage, the Salvation Army do not.  If you are homeless and gay, the Salvation Army are probably doing a lot more for you than I am.

These shades of nuance are often lost once it become a hypothetical internet argument.

  • Like 1

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?

18 hours ago, Saintslass said:

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.

Sorry to quote myself here but for anyone interested in the matter of 'cultural appropriation' another example of it has popped up in the Sunday Times today.  According to the report, 'there is a debate raging in teen fashion magazines about whether they [razor slits*] constitute 'cultural appropriation' since this is a look that was popularised by African-American rap artists'.  

Now, there could be a discussion on whether 'debate' and 'teen fashion magazines' could legitimately appear in the same sentence (I have distant memories of the kind of 'debate' which took place in teen fashion magazines and I'm sure by today's standards they will have been mild!) but I find this assertion (of cultural appropriation) to be racist.  Why can't white people copy what black people do?  Why can't black people copy what white people do?  Why can't British people copy what American people do and vice versa?  What the f**** is going on in the UK?!

* For the uninitiated (which was me until I read this article), 'razor slits' describe a trend whereby people shave lines out of their eyebrows.  Yes, exactly. :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

http://www.beliefnet.com/news/2008/12/rick-warren-transcript.aspx?p=7

I attach an interview in which a rather conservative man called Rick Warren compares gay marriage to siblings getting married.  I attach this as it caused controversy, but I find it a reasonable comparison, even as someone who supports gay marriage.

We have a big cultural taboo against incest.  It is disgusting to many of us.  Clearly, they should not be able to have kids.

So far, it is similar to previous taboos against gay marriage. 

With couples often deciding not to have kids and other couples having IVF, there will be more cases of half siblings meeting and falling in love.  If they do not wish to have kids, is the law reasonable in banning them from having a sexual relationship?  And it marriage is the legal recognition of a commited sexual relationship between consenting equals, then surely marriage between half siblings should be legal.

So, on this, I agree with Rick Warren.

I agree with gay marriage, the Salvation Army do not.  If you are homeless and gay, the Salvation Army are probably doing a lot more for you than I am.

These shades of nuance are often lost once it become a hypothetical internet argument.

Excellent points. 

The concept of 'nuance' has been all but obliterated from public discourse in recent years.  

On your point about IVF, it is probably the liberalisation of single parenthood which will have increased the risk of incest but nobody in the political or indeed any other arena would dare raise this possibility.  I think the more liberalised and comparative our moral views become, the closer we get to being challenged on some very serious taboos.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to normal at the Guardian ...

:wink:

Seriously, though, this article concerns me.  The outgoing IPCC chief signals concern because over the last 12 months of 11 people who died after being restrained by police 6 were not white and she wants this to be looked at.  However, in the two previous years more white people have died after being restrained by police than non-white but it would appear nobody needs to look into that.

I find this attitude racist and I want it to stop.  ALL cases of death following restraint should be looked at with equal rigour; the colour of a person's skin should have no bearing upon the degree of that rigour.  

I just thought I'd throw this into the mix.

Share this post


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

 

Sorry to quote myself here but for anyone interested in the matter of 'cultural appropriation' another example of it has popped up in the Sunday Times today.  According to the report, 'there is a debate raging in teen fashion magazines about whether they [razor slits*] constitute 'cultural appropriation' since this is a look that was popularised by African-American rap artists'.  

Now, there could be a discussion on whether 'debate' and 'teen fashion magazines' could legitimately appear in the same sentence (I have distant memories of the kind of 'debate' which took place in teen fashion magazines and I'm sure by today's standards they will have been mild!) but I find this assertion (of cultural appropriation) to be racist.  Why can't white people copy what black people do?  Why can't black people copy what white people do?  Why can't British people copy what American people do and vice versa?  What the f**** is going on in the UK?!

* For the uninitiated (which was me until I read this article), 'razor slits' describe a trend whereby people shave lines out of their eyebrows.  Yes, exactly. :whistle:

To a large extent, cultural appropriate was more of an issue in the USA.  More in terms of crassness, but certainly a mock tinker or chav party would be the nearest we have.  Perhaps we we were having "####" parties and themes it would be closer.  Still, not life and death,  but reasonable offensive. 

This issue was not the same in the UK.  Yet, we blindly imported the debate, which is daft.  I suspect it is overstated.  As a debate, it is a false lead.  But, were I to suggest to a reader of a teen fashion magazine that I thought it was a false end and I have lived in the USA so I would know, I imagine they would suspect of was a bigoted and pompous old man (they would only be 1/2 right).

One aspect is how America is more socially segregated than the UK.  I spent an hour in my local barber when I first moved to Massachsetts, while my barber tried to figure out how to cut white person hair.  I learnt my lesson and went to an appropriate barber next time.

10 minutes ago, Saintslass said:

Excellent points. 

The concept of 'nuance' has been all but obliterated from public discourse in recent years.  

On your point about IVF, it is probably the liberalisation of single parenthood which will have increased the risk of incest but nobody in the political or indeed any other arena would dare raise this possibility.  I think the more liberalised and comparative our moral views become, the closer we get to being challenged on some very serious taboos.  

Thank you.

You will be patient with me I hope, I am not sure I fold the bit in bold.  Is that to say that it increases the chances of half siblings living apart? 

I am not too afraid of visiting taboos.  I think it is necessary, but needs caution.  Burke is, I think, right in saying we have some traditions for good reasons even if we are not sure what they are.  But moral outrage is often disgust in disguise.

Share this post


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

Back to normal at the Guardian ...

:wink:

Seriously, though, this article concerns me.  The outgoing IPCC chief signals concern because over the last 12 months of 11 people who died after being restrained by police 6 were not white and she wants this to be looked at.  However, in the two previous years more white people have died after being restrained by police than non-white but it would appear nobody needs to look into that.

I find this attitude racist and I want it to stop.  ALL cases of death following restraint should be looked at with equal rigour; the colour of a person's skin should have no bearing upon the degree of that rigour.  

I just thought I'd throw this into the mix.

You don't think it is, yes, very worrying that people die when restrained by police but even more worrying when they are not just disproportionately but majority non-white?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

To a large extent, cultural appropriate was more of an issue in the USA.  More in terms of crassness, but certainly a mock tinker or chav party would be the nearest we have.  Perhaps we we were having "####" parties and themes it would be closer.  Still, not life and death,  but reasonable offensive. 

This issue was not the same in the UK.  Yet, we blindly imported the debate, which is daft.  I suspect it is overstated.  As a debate, it is a false lead.  But, were I to suggest to a reader of a teen fashion magazine that I thought it was a false end and I have lived in the USA so I would know, I imagine they would suspect of was a bigoted and pompous old man (they would only be 1/2 right).

One aspect is how America is more socially segregated than the UK.  I spent an hour in my local barber when I first moved to Massachsetts, while my barber tried to figure out how to cut white person hair.  I learnt my lesson and went to an appropriate barber next time.

Thank you.

You will be patient with me I hope, I am not sure I fold the bit in bold.  Is that to say that it increases the chances of half siblings living apart? 

I am not too afraid of visiting taboos.  I think it is necessary, but needs caution.  Burke is, I think, right in saying we have some traditions for good reasons even if we are not sure what they are.  But moral outrage is often disgust in disguise.

I agree with what you say about the US.  I lived there for a year and the experience was a real eye-opener in many ways (good and not as good - though I did love it overall).  

On the point I made concerning the liberalisation of single parenthood, yes you have understood me correctly: half siblings living apart is an identified problem.  Adoption of course was an earlier difficulty and possibly one harder to address given the legal situation with regard to adoptions until relatively recently.  

  • Like 1

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


League Express - Online Now

League Express - Every Monday



Rugby League World - Sept 2018

Rugby League World - Sept 2018

Rugby League Books On Sale Here