The Woke Generation - Fighting Back

Post Reply New Topic

Can you name an example with that sort of content?

One of the most popular Australian TV shows is the "Footy Show" which covers Australian rules. The high ratings are because the channel 9 producers allow for excessive amounts of innapropriate non-PC content.
There's two - one for AFL (Australian rules football) and one for Australian rugby league.

So no, you don't have an example of a metal or rap song with lyrics that include a reference to a woman being murdered by her jealous partner that gets played at matches. Is there an example of that sort of song you can name from those shows?

That's all I was asking about, an apples to apples comparison.

That is very specific....like asking if I can come up with another far right individual who dresses like the QAnon shaman

Not really, it's more like asking if you can name another QAnoner who agrees with him.

If it's common, it shouldn't be hard to cite an example.

I note that managing PC is a fulltime job when you commit yourself to social justice using your platform
https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop ... -rcna40915
https://www.glamour.com/story/lizzo-grr ... ics-change

NBA player Cam Thomas has been fined $40,000 for using a phrase critics say is homophobic.

The 21-year-old guard for the Brooklyn Nets used the phrase during a postgame interview with a TNT reporter following the team’s victory over the Chicago Bulls on Feb. 9.

The reporter asked Thomas about a joke that his new teammate, Spencer Dinwiddie, had made earlier last week, talking about the recent trade that landed him on the Nets.

As part of a trade with the Dallas Mavericks, the Nets sent NBA superstar point guard Kyrie Irving and power forward Markieff Morris to Dallas, in exchange for Dinwiddie, another player, and several future draft picks.

Dinwiddie later commented that while the Nets might not have acquired the most talented players in the deal, they did get the “best-looking” players, adding that “the Nets needed some help in that department.”

“I seen it,” Thomas said in response to Dinwiddie’s remarks. “But I was like, ‘Man, he just talking.’ We already had good-looking dudes,” before adding, “No homo.”

The reporter, Jared Greenberg, was caught off guard by Thomas’s words. “Surely the league office will enjoy that one,” he said, a reference to the NBA’s practice of fining players who use homophobic language.

“No homo” is a slang expression, often used as a joke, added at the end of sentences to defend its speaker against potential accusations of harboring homosexual desires.

But its use has rankled some more sensitive members of the LGBTQ community, who believe it paints homosexuality as an undesirable trait.

Thomas later took to Twitter to apologize for the statement.

“I was excited about the win and was being playful,” Thomas tweeted. “I definitely didn’t intend to offend anyone, but realize that I probably did. My apologies again. Much love.”

In recent years, the NBA has doled out punishments to players for using homophobic language or making anti-gay remarks — much to the chagrin of opponents of political correctness, who argue the league has gone overboard in trying to police language that might offend some people.

”No homo" is a slang phrase used at the end of a sentence to assert the statement spoken by the speaker had no intentional homosexual implications. The phrase is also "added to a statement in order to rid [oneself] of a possible homosexual double-entendre"

The phrase was originated by Harlem, New York City, natives and made famous by the Harlem rapper Cam'ron as a way to quash any sexual and gender error or overstep within lyrics.vJoshua Brown in the Journal of Homosexuality, states "the phrase 'no homo' arose in Hip-Hop lyrics of the 1990s as a discourse interjection to negate supposed sexual and gender transgressions".The phrase "no homo" used in a lyrical context comes as a pre-emptive maneuver to deflect any attacks on the artist's masculinity or heterosexual status. Within this context, "'No homo' is not necessarily addressing homosexuality, but creating a verbal defensive in the musical battlefield that is wrought with signifyn' and bustin'. [Musicians] realize that a lyric, which is 'inadvertently gay,' is fodder for another's verbal attack on their masculinity within hip-hop culture. In an attempt to divert their own de-masculinization, musicians presuppose those attacks at their masculinity".

As with many attributes of hip hop culture, the use of "no homo" has become integrated into the mainstream North American vernacular. One reason for this as proposed by Brown is that the integration and reception of the specific phrase no homo into the conversational dialect of North American English was simple and due in part to its phonetic resonance. Due to its association to the display of hypermasculinity, scholar Deborah Cameron argues the use of this phrase by young males demonstrates how "gender has constantly to be reaffirmed and publicly displayed by repeatedly performing particular acts in accordance to cultural norms".

It is often viewed as humorous, particularly when in relation to a double entendre.

According to some critics, "no homo" perpetuates the notion that homosexuality and gay people are lesser than heterosexuality and straight people.Others have pointed out that the phrase is used among gay people. There are instances of LGBT people using "no homo," though it is most often done so in a more ambiguous or critical light and does not reduce the homophobic qualities. For instance, it could be used by a gay man "when complimenting a straight man on his appearance...distancing the compliment from a sexual advance, when a gay man feels threatened or seeks to protect himself from misunderstanding" or if "a homosexual man said 'my fiancé (another man) and I are going to get married this summer, no homo'". In these instances, the phrase was used either as a protective measure for one's legitimate misunderstanding or as an ironic commentary on the phrase itself.

Several social commentators have criticized the use of "no homo" in hip hop and in the mainstream. It has been said that the phrase "uphold[s] an unhealthy relationship with homosexuality, a relationship based in fear."Fox News commentator Marc Lamont Hill encouraged the hip hop community to stop using "no homo" in its music.

Slate columnist Jonah Weiner notes several hip hop artists – such as Cam'ron and Lil Wayne – cultivate an extravagant and camp public persona while embracing homophobia, but saying "no homo" can help expand established concepts of masculinity and challenge the status quo.

I misunderstood your original question. I thought you wanted me to come up with examples of media/entertainment that get a "free pass" on wokeness.

There's actually plenty of music, comedy and television which get's a free pass.

I note that managing PC is a fulltime job when you commit yourself to social justice using your platform
https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop ... -rcna40915
https://www.glamour.com/story/lizzo-grr ... ics-change

What's likely is that Beyonce and Lizzo are (behind closed doors) unaware they use language that is ableist or derogatory toward disabled people. Somebody had to point that out to them. In changing the words to their songs they might lost a few fans who despise wokeness and think they are being hypocrites. But I doubt it has impacted their fanbase or their income.

All I've asked about were what offensive songs still get played at Welsh Rugby Union matches..

When I graduated with a medical degree in 1973, a Black woman in a class of mostly White men, there was a real sense that the days of obsessing over skin color and making race-based assumptions about our fellow human beings was finally fading — and, hopefully, soon gone for good.

Apparently not. That racial obsession has come rushing back — in academia, politics, business and even in my beloved medical profession. But now it’s coming from the opposite direction. The malignant false assumption that Black people are inherently inferior intellectually has been traded in for the malignant false assumption that White people are inherently racist.

That is the basic message conveyed by “implicit bias training,” which is now mandatory for California physicians; it is a message that I believe is harmful both to physicians and patients. There is a sad irony in all this, because the misguided focus on racism is intended to improve the health and well-being of Black patients in particular.

The law, which took effect last year, includes other bias targets, including gender identity, age and disability. But in practice, such training — a mainstay of the diversity and inclusion industry, worth an estimated $3.4 billion in 2020 — is overwhelmingly about race.

In California, where I’ve been licensed since 1974, every physician is required by law to participate in this racially regressive practice. Doctors must take implicit bias training not just once but as part of the curriculum of “continuing medical education,” for at least 50 hours every two years, required for their medical license renewal.

The training’s focus is on exactly what the name suggests: deeply ingrained prejudice toward people of different races. There is no room for debate, for the law states baldly: “Implicit bias, meaning the attitudes or internalized stereotypes that affect our perceptions, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner, exists.”

And the law asserts as fact that implicit bias is responsible for “racial and ethnic disparities in health care,” particularly for Black women.

I am so disturbed by the state’s mandate that, so far, I have balked at the training. But I know that I must comply before the end of 2023 if I wish to have my medical license renewed.

Many of my friends and colleagues ask why I’m so upset by the law. Clearly, implicit bias training isn’t meant for me. It’s aimed at White people, who are far and away the biggest share of the medical profession. My answer is simple. I reject the unscientific accusation that people are defined by their race, not by their individual beliefs and choices. It is little consolation that studies are finding implicit bias training has no effect on its intended targets, and might even make matters worse.

Think about the message this mandate sends to Black physicians. It suggests that I should be wary of my White colleagues because, after all, they’re biased against people like me.

Since I became a physician, I have seen exactly one instance of racism in health care — and it was from a patient, not a fellow physician. As for my colleagues, I have been consistently impressed with the conscientious, individualized care they have provided to patients of every race and culture. When we all took our oath to “first, do no harm,” we meant it, and we live it. I can’t imagine spending my entire career thinking my peers can’t uphold that oath without constant racial reeducation.

The message to physicians is bad enough, but the message to patients is much worse. Black people are, in effect, being told that White physicians are likely to quite literally damage our health.

The whole point of implicit bias training is to create better health outcomes for Black patients and others who might be the target of discrimination, but the opposite seems more likely. It fosters a climate of distrust and resentment that threatens to undermine the medical and moral progress I’ve seen over the decades. When I graduated from medical school, we were moving past the era of racial obsession and anger. Why are we going back to the days when race defined so many lives and dimmed so many futures?

Oh! I don't know personally...but a google search bought this up
https://www.paulmerryblues.com/the-simi ... rty-blues/

I’m a Black physician, and I’m appalled by mandated implicit bias training
Marilyn Singleton is a board-certified anesthesiologist and a visiting fellow at the medical advocacy organization Do No Harm.

I am shocked this would appear in The Washington Post. There is hope after all.

I wonder if it has ever crossed anyone's minds that the people who started this annoying trend of declaring all white people as being "inherently racist" have an actual sinister agenda behind doing this? Seems to me that this is going to create ANYTHING but a better society where we treat each other as equals.

Martin Luther King was loved by everyone (well everyone except the klan and neonazis I'm sure) because he truly believed in creating a world where black people and white people could be equal and get along.

In my opinion the so-called activists of today are an insult to his legacy. They don't want to build a better world they just want to burn the current world down with even more hate.