Haha I was going to submit this. Canonized saints of PoeTV with what's sure to be a divisive sketch here.
If by "canonized saints of POETV" you mean people who expect controversial or edgy humor to actually be *funny* as opposed to pages of copy-pasted racist screeds from Stormfront and recycled reddit red pill memes.
You mean the people who accuse everyone here of being racist shitlords for using the term "engrish"?
In case it wasn't clear, I'm referring to the Kids in the Hall as PoeTV saints, and I'm not at all equating this sketch with lotsmoreorcs or whatever, though I bet some people here would.
I'll always enjoy seeing this sketch.
This seems like a good place to leave this:
That's a great article OZ, cheers!
I'm not so sure that it is "at bottom, a money issue". I'm not a huge fan of hyperbole for the sake of rhetorical impact when people are purporting to talk about facts. What is it that makes money predominant in the debate itself (which is what he wrote)? Any proof that it hands-down outweighs the other factors?
I think a weaker claim would have been a stronger point.
John Holmes Motherfucker
To me, "safe spaces" means: You can hold your klan meeting, but not in my living room. There's nothing new or unusual about this. When I was at Binghamton in the 80s we had a Black Student Union. a Jewish Student Union, a Latino student union. Isn't that the basic idea? People need to talk about their concerns.
You can't say anything anywhere, and you never could. One reason why orcs was banned was because whoever administrates this site has the right to do it, and the power to do it, and a reason for doing it, so it's done. For years I posted on justlinux.com, where you were expected to keep your posts on topic. It was not only educational, but during the Iraq War, it was the only place on the internet where I wasn't going to get in a political arguement.. It was a safe space, a partiicular place for particular people to discuss a particular topic.
Maybe if we called them FUCK OFF SPACES, they wouldn't sound so wimpy.
Fuck off, orcs. and you too, Milo.
It's an editorial decision. Who gets to make editorial decisions? The editor, obviously. That's the way it's always been, going all the way back to the Gutenberg Bible.
There are good editors and bad editors and good decisions and bad decisions. And almost always an argument. Everyone who ever gets banned or deleted for obnoxious troilling always complains that he's being censored because of political discrimination. because YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH. Sometimes, that's true, but the editor decides. I was unceremooniously tossed out of the gamerghazi subreddit for siding with the rocket scientist with the crazy bowling shirt. Remember SHIRTGATE? I didn't even really know that I wasn't supposed to have that opinion. I just got booted, like that.
It was a bad decision, but as far as I know, I'm still banned.
|William Burns |
Foreshadowing the equal rights movements of the 60's in the 90's!
It's like they had a crystal ball.
It's almost as if the push for equal rights has been going on for half a century now and is only in the spotlight right now because it plays to the alt-right's victim complex during a particularly noisy election cycle.
Half a century of social progress has been leading up to a mass temper tantrum over pop culture and a drawing of a green frog.
It's in the spotlight because it's a trainwreck. People can't help but stare.
|Caminante Nocturno |
The lack of naked fat black crippled dykes in this skit is proof of an organized campaign to keep us from being able to complain about the mass media's exploitation of naked fat black crippled dykes.
There's also no stylised images of japanese children for you to get hard to, you must be feeling terribly oppressed by these sjws and feminists you fat paedo fuck.
There are no racist, homophobic, negative-attention-seeking rightwing anime pedophiles, either.
Great sketch, KITH is always a 5.
Getting to the point though, it wasn't so long ago a large number of the users around here were slinging 'faggot' and 'fagdance' around unironically, so even here there's been an evolution of how we speak to one another (notable exceptions being the usual suspects of the MRA, alt-right, anime-paedo-neckbeard faction)
A social contract of sorts where we agree -by our actions- to treat each other as full humans, worthy of a modicum of respect and consideration in our replies. This is often deliberately mischaracterised and mistaken by the edgier types here as being the product of some sort of blue-haired and bespectacled tumblrina-fascist PC groupthink rather than just an admonishment to treat others who enter into honest, good faith conversation right here.
IMHO 'political correctness' is really an ongoing conversation between the users of the site (and obviously within society, the same could be said to apply) about what constitutes acceptable treatment of others and opinions do obviously vary; we on the whole tend to find a spectrum that the -majority- consider acceptable somewhere in the middle of the tumblr SJW and reddit SQW extremes.
Where the centre of this acceptable spectrum is found is a generational thing, and the resistance to it changing -or to change in general- is a sure sign we're all getting old, brittle and cranky as fuck.
I still maintain the Stuart Lee bit is the most accurate on the larger societal conversation though.
>A social contract of sorts where we agree -by our actions- to treat each >other as full humans, worthy of a modicum of respect and consideration in >our replies.
Unless they disagree, in which case they are some kind of "...ist"
"Unless they disagree, in which case they are some kind of "...ist""
No Nikon, they are an '-ist' as pertains to their public words and deeds.
"I think women deserve full equality and suffer unjustly in our society because they don't currently have that, in many important ways" - a (non-strawman) feminist
"I think women are all gold-digging whores and they constantly tell lies about rape, there is no rape culture and their place is in the kitchen or sucking my dick heyooo" - A misogynist.
"I think BLM are a reaction to several longstanding injustices in our society that have some good points and some bad points, I'm sure I agree/not sure I agree with their tactics but as a white guy/not a black guy maybe I'm not best positioned to tell black folk how to achieve an end to state-run injustices" - A real-ist
"I think BLM are literally a terror group, because I am white and afraid, also we GAVE YOU equality already so shut up about all the 'injuuuustice' and deal with black on black crime hurrf blurrf" - A rac-ist.
This good faith response was my modicum of respect towards your edgy point-making of late. Note that I haven't called you any sort of -ist herein.
I just wrote a long-ass thing with a mix of thoughts in it, but not in response to bawbag's most recent post above. I'll post it if he would care to engage. ('the loyal opposition' is important to me on this site)
I also agree with two-thirds of your second post here, bawbag.
Have to disagree that some just cannot think about something well because of identity politics.
You had me going with the spectrum thing, but then you went full hypocrite by misrepresenting all arguments that disagree with your own personal stance.
"I think BLM is a hate group that has demonstrably on several occasions put forth violent and hateful rhetoric that could cause more problems that it solves. I have not seen any statistical evidence that has convinced me that there is institutional racism that has caused an epidemic of violence against blacks by police officers, and as a skeptic I require at least some evidence before I make decisions. I believe the way to change things is to win hearts and minds and stage peaceful protests."
That's my stance on BLM.
"I think that both genders are treated unfairly in some ways in society. I am an egalitarian. I have seen several reports debunking the wage gap and after reviewing myself it is clear to me that some women make less money than men due to personal choice, and I'm OK with that.
Feel free to keep pigeon-holing everyone who disagrees with you, though.
It's very telling that you felt the need to kneejerk respond to the clear-cut examples of both' racism' and 'misogyny' I made above as though they targeted you specifically Fezren.
"The Lady doth protest too much, methinks" has rarely been more apt.
I think I figured it out: people should treat eachother the way they'd like to be treated AND lighten up a bit.
I think humor is a great catalyst for appreciating our differences. Obviously, there is high and low humor. this sketch would be a bit rude had they not included the dumb dumbs at the end. It's all in good fun, we are all mockable. Most of us are between the people that protested and the people they stayed. Good humor would be wasted on either of those two groups - which are clearly cartoonish characitures, but I don't have to explain that to you, because you are reasonable.
|John Holmes Motherfucker |
All this time I thought we were using "fagdance" ironically.
I'm going to repeat myself here. The point of freedom of speech isn't that you get to be an asshole. You DO get to be an asshole, but that's not why it's important. Freedom of speech is important because when you ARE an asshole, there needs to be someone to call you on it, even if you're POTUS.
People who complain about political correctness often have it backwards. They think that there's no real freedom unless you can be an asshole without someone calling you on it. I posted in the comments of an article about Gamergate, I pointed out what I consider to be the contradiction of the WE ARE ALIVE manifesto,
the idea that they believe games need to protected against dogmatic rhetoric, but that they also reject censorship. How can both of these things be true?
Here's part of a reply:
>>>How are those two quotes contradictory? They both boil down to the same thing: Censorship is bad. Nowhere in there do they say they want to be "protected from objectionable rhetoric". Saying they condemn the use of free speech to censor the speech of others is a *far* cry from saying they want to be "protected".
To sum up my reply: Well, for one thing, yes, it totally fucking says this, but for another, what the fuck does it mean to "USE YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH TO CENSOR OTHERS?" I consider the notion that SPEECH IS CENSORSHIP to be dangerous, and a pretty good rationale for suppressing the speech of others while telling yourself that you're defending freedom.
One of the replies I got was just flat-out hilarious. I'm going to insert a paragraph break for comic effect, and change my user name on the site (RebusKniebus) to "JHM" but everything else is complete, and unchanged.
>>> IU'm curious, JHM. How would you feel if I was saying "Driving on a street...that's a racist act, because your white cars are oppressing the black asphalt! Rise up, and give your keys unto me whereupon I shall cast them into the brimstone and fire!" And then you came along and disagreed, and so I scream at you, calling you a horrible racist, as all your friends come walking along?
>>>Don't you think that this would have a deeply chilling effect on your free speech? Maybe you aren't being censored through a censorship mechanism, but rather you are being censored through cultural and emotional mechanisms.
>>>And so I would call that guy out for being dishonest and having ridiculous arguments. I would try to convince people that he was crazy, full of shit, or so forth.
>>>That's what GamerGate does.
Pillager and his anti-PC crusade is so stupid.
This isn't prophetic.
I bet if you went back to just after the emancipation, you would find other aging idiots ranting about university students complaining that professors are using the word "nigger".
|John Holmes Motherfucker |
You know, there is one big problem with political correctness, and that's when someone, a public figure, or maybe a college professor, lets something prejudiced slip out, and instead of having a useful discussion, there's a groundswell of public opinion calling for that person to lose their job, or be taken off the air or whatever. That's almost always wrong.
We need to forgive. We can't have the conversation we need when saying the wrong thing can ruin your life. We need to acknowledge that there's a difference between racism and sexism as morally bankrupt philosophies, and prejudice, a human weakness that, as far as I can tell, is shared by everybody. And sometimes, when customs change, some of us don't get the memo. Because there is no memo.
But I have no problem at all? Surewith banning someone who repeatedly brags about "beating up niggers."
This isn't really prophetic, retarded postmodernism (WHOOPS TAUTOLOGY) has been around since the 60s/70s, it was just largely quarantined to universities and only spilled over to the general public in the last 10 years via the internet. Honestly, I think a lot of people that rail against "SJWs" and "feminists" and so forth are ultimately, without realizing it, railing against a lot of bullshit that comes out of postmodern thought (WHOOPS OXYMORON). That's obviously not universally true, but I think a number of people would be surprised to find a lot of ideas they resent having a straight line back to postmodernism.
God, postmodernism is stupid. Let's all agree that postmodernism is stupid.
|John Holmes Motherfucker |
Prophetic? Are protests against nude models in art class really a thing now? This seems more like a forerunner of future political satirical cliches. The last time I saw it, sometime in the 90s, it was a lot funnier.
It's obviously not prophetic in a specific reference to nude models, but in reference to people inventing reasons to protest even the most innocuous things as a sort of hobby or identity.
And no, I'm not claiming lotsmoreorcs or anything like that is innocuous, and I'm not sure what orcs even has to do with political correctness, which he went way beyond by nearly anybody's standards. Where you draw the line over what's offensive or not varies person to person, and I think for the bulk of people here it's a safe distance away from orcs. There are people out there who protest the use of the word "idiot" and "stupid" (both used by PC absolutist SolRo above!) as ableist, though, and I can't imagine anyone here supporting that.
John Holmes Motherfucker
>>>There are people out there who protest the use of the word "idiot" and "stupid" (both used by PC absolutist SolRo above!) as ableist, though, and I can't imagine anyone here supporting that.
Well, that's just retarded.
John Holmes Motherfucker
Potrod, I didn't think you were defending orcs or anything, but the absolutist position is out there, and, in my mind,that's what I'm arguing against. Milo Yiannopulos was banned from Twitter for taking part in something that is, in my opinion, far more egregious than orcs' silly monkeyshines, and he has his supporters, and he's even planning on pressuing Twitter to reinstate him.
Does anyone agree with this statement?
I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SOME LIBERALS ARE ASSHOLES IN THEIR DOGMATIC POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, AND I (AND I BELIEVE MOST EVERYDAY LIBERALS) WOULD GLADLY BE MORE CRITICAL OF THESE PEOPLE IF THE RIGHT WOULD GIVE ME A LITTLE ROOM FOR NUANCE. IF THEY REALLY CARED ABOUT THE EXCESSES OF PC, I BELIEVE WE COULD FIND A LOT OF COMMON GROUND HERE... BUT I SUSPECT THAT THE RIGHT IS FAR MORE INTERESTED IN CREATING A WEDGE ISSUE, SO THE BULLSHIT CONTINUES
| Register or login To Post a Comment|