Well personally I also more connect this use of the language towards light/darkness and not towards skin pigmentation. When I use the phrase "dark night of the soul", I don't think about skin colour or ethnicity of all, but I feel if we can evolve the language towards triggering less connections with race then I feel well why not give it a try.
The Culture Wars
- Thread starter DOTA
- Start date
Well personally I also more connect this use of the language towards light/darkness and not towards skin pigmentation. When I use the phrase "dark night of the soul", I don't think about skin colour or ethnicity of all, but I feel if we can evolve the language towards triggering less connections with race then I feel well why not give it a try.
Invisible ice instead of black ice?
Right-wing snowflakes think Ritz Crackers’ queer Christmas ad is ‘dangerous and disgusting’. Yes, they’re raging at crackers
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/12/...ican-family-association-culture-war-backlash/
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/12/...ican-family-association-culture-war-backlash/
Conservative activists have declared Ritz Crackers an enemy in the “culture war” after a Christmas ad
featuring a queer couple.
The brand released moving festive ad “Where There’s Love, There’s Family” last month, featuring a number of people finding connection from isolation – including a man who is shunned by his parents, but finds a happy place with his partner and chosen family.
The ad, part of a partnership with non-profits including the It Gets Better project, riffs on the idea of what family means, concluding: “The holidays are about spending time with family, or the one you make.”
While there’s very little in the ad to be offended about, that hasn’t stopped anti-LGBT+ conservative activists from bombarding the ad with hateful messages. It has racked up more than 6,000 dislikes on YouTube, and hundreds of hateful messages on Facebook.
Right-wing activists lash out at ‘disgusting’ advert
One commenter raged: “This is disgusting! Why are you promoting homosexuality? That’s nasty. For shame Ritz, I’m throwing all my crackers out. You’ve permanently lost a customer.”
Another fumed: “What a sick demented commercial.”
The American Family Association (AFA), an ultra-conservative lobbying group, has declared war on the company, lashed out at the ad’s depiction of a man “putting on lipstick like a woman and effeminately clinging to another man”, claiming it is intended to “brainwash children and adults alike by desensitising audiences”.
The AFA has launched a full-scale pressure campaign telling the company to “stay away from social agendas” – less of a dog whistle, more of a fog horn – encouraging supporters to send a pre-written complaint telling Ritz the ad ” will influence my future purchases”.
The message continues: “I am extremely disappointed that Ritz is refusing to remain neutral in the cultural war.
“Ritz is pushing the LGBTQ+ agenda on families with its most recent commercial. People who are already confused about their gender identity should not be encouraged to embark on a dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle.”
The group quoted evangelical radio host Dr Michael Brown, who has previously staged protests at Pride events and advocated for the criminalisation of homosexuality in Uganda. He said: “There is so much confusion in our society today. Same-sex attraction, same-sex marriage, gay Christianity, transgender identity, what’s right, what’s wrong.”
AFA raged: “Ritz needs to hear from you. Supporting the transgender agenda instead of remaining neutral in the cultural war is just bad business.
“If Ritz Crackers refuses to remain neutral, then Christians will vote with their pocketbooks and support companies that do.”
Ritz Crackers remains silent as haters rage
What if Christians refuse to be Christian?
What’s marxist libcafe’s take on corporations making ads that are blatantly intended to make a grab for the pink pound? How dare they exploit the LBGT struggle to fill their bloated coffers? Or good on them for normalising the non heteronormative experience. This is progress.
I’m more inclined to the latter but never sure where the caf commies stand on things like this.
I’m more inclined to the latter but never sure where the caf commies stand on things like this.
Reading Twitter bios make me feel old and out of touch. What the feck does most of it even mean.
Im going outside to yell at clouds.
Well to be honest quite a lot of wars started when the opposing scouts clashed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55460888
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55460888
Didn't someone sue to force the Boy Scouts to accept girls? Or maybe that was in Europe.
In what might be my new favourite example of bourgoise radliberalism, a New Yorker journalist is furious and dismayed that a luxury ice cream brand hasn't clarified their political stance recently.
To rectify the situation she engages in a Tweetstorm with their communications manager. The whole thing is just peak 'terminally online' lunacy. Fav moments are the consulting fee exchange and appeal to authority fallacy using...Instagram memes.
Might have to scroll up for the start.
To rectify the situation she engages in a Tweetstorm with their communications manager. The whole thing is just peak 'terminally online' lunacy. Fav moments are the consulting fee exchange and appeal to authority fallacy using...Instagram memes.
Might have to scroll up for the start.
God these people should be forced to read just 1 page of marx.
Maybe the cone is the base and the icecream represents the superstructure.
1st amendment interpretations are evolving quickly!
Wasn't sure which thread to post this in...but thought this article from Bhaskar Sunkara was great.
What if liberal anti-racists aren’t advancing the cause of equality
What if liberal anti-racists aren’t advancing the cause of equality
Well it's always easier for big corporations to hire diversity officers, put their staff through unconcsious bias training, signal their virtue rather than wanting to pay higher taxes or raise their wages.
Ronaldo is really good and stuff, but surely he's not considered the epitome of manliness?
It's the Guardian.
Some very confused young men out there, evidently!
Who’s manlier, Ronaldo or Messi? Wouldn’t even know where to start with that question…
Miley cyrus
Isn't he the epitome of the metrosexual, which the "real" manliest of man would scoff at?
I've also seen him described as a "Spornosexual". Honestly.
I've also seen him described as a "Spornosexual". Honestly.
I dunno, who has made the most dives throughout their career?
I get his point. It's just that it's not really important unless you spend too much time on the internet, is it? I think these writers need another job tbh.
Lancet accused of sexism after calling women ‘bodies with vaginas’
The prestigious medical journal has prompted a wave of anger online after a 'well-meaning but unhelpful attempt to be inclusive'
You have to laugh though don't you.
Some how the UK spends more on bodies with vaginas and as a result they live longer. I wish they would neglect bodies with penises to the same effect.
The prestigious medical journal has prompted a wave of anger online after a 'well-meaning but unhelpful attempt to be inclusive'
You have to laugh though don't you.
Some how the UK spends more on bodies with vaginas and as a result they live longer. I wish they would neglect bodies with penises to the same effect.
Has any shareholder sued their company for (example) not using child labour?
Not sure where this article goes but it's an excellent piece both criticizing a book called "Gen Z, Explained" along with the entire concept of generations and how they install preconceived and incorrect biases in our collective consciousness.
"People born within that period are supposed to carry a basket of characteristics that differentiate them from people born earlier or later.
This supposition requires leaps of faith. For one thing, there is no empirical basis for claiming that differences within a generation are smaller than differences between generations. (Do you have less in common with your parents than with people you have never met who happen to have been born a few years before or after you?) The theory also seems to require that a person born in 1965, the first year of Generation X, must have different values, tastes, and life experiences from a person born in 1964, the last year of the baby-boom generation (1946-64). And that someone born in the last birth year of Gen X, 1980, has more in common with someone born in 1965 or 1970 than with someone born in 1981 or 1990."
"The so-called Silent Generation is a particularly outrageous example. That term has come to describe Americans who went to high school and college in the nineteen-fifties, partly because it sets up a convenient contrast to the baby-boom generation that followed. Those boomers, we think—they were not silent! In fact, they mostly were.
The term “Silent Generation” was coined in 1951, in an article in Time—and so was not intended to characterize the decade. “Today’s generation is ready to conform,” the article concluded. Time defined the Silent Generation as people aged eighteen to twenty-eight—that is, those who entered the workforce mostly in the nineteen-forties. Though the birth dates of Time’s Silent Generation were 1923 to 1933, the term somehow migrated to later dates, and it is now used for the generation born between 1928 and 1945.
So who were these silent conformists? Gloria Steinem, Muhammad Ali, Tom Hayden, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Nina Simone, Bob Dylan, Noam Chomsky, Philip Roth, Susan Sontag, Martin Luther King, Jr., Billie Jean King, Jesse Jackson, Joan Baez, Berry Gordy, Amiri Baraka, Ken Kesey, Huey Newton, Jerry Garcia, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Andy Warhol . . . Sorry, am I boring you?
It was people like these, along with even older folks, like Timothy Leary, Allen Ginsberg, and Pauli Murray, who were active in the culture and the politics of the nineteen-sixties. Apart from a few musicians, it is hard to name a single major figure in that decade who was a baby boomer. But the boomers, most of whom were too young then even to know what was going on, get the credit (or, just as unfairly, the blame)"
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/18/its-time-to-stop-talking-about-generations
"People born within that period are supposed to carry a basket of characteristics that differentiate them from people born earlier or later.
This supposition requires leaps of faith. For one thing, there is no empirical basis for claiming that differences within a generation are smaller than differences between generations. (Do you have less in common with your parents than with people you have never met who happen to have been born a few years before or after you?) The theory also seems to require that a person born in 1965, the first year of Generation X, must have different values, tastes, and life experiences from a person born in 1964, the last year of the baby-boom generation (1946-64). And that someone born in the last birth year of Gen X, 1980, has more in common with someone born in 1965 or 1970 than with someone born in 1981 or 1990."
"The so-called Silent Generation is a particularly outrageous example. That term has come to describe Americans who went to high school and college in the nineteen-fifties, partly because it sets up a convenient contrast to the baby-boom generation that followed. Those boomers, we think—they were not silent! In fact, they mostly were.
The term “Silent Generation” was coined in 1951, in an article in Time—and so was not intended to characterize the decade. “Today’s generation is ready to conform,” the article concluded. Time defined the Silent Generation as people aged eighteen to twenty-eight—that is, those who entered the workforce mostly in the nineteen-forties. Though the birth dates of Time’s Silent Generation were 1923 to 1933, the term somehow migrated to later dates, and it is now used for the generation born between 1928 and 1945.
So who were these silent conformists? Gloria Steinem, Muhammad Ali, Tom Hayden, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Nina Simone, Bob Dylan, Noam Chomsky, Philip Roth, Susan Sontag, Martin Luther King, Jr., Billie Jean King, Jesse Jackson, Joan Baez, Berry Gordy, Amiri Baraka, Ken Kesey, Huey Newton, Jerry Garcia, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Andy Warhol . . . Sorry, am I boring you?
It was people like these, along with even older folks, like Timothy Leary, Allen Ginsberg, and Pauli Murray, who were active in the culture and the politics of the nineteen-sixties. Apart from a few musicians, it is hard to name a single major figure in that decade who was a baby boomer. But the boomers, most of whom were too young then even to know what was going on, get the credit (or, just as unfairly, the blame)"
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/18/its-time-to-stop-talking-about-generations
Fantano is completely correct
Yeah I tend to agree as well. Although saying "ever" is always a bold statement.
Presented without comment.
The right is starting to get better at comedy and it's making the lefties nervous.