Life is riddled with a procession of minor impediments

[The Legendary Shark]

Cheers, DDD - and the same to us all!

[Batman's Superior Cousin]

Got myself banned permanently from the SuperheroHype Community forums for "insubordination, trolling, sexism and transphobia" for criticising Phoebe Waller-Bridge's character in Indiana Jones and defending my initial post with a (now admittedly) well-known troll who for some strange reason, used transgender people in their argument (which he didn't get banned for).

Sigh... Why do I even bother anymore.

[Batman's Superior Cousin]

Got myself banned permanently from the SuperheroHype Community forums for "insubordination, trolling, sexism and transphobia" for criticising Phoebe Waller-Bridge's character in Indiana Jones and defending my initial post with a (now admittedly) well-known troll who for some strange reason, used transgender people in their argument (which he didn't get banned for).

Sigh... Why do I even bother anymore.

Since then, I've since learnt that said troll is still pretty much active on the site and that he, along with the admin that banned me are not only now citing two of my examples as positive female role models (Ellen Ripley & Princess Leia), but are also defending the movie with a number of staff & users, convinced of two things (that anyone who criticises Waller-Bridge's character is a sexist & misogynistic troll and that the film will be a critical & commercial success story that will stand the test of time).

[The Legendary Shark]

We're not allowed to have genuine differences of opinion any more, because disagreement has somehow become a hate crime.

[Batman's Superior Cousin]

That's sadly very much true in today's day and age, it's becoming more & more PC every week, both online and on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean.

[Tjm86]

We're not allowed to have genuine differences of opinion any more, because disagreement has somehow become a hate crime.

Sorry, I really don't agree with you on this ...

[Hawkmumbler]

We're not allowed to have genuine differences of opinion any more, because disagreement has somehow become a hate crime.

It truly is interminable being a man of culture in the age of the MCU, I agree.

 

[The Legendary Shark]

We're not allowed to have genuine differences of opinion any more, because disagreement has somehow become a hate crime.

Sorry, I really don't agree with you on this ...

How very dare you hate on me like that...

[Funt Solo]

That's sadly very much true in today's day and age, it's becoming more & more PC every week, both online and on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean.

Well, you say that. But: the Supreme Court (US) made a ruling yesterday that it's okay for business owners to refuse to serve same-sex couples, if it goes against their religious beliefs. The day before, it overturned college-admission affirmative action. A Canadian province just passed a law that stops teachers from using students' preferred pronouns without parental permission. Florida has passed laws that make it criminal for teachers to tell anyone their preferred pronouns (at school), and also criminal to teach anything about gayness or transgenderism. None of this could be described as "becoming more & more PC".

My Youtube algorithm keeps posting up clickbait videos that have their thumbnail image edited so that "Karen's get what they deserved" is being imagined as "what they deserve" being a bloody, violent retribution involving a baseball bat and serious bruising to the face. So - y'know, Youtube is openly promoting casual violence against "unreasonable" women. It's never a "Ken" in the thumbnail.

As for the question of Phoebe Waller-Bridge's character in the latest Indy movie - I think you should feel free to post whatever opinions you have about that. Equally, if people feel that any opinion is in some way crossing a line, then they should be able to bring those points. That there be debate, me hearties.

Or: it's okay to dislike the stereotype of a Karen (or Ken), but to suggest that they should be beaten up as a punishment - that's crossing a line into something else entirely. Right? (Not that you did that - I'm speaking generally.)

[Funt Solo]

Sorry to double-post, but (as if to prove my point), my YT-algo immediately dropped these in my lap:






It's just not presenting an overly-PC world at me. (To be fair, I have watched some Karen/Ken videos, so I probably deserve that one showing up - but I've tried my absolute best to avoid anything involving Bill Burr because he's so clearly an enormously self-satisfied c*nt with an axe to grind.)

[Tjm86]

We're not allowed to have genuine differences of opinion any more, because disagreement has somehow become a hate crime.

Sorry, I really don't agree with you on this ...

How very dare you hate on me like that...

Oh, I hate it when you do that .... 

[Tjm86]

On a slightly more serious note, I'm finding it fascinating following the current debate about 'cancel culture' and reports on how people are finding it increasingly difficult to navigate the choppy waters of acceptable language.

I've been working through Foucault's lecture series from the early 80's in which he is discussing his understanding of Parrhesia, what he considers to be 'acceptable' speech acts.  The lectures are looking into the way it was used in Ancient Greece but a lot of what he is talking about is relevant today.

In particular he explores the element of 'risk' involved in speech.  The fact that there is always the possibility of someone being offended and reacting aggressively, even violently in those days.  He gives examples of where it was being employed and how.

It seems that we are living through quite an extreme example of this right now.  The violent clashes we see between different groups shows that the 'risk' dimension is very real.  In some respects I suppose it is fair to say that terrorist actions such as 9/11 could be seen as part of this.

Social media is potentially a slightly more benign environment in this respect.  Granted the abuse and vitriol that 'offenders' are subjected to is unpleasant.  It is also true that this spills out into the sort of physical attacks described above.  Similarly, people have lost jobs or services because of statements made.

There is a definite negative dimension to this in that responses are terrifyingly extreme.  It is more than mere disagreement, more than ostracism.  There is a visceral aspect to responses that is disturbingly powerful, almost irrational.

At the same time, perhaps there is a positive dimension too.  There is a recognition of the power of language to affect people.  There is space to consider how we deal with the impact of 'speech'.  At the moment we seem to be struggling to find a rational, assertive way to handle it.  The primary response seems to be to try to shut down language and ideas that disturb us. 

Then again there are a lot of folks that also find that disturbing.  The struggle is with finding a way to engage with this.  There seem to be enough people walking this line, searching for a more rational approach. 

Where this is going is anyone's guess mind ...

[The Legendary Shark]

From Socrates to Julian Assange, the powerful and the ignorant have always feared and punished free speech.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle. This is the attitude we need to get back to, imnsho.

[Hawkmumbler]

So much omphaloskepsis over a predictably poor Indiana Jones movies*.

Imagine, you could have avoided all this by just watching a good movie.

*Not that there's ever been a good one, afraid to say.

[JayzusB.Christ]

There has always been a cancel culture. There was no Number 1 in the charts when the Pistols' anti-monarchy song was doing particularly well.  Gerry Adams had to be dubbed on BBC News.  The Catholic Church at the height of their power in Ireland were particularly adept at ostracising dissenting voices.