Main Menu

Thought Police: Are we allowed to query 'woke'?

Started by Tjm86, 24 September, 2020, 08:01:05 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Funt Solo

Quote from: milstar on 18 September, 2021, 08:34:36 PM
Unfortunately, Mel never discloses what it is all about...

Almost as if he realizes that just openly spouting antisemitism isn't really acceptable.
++ A-Z ++  coma ++

milstar

I thought about it when he mentioned the Pope Francis, then I realized that form of thought is anti-semitic too. What you don't say, can't hurt you.
Reyt, you lot. Shut up, belt up, 'n if ye can't see t' bloody exit, ye must be bloody blind.

Funt Solo

So, I found a really (technically) good video to demonstrate (to my students) the animation concept of slow in - slow out*, but I'm worried that there's some coded homophobia in there.

From 0:28 to 0:58 - the set up describes the (Lego) victim as a "really happy guy", who the other character bludgeons to death.

Am I being over-sensitive?


*Stop that sniggering at the back!
++ A-Z ++  coma ++

Dandontdare

I don't give a shit about the ramblings of some cultist wife-beating anti-semite. Watched a couple of minutes - it's just sad to see what he's become.

JayzusB.Christ

Touch of Frankmilleritis, I think. Fortunately Frank has managed to claw a few shreds of credibility back, but he still has a fair distance to go.
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest"

milstar

https://kotaku.com/resident-evil-4-vr-cuts-upskirts-suggestive-dialogue-1847905022

Speaking of wokeness, there is no better example of dialogue, mildly anodyne, going full anodyne, because... people are...lacking humor or are emotionless?
Reyt, you lot. Shut up, belt up, 'n if ye can't see t' bloody exit, ye must be bloody blind.

pauljholden

It's tough to care about this, because it's games. But my gut reaction was "are you saying they should KEEP the upskirt shots?" because, you know, that's also mentioned in the article.

I can't judge the change of dialogue because, who knows, it's not finished. Is making something slightly less Benny Hill a bad thing? Maybe. Maybe not. We'll see, eh?

I do agree there's a general direction in society where we're headed towards something a lot more puritan which is not great, but I'm not going to be sad at the loss of stuff that's pretty demeaning on the way towards that.

milstar

Quote from: pauljholden on 23 October, 2021, 04:56:01 PM
It's tough to care about this, because it's games. But my gut reaction was "are you saying they should KEEP the upskirt shots?" because, you know, that's also mentioned in the article.

I can't judge the change of dialogue because, who knows, it's not finished. Is making something slightly less Benny Hill a bad thing? Maybe. Maybe not. We'll see, eh?

I do agree there's a general direction in society where we're headed towards something a lot more puritan which is not great, but I'm not going to be sad at the loss of stuff that's pretty demeaning on the way towards that.

Yeah, I can agree on that. My complaint was directed that most of these reported things aren't what are made out to be. Definitely skirt shots could go (although you get scolded for looking up), but most of the "problematic" dialogue are...meh. Not much different than how people irl talk/flirt.

I hope they won't ever come after Benny xD
Reyt, you lot. Shut up, belt up, 'n if ye can't see t' bloody exit, ye must be bloody blind.


Funt Solo

There was a running joke in Curb Your Enthusiasm, where Larry would be forgiven by "the lesbians" during "their meeting", or sent to Coventry, or whatever their latest decree was.

Dave Chappelle seems to think that there's a trans committee that he can invite for a chat: "To the transgender community, I am more than willing to give you an audience ... But you will not summon me."

It seems he also thinks that they're wizards.


---

The article linked by Hawkmumbler is a really weird one. There seems to be some confusion over whether or not people can be forced to have sex against their will. I think that's already covered by rape legislation - there's no need to make it a debate focused solely on lesbians, trans folk or any other group.

---

Way too many examples of people saying "they" to describe what must be a group of people with differing views and opinions as if they're some kind of hive mind.
++ A-Z ++  coma ++

Tjm86

Quote from: Funt Solo on 26 October, 2021, 06:52:51 PM
The article linked by Hawkmumbler is a really weird one. There seems to be some confusion over whether or not people can be forced to have sex against their will. I think that's already covered by rape legislation - there's no need to make it a debate focused solely on lesbians, trans folk or any other group.

I could be wrong but it feels a little like what is being suggested is that pressure is being applied rather than that they are being 'forced'.  Admittedly a fine line.  More a case of lesbians alleging that in some cases they have been painted in extreme terms if they decline sexual encounters in some instances. 

How big an issue this is is certainly questionable and it does appear as a peculiar one.  If anything though it highlights the core problem right now as I see it; there is a zero-sum game going on in which the needs / rights of every group is seen as infringing rather than recognising that a way of accepting / respecting them needs to be found.


Jim_Campbell

Quote from: Tjm86 on 26 October, 2021, 07:23:52 PM
How big an issue this is is certainly questionable and it does appear as a peculiar one.  If anything though it highlights the core problem right now as I see it; there is a zero-sum game going on in which the needs / rights of every group is seen as infringing rather than recognising that a way of accepting / respecting them needs to be found.

This is the crux of it, sadly.

Trans Person: [makes perfectly reasonable request about basic rights]

Other Person: Yeah, but... [insert vanishingly rare and/or ludicrously unlikely scenario] therefore trans rights are a terrible idea!

It shouldn't be beyond the collective wit of a political/legal system to formulate equitable rights for all members of society and then deal with the edge cases rather than say: "Look! Edge cases! We must therefore do nothing to give this group the sort of rights basic decency demands!"

I think it's also important to remember that the entire 'gender critical' assault on trans people right now is a construction of the American Christian right. They feel they've 'lost' the battle on gay rights, so they decided to peel off trans rights as a wedge issue that they might have a better chance of winning. Make no mistake — they win on this one, they're coming after gay rights immediately after that, and womens' rights after that.
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

Hawkmumbler

The trans scare is literally reheated methodologies from the halcyon days of the gay moral panic.
These people are fucking deranged.

The Legendary Shark


To call somebody who doesn't want to have sex with anyone possessing a penis 'transphobic' or 'homophobic' seems to me to be childish and bitter. I don't want to have sex with anyone possessing a penis (except myself, of course - but I don't think that counts either way), nor do I want to have sex with a great many people who have vaginas - but by no means all of them. My sexual preference is for heterosexual women. I don't think this makes me a transphobe any more than not wanting to have sex with the elderly, the young, or animals makes me a gerontophobe, a paedophobe, or a zoophobe.

I don't care who you are, if you coerce or force another person into sex against their will then you are a monster and your genital arrangement has nothing to do with it.

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Funt Solo

To be honest, Shark (and not targeting you here, but rather the argument), that's the problem with the BBC's entire article.

Of course it's not okay to try to force people to have close encounters with any genitalia that they don't want to have close encounters with. But that's a no-brainer.

The article (or those interviewed for it) are saying that "they want me to do such and such" and "they called me a transphobe if I wouldn't agree to such and such". But - this is just instigating a moral panic, because it's such a no-brainer in the first place.

It's the same as "if we let trans people use the bathroom they feel most comfortable in it means that evil trans people will assault women". Moral panic about a no-brainer.

It's not okay for anyone to dictate sexual terms. It's not okay for anyone to assault people in bathrooms. Attaching either debate specifically to trans people is bigoted, paints them as evil and therefore effectively is transphobic. The nature of the debate is transphobic.
++ A-Z ++  coma ++