Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Dwarvenhobble]

No, but you do get to protest. And if this protest gains followers and the school board decides to turn the speaker away as a result, then I don't really understand your issue with this. The speaker is there for the students and if the students vehemently object then that is that.

Depends on if it was a group who got approval to invite the speaker and how much an institute of learning values the idea of views that don't conform to what are seen as acceptable mainstream views.

Now I'd like to think an institute of learning would want students exposed to new ideas to help them with critical thinking (which actually has a meaning and is about self examination of your own ideas and beliefs and the evidence for them and if they hold up). Considering how the advancement of knowledge has in the past been held back by the orthodoxy banning questioning or investigating I'd have though learning institutions would be very much keen on new ideas.

As an example if we we're using the idea of objections to things based on orthodoxy (in this case not the church but the actual field) I'd never have had a guest lecturer telling us about his loop polymer research which many others in the field believe is some hoax or screw up in his data and his work is impossible. But he got to lecture us and brought his results to prove it. Results many others in the field just refused to look at.

By the metric through which "cancel culture" gets applied, which is typically 'when I say so', yes. "Cancel culture" is a meaningless term.

Honestly don't think it's ever been used that way before.

 

[Trunkage]

In term of how?

Who knows maybe it's one of those offices with a bring your kids to work day thing or some work family BBQ events or other such stuff like that?

Maybe. I dont know. I don't have that info. It makes it hard to make judgement call when I dont have enough info.

Like, with Harvey Weinstien, he had people set up situation. Larry Nassar set up situation where he was alone with kids. Same with George Pell, Michael Jackson and Bill Crosby. You don't just randomly believe accusation, some sort of proof is needed. Usually accusation come with some details

I'll note that Ben might not be willing to discuss this yet. It might be too traumatic to discuss. Or doesnt want to traumatise his kids furtner. Or he might be protecting someone, even the person doing the sexual harrasment. Or Polygon might have some fucked up rules in a contract that stop him from talking. Or maybe those tweets forced Polygon's hand and now they are investigating.

We might not find out for 5, 10 or even 20 years. The sexual stuff that Bill Clinton did to Monica Lewinsky happened before he was elected. There were even rumours about during the primaries. Nothing definitive happened until there was a commission into land purchases in Philly (if I remember correctly... and of all things) lead to what he did to women as governor. It was a decade later. That's just how this works. If it happened to Ben's kids, it won't be fair and they probably won't get proper justice. That's not how the system works

 

[Gordon_4]

Or Polygon might have some fucked up rules in a contract that stop him from talking.

Outside of maybe places like Lockheed's skunkworks (and lawyers obviously), there's not a workplace agreement on Earth that can prevent you from talking to the police about criminal activity you have either observed or had visited upon you.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Most people treat others as just people like anyone else they interact with.

This is simply not true, and if you've managed to live the kind of utterly sheltered life experience required to believe it is true then you are out of touch with the basic reality of existence for much of the population, and you will not be capable of understanding those people unless that changes. Dave Chapelle hasn't always lived that kind of sheltered existence, he's had to be intimately aware at times that people don't always see or treat him as a person but as a black person, and he has been quite outspoken about the discrimination faced by black men. In fact, a big reason why he seems to focus so much of his attention on queer people is that he seems to believe that they are accorded a degree of sympathy or consideration not given to (cishet) black men like him.

If you believe that discrimination doesn't really exist and that everyone is treated the same, why do you even want to watch Dave Chapelle? He doesn't agree with you, and a significant proportion of his jokes openly reference the fact that he doesn't agree with you. Chapelle may be out of touch, but he's not that out of touch.

They don't have to have some genuine insight into the group or anything.

If you want to write jokes about that group which are actually funny, and not just based on the animalistic enjoyment of abusing people in a format which they cannot respond to, you do need to have some insight.

Since you're such a big defender of free speech, let me ask a question. Do you think there is anything actually wrong with minstrel shows? Is there any reason why white people shouldn't still be dressing up in blackface and acting out Jim Crow caricatures, even in 2022? If humor based on genuine understanding is impossible and thus optional, why expect white people to have a deeper understanding of black identity or experience than watermelons and fried chicken?

 

[tstorm823]

If you want to write jokes about that group which are actually funny, and not just based on the animalistic enjoyment of abusing people in a format which they cannot respond to, you do need to have some insight.

Well, that describes basically every political joke to a tee.

Edit: for clarity, this is not disagreement or deflection. I find the quoted sentence genuinely insightful.

 

[Gordon_4]

Well, that describes basically every political joke to a tee.

Only the ones the reader doesn’t like.

 

[tstorm823]

Only the ones the reader doesn’t like.

Disagree. There are exceptionally few political jokes that demonstrate any real insight into what they are attempting to mock.

 

[Gordon_4]

Disagree. There are exceptionally few political jokes that demonstrate any real insight into what they are attempting to mock.

And to me that just paints a poor picture of political satire in America.

 

[tstorm823]

And to me that just paints a poor picture of political satire in America.

The Colbert Report used to be great. Stephen Colbert on the Late Show is one of the worst things I've ever seen. I don't even know what happened there.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Maybe. I dont know. I don't have that info. It makes it hard to make judgement call when I dont have enough info.

Like, with Harvey Weinstien, he had people set up situation. Larry Nassar set up situation where he was alone with kids. Same with George Pell, Michael Jackson and Bill Crosby. You don't just randomly believe accusation, some sort of proof is needed. Usually accusation come with some details

I'll note that Ben might not be willing to discuss this yet. It might be too traumatic to discuss. Or doesnt want to traumatise his kids furtner. Or he might be protecting someone, even the person doing the sexual harrasment. Or Polygon might have some fucked up rules in a contract that stop him from talking. Or maybe those tweets forced Polygon's hand and now they are investigating.

We might not find out for 5, 10 or even 20 years. The sexual stuff that Bill Clinton did to Monica Lewinsky happened before he was elected. There were even rumours about during the primaries. Nothing definitive happened until there was a commission into land purchases in Philly (if I remember correctly... and of all things) lead to what he did to women as governor. It was a decade later. That's just how this works. If it happened to Ben's kids, it won't be fair and they probably won't get proper justice. That's not how the system works

I'll totally believe the claim Polygon didn't investigate it.
I can understand not believing the claim it happened but the idea of Polygon refusing to investigate? yeh that's one I'm fine to believe because big corpo gonna big corpo.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Of, so you just missed all the whining about how kids these days just can't take a joke from comics bombing at colleges. The onus always seems to be on others to either laugh or shut up, lest a comedian get his feelings hurt
Breast. Autocorrect did a thing, apparently

I skimmed the article, I just saw the author being salty and not much else. The word "college" for example isn't even in that link.

You don't get to have a procedure covered if it's not medically necessary. What's the problem? Does a small breasted woman get to get implants covered if she doesn't like the size of her breasts?

Context, my dude. If someone is talking about transgender people, specifically trans women, say they're team terf, and then brings up pregnancy to prove the hardline between men and women ("Everyone in this room came onto this Earth from between the legs of a woman.") then they are citing a difference, and saying trans women are lesser women, or not be viewed as women. No trans women ever said they could get pregnant, so why even bring it up unless you're trying for a gotcha.

By the way, Chappelle conveniently forgot C-sections exist for that bit.

No, but you do get to protest. And if this protest gains followers and the school board decides to turn the speaker away as a result, then I don't really understand your issue with this. The speaker is there for the students and if the students vehemently object then that is that.

Then that would be a really, really hard sell, and I doubt you'd find any real world examples of this actually happening.

By the metric through which "cancel culture" gets applied, which is typically 'when I say so', yes. "Cancel culture" is a meaningless term.

I don't know what that quote is supposed to do other than me agreeing with pretty much all of it.

Why would one care if they are viewed as a lesser woman because someone says they can't get pregnant? Are they being viewed as a lesser person? That is the only question that matters. It's a comedy show, not a medical presentation.

The problem is a vocal minority is always getting speakers cancelled. It's not because the speaker is not getting a big enough audience.

Be aren't you entitled to your college being a "safe place"? The term "safe space" is a dumbass term. Someone speaking is not making the college a dangerous place. The Netflix Chappelle protest was literally not a physical "safe space" but that's OK because they were protesting "transphobia".

Cancel culture means someone or some group is trying to get something cancelled before it gets naturally cancelled by society out of disinterest.

Dave Chappelle's special was not transphobic nor causing hate or violence. How can you agree with any of that bullshit?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

This is simply not true, and if you've managed to live the kind of utterly sheltered life experience required to believe it is true then you are out of touch with the basic reality of existence for much of the population, and you will not be capable of understanding those people unless that changes. Dave Chapelle hasn't always lived that kind of sheltered existence, he's had to be intimately aware at times that people don't always see or treat him as a person but as a black person, and he has been quite outspoken about the discrimination faced by black men. In fact, a big reason why he seems to focus so much of his attention on queer people is that he seems to believe that they are accorded a degree of sympathy or consideration not given to (cishet) black men like him.

If you believe that discrimination doesn't really exist and that everyone is treated the same, why do you even want to watch Dave Chapelle? He doesn't agree with you, and a significant proportion of his jokes openly reference the fact that he doesn't agree with you. Chapelle may be out of touch, but he's not that out of touch.



If you want to write jokes about that group which are actually funny, and not just based on the animalistic enjoyment of abusing people in a format which they cannot respond to, you do need to have some insight.

Since you're such a big defender of free speech, let me ask a question. Do you think there is anything actually wrong with minstrel shows? Is there any reason why white people shouldn't still be dressing up in blackface and acting out Jim Crow caricatures, even in 2022? If humor based on genuine understanding is impossible and thus optional, why expect white people to have a deeper understanding of black identity or experience than watermelons and fried chicken?

I said most people, not all people. Do you think more than a majority of the population is prejudiced? I very very very very much doubt that. Sure, everyone has some biases in meeting new people but as long as you give that person a genuine chance even if you may go in with some negativity, then that's all that's needed. Not having some preconceived notions about someone when you first meet them is rather impossible whether it is something like race or just they way they walk or gave you a handshake (or whatever), that is literally how the human brain works and you can't stop it from happening. Most people just treat people as people. Even a couple of my friends that are hardcore right-wingers treat the people that that group stereotypically hates (from the media) as nice and with as much respect as they do anyone else.

There is no reason minstrel shows can't exist. The thing is society has deemed that as bad so there is not an audience for it, that's how cancelling things naturally happens. Dave Chappelle is not that and arguably the most popular comedian currently.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I skimmed the article...

Explains a lot

You don't get to have a procedure covered if it's not medically necessary. What's the problem?

The part where states like Florida claim that zero gender affirming care is medically necessary. Whereas breast reductions or the like generally are.

There is no reason minstrel shows can't exist. The thing is society has deemed that as bad so there is not an audience for it, that's how cancelling things naturally happens. Dave Chappelle is not that and arguably the most popular comedian currently.

Lmao, "if minstrel shows were popular, they'd be fine", fucking hell. Lost cause.

Dave Chappelle's special was not transphobic nor causing hate or violence. How can you agree with any of that bullshit?

How the fuck would you know, given the above?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

How the fuck would you know, given the above?

Well he skimmed it once.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Do you think more than a majority of the population is prejudiced?

Yes. I think everyone is prejudiced. We all judge people based on our perceptions of the groups to which they belong to a greater or lesser degree, because the social world we live in is so complex that our understanding of the political relations between those groups can only be expressed through stereotypical forms. The only difference is that some people are willing to put a greater degree of effort into understanding and not acting on prejudices.

Most prejudices are not hateful. Most people do not self-consciously hate trans people or want trans people to suffer, but most cis people, even people who want to be tolerant and trans inclusive, find trans people a bit weird and aren't entirely comfortable around them. Most cis people, deep down, don't really believe that trans women are "really" women or that trans men are "really" men, they accept the need to accommodate trans people's identities but only as a special gesture of tolerance to show how incredibly non-prejudiced they are. In short, the way most people relate to trans people has far more to do with their own needs and how they want to position themselves than it does to any real empathy with or understanding of trans people. That is prejudice.

Somewhere, deep in Chapelle's argument about the way queer people are treated relative to black men, is a grain of truth. Most white people do feel and exhibit more empathy for white queer people than they do for black people. Many white people are more upset by expressions of homophobia than they are by black people being murdered. White queer people do get to claim the status of marginalization while also claiming the legitimacy and value afforded by whiteness. What Chapelle doesn't see is that this also works in reverse. Straight men seem to feel and exhibit more empathy for black men (especially successful, "respectable" black men like Dave Chapelle) than they do for queer and trans people. Many straight men are far more upset by the idea of successful black man Dave Chappelle being "cancelled" than they are by the levels of violence routinely directed against trans women, especially black trans women, a category Chappelle seems to have remarkable difficulty acknowledging the existence of at all..

Not being prejudiced is not a matter of simply not being overtly hateful, it requires a constant effort to see and look past the ways in which you are prejudiced.

Most people just treat people as people.

Most people's perception of the qualities and worth of different people is filtered through prejudices and stereotypes. "Treating people as people" doesn't really mean anything, it doesn't mean treating them the same, it doesn't mean according them with any kind of intrinsic dignity. People can be incredibly horrible and unfair to people, and they tend to be so in decidedly non-random ways.

The thing is society has deemed that as bad so there is not an audience for it.

How exactly do you think that happened?

 

[Trunkage]

How the fuck would you know, given the above?

Because that's what Phoenixings decreed and now everyone else has to follow

 

[tstorm823]

Yes. I think everyone is prejudiced. We all judge people based on our perceptions of the groups to which they belong to a greater or lesser degree, because the social world we live in is so complex that our understanding of the political relations between those groups can only be expressed through stereotypical forms. The only difference is that some people are willing to put a greater degree of effort into understanding and not acting on prejudices.

Most prejudices are not hateful. Most people do not self-consciously hate trans people or want trans people to suffer, but most cis people, even people who want to be tolerant and trans inclusive, find trans people a bit weird and aren't entirely comfortable around them. Most cis people, deep down, don't really believe that trans women are "really" women or that trans men are "really" men, they accept the need to accommodate trans people's identities but only as a special gesture of tolerance to show how incredibly non-prejudiced they are. In short, the way most people relate to trans people has far more to do with their own needs and how they want to position themselves than it does to any real empathy with or understanding of trans people. That is prejudice.

Somewhere, deep in Chapelle's argument about the way queer people are treated relative to black men, is a grain of truth. Most white people do feel and exhibit more empathy for white queer people than they do for black people. Many white people are more upset by expressions of homophobia than they are by black people being murdered. White queer people do get to claim the status of marginalization while also claiming the legitimacy and value afforded by whiteness. What Chapelle doesn't see is that this also works in reverse. Straight men seem to feel and exhibit more empathy for black men (especially successful, "respectable" black men like Dave Chapelle) than they do for queer and trans people. Many straight men are far more upset by the idea of successful black man Dave Chappelle being "cancelled" than they are by the levels of violence routinely directed against trans women, especially black trans women, a category Chappelle seems to have remarkable difficulty acknowledging the existence of at all..

Not being prejudiced is not a matter of simply not being overtly hateful, it requires a constant effort to see and look past the ways in which you are prejudiced.



Most people's perception of the qualities and worth of different people is filtered through prejudices and stereotypes. "Treating people as people" doesn't really mean anything, it doesn't mean treating them the same, it doesn't mean according them with any kind of intrinsic dignity. People can be incredibly horrible and unfair to people, and they tend to be so in decidedly non-random ways.



How exactly do you think that happened?

@Phoenixmgs The escapist did that thing where the wrong quote header got carried over. See Terminal's post above, the quotes are actually you.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Explains a lot

The part where states like Florida claim that zero gender affirming care is medically necessary. Whereas breast reductions or the like generally are.

Lmao, "if minstrel shows were popular, they'd be fine", fucking hell. Lost cause.

How the fuck would you know, given the above?

I searched for "college", "school", "university" and found none of those words. If the article talked about what you said, it was like one line drowned in an ocean of whining.

Breast reductions are allowed when they are medically necessary. The fact that someone doesn't like that they have breasts and only want reduction surgery because of that is clearly then for cosmetic purposes. Are breast implants covered by medical insurance? What's the difference between someone having breasts they feel are too small and wanting bigger breasts and someone having breasts too big and them wanting smaller breasts? You wouldn't cover the 1st instance, why would you cover the 2nd instance?

I didn't say they'd be "fine". I said there's no reason they can't exist because of freedom of speech.

He didn't say anything that is transphobic. Just because he doesn't see eye-to-eye on every fucking trans talking point doesn't mean he or anyone else is transphobic as that's become the definition of that word when that's not the definition of that word.

Yes. I think everyone is prejudiced. We all judge people based on our perceptions of the groups to which they belong to a greater or lesser degree, because the social world we live in is so complex that our understanding of the political relations between those groups can only be expressed through stereotypical forms. The only difference is that some people are willing to put a greater degree of effort into understanding and not acting on prejudices.

Most prejudices are not hateful. Most people do not self-consciously hate trans people or want trans people to suffer, but most cis people, even people who want to be tolerant and trans inclusive, find trans people a bit weird and aren't entirely comfortable around them. Most cis people, deep down, don't really believe that trans women are "really" women or that trans men are "really" men, they accept the need to accommodate trans people's identities but only as a special gesture of tolerance to show how incredibly non-prejudiced they are. In short, the way most people relate to trans people has far more to do with their own needs and how they want to position themselves than it does to any real empathy with or understanding of trans people. That is prejudice.

Somewhere, deep in Chapelle's argument about the way queer people are treated relative to black men, is a grain of truth. Most white people do feel and exhibit more empathy for white queer people than they do for black people. Many white people are more upset by expressions of homophobia than they are by black people being murdered. White queer people do get to claim the status of marginalization while also claiming the legitimacy and value afforded by whiteness. What Chapelle doesn't see is that this also works in reverse. Straight men seem to feel and exhibit more empathy for black men (especially successful, "respectable" black men like Dave Chapelle) than they do for queer and trans people. Many straight men are far more upset by the idea of successful black man Dave Chappelle being "cancelled" than they are by the levels of violence routinely directed against trans women, especially black trans women, a category Chappelle seems to have remarkable difficulty acknowledging the existence of at all..

Not being prejudiced is not a matter of simply not being overtly hateful, it requires a constant effort to see and look past the ways in which you are prejudiced.



Most people's perception of the qualities and worth of different people is filtered through prejudices and stereotypes. "Treating people as people" doesn't really mean anything, it doesn't mean treating them the same, it doesn't mean according them with any kind of intrinsic dignity. People can be incredibly horrible and unfair to people, and they tend to be so in decidedly non-random ways.



How exactly do you think that happened?

I said basically what you just said in my post yet you skipped completely over that.

Sure, everyone has some biases in meeting new people but as long as you give that person a genuine chance even if you may go in with some negativity, then that's all that's needed. Not having some preconceived notions about someone when you first meet them is rather impossible whether it is something like race or just they way they walk or gave you a handshake (or whatever), that is literally how the human brain works and you can't stop it from happening.

---

Yes, people can be horrible. However, on first meeting, most people will gave any person proper respect and dignity until that person reveals themselves to be an asshole, then you basically treat that person as they treat you.

Because a vast majority of people didn't find those shows entertaining anymore. Dave Chappelle's shows are nowhere near close to that.

Because that's what Phoenixings decreed and now everyone else has to follow

Do you have any proof Dave Chappelle is transphobic? Words like that just get thrown around today when they have serious meaning. Just because someone makes a sexist joke doesn't mean they are actually sexist you know.

@Phoenixmgs The escapist did that thing where the wrong quote header got carried over. See Terminal's post above, the quotes are actually you.

It seems right on my end now.

 

[Agema]

Breast reductions are allowed when they are medically necessary. The fact that someone doesn't like that they have breasts and only want reduction surgery because of that is clearly then for cosmetic purposes. Are breast implants covered by medical insurance? What's the difference between someone having breasts they feel are too small and wanting bigger breasts and someone having breasts too big and them wanting smaller breasts? You wouldn't cover the 1st instance, why would you cover the 2nd instance?

Mental health considerations should be able to justify an alteration in breast size either way, where psychological treatment alone is insufficient.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Mental health considerations should be able to justify an alteration in breast size either way, where psychological treatment alone is insufficient.

And they do, if you're cis. Phoenix is ignoring, shocker, that conservatives don't consider *any* form of gender affirming surgery, medication, or therapy as medically necessary if you're trans. As proved by Florida banning all of those things from public funding.