Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[CriticalGaming]

The whole point of a king is that you don't vote for them

That's right. I'm an idiot as blessed by god!

 

[Buyetyen]

The whole point of a king is that you don't vote for them

That's the joke. Did my intent get lost in translation?

 

[Trunkage]

That's the joke. Did my intent get lost in translation?

Yeah. That one did

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

That's the joke. Did my intent get lost in translation?

It's not easy being Dennis, apparently.

 

[Agema]

The whole point of a king is that you don't vote for them

Although I know what you mean, this is not entirely true: there have been some elected kings.

 

[Hawki]

All you people talking about kings when you should be living in an anarcho-syndicalist collectives.

 

[Silvanus]

I've pondered this idea for a while in that the LBGT-activists have actually been doing more harm than good to their cause. Maybe they are aware of it, and are getting off on the attention they garner from these extreme viewpoints, or maybe it's a power trip being able to dictate who is part of the club or not. I don't really know because i don't have any dogs in the fight. This sort of ties together with other threads but because this is such a board video I thought it best to post it here.

Why is it that the LBGT community is so quick to tear apart people in their own club? Dave Chapelle's friend Daphne got dragged over the coals for their views despite being trans themselves. Sophia showcases in this video how the community digs at her because she isn't 100% on the side of every thing the activists push for?

The question has to be made, how can a community expect inclusion and acceptance, when they don't even support their own? If they can't accept and include the various views of people who fall into their own catagory, then how can they expect such things from the rest of the world? Which I suppose is fair that no group really does this. Everyone talks shit about their own group to some degree so maybe it's not a perfect one-to-one.

The answer is obvious: the ones that harass and abuse people are a tiny minority of LGBTQ people. Such people exist in every community group, every subculture, that exists.

We expect inclusion and acceptance because we're literally just people like you. So the group is going to include all kinds of people, including some assholes, just like they're included in "the rest".

 

[Trunkage]

All you people talking about kings when you should be living in an anarcho-syndicalist collectives.

 

[Gordon_4]

I want to make the Holy Grail joke about peasants and violence inherent in the system but I think everyone has half made them

 

[Mister Mumbler]

I want to make the Holy Grail joke about peasants and violence inherent in the system but I think everyone has half made them

That's because everyone expects the Holy Grail, but nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

No, he didn't. That's just the kind of overblown line people come out with about major artistic figures.

Well that was from a professor of the arts that line came from originally lol

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I figured as much, and as I stated, I'm not surprised. Try saying the same thing about people of color; 'I don't mind black people, but having them in movies is just not to my taste.' Now, if that sentence doesn't make your fucking skin crawl... I mean, I wish I could be even more surprised, but I wouldn't be really.

How about I play the media representation stereotype game and apply it to that.

I don't listen to rap music / R & B it's not something I enjoy.
I didn't want to see Blank Panther because honestly the whole African Tribal culture thing felt stereotyping to me.
I've not seen any of the sort of "In the Hood" esc films

So am I obliged to see all the stereotyping "Blood runs in da hood" type of film and listen to rap / R & B or I'm racist?

I've seen plenty of things with actors in who are gay and it didn't bother me.

I kind of find it hilarious how you're presenting the idea that media for certain demographics and people refusing to watch something makes them somehow a bigot.

Are you a bigot for refusing to watch tons of Subtitles Japanese or Korean films?
How about Sci-Fi from Italy? if you've not watched one does that make you a bigot?

 

[Casual Shinji]

How about I play the media representation stereotype game and apply it to that.

I don't listen to rap music / R & B it's not something I enjoy.
I didn't want to see Blank Panther because honestly the whole African Tribal culture thing felt stereotyping to me.
I've not seen any of the sort of "In the Hood" esc films

So am I obliged to see all the stereotyping "Blood runs in da hood" type of film and listen to rap / R & B or I'm racist?

I've seen plenty of things with actors in who are gay and it didn't bother me.

I kind of find it hilarious how you're presenting the idea that media for certain demographics and people refusing to watch something makes them somehow a bigot.

Are you a bigot for refusing to watch tons of Subtitles Japanese or Korean films?
How about Sci-Fi from Italy? if you've not watched one does that make you a bigot?

Except I didn't. I said that if you find a character being black or gay in a movie "not to your taste" then that's very questionable to say the least. If you take 'Oh, so if I don't like rap you're calling me a racist' from this statement that means you're in stupid mode (unsurprisingly).

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Except I didn't. I said that if you find a character being black or gay in a movie "not to your taste" then that's very questionable to say the least. If you take 'Oh, so if I don't like rap you're calling me a racist' from this statement that means you're in stupid mode (unsurprisingly).

1) Considering this is the woke world thread I think stupid mode is rather releative.
2) You chose to take the gay representation thing as "If any character is ever shown to lean LGBTQ you won't watch it". Despite the fact I rather specifically outlined things. But hey people not reading or taking the time to comprehend things to try and find a way to cast aspersions against some-one in the name of proclaiming and showing themselves as most "progressive" why I am unsurprised

 

[Casual Shinji]

1) Considering this is the woke world thread I think stupid mode is rather releative.
2) You chose to take the gay representation thing as "If any character is ever shown to lean LGBTQ you won't watch it". Despite the fact I rather specifically outlined things. But hey people not reading or taking the time to comprehend things to try and find a way to cast aspersions against some-one in the name of proclaiming and showing themselves as most "progressive" why I am unsurprised

Specifically outlining things was your choice. Nothing I previously said on the matter needed to be outlined as the point was clear. You're the one who decided to tie gay inclussion to the (negative) personal enjoyment of others. Which you then followed up on by comparing it to ice cream flavors to "outline" how it's normal for some people to not enjoy gay or lesbian characters in their media. Don't hide behind Black Panther and subtitles please.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Specifically outlining things was your choice. Nothing I previously said on the matter needed to be outlined as the point was clear. You're the one who decided to tie gay inclussion to the (negative) personal enjoyment of others. Which you then followed up on by comparing it to ice cream flavors to "outline" how it's normal for some people to not enjoy gay or lesbian characters in their media. Don't hide behind Black Panther and subtitles please.

Ok so where is the line here exactly?

If I don't want to partake in gay sex am I a homophobe then?

Are people not allowed to be into and not be into various things.

Sorry but gay characters just don't do anything for some people. Are they obliged to force themselves to pretend to enjoy said media now or you plan o yell that they're homophobes for just not being into it?

There's been plenty of gay people pretty heavily coming down on "Straight culture" etc etc and yelling that they need inclusion to see themselves represented in media because they couldn't engage with stories with straight characters. Well if that's the reason being given for inclusion then why can't other people basically go "Not my jam, those who want to knock yourselves out with it though?"

 

[Casual Shinji]

Ok so where is the line here exactly?

If I don't want to partake in gay sex am I a homophobe then?

No, then you're straight, or asexual, or just not in the mood for sex. Classic strawman though.

Are people not allowed to be into and not be into various things.

Sorry but gay characters just don't do anything for some people. Are they obliged to force themselves to pretend to enjoy said media now or you plan o yell that they're homophobes for just not being into it?

See, that wasn't so hard to just come out and say, now was it? No need to bring in rap music and Korean films.

And they're allowed to not be into gay characters for the simple fact that they are gay - There's no law against that. But they are homophobic, clear and simple.

There's been plenty of gay people pretty heavily coming down on "Straight culture" etc etc and yelling that they need inclusion to see themselves represented in media because they couldn't engage with stories with straight characters. Well if that's the reason being given for inclusion then why can't other people basically go "Not my jam, those who want to knock yourselves out with it though?"

Gee, I was wondering when this dumb excuse would come along. If this was at all in good faith I'd bother explaining why this argument is fucking stupid, but it's not so I won't. Proceed to claim I am therefore unable to refute your argument or something.

 

[Trunkage]

Ok so where is the line here exactly?

If I don't want to partake in gay sex am I a homophobe then?

Are people not allowed to be into and not be into various things.

Sorry but gay characters just don't do anything for some people. Are they obliged to force themselves to pretend to enjoy said media now or you plan o yell that they're homophobes for just not being into it?

There's been plenty of gay people pretty heavily coming down on "Straight culture" etc etc and yelling that they need inclusion to see themselves represented in media because they couldn't engage with stories with straight characters. Well if that's the reason being given for inclusion then why can't other people basically go "Not my jam, those who want to knock yourselves out with it though?"

Is there a specific thing or words you need to abate your concerns about homosexuality? Is there something you want them to do?

You've pretty much answered your own question in two paragraphs but still triggered by homosexuality. Somehow

 

[Phoenixmgs]

So you didn't actually watch it. Jesus...



lol, no you're not

I watched it the week it aired sometime, which was like a month ago, I wasn't going to rewatch it to prove some point that didn't matter anyway.

Explain to me how I'm not a deontologist...

Not by name, but some potentially do by description.

Some bills are relatively innocuous, that no teaching should "compel" a student to blah blah blah, which clearly leaves the teaching of such things open just so long as (for instance) no student is unduly expected to voice their opinions. Well, okay. Some go further, and effectively say that no teaching materials should "direct" a student to offer a personal view. So for instance, for an essay assignment on race relations, where it might be normal to invite students to offer a personal assessment according to their judgement, in this case it could be illegal to do so. This strikes me as a restriction. Clauses in other bills are potentially quite problematic for teaching CRT. I suspect some could effectively outlaw it, or at minimum threaten expensive and difficult legal proceedings against educational establishments which could have a "chilling" effect that would dissuade some from even risking it. A concern is that some bills also seem to be very broad in terms of educational establishment and could include universities, where we should expect a higher standard of free discussion.

The main argument that these bills don't ban CRT is that they don't actually target CRT effectively at all, because very few if any of the clauses accurately describe CRT: they describe the weird boogeyman bogus CRT that many conservatives have assumed in lieu of the reality. In that sense, they attack a load of straw men that don't really matter to CRT, except for some points where they are sufficiently vague that they create restrictions and awkwardness for forms of intellectual enquiry rather wider than CRT.

Show me a bill that say bans a teacher teaching about red-lining. The bills aren't trying to target CRT, they are targeting something conservatives feel CRT could lead to being taught. It's like when the news media made fun of republicans banning vaccine mandates when they didn't exist, and then what happen to start to exist...?

Hey Phoenexings. All these anti-trans laws. You've 'read' them right? Do any of them actually use the word trans? Do they even particularly target trans? Or do they just talk about birth certificates?

Black Codes, like after reconstruction. They had laws targeted black people, right? Did they even use the various words and slurs for African Americans? It's the name, black codes. surely they where targeting black people right? You can add the Padame meme there... because all those racist laws never actually even specifically targeted blacks people... because that would have been illegal under the constitution. But, using the non-racist language in the law, the police (or Justice of the Peace in those times) could target African Americans

Yeah, you can target people without actually using racist words in laws. You can ban trans people by banning changes in birth certificates. You never even have to address them You can ban abortions by saying you will allow abortion up to 6 weeks. Just pick a time after most women find out they are pregnant. You can target CRT by banning a bunch of stuff, like books that you have earmarked as CRT. Now, in some ways you are right. They arent targeting CRT. They are just targeting the made up strawman of CRT that isnt actually related to CRT. It's like when they tried banning communism a bunch of times. They just never really bothered finding out what communism meant and the banning are thus not matched

Did you know, those amendments after the civil war that were meant to ban slavery. Well, they left a loophole and there was a ton of slavery right up until FDR who changed the law so he wouldn't look racist like the Japanese. It's almost like there is a narrative that goes with laws that falsifies what they are doing

Again, OMG, I'll ask you the same thing as I did Agema, show me a bill that bans anything that's CRT related like say red-lining. Show me a bill that bans anything you'd consider important to race issues or just American history in general. The bills basically just say all races are equal. What boogeyman has gotten to you?

I know you can target people of a race without using racism like photo ID requirements for voting or even vax mandates as both disproportionately target minorities because they have lower percentages of photo IDs and vaccines. Explain to me how any of these CRT bills is doing anything like that at all. Do you know what else GREATLY punished minorities, covid school closures, which were obviously just public schools while rich people still sent their kids to school. Where's your outrage over something that greatly impacted minorities? Yet you're going to get outraged over something that does nothing?

Does any teacher talk about sex in grade 3 and under? Does not matter if it's hetero or homosexual. Show me where this happens

They may do child protection but even that does not include discussion of sex

Then why do you care about the law at all?

 

[Agema]

Show me a bill that say bans a teacher teaching about red-lining.

Why on earth would I waste my time tackling this irrelevance?