Page 15 of 19 [ 299 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19  Next

ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 2,724
Location: canada

11 May 2021, 9:35 pm

cyberdad wrote:
magz wrote:
I think both the originals and later variations are worth preserving. They tell us about how our cultures evolve. They tell us where we used to be and where we are, including what we carry from our past.
It's a very valuable knowledge.


That's why we have museums.


But when it comes to cancel culture wanting cancel a movie like Snow White, I shouldn't have to go to a museum to see it.



Gentleman Argentum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2019
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 509
Location: State of Euphoria

12 May 2021, 3:30 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
Salient means "prominent" or "important." I feel the most common definition employed in "real life" is "prominent." A very subjective term.

One person's "salient" could be another person's "junk" very easily.

My "salient" argument against some of the features of the Woke ideology-----is that it is taking away the "fun" from life. It is excessive. It can be even hypocritical at times.

In a small way, the Woke situation reminds me of the "Cultural Revolution" of China in the 1960s----where the policial elite, some of whom were youths with an axe to grind, took over the practical leadership of society. Many people were either sent to "re-education camps" or killed for not being "orthodox" in their beliefs. It was quite easy to diverge from the "orthodox."

Or like what happened in the religious wars of the Renaissance----where one could be executed for putting up two fingers at a certain moment instead of three.

Just like both communism and fascism are almost always quite hypocritical.

Of course, we must stamp out racism, sexism, and all the rest----they have no place in an enlightened society. But to go to extremes, to me, defeats the purpose.

My argument is "salient" because it is prominent. I can only aspire to "importance."


Agreed!

How I perceive Woke-ness is anti-male -- misandrogyny -- and anti-white -- racist and anti-aged. In other words, Woke people hate anyone that looks like me, before we've uttered one word, or even breathed in air, because we're privileged/entitled/and (presumably) have more money than they do. And, they hate the police, because police are bad, in every case, without exception, because they enforce laws, and Woke is above the laws apparently. The Woke have a right to destroy cars, businesses and terrorize folk in their own home, because they are "right" and "enlightened" and "know better". How do they know they are enlightened? Well they just feel they are, so that makes it so!

How dare we share the same planet, and take up oxygen, that would be better served supporting a female or trans or nonbinary, non-white, young person? I feel like if the Woke folk had their way, my throat would be opened and I'd be in a ditch somewhere, and they'd be doing bong rips in my house and vandalizing cars and businesses at Black Lives Matter riots, the focus of which seems to be to destroy all businesses in the vicinity in order to emphasize that money must be earned by government welfare only, never by work or toil of any kind. Black Lives Matter, never work for a living, always destroy the property of anyone who dares to work, because they are bad, is the gospel of Woke...

And...in the view of the Woke...there is no need to learn about the police or what the police actually do or who they are. Just assume police are always bad. Isn't that easier than actually bothering to think for five minutes, or attending a free and open-to-the-public Citizen's Academy to learn about the job of the policeman and the realities of policing in modern America?

I wonder how many of the "Woke" have ever, even spoken for an hour with an off-duty policeman and gotten to know him or her, learned about some of the things that the police do during their shifts. Hint: it is not all about busting young, white college students for smoking their marijuana.


_________________
Just a few of my favorite things: music, chess, weather.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,179

12 May 2021, 3:44 am

ironpony wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
magz wrote:
I think both the originals and later variations are worth preserving. They tell us about how our cultures evolve. They tell us where we used to be and where we are, including what we carry from our past.
It's a very valuable knowledge.


That's why we have museums.


But when it comes to cancel culture wanting cancel a movie like Snow White, I shouldn't have to go to a museum to see it.


I think the worst case scenario they edit that scene so the prince blows a kiss from a "safe distance" which still meets the criteria for "true loves kiss", Prince charming and Shrek might have to do the same when they meets up with sleeping beauty/princess or whatever.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 2,724
Location: canada

12 May 2021, 8:30 am

But this is the problem I have with censorship is I don't like movies and art being alternated like that, and feel it's bad. Plus as for the argument that the kiss brought her out of a coma, in real life people give each other mouth to mouth to stop them from dying, without consent so is that any better?

It's still have to touch someone's mouth with your lips to bring than back to life. And whenever someone uses mouth to mouth to resisitate someone in real life, the woke generation, nor the media, never hits the no consent button on it.



Last edited by ironpony on 12 May 2021, 8:33 am, edited 2 times in total.

ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,181
Location: Long Island, New York

12 May 2021, 8:32 am

cyberdad wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
Another problem with all of this is overcorrections to the problem. "Owning the libs" is bullying to prove your anti PC bonofides. This owning the libs have given plain old bullies and worse to permission do their thing. Another overcorrection issue is fear of calling out or favoring canceling anything for fear of being a hypocrite to one's anti-cancel culture views.
I struggle with this.


Can you clarify what you mean by this AS?

Very few are in favor of pure free speech ie allowing criminal free speech, allowing speech that is imminently threatening. No matter how sincerely anti cancel culture one is we all have our triggers, where emotion takes over and we favor canceling things. When do that we are being hypocritical which causes ones anti cancel culture argument to lose credibility. For arguments sake lets assume private companies SHOULD ban use of their platforms to advocate for sedition. As a strong anti cancel culture person who has argued that that being made uncomfortable or even being triggered is often an acceptable price pay for the greater good, advocating banning for anything makes look like a hypocrite. Adding to the problem is that so many other anti cancel culture people are hypocrites and are not really anti cancel culture but are just pretending to be for nefarious reasons. So out of fear of being a hypocrite I argue companies should not ban sedition advocacy. That is overcorrection.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,179

12 May 2021, 4:36 pm

ironpony wrote:
But this is the problem I have with censorship is I don't like movies and art being alternated like that, and feel it's bad. Plus as for the argument that the kiss brought her out of a coma, in real life people give each other mouth to mouth to stop them from dying, without consent so is that any better?

It's still have to touch someone's mouth with your lips to bring than back to life. And whenever someone uses mouth to mouth to resisitate someone in real life, the woke generation, nor the media, never hits the no consent button on it.


It's amazing what they can do with CGI. A blown kiss can be made to look enchanting with sparkling stardust etc....



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,179

12 May 2021, 4:46 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
Another problem with all of this is overcorrections to the problem. "Owning the libs" is bullying to prove your anti PC bonofides. This owning the libs have given plain old bullies and worse to permission do their thing. Another overcorrection issue is fear of calling out or favoring canceling anything for fear of being a hypocrite to one's anti-cancel culture views.
I struggle with this.


Can you clarify what you mean by this AS?

Very few are in favor of pure free speech ie allowing criminal free speech, allowing speech that is imminently threatening. No matter how sincerely anti cancel culture one is we all have our triggers, where emotion takes over and we favor canceling things. When do that we are being hypocritical which causes ones anti cancel culture argument to lose credibility. For arguments sake lets assume private companies SHOULD ban use of their platforms to advocate for sedition. As a strong anti cancel culture person who has argued that that being made uncomfortable or even being triggered is often an acceptable price pay for the greater good, advocating banning for anything makes look like a hypocrite. Adding to the problem is that so many other anti cancel culture people are hypocrites and are not really anti cancel culture but are just pretending to be for nefarious reasons. So out of fear of being a hypocrite I argue companies should not ban sedition advocacy. That is overcorrection.


I can see how there is a need for an overcorrection to prevent abuse of civil rights. However it's technically not an abuse of power as the right would have us believe. Many of the calls to revise or take action come from a position where those deemed to have been targeted are vulnerable and have relatively little power.

A simple example is when Trump mocked a disabled journalist by publicly imitating his involuntary movements. When Trump grew up in the 50s/60s people with this type of disability were known as spastics and it was popular slur which was accompanied by "spastic movements" (exactly like Trump's little performance) when I was in school in the 1970s. Today you can't use that word anymore. In those days the right hadn't come up with the term "cancel culture".

When Trump invoked an out of date mockery advocates were entitled to castigate him. But his supporters said we were being fragile/snowflakes as he didn't mean anything by it.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 2,724
Location: canada

14 May 2021, 5:31 pm

cyberdad wrote:
ironpony wrote:
But this is the problem I have with censorship is I don't like movies and art being alternated like that, and feel it's bad. Plus as for the argument that the kiss brought her out of a coma, in real life people give each other mouth to mouth to stop them from dying, without consent so is that any better?

It's still have to touch someone's mouth with your lips to bring than back to life. And whenever someone uses mouth to mouth to resisitate someone in real life, the woke generation, nor the media, never hits the no consent button on it.


It's amazing what they can do with CGI. A blown kiss can be made to look enchanting with sparkling stardust etc....


But that's still censorship because they are altering it. Any type of change made is a form of censorship.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,179

14 May 2021, 7:03 pm

ironpony wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
ironpony wrote:
But this is the problem I have with censorship is I don't like movies and art being alternated like that, and feel it's bad. Plus as for the argument that the kiss brought her out of a coma, in real life people give each other mouth to mouth to stop them from dying, without consent so is that any better?

It's still have to touch someone's mouth with your lips to bring than back to life. And whenever someone uses mouth to mouth to resisitate someone in real life, the woke generation, nor the media, never hits the no consent button on it.


It's amazing what they can do with CGI. A blown kiss can be made to look enchanting with sparkling stardust etc....


But that's still censorship because they are altering it. Any type of change made is a form of censorship.


It depends on how you perceive censorship. For example television editors use censorship all the time to edit out words used in aired TV shows or where there's been a wardrobe malfunction or where a film director accidentally leaves a coke bottle or an aeroplane in a period film. For many people the kiss isn't that important as the "happily evert after". Does it change the story, perhaps in a minor way? Its a matter up for debate.

If you want proper examples of censortship then the Christian inquisition erasure of 100% of European culture in the dark ages or Nazis outlawing thousands of books and artwork is perhaps on the best examples of iconoclasm and social re-engineering on a massive scale. Or the attempt by ISIS or the Taliban to erase archaeological history in their countries. Indonesia and Malaysia have been actively erasing their pre-Islamic history from the school curriculum as has China been making up fiction over their origins.

On that scale the attempt to remove 1 second of a scene in a Disney animation is pretty lame,



Hollywood_Guy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2017
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,036
Location: US

14 May 2021, 8:14 pm

Gentleman Argentum wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Salient means "prominent" or "important." I feel the most common definition employed in "real life" is "prominent." A very subjective term.

One person's "salient" could be another person's "junk" very easily.

My "salient" argument against some of the features of the Woke ideology-----is that it is taking away the "fun" from life. It is excessive. It can be even hypocritical at times.

In a small way, the Woke situation reminds me of the "Cultural Revolution" of China in the 1960s----where the policial elite, some of whom were youths with an axe to grind, took over the practical leadership of society. Many people were either sent to "re-education camps" or killed for not being "orthodox" in their beliefs. It was quite easy to diverge from the "orthodox."

Or like what happened in the religious wars of the Renaissance----where one could be executed for putting up two fingers at a certain moment instead of three.

Just like both communism and fascism are almost always quite hypocritical.

Of course, we must stamp out racism, sexism, and all the rest----they have no place in an enlightened society. But to go to extremes, to me, defeats the purpose.

My argument is "salient" because it is prominent. I can only aspire to "importance."


Agreed!

How I perceive Woke-ness is anti-male -- misandrogyny -- and anti-white -- racist and anti-aged. In other words, Woke people hate anyone that looks like me, before we've uttered one word, or even breathed in air, because we're privileged/entitled/and (presumably) have more money than they do. And, they hate the police, because police are bad, in every case, without exception, because they enforce laws, and Woke is above the laws apparently. The Woke have a right to destroy cars, businesses and terrorize folk in their own home, because they are "right" and "enlightened" and "know better". How do they know they are enlightened? Well they just feel they are, so that makes it so!


The actual term for anti-male I think you mean is misandry.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 2,724
Location: canada

15 May 2021, 11:34 am

cyberdad wrote:
ironpony wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
ironpony wrote:
But this is the problem I have with censorship is I don't like movies and art being alternated like that, and feel it's bad. Plus as for the argument that the kiss brought her out of a coma, in real life people give each other mouth to mouth to stop them from dying, without consent so is that any better?

It's still have to touch someone's mouth with your lips to bring than back to life. And whenever someone uses mouth to mouth to resisitate someone in real life, the woke generation, nor the media, never hits the no consent button on it.


It's amazing what they can do with CGI. A blown kiss can be made to look enchanting with sparkling stardust etc....


But that's still censorship because they are altering it. Any type of change made is a form of censorship.


It depends on how you perceive censorship. For example television editors use censorship all the time to edit out words used in aired TV shows or where there's been a wardrobe malfunction or where a film director accidentally leaves a coke bottle or an aeroplane in a period film. For many people the kiss isn't that important as the "happily evert after". Does it change the story, perhaps in a minor way? Its a matter up for debate.

If you want proper examples of censortship then the Christian inquisition erasure of 100% of European culture in the dark ages or Nazis outlawing thousands of books and artwork is perhaps on the best examples of iconoclasm and social re-engineering on a massive scale. Or the attempt by ISIS or the Taliban to erase archaeological history in their countries. Indonesia and Malaysia have been actively erasing their pre-Islamic history from the school curriculum as has China been making up fiction over their origins.

On that scale the attempt to remove 1 second of a scene in a Disney animation is pretty lame,


I can understand TV editors editing out profane words, but the original movie can still be found. It seems the woke generation, wants to get rid of the originals, and I feel that is censorship. If they want their own woke version of Snow White, then make that. But they talk about forever changing the originals and I feel that's total censorship.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,179

15 May 2021, 8:23 pm

So part II of my post is that culture is a dynamic thing.

Snow White, Harry Potter, Lord, Game of Thrones, of the Rings and Star Wars etc. have become part of popular culture and in many ways are more relevant to the modern society than classical literature of Troy, Beowulf, Shakespeare or Wordsworth.

For example nobody would care less if Chaucer was dabbled with because 99.999% of the population can;t read middle English.

My wife and I booked a theatrical performance of "Harry Potter and the Cursed Child" and among the older boffins dressed up in costume (like a comicon gathering) there was detailed talk of Potter canon. Not surprisingly online there's thousands of fans of popular genre who are obsessed with canon (particularly Star wars).

People have grown up with the Disney classics and so there will be a negative reaction to altering the storyline. These things should be considered by Disney when listening to the neo-feminist perspective on snow white.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 2,724
Location: canada

16 May 2021, 12:54 am

But like Snow White when the man kisses her to bring her out of a coma, there are times in real life where people will give unconscious people mouth to mouth resesitation in order to resesitate them and prevent them from dying. So it's a similar scenario in a sense. Yet the woke generation never calls this out in real life, as sexual assault, and only calls it out in a movie. Why?



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,751
Location: I'm right here

16 May 2021, 12:55 am

ironpony wrote:
But like Snow White when the man kisses her to bring her out of a coma, there are times in real life where people will give unconscious people mouth to mouth resesitation in order to resesitate them and prevent them from dying. So it's a similar scenario in a sense. Yet the woke generation never calls this out in real life, as sexual assault, and only calls it out in a movie. Why?



Maybe it's only the fringe of the so called 'woke generation' who are bothered by this.


_________________
politics is dumb but very important
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 2,724
Location: canada

16 May 2021, 12:58 am

Oh what do you mean by the fringe in this case?



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,751
Location: I'm right here

16 May 2021, 1:04 am

ironpony wrote:
Oh what do you mean by the fringe in this case?


Even most so-called woke people don't agree with the opinion, it's only the fringe.


_________________
politics is dumb but very important
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う