Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Hawki]

Dudebros and Christians are told they should hate LBGT. That is true. Should we leave them in an echo chamber? Or maybe we should encourage something better?

Everyone's in an echo chamber to some extent. But beyond that, I don't see that as a "real" question. As in, I can encourage Dudebros or hardcore Christians to be 'better,' but there's nothing I could say to make them do so, and it's frankly a waste of time to try. I don't go onto Geeks & Gamers to tell him his takes are terrible, I don't go into Evangelical churches to say "hey, maybe homosexuality isn't a sin," because I'm just one person, and nothing I could say could convince these people otherwise. Besides, LGBT marriage was solidified by plebicite here, so any such people whining about it are in a distinct minority.

Point is, if someone's that far gone, it's a waste of time to convince them otherwise, and if you could convince them otherwise, I'm not the person to do it. Homophobia isn't based on reason anyway, it's prejudice, all the reason in the world isn't going to convince a wanker.

(Also, since I'm apparently now obliged to do this, "not all Christians," "not all Dudebros," etc.)

 

[Trunkage]

Everyone's in an echo chamber to some extent. But beyond that, I don't see that as a "real" question. As in, I can encourage Dudebros or hardcore Christians to be 'better,' but there's nothing I could say to make them do so, and it's frankly a waste of time to try. I don't go onto Geeks & Gamers to tell him his takes are terrible, I don't go into Evangelical churches to say "hey, maybe homosexuality isn't a sin," because I'm just one person, and nothing I could say could convince these people otherwise. Besides, LGBT marriage was solidified by plebicite here, so any such people whining about it are in a distinct minority.

Point is, if someone's that far gone, it's a waste of time to convince them otherwise, and if you could convince them otherwise, I'm not the person to do it. Homophobia isn't based on reason anyway, it's prejudice, all the reason in the world isn't going to convince a wanker.

(Also, since I'm apparently now obliged to do this, "not all Christians," "not all Dudebros," etc.)

If homophobia is not based on reason, why would we do any accommodating for said behaviour? Eg. removing homosexuality from a 'dudebro' movie

 

[Hawki]

If homophobia is not based on reason, why would we do any accommodating for said behaviour? Eg. removing homosexuality from a 'dudebro' movie

Um, we don't accomodate it? I'm not sure what argument you're responding to, but it isn't mine. Unless you're conflating accomodating behaviour with trying to reason against such behaviour. E.g. if a dudebro starts harassing a gay couple, I'd certainly step in to intervene (providing the circumstances allowed for it), but it would be a waste of time to use a rational argument against an irrational position (and I've had my share of irrationality for tonight, thanks).

As for removing homosexuality from a dudebro movie...come on, that's way beyond any of our capabilities. Movie studios cut/add stuff all the time. Sad fact of the matter is that the "gay agenda" in Lightyear (a same-sex couple that appears for less than a minute) probably cost the film money (regardless of its other flaws), and while that's a sad inditement on society as a whole, fact of the matter is that movie studios are in it to make money. Hence why you're going to get far more opposite sex romances than same-sex ones, hence why I can understand why Disney might be reluctant to have same-sex relationships in their films (Lightyear, Strange World, etc.) because of the backlash from SQWs.

Is that morally right? God no. Is the caution financially sound? Regrettably, yes. And trying to reason with people who rail against this stuff for a living (Geeks and Gamers, the Quarter Pounder, etc.) isn't going to work, because their positions aren't based on reason, they're based on rage-bait and/or prejudice.

 

[McElroy]

snip

Thanks for the added news. My mind was back in 2016. Remedy is a publicly traded company still. For the other parts I won't engage further as I've shared enough on the matter.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Institutions being allowed to make decisions about what to do with their own venues? You believe they shouldn't be allowed to?

No.

Because they're offering a service so that service short of good reason not to offer it shouldn't be denied otherwise again Bakers can refuse LGBT wedding cakes on religious grounds too.

That's not simple at all. From my perspective, something from Julie Bindel is less likely to have any value to academia or anything else than a random book written by a nobody. She writes shit-slinging bollocks.

And? The society is requesting it and often responsible for using their funds to pay for it.

This approach would essentially transform universities into something they were never designed to be: event management companies for the publishing industry.

Many already are lol, at least in part.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Why is any responsible medical course wasting its and its students' time teaching them evolution?

Natural selection in immunology.
Anatomy and explanations behind aspects of it.
Specific mutation traits.
Literally the number of Wisdom teeth a person has.
I'm sure many more aspects too.

There is also one thing I can assure you about medical students: they're smart enough to answer what they need to, even if they don't believe in it.

and when they walk out the lecture so never get taught the material?

Well, no. You don't seem to quite understand how this works. I cannot be disciplined for my political beliefs, per se. I can be disciplined for doing inappropriate actions based on my political beliefs, like going on some ill-considered, political diatribe in a science lecture.

Ah but "Everything is political"

You mean student societies? I don't think they generally have that kind of money. And where they do, what you're essentially saying is that rich students and the societies that they back get to invite controversial speakers, and poor students don't. How fair and free does that sound to you?

Never heard of fundraising?

And who decides who's being a twat? The government? You?

A jury of their peers ultimately.

Even a perfectly peaceful demonstration has the possibility to shut every business in the area down. Demonstrations and protests are almost by their nature intended to cause inconvenience, much like labour strikes. After all, otherwise no-one would notice. The argument "Doing X is inconvenient to me / us / 'the public' therefore we're banning it" is the age-old excuse the government and police extremely wide-ranging powers so people with power can wall themselves off from criticism. The right to be politically active in a way that doesn't impinge on anyone else is a nothing more than a right to be powerless.

There's planned disruptions then there's just being a dick to regular people.

"We're going to invade a gaming competition and spray the place and equipment with paint while yelling about out cause" is not fucking protesting oil companies it's being a dick for attention.

It's like how Green Peace have declined and ended up damaging delicate areas just to make an attention grabbing display.

Some authoritarians are smart, and they've come up with all sorts of lines to squash views they don't like. One of the most potent is posturing as the real "liberals" - this generally means tilting at trivial or sophistical windmills whilst turning a blind eye to or supporting much more significant restrictions on freedom that benefit them. You can see these fucks in their global millions all over the far right.

I am, in fact, very tired and bored of crypto-authoritarians seeking to lecture people on liberalism.

I'm very sick on the people who claim to be "liberal" these days thinking only their freedom to do what they want counts and should over-ride other peoples right to not have to deal with their latest shit.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Yeah, this has nothing to do with dudebros. It was a marketing crew pretending that they knew what dudebros like. And they failed

Actually it is somewhat it just didn't attract that audience because most of them were watching Alyssa Milano topless on Charmed.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Someone is salty and crying right now.

Neat.

Yeh gotta have some tequila to wash away the taste of all your WHINE.

 

[Silvanus]

No.

Because they're offering a service so that service short of good reason not to offer it shouldn't be denied otherwise again Bakers can refuse LGBT wedding cakes on religious grounds too.

? But they're not offering a service. It's not part of the institution's business model, and it's not something they offer to the public. They make specific invitations to a tiny number of people in very specific situations, when they think it might be enriching for their own student body. That ain't a service.

And? The society is requesting it and often responsible for using their funds to pay for it.

So your bar is just what the society deems worth inviting? Then by the same token, they're fine uninviting them or just not booking them at all. You can't consider the society's judgement sacrosanct when they invite someone, but then just disregard their judgement when they want to uninvite or just not invite someone.

Many already are lol, at least in part.

Well no, they're not. Universities very occasionally offer their facilities for external events on a one-off basis. That's not a service industry, and contains no obligations.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Dudebros and Christians are told they should hate LBGT. That is true. Should we leave them in an echo chamber? Or maybe we should encourage something better?

so more gun fights and car chases in Rom coms?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

If homophobia is not based on reason, why would we do any accommodating for said behaviour? Eg. removing homosexuality from a 'dudebro' movie

Because generally we removed stuff from other demographically targeted films. There' a reason Bella's underwear in twilight is less revealing than Jacob going for a walk in his every day clothes lol

As for removing homosexuality from a dudebro movie...come on, that's way beyond any of our capabilities. Movie studios cut/add stuff all the time. Sad fact of the matter is that the "gay agenda" in Lightyear (a same-sex couple that appears for less than a minute) probably cost the film money (regardless of its other flaws), and while that's a sad inditement on society as a whole, fact of the matter is that movie studios are in it to make money. Hence why you're going to get far more opposite sex romances than same-sex ones, hence why I can understand why Disney might be reluctant to have same-sex relationships in their films (Lightyear, Strange World, etc.) because of the backlash from SQWs.

And you know Lightyear not being a dudebro film really. Also not the star command CGI film people wanted.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

? But they're not offering a service. It's not part of the institution's business model, and it's not something they offer to the public. They make specific invitations to a tiny number of people in very specific situations, when they think it might be enriching for their own student body. That ain't a service.

Many universities do allow people to rend some of their facilities for things. It's a good source of income when the students aren't there.

So your bar is just what the society deems worth inviting? Then by the same token, they're fine uninviting them or just not booking them at all. You can't consider the society's judgement sacrosanct when they invite someone, but then just disregard their judgement when they want to uninvite or just not invite someone.

Except it's one group who have invited them, another who want them gone. If you want to appease everyone you'll never have anyone speaking.

Well no, they're not. Universities very occasionally offer their facilities for external events on a one-off basis. That's not a service industry, and contains no obligations.

It's really not that rare.

 

[Trunkage]

so more gun fights and car chases in Rom coms?

I mean, Rom Coms are pretty much dead because we stopped telling women that this was their movies

We found out that women weren't actually that interested. They were just brought up that way

Edit: I wouldn't care if more guns and car chases were in Rom Coms.

You keep going on about demographics when it's far more important to make a good movie

 

[Silvanus]

Many universities do allow people to rend some of their facilities for things. It's a good source of income when the students aren't there.

Yes, but this isn't anything to do with a facility that's just normally available for public booking. Event management is not a service the university offers. It's a specific invitation that's extended in specific, occasional circumstances, purely determined by the uni.

Except it's one group who have invited them, another who want them gone. If you want to appease everyone you'll never have anyone speaking.

It's the university itself that made the decisions. They chose to invite. They then chose to rescind.

It's really not that rare.

It happens... what, a couple of times a term at the very most? Purely on a case-by-case basis, not publicly available, and in facilities that have an entirely different primary purpose.

Yeah, that's incomparable to a service industry. You're treating them like an event management company. They're simply not.

 

[Hawki]

And you know Lightyear not being a dudebro film really. Also not the star command CGI film people wanted.

To be clear, Lightyear definitely isn't a dudebro movie. And as for not being the CGI film people wanted...yeah, probably true in a lot of ways. I do know that isn't the core reason for its failure (I actually liked Lightyear, gave it a 7/10), but it does mean that the Toy Story universe is pretty weird (Lightyear was released, then Buzz Lightyear of Star Command was released, which got toys, but the original film within the TS universe apparently never did?)

 

[BrawlMan]

Remedy is a publicly traded company still.

No shit. They don't have to put up with Microsoft's dumb bullshit, and whoever is charge in the execs and shareholders don't have their heads up their own ass (yet). I can live with Remedy being publicly traded or privately owned, so long as the people their are treated right and consumers are being dicked over either.

 

[Chimpzy]

 

[Ag3ma]

Natural selection in immunology.
Anatomy and explanations behind aspects of it.
Specific mutation traits.
Literally the number of Wisdom teeth a person has.
I'm sure many more aspects too.

There is no need to teach medical students evolution. I should know this better than most, because my job is teaching medical students. It might be worth incidentally refering to it at times, though.

and when they walk out the lecture so never get taught the material?

I think you hopelessly misunderstand the mindset of the average medical student.

Ah but "Everything is political"

Not a meaningful argument

Never heard of fundraising?

Not a meaningful argument

A jury of their peers ultimately.

Missing the point.

There's planned disruptions then there's just being a dick to regular people.

Ah, "regular people" - as if protestors aren't also "regular people".

I find this sort of rhetoric interesting, because that sort of othering of non-approved views is the rhetoric of discrimination and authoritarianism. One could see this for instance in the US further right - constant appeals to "real Americans", with the obvious implication that Californians and New Englanders aren't real Americans. And if they're not real Americans, why are they even citizens with the right to vote? Arguably it's an element in left-wing thinking, related to "dictatorship of the proletariat" and all that, because when you think about it, the bourgeosie don't really count.

It's amazing what authoritarians can get away with through nebulous appeals to "regular people" being on their side.

I'm very sick on the people who claim to be "liberal" these days thinking only their freedom to do what they want counts and should over-ride other peoples right to not have to deal with their latest shit.

Well, actually, that kind of is liberalism, in a way. Liberalism is about accepting other people are different and tolerating that. Tolerating people's right to speech, to assemble, protest, and advance their ideas, etc. The line obviously gets drawn at the point it starts severely impeding other people's lives, directly inflicting physical harm, etc.

So far, you're not really sounding like you believe in freedom.

 

[Hawki]

https://www.news.com.au/entertainme...s/news-story/d926f1a6535c5c22e2571f20cb9eab70

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You asked when he was wrong. I gave an example. Why did you even ask if you were just going to moan about me providing an answer?

You get in this like mid-conversation from another user. This is where it all started with Agema saying Marty is an unreliable source, which is an asinine statement to make because he was more right than most of the experts like Fauci. My point was never that Marty was never wrong but that he wasn't more wrong than anyone else.

Marty Makary is not a reliable source and patently never was: where he was right, it was pretty much more luck than insight.

Just once again mentioning I live in one of those "show me literally one place lockdowns worked" places.

With I'm sure no proof that lockdowns provided more benefits than harms.

---

The South Park Panderverse is gonna be fucking hilarious, they do want everyone is thinking but doesn't want to say.