Link

MattHunX wrote:Well, my apologies for grossly overestimating the general intelligence of people, then.
[...]
To be offensively frank, it's pathetic that it even needs to be explained. People who need that explanation weren't even paying enough attention to any discussion on the matter, in the past few years, or they're too new to it all, if they still misinterpret a simple shorthand.

Now you see why my "semantic" aside was relevant. You don't get to casually use a phrase without putting it in its context (in your own mind at least). That's both not how language works, and would undermine your own stance regarding people-not-putting-things-into-context. Your point above about "people who need that explanation" is almost schizophrenic. No one expects people to deliver "feminazi" with an explanation of what they specifically mean by it. What a reasonable reader expects is that the words you use mean what you think they mean, in general conversation. In general conversation, the term "feminazi" is not so obviously divorced from its intended original meaning as to not necessarily imply fascistic tendencies. I doubt that'll ever happen naturally. It's up to you to keep up with the broad context, if you expect others to do the same.

And insisting like you do in this quote, doesn't make it so. Take a word like "gay", the way it was being popularly used recently to describe anything lame or stigma-worthy (middle school humor). You can see that the word usage can naturally evolve away from a conscious association with "homosexual" even if it originated there. I don't think any reasonable person can honestly say the same about "feminazi" in common usage. There are other hybrids that incorporate "nazi" (take "soup nazi" or "grammar nazi" for example). It is inherent to every context, that it implies fascistic, totalitarian strictness. In other words, unlike "gay", the average person never encounters "-nazi" and is stumped as to its connotation. That's a test, and anyone can run it.

arugula2 wrote:Edit: the only sane way I can think to contribute is to identify the major points as I absorb them, and distill them as best I can, with sparse quotes; and then add my own questions/thoughts in a way that's hopefully not an exact rehash of other posts.
Edit #2: changed the screenshot.

Link

MattHunX wrote:
Batwoman...

[in that, people judged the content prematurely, based on a preview]

Pinning this point, because it pertains to the Idris Elba point below.

Cyberpunk 2077

Inserting my own examples here, because you left it broad. In the broad sense, I think you are spot-on about the backlash (insofar as I'm aware of it). For example, an in-game billboard purports to advertise to queer, non-binary (in-game) onlookers. It depicts someone dressed in what most of us would call a "glam" and "feminine" style. And the character seems to have a boner. The slogan reads "mix it up". I think the ad is cheeky & visually arresting. It's not pejorative in any obvious way that I can see. And I haven't read the backlash yet, which I expect is semantically fraught & morally bankrupt - but I haven't been interested enough to test this.



Then there's a gang called The Animals, and it's primarily made up of brown people. This is an instance of culture clash, most likely. For example, the game's director is a brown-skinned Frenchman. The development house is Polish. European pop culture is generally more nuanced than American, and has a more mature outlook. It doesn't surprise me that a lot of Americans are projecting their own specific connotations with the word "animal" (never mind that it's just as often a term of empowerment that conveys noblesse) and not curious about how the gang members themselves are depicted specifically. I have very limited sympathy for such attitudes - quick to dismiss, quick to generalize. But I'm in the same boat, of knowing very little about what the gang members are like. In my mind, it could go either way. If I had to guess, I'd guess that an artsy Frenchman and a team of European video game designers, will probably spawn an interesting, self-aware world with interesting characters, and it'll have nuance. The "sjw's" here are obtuse & premature, unless they know something I don't about the project.

Idris Elba

"...it is nothing more than unimaginative, weak writing, a weak and ultimately token gesture..."

"To them, if someone has a problem with e.g.: a non-white character, then, it is automatically about race."

This is exactly the issue, though. We don't know if Idris Elba's 007 qualifies as "nothing more than unimaginative, weak writing" etc. It doesn't exist yet. Ergo, anyone who feels the need to vocally dismiss the work as merely-pandering is committing the same fallacy as people who'd dismiss The Animals in Cyberpunk 2077 (see above) before seeing how the idea is really executed.

This point will probably come up a lot: it is almost never about the claims of the argument itself, it is usually about the mindset of the one making it. (Some of the discussion in this other thread touches on this point.) In the instance of Elba as Bond, or Donald Glover as Spider-Man for example, the backlash cannot be honestly depicted as a defense of good art. The very notion that what Bond fans (or Spider fans) are broadly defending is artistic quality is ridiculous. This is what they claim and often think they're railing about. It takes a certain amount of cynicism & distance to see through the ruse.

(This is also why language use matters - since people don't generally contextualize language use. People, similarly, don't contextualize the stances they're passionate about. It doesn't take much to realize that the average modern Bond fan doesn't have a stake in the artistic merits of Bond movies. Modern Bond movies are a mildly-diverting pile of garbage. So in this real-world context when the rabble rails against an Elba, it is indeed doing it because he's brown.)

In case of e.g.: racists, those who are blatantly as such, it is easy to see where they're coming from. There's no nuance, there's no other perspective to see, there's no argument to be considered. Problem is, because of THEM, everyone else who...

It's not about the individual - it never was, even for your position. You have not been defending an individual's argument (see Elba example above) but a broad backlash/reaction to something. This parsing, then, doesn't work (ie, that because interspersed within the rabble is the wisp of a legitimate artistic concern, ergo the rabble is misunderstood). The broadstrokes dismissal of such rabble is usually on-point, meaning the supposed "sjw" backlash generally has them dead to rights. This is also why your word "blatantly" is key here. (I can make a half-decent argument for why glorifying Confederate generals isn't "blatantly" racist.) The "blatant" racists are just the ones whose reaction to Elba as 007 is expressed in language that is obvious. The non-blatant racists are going to far outnumber them, of course, and most of them don't even realize they're being racist. The only metric that should matter to a dispassionate observer is how big the anti-Elba backlash is, in the context of typical backlash defending the artistic integrity of the Bond movie franchise.

Just to clarify my position on Elba as 007 thing. Just simply having him be another James Bond would be plain, transparent tokenization. Have him be 007, sure. Just not James Bond. Someone new to the position. Come up with a new character with their own unique story. Have him be his own character, not just a lazy "re-skin" of an already well-established character. Doing just that is the laziest thing they could do. And it is an insult not just to creative writing, but the creators of the original character. Also, there's an old joke floating around, likely Russian or just generally slavic in origin, about a black spy trying to blend in among the white people and he has the foreign language down, his accent is perfect, he knows the culture...etc., so he doesn't understand how everyone can tell he's a spy and at the end of the joke, they tell him and the listener it's because he's black. Now, that might be just a joke, but it's greatly highlights a legitimate issue they'd have if they just tokenized Bond. They'd have to have a setting where a black 007 would "fit", where him being a spy would make sense. And I seriously doubt that I have said anything, here, that's somehow racist. Yet...some SJWs would construe even this as racist somehow, because it's in their head all the time.

Animavore wrote:In fact, I don't even hear much any more from SJWs...

That's because they're too busy assailing statues that don't fight back... or mostly don't fight back. Sometimes they do.

MattHunX wrote:
Offended is what social justice warriors do when they get up in arms, screaming labels

Oh, you mean like you've done here? Let's not pretend for a second that your whining is any different than that which you're whining about. After all you chose to grind your axe about an otherwise irrelevant issue, so carry on, mighty internet warrior for justice!

People scream labels? Oh, no! So...what, offended is also not liking hearing labels screamed, and so much so that you have to make some point about the people who do it and their unreasonableness? I just find it so funny that the status quo exists unchallenged for generations and only after great, unforgivable harms are done over and over again do some people get to the point of screaming labels, and it’s only that, the label screaming, which elicits criticism. Like we’re supposed to see shouting about injustice as THE problem. Pff. Give over.

Looking at all the actors that portrayed James Bond, they all look totally different and not alike at all.

MattHunX wrote:
Also, there's an old joke floating around, likely Russian or just generally slavic in origin, about a black spy trying to blend in among the white people and he has the foreign language down, his accent is perfect, he knows the culture...etc., so he doesn't understand how everyone can tell he's a spy and at the end of the joke, they tell him and the listener it's because he's black. Now, that might be just a joke, but it's greatly highlights a legitimate issue they'd have if they just tokenized Bond. They'd have to have a setting where a black 007 would "fit", where him being a spy would make sense. And I seriously doubt that I have said anything, here, that's somehow racist. Yet...some SJWs would construe even this as racist somehow, because it's in their head all the time.

James Bond speaks English. There's tons of black people being born and raised in England. So, there is no issue with continuity.

Sean Connery’s James Bond had a Scottish accent.

George Lazenby’s Bond had a generalized English accent, with hints of the Aussie accent - so I'll count that as separate.

Timothy Dalton gave Bond a posh English accent, however in Licence to Kill there are times when he slips up and switches into his native Welsh accent briefly - so that can be counted as one.

Roger Moore’s Bond had a posh English accent as well.

Pierce Brosnan, too, gave his Bond a posh English accent, instead of Brosnan’s own Irish accent.

Daniel Craig plays Bond with Received Pronouncation (RP).

Therefore, James Bond has had 5 distinctive accents.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-differen ... the-movies

I never heard anyone complaining about that.

The mischievous part of me would love to see a black Bond if only to see the outpouring of grief from the reactionary right.

If we could somehow harness all that energy through their keyboards we'd have an endless supply of green energy. Any time the batteries start running low you just throw out a female Rambo, or Asian Dirty Harry, or black Gandalf.


So much of that energy instead wasted denouncing "woke" culture in Hollywood as if the movie execs are leftist socialists who give a shit about challenging the status quo, which they sit atop of, in any meaningful way.

I find their lack of cynicism disturbing. They are merely capitalists trying, succeeding, in expanding their reach by appealing to the largest demographic as possible to make bank. They've obviously crunched the numbers and worked out they can lose a small portion of very vocal white nerds and gain a larger share of the market containing women, POC, and China/Asia, and get free advertising into the bargain.

I'm not getting embroiled in this because it's tiresome to me now so I'll just leave with this -

I'm noticing a trend shift of late. I'm not the only one getting absolutely sick and tired of the reactionary right and their incessant whining. Inevitably in whatever the latest topic of contention is someone will say something like, "Oh my god! You people have become far worse than the thing you hate ever where." And then the dog-piling begins until they're ousted. This was seen in a big way a couple of weeks ago when The Last of Us 2 came out. A bunch of cry-babies who never even played the game were out on a down-vote campaign on Metacritic and just in every forum, comment section, and feed. But as people who actually bought the game started playing the tide turned against them as more and more people started calling htem out and saying that TLOU2 was, by all accounts, is one of the best games around and strong contender for GOTY and they moaners just started to fizzle out.

You see they are relentless, non-stop, and everywhere; they are far more loud and more numerous than any loose group of leftists ever were, and more single-minded and Borg-like due to being in the same area of meme distribution. They remind me most of climate change denialists. You know you go into an any article on global warming and you look below on the comments and you see, "The climate always changes. That's what it does. Man has nothing to do with it." and other sound-bite arguments pumped out by the right-wing think-tank generator.

And when all the arguments are addressed they start back again a the first one.

MattHunX wrote:Just to clarify my position on Elba as 007 thing. Just simply having him be another James Bond would be plain, transparent tokenization. Have him be 007, sure. Just not James Bond. Someone new to the position. Come up with a new character with their own unique story. Have him be his own character, not just a lazy "re-skin" of an already well-established character. Doing just that is the laziest thing they could do. And it is an insult not just to creative writing, but the creators of the original character. Also, there's an old joke floating around, likely Russian or just generally slavic in origin, about a black spy trying to blend in among the white people and he has the foreign language down, his accent is perfect, he knows the culture...etc., so he doesn't understand how everyone can tell he's a spy and at the end of the joke, they tell him and the listener it's because he's black. Now, that might be just a joke, but it's greatly highlights a legitimate issue they'd have if they just tokenized Bond. They'd have to have a setting where a black 007 would "fit", where him being a spy would make sense. And I seriously doubt that I have said anything, here, that's somehow racist. Yet...some SJWs would construe even this as racist somehow, because it's in their head all the time.

The problem is that people on the, let's call them anti-woke side of the debate, would complain either way. If we had Idris Elba as James Bond and didn't address the fact that he's black, they'd be accused of tokenism. And rightly. Because it would be dishonest to have a black James Bond and not pretend that his colour wouldn't change the way he's treated. But then if they used part of the film to address that, let's not pretend that the very same people wouldn't see that as another franchise lost to the PC-brigade, trying to shoe-horn these pesky minority experiences into things.

Imagine if these people were around the Holly changed to Hilly in Red Dwarf. There would have been outrage.

I'm With Stupid wrote:Imagine if these people were around the Holly changed to Hilly in Red Dwarf. There would have been outrage.

Oh yeah, that's one last little thing is to point out how new all of this is and, happily, likely a fad. This wasn't really a thing pre-Gamergate. TLOU2 is a good case in point here. No one cared Ellie was a lesbian back in 2014 when Left Behind came out earlier in the same year as Gamergate.

Roll on 2020 and TLOU2 comes out and people are acting shocked, as if it was never mentioned before, and outraged at this fact. Of course a lot happened in those 6 years, especially in the States, with regards a rise in far-right opinions and that whole thing with the gobshite in the White House. Hopefully after November it will begin to simmer down. If you catch my meaning.

Animavore wrote:I'm noticing a trend shift of late. I'm not the only one getting absolutely sick and tired of the reactionary right and their incessant whining. Inevitably in whatever the latest topic of contention is someone will say something like, "Oh my god! You people have become far worse than the thing you hate ever where." And then the dog-piling begins until they're ousted. This was seen in a big way a couple of weeks ago when The Last of Us 2 came out. A bunch of cry-babies who never even played the game were out on a down-vote campaign on Metacritic and just in every forum, comment section, and feed. But as people who actually bought the game started playing the tide turned against them as more and more people started calling htem out and saying that TLOU2 was, by all accounts, is one of the best games around and strong contender for GOTY and they moaners just started to fizzle out.

I remember when I first saw this:



I thought what a brilliant bit of observational comedy. But how wrong was he, as it turns out?

Let's not pretend that this is a new thing though. "Ba ba rainbow sheep" as a non-offensive version of "ba ba black sheep" was invented by right-wing journalists in the 80s, completely fabricated, and people were still moaning about it in the 2000s. Every year we had to sit through the "war on Christmas" stories claiming that we weren't allowed to say Christmas any more in case it upsets Muslims, or whoever the bogeyman was this year.

This ‘lazy re-skin of an already well established character’ that’s mentioned, Matt. Were you complaining about that when 007 became Irish? Or Welsh? Or just an obviously different man who we were meant to accept as the same person when it was clear to everyone that he wasn’t? Any problem you think there would be with a black James Bond could be overcome. Sometimes it might require some hard work and creativity. That, by the way, would not be ‘lazy‘. Saying ‘we can’t have a black James Bond because people would notice his blackness’, though. That may well be one of the laziest things I’ve heard.

Animavore wrote:

MattHunX wrote:You...do know that when I use the term "feminazi" I don't, at all, equate any of them to nazis, it is simply a short-hand for feminists who, in their struggle to fight male toxicity become so doggedly mired in their own hate for it they don't noticed when they become just as toxic and hateful. It's why I say that such groups are unfortunate offshoots of otherwise perfectly justified and well-intentioned movements. And obviously nobody who hears or uses the term "feminazi", as a shorthand, is seriously ever likening them to actual nazis. Come on. You know this. We both know this.

Even if I accept this rather weak explanation you still do yourself no favours. You complain that being smeared with the same brush as the sexist, women-hating, MRA, incel, reationary right etc. people, but you're using their language. It's like many Republicans in the US saying, "It's not fair people are equating us with Nazis and KKK" and then using the same dog-whistle words, words like 'degenerates', 'undesirables', 'Make America Great Again', or throw one armed salutes, and post anti-Semitic memes aimed at Soros. You can't expect to not be smeared with the same brush as someone who mindlessly chants on the comments on IGN "Get woke go broke" when you use similar catchphrases, ones that would even make said commentator reading you think, "Hey! He's one of us." This is similar to the problem with Donald Trump and why the likes of white supremacist groups like the KKK can listen to him and say, "I hear ye, Mr. President, loud and clear" [wink. wink. click. click.]".

MattHunX wrote:While I admit it is contributing to the war some, it is difficult to talk about certain spades and not call them spades with whatever widely-understood shorthand there is for them. The intent, from me personally, isn't provocation, but to not be roundabout in describing who and what I have an issue with, because even though I am trying, I am still wasting a lot more time than I want (or should) on in-fighting. In the case of "feminazis", it is a simple shorthand for several sentences worth of an explanation one would otherwise need to make, every time, in order to explain that it's not feminists they have a problem with but their offshoot. It's easier to call the toxic elements a widely known shorthand and when it is still misunderstood and the ones using it are still perceived as anti-feminists and such, it's not on them to keep explaining themselves, anymore. It's on the other side to actually listen and acknowledge the existence of certain rotten elements. Same within "woke-culture" of "SJWs". The two might as well be considered the same thing, as the former came from and is populated by the latter. "PC-culture" predates that and one might say woke-culture is a product or an offshoot of it. But, just as they had negative offshoots that caused further schism in the culture war, so did the anti-all-that side and their offshoot, for a lack of a better term, is the "wannabe edgelords" who are often conflated with actual racists, bigots and whatnot. And because they are, the anti-side is made to look reactionary with no merit to their arguments. It's WHY we're arguing about this right now.

Except you're not calling a spade a spade. SJW is a derogative term. No one self-identifies as an SJW, except ironically. This is not like calling the Alt-Right the Alt-Right, or incels incels. These guys identify as such. They are real groups with their own websites and everything. The term 'SJW' is practically meaningless. It has become a catch-all term for the far-right to mean "anyone I don't like" and has been applied to everyone from Democrats in general to ISIS(!).

Also I reject the comparison of some of the more zealous members of the PC left with those on the border fascist right as if they are the same thing just on opposite sides until they start deliberately endangering lives by not taking medical precautions, driving cars over protesters, start trying to roll back civil rights, start attacking marginalised groups, and generally committing acts of terrorism. There's no comparison with an 'SJW' with a (apparently, but this needs to be argued for) misguided opinion and Neo-fucking-Nazis.

If you feel the need to attack arguments made by individuals or groups it's those arguments you should attack. Otherwise all you are doing is ad hom-ing and straw-manning.

I don't recall precisely when I first heard the term "feminazi", but what I am certain of is my reaction to it. I just simply thought "Oh, I get it. It's because they're practically militant man-haters and their vicious and attack others. So, instead of saying 'far-gone' or 'über' or 'extreme feminism' (terms which also unavoidably require explanation, anyway, unless one is immediately considered anti-feminists), with a bit of exaggeration for a somewhat comedic effect, they came up with 'feminazi'. Ah-ha, good one!" I looked at it through a bit of humor. It's why I also don't get offended by any of the things they easily get riled up about, particularly when it's about a joke in stand-up comedy or elsewhere. And apart from slightly funny, I thought it was kind of clever, even. But, not for a split second did it ever ran through my head that anyone, not even those who first started using the term, were seriously equating feminists of the rabid sort to actual nazis. That would be insane. If anyone would be seriously equating them to nazis their offense to the term would be justified.

But, then...those whose first reaction to it was to immediately think the comparison was actually being made? And especially those who still, to this day, react to it as such? You know what I call their reaction? Being triggered. And the reason they're being triggered is because they're hopped up on all these issues 24/7. It's their thing. It's all they see, everywhere. They constantly wear red-tinted glasses. Comedians and other people who have been the target of cancel-culture and offense-culture always explain it like this: about everything else, their reaction is normal, but as soon as a topic or the criticism therein touches something close to them, they're set off.

And it doesn't even have to be overt, blatant, purposeful baiting or ad homs even. It can be mild criticism of the topic and their reaction can be just as knee-jerk and even toxic. This isn't mere generalization. It is easily observable behavior within the woke culture, among SJWs. Even mild (legitimate) criticism of their thing can earn their immediate ire and contempt and cause them to lash out and label their perceived enemy. And you know who else that behavior reminds me of? The religious. Sounds familiar? If we'd take that description of them being upset at even mild criticism, without any context as to who it is referring to and we'd ask some, here, on the forum, hell...if you had asked me, a few years ago, what group I think it was describing, I would have immediately said "Well, obviously the religious." But, these days, I came to observe the same with this growing woke culture and it has become just as much of an annoyance.

I will admit that when I say they're no better than the evil's they claim to fight, it isn't fair to compare them to people who threaten and commit physical violence, of course. Where I see a commonality is with the unnecessary and entirely unavoidable infighting they cause. Because they don't just rabidly go after actual racists, misogynists, bigots...etc., they often turn against their own, on the liberal side, if they're not completely with them, because their mind functions in a way that says if someone's not with them on all issues, if they dare disagree with something, then they're wrong and they're also the enemy. Again, easily observable mentality, if one is being honest by what they see and isn't afraid to say it.

And it's how it started for me, when I first had a sense that I'm started to get tired of these kind of people always being hostile towards not only individuals who are actually a problem and whose mentality is actually a plague on society, but even to people who were trying to be supportive of them, but whose views differed on some issues. That was mainly about comedy and SJWs getting upset over something in the gaming world that was totally nothing to be upset about, but they either simply couldn't take a joke or didn't understand how something worked within context...etc. So and so's jokes are offensive to so so! This game is racist and so are the developers! Wah! Why are there no people of color in the Witcher TV series!? How dare they!? Wah Wah! Cancel them! Censor that! We want it removed! We want it changed! We demand an apology!

And at the same time, it's when I developed my misgivings about the then newly emerging trend of tokenization, but I couldn't speak about it, because I was afraid. I thought, if I started criticizing this, some idiots and even acquaintances on the net would start thinking I'm racist and most wouldn't have the patience to listen and understand my issues, especially in that fast emerging woke environment. And I was afraid, because I've seen people ousted after arguing with others, who they were otherwise friends with, but ended up clashing over their misunderstood views. Then thankfully I found people who were unafraid and unapologetic talking about the same issues and I felt a weight had lifted, that it was okay to have the criticisms I had. Of course, the risk that people would turn hostile was still very much there, but, by then, I didn't give a damn. Just like with the offended, if they're offended, it's their problem. And to also clarify something here, specifically in regards to comedy and jokes, when someone cannot laugh at some joke, about a certain topic or if they get downright offended by it, I do not and cannot tell them to get a different sense of humor, because it's not how it works. One cannot just change their sense of humor. But, just because they didn't find it funny and couldn't laugh, doesn't mean others can't or won't. Even many of those who they claim would also be offended at it often times aren't. So the healthier response is to live, leave and let live. But, that isn't what SJWs do, now is it. Which leads me to this...

Now, to make excuses for my ad-homs...

A few months back I watched an interview with Trevor Noah, who was being questioned by someone (some journalist or whatever), who was upset about a completely harmless joke in his stand-up special (that wasn't even the most "offensive" one they could possibly pick out of his entire special, which made me think they didn't even see the rest). It was a joke that he made about his own parents. It was somehow wrong and the questioner ask how he could justify saying such a joke that was offensive. And Trevor Noah, being the smooth, calm, collected, patient and polite person he is, gave a measured response using some song lyrics to simulate and make an analogy to echoing and thus an echo-chamber, countering and explaining how people's offense is amplified in the environment their in, even when it isn't warranted. The person across from him remained silent, but one could easily tell they didn't like even 'that' kind of response. They were quietly boiling. Now, part of me wishes that I could be as patient and eloquent as that and respond to such tiring stupidity with such cleverness and calmness, without resorting to ad-homs or even explicitly, outright pointing out faults in the other person's approach. Staying calm and using inoffensive language can sting even more and deliver a point even better. I've seen that.

However, another part of me goes "No. Fuck that. They don't deserve it." Why? Because if woke culture and their offense-taking stopped at that, it would be no issue. They'd simmer down and fade out. But, they don't stop there. They'll even try to get people and material that offend them cancelled, these days. And that cancel-culture has now affected and infected media and more worryingly the entertainment industry to the point where one cannot tell jokes, make a movie or even make a statement without cries from the woke crowd, who always find something that upsets them and if they don't immediately find that thing, then, they demonstrably go out of their way until they do, picking fights, complaining and creating conflict where there needn't be any. And they don't even need to be called names, they don't even really need ad-homs and buzzwords to trigger them. They can either easily get offended by mild criticism or they'll go and actually purposefully find something that offends them, just to flame it and feel better that they've fought for social justice, when aside from starting more conflict and schism they did fuck all.

And the most annoying thing about it, is that most of the time it's just plain pale white people getting offended and claiming offense in the name of others, many of whom might not even be offended. And they're off to the races, to their flame wars. It's why I like watching reaction videos to e.g.: Dave Chappelle's or Bill Burr's stuff, because both of their material has been labeled sexist, racist, homophobic and transphobic, not even by anyone from said category, but mainly by white social justice warriors with a savior complex, who cannot resist speaking in other people's name. And I've seen all sorts of people, including the ones in whose name they love to speak, laugh at the same material, obviously not finding it offensive.

What none of the offended ones (and those who defend them) seem to get, however, is just because they're offended, it doesn't mean their overreaction as anything but that. It doesn't mean it is warranted, much less legitimate, but they'd gladly destroy people's private and professional lives simply because they're offended. That is why they deserve ridicule and contempt and shorthand to that affect. And what they get, isn't even really on the level of the contempt they unthinkingly and undeservedly show many who they wrongly perceive as their enemy, whose voices and work they demand to be stopped, just because they're offended. But, of course, it is not surprising that a lot of them cannot take what they often unfairly dish out. It's why they keep getting triggered. It's why all this shit is in perpetual motion.

And if a word triggers them so, well...that is exactly the problem and what all of this ridiculous, bullshit culture-war was born out of, in the first place. We're here arguing like enemies, because some people somewhere couldn't e.g.: take a joke and then their angry blog snowballed into an entire culture that now perpetuates this infighting and they're wholeheartedly convinced they're making society better and more progressive with it. Am I contributing to this war with my language? Yes, I am. Because I'm fed up with them and the effect they had. And a lot of their defenders refuse to even acknowledge the negative elements within, because they either cannot see them, from their own blind-spots, or...because they themselves are afraid that if they point it out, however inoffensively and subtly, that they'll be swallowed up, chewed out and branded the enemy by them. That is also two more types that exist in that culture, the people who are either incapable of seeing and acknowledging the the toxicity and choose to instead respond with condescension and worse to attempts at pointing that toxicity out and there are those who see it, but are afraid of the very real and very possible backlash they would receive should they step out of the echo-chamber. And the ones within that ever expanding echo-chamber are as bad as the self-assured, holier-than-thou religious and just like them, they're convinced their fight is good for progress and society. And I'm just going to mince my words when addressing them? No, thanks. They don't deserve it.

That's all from me.

I'm struggling here to find someone who got cancelled who didn't deserve it. Rosanne Barr sure as shit deserved it. The WItcher wasn't cancelled and a season 2 is coming and Bill Burrr and Dave Chapelle are still going strong. EDIT: And there's people who make livings out of deliberately being offensive. Unpleasant, unfunny dickheads like Steve Crowder, for instance. And piss-stains like Ben Shapiro and that Tammy woman.

I feel like a lot of this is in your head.

Fallible wrote:People scream labels? Oh, no! So...what, offended is also not liking hearing labels screamed, and so much so that you have to make some point about the people who do it and their unreasonableness? I just find it so funny that the status quo exists unchallenged for generations and only after great, unforgivable harms are done over and over again do some people get to the point of screaming labels, and it’s only that, the label screaming, which elicits criticism. Like we’re supposed to see shouting about injustice as THE problem. Pff. Give over.

Um...you misunderstood what my problem is with. It's not with people shouting about injustice. It's not with them labeling others, per say. It's about who they do it too and why, but only when they're completely wrong about it, since the person or work they're attacking and labeling is undeserving of it. In my lengthy post, I explain all that.

I never said, nor do I think I have ever even remotely given the impression that people who finally got fed up with social injustice are doing something wrong in their addressing of it, WHEN they're on the money, when they're attacking those that need and deserve attacking, that is. I clearly made the distinction. Where did I imply, in everything I said, that any one of us is just supposed to see shouting about injustice as the problem. Shouting about injustice isn't the problem. When people grossly misdirect all that pent up frustration and target those entirely undeserving of it and rope them into a fight, that's where we have and where any decent, rational and level-headed (or not necessarily level-headed) person should have a problem. After all, isn't it perfectly sensible that when some get attacked for something and it is completely unjustified and unwarranted that the source of the conflict and misunderstanding or the mishandling of the situation is pointed out to both sides? Granted, the language therein can make a difference.

Heh! I'm reminded of Fox News complaining about their views being side-lined while being the largest (I think) and most watched News Channel going and their people are running the country and in power.

Animavore wrote: there's people who make livings out of deliberately being offensive. Unpleasant, unfunny dickheads

How's rush limbaugh going?

Svartalf wrote:

Animavore wrote: there's people who make livings out of deliberately being offensive. Unpleasant, unfunny dickheads

How's rush limbaugh going?

Still going strong. Got one of those Presidential medal things from President Arnold.

Animavore wrote:I'm struggling here to find someone who got cancelled who didn't deserve it. Rosanne Barr sure as shit deserved it. The WItcher wasn't cancelled and a season 2 is coming and Bill Burrr and Dave Chapelle are still going strong. EDIT: And there's people who make livings out of deliberately being offensive. Unpleasant, unfunny dickheads like Steve Crowder, for instance. And piss-stains like Ben Shapiro and that Tammy woman.

I feel like a lot of this is in your head.

Once, again...the issue here is not whether they actually get cancelled or not, it's that a lot of so-called social justice warriors call for them to be, who often speak in the name of others, as well. And those same people still view them through the same lenses they did before, their false perception of them completely unaltered as they continue to spew vitriol to the same effect they did before.

But, then, you choose to bring up examples like Ben Shapiro and people who are racists and bigots, actually racist comedians and people in the media, mentioning them almost if not completely in the same breath with e.g.: Burr and Chappelle, like their situation is the same. They cannot be compared, because if and when people would demand the cancellation of Shapiro et al, guess what, they'd be in the right in doing so, because their opinions, career and views ARE harmful, because they ARE what the people label them they are.

In the case of e.g.: Chappelle or Burr, the same kind of critics, the same type of social justice warriors who perceive them through the same lenses are dead wrong about them, yet, they still attack and demand their cancellation, same as they do with anything and anyone they think is offensive or not inclusive enough...etc. So you cannot talk about all of them in just one sentence like that.

And no...it's very obviously and demonstrably not just in my head, thank you very much. The fact you would even say that makes it sound flippant to me. So, as I've said, this is all from me, because even after everything I explained, if you can still tell me that a lot of that is just in my head, you're failing to see much less acknowledge the very issues I'm highlighting, which, given my previous altercations with others on the subject, isn't really surprising, but it just reinforces my worry that I'm wasting my time every time I try and bother to explain myself. So...in the future, I have to swore to myself, again, to try and resist even inadvertently starting a fruitless fight, because it will just end up wasting my energy and time and it sours the day. So, bye!