Also, all white people are racist but I need to go to Asda so shall not be elaborating further at this time.
The Culture Wars
- Thread starter DOTA
- Start date
Stating that power is the problem is LITERALLY specifying how it plays a role.
Honestly not arguing with you. I’m accepting that an existing power dynamic shapes the discussion. My prior posts have examples.
The only thing I object to, is treating these fringe nonsensical views as valid. I kind of (but not directly asked) if she was a valid voice. She’s clearly a dickhead of the same flavour as Evangelical preachers In Super churches. An audience doesn’t validate you if they’re stupid and you like talking to stupid people.
My fear with this culture war (and hopefully that fear is ungrounded) is that more and more of these fringe nonsensical views start creeping more and more into mainstream discourse. It has already happened with the conservatives who have completely lost their minds or whatever was left of it.
She's really just a caricature of Robin Diangelo's views who is a bestseller.
waaaay past that. The fringe nonsense is not front pages of The Mail, Express, Sun, Times et Al.
I support conservative views on many things. There are no good Tories.
On reddit there's r/stupidpol.
I was a mod for a few months, left when they started enforcing a pronoun policy for PC people - since they approve of stating pronouns, they *have* to put them next to their username. Thought it was degrading.
Not sure what it's like now, I scroll through about once a month. In general, I think they cover outrage clickbait more than informative stuff (when the sub started out they made a lot of noise about "Marxist analysis"), but occasionally there's a good post. There's also been a very big right-wing contingent on there for a while, not sure if they're the majority now.
Outside reddit, the Jacobin youtube channel occasionally covers things like this. I maybe posted some of their stuff about it here, but the people who discuss it are usually Jen Pan and Ariella Thornhill.
Cheers, I'll have a look.
For why?!? It’s a garbage corner of the internet…….
Cause I'm interested to see what they have to say? Personally I think it tends to broaden one's horizon. One doesn't have to agree but I think it's good to understand what drives them. And also guilty pleasure.
You do you. But that’s a time vacuum that dilutes your sense of self. It doesn’t broaden your horizons to listen to broken people.
‘Balance’ is a nonsensical throwback to cooler headed times.
Some BBC drama, as good a fit for this thread as anything else.
Last week they published an article called 'We're being pressured into sex by some trans women'. Including mentioning a "study", which was a questionaire posted to a few anti-trans spaces and with 80 respondents, they offer a few quotes from mostly anonymous people found on social media, but one of the named people who was interviewed was self-professed sexual predator Lily Cade. Some might find it weird that the BBC would interview a sexual predator about how trans people are sexual predators, but anyway... They also included interviews from charming groups like Get the L Out and LGB Alliance.
The article has received a lot of criticism, but in addition to this it got Lily Cade to start up her old blog. It's covered in the article BBC 'scandal' after Lily Cade 'calls for trans women to be executed'. If you want to know how she wants to murder trans people, here's a little taste.
In addition to all this, it seems like the author of the original BBC article, Caroline Lowbridge, is a naughty little liar. Here's a quote from the article:
Nevermind why trans people wouldn't want to talk to her, someone actually did. She talked to Chelsea Poe, as described in Trans sex worker went unpublished by BBC because she didn’t ‘fit their narrative’. Poe also details how the interview went, and it's not very pretty. She also warned the BBC about Cade, but they didn't care. As for why Poe's interview was deemed irrelevant, it may or may not be the correct decision but saying that no one wanted to talk to Lawbridge is a blatant lie.
Last week they published an article called 'We're being pressured into sex by some trans women'. Including mentioning a "study", which was a questionaire posted to a few anti-trans spaces and with 80 respondents, they offer a few quotes from mostly anonymous people found on social media, but one of the named people who was interviewed was self-professed sexual predator Lily Cade. Some might find it weird that the BBC would interview a sexual predator about how trans people are sexual predators, but anyway... They also included interviews from charming groups like Get the L Out and LGB Alliance.
The article has received a lot of criticism, but in addition to this it got Lily Cade to start up her old blog. It's covered in the article BBC 'scandal' after Lily Cade 'calls for trans women to be executed'. If you want to know how she wants to murder trans people, here's a little taste.
In addition to all this, it seems like the author of the original BBC article, Caroline Lowbridge, is a naughty little liar. Here's a quote from the article:
Nevermind why trans people wouldn't want to talk to her, someone actually did. She talked to Chelsea Poe, as described in Trans sex worker went unpublished by BBC because she didn’t ‘fit their narrative’. Poe also details how the interview went, and it's not very pretty. She also warned the BBC about Cade, but they didn't care. As for why Poe's interview was deemed irrelevant, it may or may not be the correct decision but saying that no one wanted to talk to Lawbridge is a blatant lie.
There’s no mention of Lily Cade in that linked BBC article. Never mind an interview with her. Looks as thought the author isn’t the only one who’s a “naught little liar”. .
Shoulda read to the end Pogue:
"Update 4 November 2021: We have updated this article, published last week, to remove a contribution from one individual in light of comments she has published on blog posts in recent days, which we have been able to verify. We acknowledge that an admission of inappropriate behaviour by the same contributor should have been included in the original article. "
Ah. Ok. Correct decision by the beeb. She seems unhinged.
this sucks. the original tweet is the exact definition of a virtue signal, it's not as if 5 yos are on twitter, and the replies are just awful of course. it's so stupid.
Chernovitz should be asking if sexual assault is illegal.
I bet this is really good. Uk listeners only for now. Bummer.
So, Bari Weiss, Niall Ferguson, Steven Pinker, Lawrence Summers - the usual crowd of people united by being anti-left, have come together to form a university*. Many valid reasons people on twitter are having fun with their launch, including the fact that they have no campus, no degree, and no accreditation, and are already asking for donations.
But there's another thing I want to point out - their first courses, starting next summer, are called "forbidden courses". Given the figures involved, one can guess that it's going to be about how colonialism is good, or how neoliberal capitalism is solving all issues, mixed in with bromides about free speech and thought. But the fact that they compartmentalize knowledge into categories or forbidden or not...
What should be happening is them doing courses or a degree in history (including a course by Niall Ferguson), and in economics (including stuff by Summers), etc. As you learn the subject and its many open questions, you gain the tools and the background to come across, ask, and tackle these "dangerous" and "forbidden" questions. But they're not actually interested in the boring dull grind of learning a subject from the ground up.
No, instead, it's going to be a summer seminar on controversial issues.
I have no background in history or colonialism, and I will listen to Niall Ferguson talk about how it benefited the colonies, how he has been censored when he taught exactly that in his 30 years at Stanford and his dozen books, and nod along about how the lack of these vital and frank conversations has set the public back.
More than anything, anti-intellectual.
*terms and conditions apply
But there's another thing I want to point out - their first courses, starting next summer, are called "forbidden courses". Given the figures involved, one can guess that it's going to be about how colonialism is good, or how neoliberal capitalism is solving all issues, mixed in with bromides about free speech and thought. But the fact that they compartmentalize knowledge into categories or forbidden or not...
What should be happening is them doing courses or a degree in history (including a course by Niall Ferguson), and in economics (including stuff by Summers), etc. As you learn the subject and its many open questions, you gain the tools and the background to come across, ask, and tackle these "dangerous" and "forbidden" questions. But they're not actually interested in the boring dull grind of learning a subject from the ground up.
No, instead, it's going to be a summer seminar on controversial issues.
I have no background in history or colonialism, and I will listen to Niall Ferguson talk about how it benefited the colonies, how he has been censored when he taught exactly that in his 30 years at Stanford and his dozen books, and nod along about how the lack of these vital and frank conversations has set the public back.
More than anything, anti-intellectual.
*terms and conditions apply
GriftoU.
Use a vpn mate
Tempting but I want to listen to podcast on my (i)phone so not sure how that works with a VPN. Apparently available worldwide soon, so reckon I’ll just wait.
Most of this thread seems to concern things only people who spend all day on social media care for. It's a bit like how vaccine information videos get mass disliked on youtube or on facebook pages get a barrage of nutjobs attacking the purpose of public health announcements because they are anti-vax conspiracy theorists. They think they're a silent majority but in reality they are a very loud and extremely obnoxious minority.
The UK's vaccination rate is remarkable given the internet is dominated by anti-vax propaganda.
The UK's vaccination rate is remarkable given the internet is dominated by anti-vax propaganda.
Kind of. Although you could make a very good case for the online culture war being a big factor in Trump getting elected and Brexit.
Immigration was the crux that overlapped those two in 2016 and that's something that pre-existed online discourse. Michael Howard who led the Tories to electoral defeat in 2005 was running a hostile to immigration campaign but he did it before social media. Maybe if he dulid he would have done better. Social media amplified those talking points but that debate was already happening.
Social media (particularly twitter due to the nature of it being a place where journalists spend all day on) has poisoned the well. Political tribalism is worse than ever before because the extremists are so confident in their ignorance, conspiracies and derangement. But it wasn't so bad in 2016 as it has exploded since.
Trump supporters are the very definition of a vocal minority. They never shut up, never log off and never had a majority of the public as seen by his losing the majority of the vote by millions both times.
My point about the culture wars as seen post-2016 is they concern matters which you have to have an unhealthy obsession and a lot of time behind a screen to get deep into. Some of these guys seem to think their curated online feeds = real life but it's far from the case. If you take the transgender issue for example. It is true only a tiny majority of the public are trans. That's something people who are vehemently against them say online. But if that is the case .... why do they never stop talking about transgender people in a negative targetted manner? They can't simultaneously say transgender issues are overblown by the media when they are the actual ones who never shut up about transgender issues.
boom roasted
Certainly not hilarious.
I don't get it?
He is such a miserable weirdo.
Woke jokes not being funny.
I get it, the joke is that bartenders are so woke they won't even encourage people to drink anymore.
I think it’s funny.
This is Cleese's target audience:
I don't get it.
Looking at his other posts he still hates the tories so it appears he's just become the cynical old bastard he used to take the piss out of rather than a right winger
Looking at his other posts he still hates the tories so it appears he's just become the cynical old bastard he used to take the piss out of rather than a right winger
He supported brexit, lives in a tax haven and he thinks London isn't an English city anymore cause of all the immigrants.
I think he's pretty right wing.
Doesnt the more multicultural a city becomes make it seem more foreign though? Logically? Especially to elders.
20 years old Cleese would mock 80 years old Cleese. What a bitter old man he's become.