Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 

Author Topic: Thought Police: Are we allowed to query 'woke'?  (Read 21805 times)

The Legendary Shark

  • Member
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 10757
  • Tip: Sharks only attack you if you're wet.
    • View Profile
Re: Thought Police: Are we allowed to query 'woke'?
« Reply #315 on: 14 November, 2021, 03:09:15 PM »

Stop carping.

~~~^~~~~~~~


Dive a little deeper - all is not as it seems. "Cyber pandemic" on the way. Devices to be "quarantined" (disconnected).

paddykafka

  • Member
  • Posting Machine
  • ***
  • Posts: 1060
    • View Profile
Re: Thought Police: Are we allowed to query 'woke'?
« Reply #316 on: 14 November, 2021, 03:36:52 PM »
I suspect this is all a red herring.

Funt Solo

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 9670
  • Research Monkey
    • View Profile
Re: Thought Police: Are we allowed to query 'woke'?
« Reply #317 on: 14 November, 2021, 04:40:56 PM »
This debate is floundering.
++ map ++ thrills ++ coma ++

paddykafka

  • Member
  • Posting Machine
  • ***
  • Posts: 1060
    • View Profile
Re: Thought Police: Are we allowed to query 'woke'?
« Reply #318 on: 14 November, 2021, 04:46:21 PM »
This debate is floundering.

Agreed.

Too many sole traders.

Mister Pops

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 3411
  • You're Goddamn right!
    • View Profile
Re: Thought Police: Are we allowed to query 'woke'?
« Reply #319 on: 14 November, 2021, 05:38:16 PM »
For heavens hake, snapper out of it. Can (of tuna) you not sea this de-bait is fin-ished. You're all just bass-lighting now.
You may quote me on that.

Funt Solo

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 9670
  • Research Monkey
    • View Profile
Re: Thought Police: Are we allowed to query 'woke'?
« Reply #320 on: 15 November, 2021, 02:57:35 AM »
I wonder if King Trout will descend from his perch to comment (or maybe eel mullet over).
++ map ++ thrills ++ coma ++

sheridan

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 6750
    • View Profile
    • Wilde Wood
Re: Thought Police: Are we allowed to query 'woke'?
« Reply #321 on: 15 November, 2021, 10:09:55 AM »
This thread is skating on thin ice now...

Jim_Campbell

  • 2000AD Creator
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 14066
  • Letterer to the Stars! (and PJ)
    • View Profile
    • deviantArt Gallery
Re: Thought Police: Are we allowed to query 'woke'?
« Reply #322 on: 15 November, 2021, 01:21:14 PM »
It's way past time you clowns learned your plaice.
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

Hawkmumbler

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 8854
    • View Profile
    • http://hawkmonger.deviantart.com/
Re: Thought Police: Are we allowed to query 'woke'?
« Reply #323 on: 15 November, 2021, 08:17:10 PM »
Absolute pollocks to the lot of you.

Tiplodocus

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 7960
    • View Profile
Re: Thought Police: Are we allowed to query 'woke'?
« Reply #324 on: 15 November, 2021, 08:58:33 PM »
I'm sick of this plaice.
Be excellent to each other. And party on!

von Boom

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 3496
    • View Profile
Re: Thought Police: Are we allowed to query 'woke'?
« Reply #325 on: 16 November, 2021, 01:07:06 AM »
Why so crabby?

judgeurko

  • Member
  • Page Numbering Droid
  • **
  • Posts: 205
    • View Profile
Re: Thought Police: Are we allowed to query 'woke'?
« Reply #326 on: 17 November, 2021, 02:18:35 PM »
Not too soon at all, just transphobic.

No room for ironic humor at all? Because I think of myself as pro-trans rights. Oh well...
Maybe it is just me but I can't see what is ironic about that type of humour, it does feel like punching down. I would also ask myself, would I make this joke to someone that was trans? If not why not & why is it ok to make that joke here on the forum.

(there may be individuals who identify as trans on this forum I do not know.)

Tjm86

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 3490
    • View Profile
Re: Thought Police: Are we allowed to query 'woke'?
« Reply #327 on: 17 November, 2021, 02:22:46 PM »
(there may be individuals who identify as trans on this forum I do not know.)

There are.  One of the reasons why you don't generally see many jokes along those lines.  Possibly one of the reasons why the humour in these parts tends to be so scatalogical, focusing on really bad puns and the likes.  Don't think anyone round here identifies as a Metaphor ...

Funt Solo

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 9670
  • Research Monkey
    • View Profile
Re: Thought Police: Are we allowed to query 'woke'?
« Reply #328 on: 17 November, 2021, 04:31:59 PM »
Lots to unpack, urko. First off, let me apologize for any offence caused. I've been touchy about specific use of language on the board in the past, so it would be hypocritical of me not to accept that my use of language may have offended someone.

As regards whether something is offensive dependent on the audience, I think that's a false flag. One of my students, many moons ago, made reference to the concept of women belonging in the kitchen and, when I pointed out that his reference was sexist he responded with "but there aren't any women here". You don't need women to be in the room for sexism to be sexism, of course.

You said you couldn't see the irony - but I made a joke about trans genitalia on a thread about being woke, in response to a man making jokes about trans people and being defended by a trans person. Surely this has some irony?

Stewart Lee adopts a persona on stage, but still calls himself Stewart Lee. In interviews, he often refers to the fact that the stage persona is not entirely him, but rather an exaggerated version of him - a version that has adopted a superior intellect and looks down on his audience. He often splits the room into sections that "get it" and sections that don't, which allows his stage persona to get frustrated when sections of the audience don't understand his carefully crafted humorous scenarios (despite the fact that he's created the illusionary division).

I mention this because Funt Solo will sail far closer to the wind and be more outspoken and risque than if I were to meet you all in a pub or at a con. Funt's a cheeky bastard. I'm more introverted in person, very careful about exposing my political views in the workplace (because I have a duty of care, and a professional interest in allowing students to manage their own narrative directions*) and only really open up with people I know very well.

As to the context of my joke, it all started with milstar posting an article in which Caitlyn Jenner defends Dave Chappelle's right to free speech. Dave Chappelle had done a routine in which he was apparently openly transphobic (although I haven't seen the routine, so I'm not sure what he said), and complaints were made. Caitlyn (in the article) says he has every right to say what he said. Whatever you think of the article, or Chappelle, or Jenner - one thing is clear - there's no point in engaging in a debate with milstar**. So, that option is out.

Next, Jim responds to milstar's post with "complete bollocks", but milstar wants to know if he means he doesn't believe the article is real or if he means that Jenner's opinion is shite. Jim (I assume) realizes there's no point in engaging in a debate with milstar, so doesn't respond. I don't try to elicit more information from Jim, because sometimes he gets touchy when I do that (sorry, Jim).

So, my motive at that point is to try and derail milstar's prodding by making a joke that both Chappelle and Jenner would approve of, about Jenner's genitalia, but which I personally find mildly offensive. The joke, not Jenner's genitalia, which (frankly) is none of my business, and I know nothing about - my ignorance of actual fact also being part of the humor. Aware that this is all skating close to the edge of polite frisson, I add the *Too soon?* as a signal that I'm aware of where I'm skating.

The other part that's worth mentioning here is that society is, of course, obsessed with genitals. Our own, other peoples - what could happen if we get hold of them and so on. You could say it's built into us. When people transition, then I'm sure they have some thought about their physicality and of course other people have a natural curiosity. Now, if a trans person is being interviewed about their new, say, movie - it's not really acceptable that the interviewer would focus on their genitals (unless it was a movie about their genitals), because when actors are being interviewed about their new movie, it's a bit pervy to start going on about their personal business. There are great videos online of Tom Hardy and Scarlet Johansson ripping interviewers a new one (more undercarriages!) for getting too personal.

Of course, in a personal relationship, whether you like bearded or non-bearded people, or bald or non-bald people, or particular kinds of junk, is entirely a matter of personal preference, and perhaps part of your lifelong family planning, but it's not otherwise anyone's business what you're carrying around in your undergarments - which is why it's such a stupid thing to focus on, but one that people nevertheless get obsessed by. Ripe location for a joke.

You did ask if I would tell the joke in front of a trans person. I don't know, is the only answer I've got. I think it would depend how well I knew them. It was a very contextual joke, and it was Funt that told it. I'm finding it difficult to extrapolate that out to a different scenario. I was driving two folk along one day, and one of them said "that building is so black" (in reference to a particularly black building near Edinburgh) and the other one said "racist!" Three white people in a car. Food for thought.

And, again, sorry for any offence. And the accidental fish pun.



*Unless they're being openly racist, sexist, homophobic or transphobic (or otherwise bullying someone) - because I run an inclusionary classroom.
**Due to a historic tendency to eschew evidence contrary to his original position.
++ map ++ thrills ++ coma ++

milstar

  • Member
  • Prog Stacking Droid
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
    • View Profile
Re: Thought Police: Are we allowed to query 'woke'?
« Reply #329 on: 17 November, 2021, 05:09:38 PM »
Lots to unpack, urko. First off, let me apologize for any offence caused. I've been touchy about specific use of language on the board in the past, so it would be hypocritical of me not to accept that my use of language may have offended someone.

As regards whether something is offensive dependent on the audience, I think that's a false flag. One of my students, many moons ago, made reference to the concept of women belonging in the kitchen and, when I pointed out that his reference was sexist he responded with "but there aren't any women here". You don't need women to be in the room for sexism to be sexism, of course.

You said you couldn't see the irony - but I made a joke about trans genitalia on a thread about being woke, in response to a man making jokes about trans people and being defended by a trans person. Surely this has some irony?

Stewart Lee adopts a persona on stage, but still calls himself Stewart Lee. In interviews, he often refers to the fact that the stage persona is not entirely him, but rather an exaggerated version of him - a version that has adopted a superior intellect and looks down on his audience. He often splits the room into sections that "get it" and sections that don't, which allows his stage persona to get frustrated when sections of the audience don't understand his carefully crafted humorous scenarios (despite the fact that he's created the illusionary division).

I mention this because Funt Solo will sail far closer to the wind and be more outspoken and risque than if I were to meet you all in a pub or at a con. Funt's a cheeky bastard. I'm more introverted in person, very careful about exposing my political views in the workplace (because I have a duty of care, and a professional interest in allowing students to manage their own narrative directions*) and only really open up with people I know very well.

As to the context of my joke, it all started with milstar posting an article in which Caitlyn Jenner defends Dave Chappelle's right to free speech. Dave Chappelle had done a routine in which he was apparently openly transphobic (although I haven't seen the routine, so I'm not sure what he said), and complaints were made. Caitlyn (in the article) says he has every right to say what he said. Whatever you think of the article, or Chappelle, or Jenner - one thing is clear - there's no point in engaging in a debate with milstar**. So, that option is out.

Next, Jim responds to milstar's post with "complete bollocks", but milstar wants to know if he means he doesn't believe the article is real or if he means that Jenner's opinion is shite. Jim (I assume) realizes there's no point in engaging in a debate with milstar, so doesn't respond. I don't try to elicit more information from Jim, because sometimes he gets touchy when I do that (sorry, Jim).

So, my motive at that point is to try and derail milstar's prodding by making a joke that both Chappelle and Jenner would approve of, about Jenner's genitalia, but which I personally find mildly offensive. The joke, not Jenner's genitalia, which (frankly) is none of my business, and I know nothing about - my ignorance of actual fact also being part of the humor. Aware that this is all skating close to the edge of polite frisson, I add the *Too soon?* as a signal that I'm aware of where I'm skating.

The other part that's worth mentioning here is that society is, of course, obsessed with genitals. Our own, other peoples - what could happen if we get hold of them and so on. You could say it's built into us. When people transition, then I'm sure they have some thought about their physicality and of course other people have a natural curiosity. Now, if a trans person is being interviewed about their new, say, movie - it's not really acceptable that the interviewer would focus on their genitals (unless it was a movie about their genitals), because when actors are being interviewed about their new movie, it's a bit pervy to start going on about their personal business. There are great videos online of Tom Hardy and Scarlet Johansson ripping interviewers a new one (more undercarriages!) for getting too personal.

Of course, in a personal relationship, whether you like bearded or non-bearded people, or bald or non-bald people, or particular kinds of junk, is entirely a matter of personal preference, and perhaps part of your lifelong family planning, but it's not otherwise anyone's business what you're carrying around in your undergarments - which is why it's such a stupid thing to focus on, but one that people nevertheless get obsessed by. Ripe location for a joke.

You did ask if I would tell the joke in front of a trans person. I don't know, is the only answer I've got. I think it would depend how well I knew them. It was a very contextual joke, and it was Funt that told it. I'm finding it difficult to extrapolate that out to a different scenario. I was driving two folk along one day, and one of them said "that building is so black" (in reference to a particularly black building near Edinburgh) and the other one said "racist!" Three white people in a car. Food for thought.

And, again, sorry for any offence. And the accidental fish pun.



*Unless they're being openly racist, sexist, homophobic or transphobic (or otherwise bullying someone) - because I run an inclusionary classroom.
**Due to a historic tendency to eschew evidence contrary to his original position.


milstar is completely neutral here, because it's rabbit's hole. milstar posts all sorts of links here, related to sundry and all topics, which all have in common the fact they deal with "wokeness", "cancel culture" and "censorship". That does not mean I agree with what it's said there. But yeah, some topics are useless to discuss with milstar.
Apropo Caitlyn  Jenner, we live in era of fake news. I thought that perhaps Jim knows something more than me...
Reyt, you lot. Shut up, belt up, 'n if ye can't see t' bloody exit, ye must be bloody blind.