Chat Forum
It is currently Thu Dec 13, 2018 11:48 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1040 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 26  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2671
On the other hand, we learned today that another poor victim of our patriarchy has succumbed to the insidious dream of becoming a princess, so the fight goes on :(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34892
Dobbin wrote:
On the other hand, we learned today that another poor victim of our patriarchy has succumbed to the insidious dream of becoming a princess, so the fight goes on :(


She submitted.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19558
JM - I find it bizarre that anyone would think that Sleeping Beauty is teaching kids bad lessons. In fact across the spectrum of children’s media one could pick out any number of morally questionable scenarios and characters. None of which are teaching the children bad lessons as the influence of their parents and school (mainly) will far outweigh those moments.

The whole debate about sexual consent is getting ludicrous if we are now taking a magnifying glass to children’s literature. And this whole episode is framed on the basis of consent rather than the portrayal of gender roles.

I don’t see there being a worthwhile debate here. It’s pointless headline grabbing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 46198
theo wrote:
JM - I find it bizarre that anyone would think that Sleeping Beauty is teaching kids bad lessons. In fact across the spectrum of children’s media one could pick out any number of morally questionable scenarios and characters. None of which are teaching the children bad lessons as the influence of their parents and school (mainly) will far outweigh those moments.


"Other things have more impact so there's no point talking about it at all, and loads of children's media has this stuff" isn't much of an argument. Plus you have to remember, these things are fantasy: often idealised versions of the world, held up as aspirational.

You and others seem certain these things have no impact, but at the very least some studies suggest otherwise. We all know marketing is pretty pervasive, and there's a backlash not just from the left when it comes to rigid gender roles for kids' stuff, so it seems like the right time to discuss these. Her suggestion isn't to burn Sleeping Beauty, she's not exactly saying anything outlandish.

Quote:
The whole debate about sexual consent is getting ludicrous if we are now taking a magnifying glass to children’s literature. And this whole episode is framed on the basis of consent rather than the portrayal of gender roles.

I don’t see there being a worthwhile debate here. It’s pointless headline grabbing.


You're right, it is framed on the basis of consent, but the article addresses more than that. I'm sure the results of the studies on Disney's princess culture she references will make for interesting reading.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2671
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Dobbin wrote:
On the other hand, we learned today that another poor victim of our patriarchy has succumbed to the insidious dream of becoming a princess, so the fight goes on :(


She submitted.


She had no choice. Harry kissed her in her sleep.

These things have an effect. I was exposed to an episode of Dallas back when I was a child and since then all I've been able to think about is getting a ticket to the oil barons' ball.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15680
JM2K6 wrote:
Man In Black wrote:
_fatprop wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:
Accepting that having women in submissive roles and/or being subject to things that actually when you stop to think about it are probably teaching your kids bad lessons is not something that should demand derision. If anything, the article is stating the bleeding obvious and isn't really adding anything to the conversation, which is my criticism of it. The best we get is a "maybe we can remake them like with Shrek" which is, yeah, great, but not really worth an article on.


Jordan Peterson - What women want = google analysis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED8r5jGijV0


I'm not sure you are going to win JMK over with a Jordan Peterson video.


Well no, Peterson is a fraud and fatprop's posting history when it comes to women is pretty disturbing. There's more chance of fatcat agreeing with a feminist.


We agree on lots of things.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6995
JM2K6 wrote:
theo wrote:
JM - I find it bizarre that anyone would think that Sleeping Beauty is teaching kids bad lessons. In fact across the spectrum of children’s media one could pick out any number of morally questionable scenarios and characters. None of which are teaching the children bad lessons as the influence of their parents and school (mainly) will far outweigh those moments.


"Other things have more impact so there's no point talking about it at all, and loads of children's media has this stuff" isn't much of an argument. Plus you have to remember, these things are fantasy: often idealised versions of the world, held up as aspirational.

You and others seem certain these things have no impact, but at the very least some studies suggest otherwise. We all know marketing is pretty pervasive, and there's a backlash not just from the left when it comes to rigid gender roles for kids' stuff, so it seems like the right time to discuss these. Her suggestion isn't to burn Sleeping Beauty, she's not exactly saying anything outlandish.

Quote:
The whole debate about sexual consent is getting ludicrous if we are now taking a magnifying glass to children’s literature. And this whole episode is framed on the basis of consent rather than the portrayal of gender roles.

I don’t see there being a worthwhile debate here. It’s pointless headline grabbing.


You're right, it is framed on the basis of consent, but the article addresses more than that. I'm sure the results of the studies on Disney's princess culture she references will make for interesting reading.


The world is splitting into different realities, on one hand you have hand wringing over fairy tales and consent; while another reality is dreaming of being those modern princesses watching The Kardashians, multitudes of Real Housewives and WAGs shows, following Instagram models and watching you-tubes of women showing off their shopping hauls


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18849
Location: Sarnath in the land of Mnar
_fatprop wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:
theo wrote:
JM - I find it bizarre that anyone would think that Sleeping Beauty is teaching kids bad lessons. In fact across the spectrum of children’s media one could pick out any number of morally questionable scenarios and characters. None of which are teaching the children bad lessons as the influence of their parents and school (mainly) will far outweigh those moments.


"Other things have more impact so there's no point talking about it at all, and loads of children's media has this stuff" isn't much of an argument. Plus you have to remember, these things are fantasy: often idealised versions of the world, held up as aspirational.

You and others seem certain these things have no impact, but at the very least some studies suggest otherwise. We all know marketing is pretty pervasive, and there's a backlash not just from the left when it comes to rigid gender roles for kids' stuff, so it seems like the right time to discuss these. Her suggestion isn't to burn Sleeping Beauty, she's not exactly saying anything outlandish.

Quote:
The whole debate about sexual consent is getting ludicrous if we are now taking a magnifying glass to children’s literature. And this whole episode is framed on the basis of consent rather than the portrayal of gender roles.

I don’t see there being a worthwhile debate here. It’s pointless headline grabbing.


You're right, it is framed on the basis of consent, but the article addresses more than that. I'm sure the results of the studies on Disney's princess culture she references will make for interesting reading.


The world is splitting into different realities, on one hand you have hand wringing over fairy tales and consent; while another reality is dreaming of being those modern princesses watching The Kardashians, multitudes of Real Housewives and WAGs shows, following Instagram models and watching you-tubes of women showing off their shopping hauls



I'd say it's that the world is splitting into reality and the struggle against reality, to quote Life of Brian.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6995
Hellraiser wrote:

I'd say it's that the world is splitting into reality and the struggle against reality, to quote Life of Brian.


Which ones which?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34892
_fatprop wrote:
Hellraiser wrote:

I'd say it's that the world is splitting into reality and the struggle against reality, to quote Life of Brian.


Which ones which?


I have a pretty strong theory.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22402
_fatprop wrote:
Hellraiser wrote:

I'd say it's that the world is splitting into reality and the struggle against reality, to quote Life of Brian.


Which ones which?



I guess the anti-reality groups has several groups, some from the right wing view of things and some on the left wing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19558
JM2K6 wrote:

"Other things have more impact so there's no point talking about it at all, and loads of children's media has this stuff" isn't much of an argument. Plus you have to remember, these things are fantasy: often idealised versions of the world, held up as aspirational.

You and others seem certain these things have no impact, but at the very least some studies suggest otherwise. We all know marketing is pretty pervasive, and there's a backlash not just from the left when it comes to rigid gender roles for kids' stuff, so it seems like the right time to discuss these. Her suggestion isn't to burn Sleeping Beauty, she's not exactly saying anything outlandish.
.

Gender roles and the portrayal of girls/women in children's stories is one thing. Suggesting that the kiss in Sleeping Beauty is advocating sexual assault is something entirely different. It's a massive leap that assumes the children watching are taking the events at face value. Generally they aren't and by the time they have got to any kind of sexually aware age Sleeping Beauty is well past its sell by date.

I get the point of the argument that morally questionable scenarios in children's fiction/media should be considered but I think it is massively misplaced in this instance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 7295
theo wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:

"Other things have more impact so there's no point talking about it at all, and loads of children's media has this stuff" isn't much of an argument. Plus you have to remember, these things are fantasy: often idealised versions of the world, held up as aspirational.

You and others seem certain these things have no impact, but at the very least some studies suggest otherwise. We all know marketing is pretty pervasive, and there's a backlash not just from the left when it comes to rigid gender roles for kids' stuff, so it seems like the right time to discuss these. Her suggestion isn't to burn Sleeping Beauty, she's not exactly saying anything outlandish.
.

Gender roles and the portrayal of girls/women in children's stories is one thing. Suggesting that the kiss in Sleeping Beauty is advocating sexual assault is something entirely different. It's a massive leap that assumes the children watching are taking the events at face value. Generally they aren't and by the time they have got to any kind of sexually aware age Sleeping Beauty is well past its sell by date.

I get the point of the argument that morally questionable scenarios in children's fiction/media should be considered but I think it is massively misplaced in this instance.


Fairy tales are replete with moral ambiguity. It's one of the things. Take Jack and the Beanstalk: lazy bastard falls for con, steals and murders and makes good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22402
Santa wrote:
theo wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:

"Other things have more impact so there's no point talking about it at all, and loads of children's media has this stuff" isn't much of an argument. Plus you have to remember, these things are fantasy: often idealised versions of the world, held up as aspirational.

You and others seem certain these things have no impact, but at the very least some studies suggest otherwise. We all know marketing is pretty pervasive, and there's a backlash not just from the left when it comes to rigid gender roles for kids' stuff, so it seems like the right time to discuss these. Her suggestion isn't to burn Sleeping Beauty, she's not exactly saying anything outlandish.
.

Gender roles and the portrayal of girls/women in children's stories is one thing. Suggesting that the kiss in Sleeping Beauty is advocating sexual assault is something entirely different. It's a massive leap that assumes the children watching are taking the events at face value. Generally they aren't and by the time they have got to any kind of sexually aware age Sleeping Beauty is well past its sell by date.

I get the point of the argument that morally questionable scenarios in children's fiction/media should be considered but I think it is massively misplaced in this instance.


Fairy tales are replete with moral ambiguity. It's one of the things. Take Jack and the Beanstalk: lazy bastard falls for con, steals and murders and makes good.



Of course do stories have to be morally acceptable? or have a moral as well? Do we really think kids who are well brought-up going to suddenly change their world view and life direction over a piece of fiction?

I'd argue that seeing as illiterate kids will more likely become criminals statistically there is plenty to suggest there isn't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15155
Location: By the mighty beard of Adam Jones
Article clearly not peak Guardian as unlike most of the CiF nonsense it seems to have been worth discussing. Have to agree with JM here that it wasn't so much controversial as inconsequential. Would have worked better as a more generalised critique, perhaps without the tenuous (and rather Guardianistic) launchpad of the Stamford rape.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19647
sort of on topic - was in Torquay at the weekend, in a Seaside tat shop buying drinks for the kids, and next to the newspaper stands (inc Guardian) they sold 3 different sizes of Gollywogs. I smiled at the thought of some liberal london tourist getting upset by this as they reached for their copy of the Guardian.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4574
I thought the most interesting bit was the history of the fairy tale in question; turns out those PC libtard cucks the Grimm brothers had already watered it down considerably.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11264
Mahoney wrote:
I thought the most interesting bit was the history of the fairy tale in question; turns out those PC libtard cucks the Grimm brothers had already watered it down considerably.


Indeed, which given how grisly the majority of the original Grimm's Fairy Tales are is saying something.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22402
Mahoney wrote:
I thought the most interesting bit was the history of the fairy tale in question; turns out those PC libtard cucks the Grimm brothers had already watered it down considerably.


I mentioned that before, the original story was pretty horrific, but then fairy tales rarely seemed to be written as actual morality tales of good vs bad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34892
Grimm sisters now innit? Didn't they go the yays of the wachowskis?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 963
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Speaking of Jordan Peterson, I listened to this recording last night:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YdFlKaJv4g

So it's the full recording of the meeting that the teaching assistant at some Ontario University had to attend because she showed 5 minutes of a Petersen video in class. It seems to have blown up as a big issue in Canada.

I don't follow Petersen's videos, and don't fully understand his angle, but it seems to me that his significance seems to be mainly to do with wider questions about the nature of universities and academic freedom, free speech, control of the academy, inquiry, and on and on.

Anyway, the recording is staggering; well worth a listen.
Chuffing hellfire.

Anyone else listen to this and side with the WLU politburo over the poor lass in their crosshairs? I’m disturbed that academia anywhere would take this approach, but I’ve long since accepted the ongoing degeneration of our citadels of inquiry (or at least many of those in N America), so this is just more of the same depressing trend - and, besides, the institutions (student/faculty/administration) of the 3 universities I attended were full of wankers 30 years ago, and had very little deleterious impact on my life (arguably they helped me hone the wanker-handling skills I subsequently needed to deal with the middle-management potentates and bureaucratic buffoonery of the, erm, ‘real world).

But if any of the relatively hinged citizens of this here parish thought that WLU has a point.. then I’d be genuinely terrified, as that could only be explained by one or both of two catastrophic possibilities: either civilisation as we know it is about to collapse, or I’ve completely lost the plot and should section myself immediately.

Anyone?

FWIW, I think that Graun CiF article has a point, but a fairly pointless one. About as useful as spending more than a raised eyebrow on methodological solipsism


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34892
Benthos wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Speaking of Jordan Peterson, I listened to this recording last night:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YdFlKaJv4g

So it's the full recording of the meeting that the teaching assistant at some Ontario University had to attend because she showed 5 minutes of a Petersen video in class. It seems to have blown up as a big issue in Canada.

I don't follow Petersen's videos, and don't fully understand his angle, but it seems to me that his significance seems to be mainly to do with wider questions about the nature of universities and academic freedom, free speech, control of the academy, inquiry, and on and on.

Anyway, the recording is staggering; well worth a listen.
Chuffing hellfire.

Anyone else listen to this and side with the WLU politburo over the poor lass in their crosshairs? I’m disturbed that academia anywhere would take this approach, but I’ve long since accepted the ongoing degeneration of our citadels of inquiry (or at least many of those in N America), so this is just more of the same depressing trend - and, besides, the institutions (student/faculty/administration) of the 3 universities I attended were full of wankers 30 years ago, and had very little deleterious impact on my life (arguably they helped me hone the wanker-handling skills I subsequently needed to deal with the middle-management potentates and bureaucratic buffoonery of the, erm, ‘real world).

But if any of the relatively hinged citizens of this here parish thought that WLU has a point.. then I’d be genuinely terrified, as that could only be explained by one or both of two catastrophic possibilities: either civilisation as we know it is about to collapse, or I’ve completely lost the plot and should section myself immediately.

Anyone?

FWIW, I think that Graun CiF article has a point, but a fairly pointless one. About as useful as spending more than a raised eyebrow on methodological solipsism


Civilisation is collapsing. No question. At least the western version of it as constituted for the past 500 or so years. I've just done a quick sketch and graph to work out exactly when the hordes will pour down the Appian Way, based on generational and demographic trends, and by my reckoning it will be 2087. So anyone with young children can expect to see them witness it in their dotage. My advice to them would be to stay away from the cities and be in remote parts of the new world. But the westphalian system and the global institutions that tie it all together will collapse.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14741
Location: Haunting your dreams
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Benthos wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Speaking of Jordan Peterson, I listened to this recording last night:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YdFlKaJv4g

So it's the full recording of the meeting that the teaching assistant at some Ontario University had to attend because she showed 5 minutes of a Petersen video in class. It seems to have blown up as a big issue in Canada.

I don't follow Petersen's videos, and don't fully understand his angle, but it seems to me that his significance seems to be mainly to do with wider questions about the nature of universities and academic freedom, free speech, control of the academy, inquiry, and on and on.

Anyway, the recording is staggering; well worth a listen.
Chuffing hellfire.

Anyone else listen to this and side with the WLU politburo over the poor lass in their crosshairs? I’m disturbed that academia anywhere would take this approach, but I’ve long since accepted the ongoing degeneration of our citadels of inquiry (or at least many of those in N America), so this is just more of the same depressing trend - and, besides, the institutions (student/faculty/administration) of the 3 universities I attended were full of wankers 30 years ago, and had very little deleterious impact on my life (arguably they helped me hone the wanker-handling skills I subsequently needed to deal with the middle-management potentates and bureaucratic buffoonery of the, erm, ‘real world).

But if any of the relatively hinged citizens of this here parish thought that WLU has a point.. then I’d be genuinely terrified, as that could only be explained by one or both of two catastrophic possibilities: either civilisation as we know it is about to collapse, or I’ve completely lost the plot and should section myself immediately.

Anyone?

FWIW, I think that Graun CiF article has a point, but a fairly pointless one. About as useful as spending more than a raised eyebrow on methodological solipsism


Civilisation is collapsing. No question. At least the western version of it as constituted for the past 500 or so years. I've just done a quick sketch and graph to work out exactly when the hordes will pour down the Appian Way, based on generational and demographic trends, and by my reckoning it will be 2087. So anyone with young children can expect to see them witness it in their dotage. My advice to them would be to stay away from the cities and be in remote parts of the new world. But the westphalian system and the global institutions that tie it all together will collapse.


:lol:

Getting a bit tin hatty there Sen, but I do agree that Westphalian sovereignty is gradually being eroded, however for reasons previously discussed, I don't think that is a bad thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34892
Zakar wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Benthos wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Speaking of Jordan Peterson, I listened to this recording last night:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YdFlKaJv4g

So it's the full recording of the meeting that the teaching assistant at some Ontario University had to attend because she showed 5 minutes of a Petersen video in class. It seems to have blown up as a big issue in Canada.

I don't follow Petersen's videos, and don't fully understand his angle, but it seems to me that his significance seems to be mainly to do with wider questions about the nature of universities and academic freedom, free speech, control of the academy, inquiry, and on and on.

Anyway, the recording is staggering; well worth a listen.
Chuffing hellfire.

Anyone else listen to this and side with the WLU politburo over the poor lass in their crosshairs? I’m disturbed that academia anywhere would take this approach, but I’ve long since accepted the ongoing degeneration of our citadels of inquiry (or at least many of those in N America), so this is just more of the same depressing trend - and, besides, the institutions (student/faculty/administration) of the 3 universities I attended were full of wankers 30 years ago, and had very little deleterious impact on my life (arguably they helped me hone the wanker-handling skills I subsequently needed to deal with the middle-management potentates and bureaucratic buffoonery of the, erm, ‘real world).

But if any of the relatively hinged citizens of this here parish thought that WLU has a point.. then I’d be genuinely terrified, as that could only be explained by one or both of two catastrophic possibilities: either civilisation as we know it is about to collapse, or I’ve completely lost the plot and should section myself immediately.

Anyone?

FWIW, I think that Graun CiF article has a point, but a fairly pointless one. About as useful as spending more than a raised eyebrow on methodological solipsism


Civilisation is collapsing. No question. At least the western version of it as constituted for the past 500 or so years. I've just done a quick sketch and graph to work out exactly when the hordes will pour down the Appian Way, based on generational and demographic trends, and by my reckoning it will be 2087. So anyone with young children can expect to see them witness it in their dotage. My advice to them would be to stay away from the cities and be in remote parts of the new world. But the westphalian system and the global institutions that tie it all together will collapse.


:lol:

Getting a bit tin hatty there Sen, but I do agree that Westphalian sovereignty is gradually being eroded, however for reasons previously discussed, I don't think that is a bad thing.


I'm not talking 'The Road' or Walking Dead stuff. And I disagree with your assertions and your conclusions in the rest of your post. But that's for another day.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 963
Hm. We must compare eschatological premises and conclusions some time. Suspect I’m a bit more pessimistic as the trends I was looking at predate Homer, rather than ‘Westphalia’. In 1993 my model predicted that 3 apparently unrelated and rather abstract indicators of humanity’s/evolutionary ‘progress’ would each either experience an unprecedented reversal or would achieve a cataclysmic singularity, around 2025, with significant systemic and tangible global effects of this phenomenon beginning around 2008.

I was ingesting heroic quantities of hallucinogens at the time, mind.

...and I had my first kid in 2007, so although I haven’t recanted my apocalyptic predictions, I often join my progeny when they stick fingers in their ears and shout “blah blah I can’t hear you!” albeit for different reasons.

As ever, one must first learn - and then help others learn - how to die well. Once that’s achieved, living well, or indeed living at all, becomes a rather pleasant surprise.

Cioran’s mischievous, celebratory nihilism is a rare intellectual comfort in these odd times, I find. Sen - I recommend an aphorism or 2 with your daily sharpener, if you haven’t stumbled across him yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 5:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 963
Apocalypse / sectioning averted for a wee while - I see that the VC of WLU has apologised to that lass, after her secret recording went viral. Thankfully most of the commentariat, even on the left, flamed the Uni for, among other things, equating a video of a discussion involving JP (and his opponent[s]) being presented sensitively and neutrally by a lecturer, to said lecture debating the rights of POC.

*takes fingers out of ears and resumes Roblox with his eldest*


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34892
Benthos wrote:
Apocalypse / sectioning averted for a wee while - I see that the VC of WLU has apologised to that lass, after her secret recording went viral. Thankfully most of the commentariat, even on the left, flamed the Uni for, among other things, equating a video of a discussion involving JP (and his opponent[s]) being presented sensitively and neutrally by a lecturer, to said lecture debating the rights of POC.

*takes fingers out of ears and resumes Roblox with his eldest*


Yep. I'm not really convinced of the genuineness of their apology though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 7295
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Benthos wrote:
Apocalypse / sectioning averted for a wee while - I see that the VC of WLU has apologised to that lass, after her secret recording went viral. Thankfully most of the commentariat, even on the left, flamed the Uni for, among other things, equating a video of a discussion involving JP (and his opponent[s]) being presented sensitively and neutrally by a lecturer, to said lecture debating the rights of POC.

*takes fingers out of ears and resumes Roblox with his eldest*


Yep. I'm not really convinced of the genuineness of their apology though.


Not genuine at all. You can't change your view so quickly when it is held so deeply and unreasonably.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 46198
Was the VC in the meeting then?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 963
No, but is that relevant? CEO (literally) of institution being fluid gender taxonomical node 43gshamed from all sides speedily issues arse-covering mewl template and faux contrition shocker. The Professor of Testicular Oratory that was bellendsplaining in that recording also suppurated something approximating to an apology, but that job’s his only means of resourcing his spiralling auto-fisting habit and d-lock fetish so duh


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 46198
It's relevant because you can't accuse someone of changing a deeply held view so quickly when it's actually someone else.

I also can't tell if you've doubled down on the pointless verbosity as a deliberate tactic or if you're really this much of windbag in real life :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 46198
In the spirit of this thread, I bring you this amazing headscratcher:

How Viagra is secretly a tool to feed men's macho desires to ravish women

Quote:
It’s men, the men so thrumming with sexual potency that they can’t get enough Viagra and porn to get them in the mood.


I er, don't think you thought this through at all...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10782
JM2K6 wrote:
In the spirit of this thread, I bring you this amazing headscratcher:

How Viagra is secretly a tool to feed men's macho desires to ravish women

Quote:
It’s men, the men so thrumming with sexual potency that they can’t get enough Viagra and porn to get them in the mood.


I er, don't think you thought this through at all...

I don’t Debs is getting any..,


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 963
JM2K6 wrote:
It's relevant because you can't accuse someone of changing a deeply held view so quickly when it's actually someone else.

I also can't tell if you've doubled down on the pointless verbosity as a deliberate tactic or if you're really this much of windbag in real life :lol:
Ah, yes... ‘doubling down’, for reasons beyond my limited understanding, seems to be le metaphor juste of the lefter demographic of the bored. Your flange’s ‘snowflake’, I suppose.

I’ve been trying to work out where the gambling link is... puerile plays on ‘poke ‘er’ etc. aside, I have no idea behind one of the Alpha baboons cribbing (!) it from the New Statesman - a lot - and then basic simian interpolation doing the rest.

Anyway, I haven’t accused anyone of any such thing - I just suggested that the VC’s apology might be more to do with saving WLU’s battered reputation as a bastion of intellectual independence and courage, than with a personal conviction that the blesstapo were fundamentally wrong to take the approach they did.

Maybe the VC would have issued that apology without the universal outcry; maybe the apology was genuine and heartfelt. Don’t know; don’t care. It seems the recipient wasn’t overly won over, anyway.

If you read my contributions to this thread, I - once you rinse off all that poorly silly billy tea (yep, in real life this bag is windier than a flatulent hurricane. In Chicago. With the window down) - simply agreed with Senekot that the audio clip he posted was shocking, and then reported that the Uni issued an apology.

That’s it. I’ve no idea what point you are trying to make. Or if you’re mistaking me for someone else...

Hint: Seance posted the clip, Benthos went harrumph, Santa made the comment you’re referring to (while quoting me). Admit it - we all look the same, don’t we?

You didn’t comment on the clip, though. Thoughts?

I’d genuinely like to hear them, not least because I’d rather not make the same sort of assumptions about your likely take on the clip that I think you’re making about mine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 7295
Benthos it appears that my comment has landed you in the s.hit and for that I can only be happy.

But to explain it I need to pass the blame. To make another the focus of JMK's savagery. To pass the hospital pass if you. To be blunt: to feed the backs.

I took Seneca's use of the word "their" to include the pathetic leader of the Inquisition, Nathan Rambukkana. Now Seneca may not have intended that but who cares. He can let have this one as a small down payment for 180 years of colonialism.

So there we have it. The truth at last. And it may look unchivalrous of me tomorrow Seneca under the bus like that but consider this: when the lion hunts he takes the easy prey. The feeble. The sick. The old. And which of this little herd best fits those criteria?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34892
I suppose the lazy worm gets eaten by the bird. And this worm isn't even out of bed yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34892
Hong Kong wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:
In the spirit of this thread, I bring you this amazing headscratcher:

How Viagra is secretly a tool to feed men's macho desires to ravish women

Quote:
It’s men, the men so thrumming with sexual potency that they can’t get enough Viagra and porn to get them in the mood.


I er, don't think you thought this through at all...

I don’t Debs is getting any..,


Will Self's wife.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 963
Santa wrote:
Benthos it appears that my comment has landed you in the s.hit and for that I can only be happy.

But to explain it I need to pass the blame. To make another the focus of JMK's savagery. To pass the hospital pass if you. To be blunt: to feed the backs.

I took Seneca's use of the word "their" to include the pathetic leader of the Inquisition, Nathan Rambukkana. Now Seneca may not have intended that but who cares. He can let have this one as a small down payment for 180 years of colonialism.

So there we have it. The truth at last. And it may look unchivalrous of me tomorrow Seneca under the bus like that but consider this: when the lion hunts he takes the easy prey. The feeble. The sick. The old. And which of this little herd best fits those criteria?
Reported. Even I have limits


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11745
This thread is going a bit gruniad itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 11:28 am
Posts: 322
A well articulated opinion piece in the G today. :thumbup:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... referendum


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1040 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 26  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Armchair_Superstar, bessantj, bimboman, Bing [Bot], Bogbunny, booji boy, DOB, Google [Bot], guy smiley, irishrugbyua, Jay Cee Gee, Kiwias, Olo, Petej, Phredd, RodneyRegis, SamShark, Slim 293, sunnybanana, tazman77, thor, tiddle, Xin, ZappaMan and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group