Chat Forum
It is currently Sun Aug 09, 2020 3:52 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1754 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 40, 41, 42, 43, 44
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3488
Location: France
Harvey2.0 wrote:
Santa wrote:
Harvey2.0 wrote:
The Washington post focusing on the important issues

https://twitter.com/KarenAttiah/status/ ... 8671949825


Wait are there races or aren't there? :?


Probably posted before but still worth watching


https://twitter.com/ryanlongcomedy/stat ... 7517473793


Very good. :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 11:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9914
6.Jones wrote:
Santa wrote:
Harvey2.0 wrote:
The Washington post focusing on the important issues

https://twitter.com/KarenAttiah/status/ ... 8671949825


Wait are there races or aren't there? :?

Yes, as a cultural construct.


So the Wapo is perpetuating a lie?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4832
Santa wrote:
Anyway what is actually going on there is a power play for legitimacy. Because by promulgating this nonsense about a deep black history in the UK, Olusoga and co are seeking to strengthen their claim to Britishness/Englishness whatever.

It is a classic strategy to undermine 'indigenous' claims to cultural and political priority, which are essentially based on the length of time that a piece of land is occupied. So the power play is to make a competing claim of long occupation and thereby claim equal priority. This has happened throughout the colonies (e.g. the claim that Maori took NZ off a prior population called Moriori, which is a variation that claims since Maori stole it they are not indigenous therefore we can steal it as they have no moral case).

The assertion of priority based on time occupied is something we all tacitly acknowledge and slightly agree with. In fact Olusogo agrees with it so much it is why he's is making his specious historical claims. Western liberals have got themselves in a bit of a bind on this because they explicitly support indigenous claims in non-western countries including post-colonies, but explicitly don't support indigenous claims in Europe, where they are seen as racist.

The model of high migration, multicultural superiority and the evils of ethnic majorities are thus sins at home but not away. It is classic western liberal cognitive dissonance, and it has been noticed and is now causing some ructions.


Are you suggesting that black people don't have a strong claim to Britishness/Englishness? And that white Brits should have cultural and political priority?

It's not really a surprise, obviously. It usually doesn't take you people long to break cover and go full Stefan Molyneaux.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9914
4071 wrote:
Santa wrote:
Anyway what is actually going on there is a power play for legitimacy. Because by promulgating this nonsense about a deep black history in the UK, Olusoga and co are seeking to strengthen their claim to Britishness/Englishness whatever.

It is a classic strategy to undermine 'indigenous' claims to cultural and political priority, which are essentially based on the length of time that a piece of land is occupied. So the power play is to make a competing claim of long occupation and thereby claim equal priority. This has happened throughout the colonies (e.g. the claim that Maori took NZ off a prior population called Moriori, which is a variation that claims since Maori stole it they are not indigenous therefore we can steal it as they have no moral case).

The assertion of priority based on time occupied is something we all tacitly acknowledge and slightly agree with. In fact Olusogo agrees with it so much it is why he's is making his specious historical claims. Western liberals have got themselves in a bit of a bind on this because they explicitly support indigenous claims in non-western countries including post-colonies, but explicitly don't support indigenous claims in Europe, where they are seen as racist.

The model of high migration, multicultural superiority and the evils of ethnic majorities are thus sins at home but not away. It is classic western liberal cognitive dissonance, and it has been noticed and is now causing some ructions.


Are you suggesting that black people don't have a strong claim to Britishness/Englishness? And that white Brits should have cultural and political priority?

It's not really a surprise, obviously. It usually doesn't take you people long to break cover and go full Stefan Molyneaux.


You people? You mean Maori?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28681
Harvey2.0 wrote:
The Washington post focusing on the important issues

https://twitter.com/KarenAttiah/status/ ... 8671949825


Asian Americans. Wow. Southern Asians like Indians and East Asians like Chinese are all the same of course?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28681
4071 wrote:
Santa wrote:
Anyway what is actually going on there is a power play for legitimacy. Because by promulgating this nonsense about a deep black history in the UK, Olusoga and co are seeking to strengthen their claim to Britishness/Englishness whatever.

It is a classic strategy to undermine 'indigenous' claims to cultural and political priority, which are essentially based on the length of time that a piece of land is occupied. So the power play is to make a competing claim of long occupation and thereby claim equal priority. This has happened throughout the colonies (e.g. the claim that Maori took NZ off a prior population called Moriori, which is a variation that claims since Maori stole it they are not indigenous therefore we can steal it as they have no moral case).

The assertion of priority based on time occupied is something we all tacitly acknowledge and slightly agree with. In fact Olusogo agrees with it so much it is why he's is making his specious historical claims. Western liberals have got themselves in a bit of a bind on this because they explicitly support indigenous claims in non-western countries including post-colonies, but explicitly don't support indigenous claims in Europe, where they are seen as racist.

The model of high migration, multicultural superiority and the evils of ethnic majorities are thus sins at home but not away. It is classic western liberal cognitive dissonance, and it has been noticed and is now causing some ructions.


Are you suggesting that black people don't have a strong claim to Britishness/Englishness? And that white Brits should have cultural and political priority?


From his previous posts he's not saying Black people don't have a strong claim to British identity. But it's ridiculous to claim say we must respect indigenous culture of say the Americas and New Zealand, but not countries that were mostly Caucasian though history.

I personally partly disagree, as obviously empire and being more advanced economies has pushed european based culture outwards and the protection of other native cultures is actually logical. It even happens on a micro level with France spending 10's of millions of pounds to protect French language from Angelo influence. On the other hand Santa has a point where why should to "respect native/indigenous culture not apply in say Europe or white populations where the same political people who support indigenous who switch to a "diversity is best" attitude.

Quote:
It's not really a surprise, obviously. It usually doesn't take you people long to break cover and go full Stefan Molyneaux.


You don't need to be some racist or race baited far right winger to see how Santa has pointed out a current cultural inconsistency.

Are you able to make any counter points that don't smear people with whatever right winger you don't like that week? Or purposely jumping to a position where you miss the simple comparison on the basis of equality? Perhaps you know address the points directly or even concede there is some fair imbalance being pointing out in a particular case?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 4:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4832
eldanielfire wrote:
From his previous posts he's not saying Black people don't have a strong claim to British identity. But it's ridiculous to claim say we must respect indigenous culture of say the Americas and New Zealand, but not countries that were mostly Caucasian though history.

I personally partly disagree, as obviously empire and being more advanced economies has pushed european based culture outwards and the protection of other native cultures is actually logical. It even happens on a micro level with France spending 10's of millions of pounds to protect French language from Angelo influence. On the other hand Santa has a point where why should to "respect native/indigenous culture not apply in say Europe or white populations where the same political people who support indigenous who switch to a "diversity is best" attitude.


Well, yes. That's kinda the point.

Santa is deliberately ignoring the fact that some indigenous cultures have been actively oppressed, and there is a need to protect what remains of them. Which is very clearly not the case in the UK, where the 'indigenous people' (if - for the sake of brevity - we ignore the fact that the indigenous people were likely Celtic, and certainly not anglo-saxon/Germanic) are still culturally and politically dominant.

So it's totally not the same situation at all and a completely false equivalence. One that was obvious enough for you to pick up on it in your reply.

Santa is going for the 'there are two different responses to these two very different scenarios, therefore the left are being hypocrites'. Which is complete nonsense.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 4:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4832
Santa wrote:
4071 wrote:
Santa wrote:
Anyway what is actually going on there is a power play for legitimacy. Because by promulgating this nonsense about a deep black history in the UK, Olusoga and co are seeking to strengthen their claim to Britishness/Englishness whatever.

It is a classic strategy to undermine 'indigenous' claims to cultural and political priority, which are essentially based on the length of time that a piece of land is occupied. So the power play is to make a competing claim of long occupation and thereby claim equal priority. This has happened throughout the colonies (e.g. the claim that Maori took NZ off a prior population called Moriori, which is a variation that claims since Maori stole it they are not indigenous therefore we can steal it as they have no moral case).

The assertion of priority based on time occupied is something we all tacitly acknowledge and slightly agree with. In fact Olusogo agrees with it so much it is why he's is making his specious historical claims. Western liberals have got themselves in a bit of a bind on this because they explicitly support indigenous claims in non-western countries including post-colonies, but explicitly don't support indigenous claims in Europe, where they are seen as racist.

The model of high migration, multicultural superiority and the evils of ethnic majorities are thus sins at home but not away. It is classic western liberal cognitive dissonance, and it has been noticed and is now causing some ructions.


Are you suggesting that black people don't have a strong claim to Britishness/Englishness? And that white Brits should have cultural and political priority?

It's not really a surprise, obviously. It usually doesn't take you people long to break cover and go full Stefan Molyneaux.


You people? You mean Maori?


Culture war Conservatives.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 5:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9914
4071 wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
From his previous posts he's not saying Black people don't have a strong claim to British identity. But it's ridiculous to claim say we must respect indigenous culture of say the Americas and New Zealand, but not countries that were mostly Caucasian though history.

I personally partly disagree, as obviously empire and being more advanced economies has pushed european based culture outwards and the protection of other native cultures is actually logical. It even happens on a micro level with France spending 10's of millions of pounds to protect French language from Angelo influence. On the other hand Santa has a point where why should to "respect native/indigenous culture not apply in say Europe or white populations where the same political people who support indigenous who switch to a "diversity is best" attitude.


Well, yes. That's kinda the point.

Santa is deliberately ignoring the fact that some indigenous cultures have been actively oppressed, and there is a need to protect what remains of them. Which is very clearly not the case in the UK, where the 'indigenous people' (if - for the sake of brevity - we ignore the fact that the indigenous people were likely Celtic, and certainly not anglo-saxon/Germanic) are still culturally and politically dominant.

So it's totally not the same situation at all and a completely false equivalence. One that was obvious enough for you to pick up on it in your reply.

Santa is going for the 'there are two different responses to these two very different scenarios, therefore the left are being hypocrites'. Which is complete nonsense.


No. I referred to colonies as places where indigenous claims are typically undermined. There are plenty of places where indigenes (or at least people with a deep history of occupation) retain a demographic majority, and where it is uncontroversial to claim a certain priority.

I guess the other point is that this is not necessarily about logical or rational approaches to this stuff. It's about a sense of attachment, entitlement and expectation that we all recognise and that are coming into conflict. Olusoga knows this and that is why he is making up historical bollocks to bolster the claim.

And yet the other point is that indigenous claims are not based on oppression, even where that is the broad context. They are based explicitly on the fact of prior occupation and an assumed morality that arises therefrom. Except in Europe. For example Maori indigenous claims are based on the assertion of being tangata whenua (a person of the land) not on oppression. And how do we know this? If Maori suddenly became not oppressed tomorrow would they give up their claim to cultural priority based on being tangata whenua? No they would not.


Last edited by Santa on Fri Jul 31, 2020 6:10 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 5:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9914
Anyway it's always fascinating to see what people make out of one's posts. Rinkals is the master but 4071 is a worthy apprentice.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 8:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:18 pm
Posts: 10107
Bryan Callen cancelled now


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 11:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14267
Quote:
Another woman, Rachel Green, alleges that Callen tried to force himself on her during an encounter which took place in an American Apparel fitting room in 2009.


No chance this happened. THEY WERE ON A BREAK!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 11:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28681
fatcat wrote:
Quote:
Another woman, Rachel Green, alleges that Callen tried to force himself on her during an encounter which took place in an American Apparel fitting room in 2009.


No chance this happened. THEY WERE ON A BREAK!


:lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 11:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28681
Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
Bryan Callen cancelled now


I wouldn't complain about someone with multiple accusations of sexual assault 'cancelled'. We usually give 'cancelled' as someone who said and did something the ultra woke brigade try to destroy them on on political grounds.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 11:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2020 11:14 pm
Posts: 116
eldanielfire wrote:
Harvey2.0 wrote:
The Washington post focusing on the important issues

https://twitter.com/KarenAttiah/status/ ... 8671949825


Asian Americans. Wow. Southern Asians like Indians and East Asians like Chinese are all the same of course?


To be fair this is unwinnable. A Cambodian friend asked me if I had ever been to Asia and I responded yes, I've been to Japan twice. She sniggered as though that doesn't count - she meant south east Asia. Even Japan wasn't 'asian" enough for her. I understand it and am fine with it though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 11:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:18 pm
Posts: 10107
eldanielfire wrote:
Ulsters Red Hand wrote:
Bryan Callen cancelled now


I wouldn't complain about someone with multiple accusations of sexual assault 'cancelled'. We usually give 'cancelled' as someone who said and did something the ultra woke brigade try to destroy them on on political grounds.

Yeah, but they are only accusations at this point. Saying that, both him and D’Elia come off as creepy guys


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6008
Location: Roodepoort
:smug:
eldanielfire wrote:

Quote:
We can’t analyse society without categorising people. But we need precision in the categories used



I didn't read further after this statement. I think this is what seperates the "left" and "right" these days. And I put the terms left and right in quotation marks because I don't think it's relevant anymore.

The quoted statement actually well describes the problem with identity politics, used by both extremes of the political spectrum.

Why do we really need to pigeon hole every person? And if you want to do it, just how far do you want to take it. Any human is just too complex to categorise.

Remember, you are unique, just like everybody else.

So where do we start with categorising a person. It's currently primarily based on: race, gender, sexuality,

Let's start with race, which is ironically also called a "social construct" by the"left", except when assigning victim status.

So the categories are: white, Asian, Fillipino, black, First Nations. Already here we run into a problem. What percentage Black do you have to be too be Black? 50%? That means the person is as Black as he/she/ze is white. Now it's that person half as oppressed as a person who is 100% Black? Similarly, is a person who is 1/8th Black half as opposed as someone who is 1/4 Black? What about other mix races? How far do we go back into one's family tree to determine your race, and thus your victimhood status? I'm something like 1/16th Jewish, 1/8th Scottish, 25% German, some percentage English, and there is also a KhoiSan woman somewhere up in my family tree (about Elizabeth Warren scale, 1/1024th or something).

Then gender, of which there are 52 apparently (or is that sexuality, I forget). Male versus Female. Now do you multiply this with whatever weighted average your race turns out to be? Same with sexuality. Now do we have to get a weighed average between race, gender and sex.

But a person is so much more than just those three categories.

What about religion. Atheist, extra points? Christian? Do we distinguish between Catholic and Protestant? Suni or Shi'ite Muslims? All the hundreds of Hindu variations?

What about mental capabilities? Intelligent versus average versus "dumb"?

Personality type? Personality disorders (are Narcissists more oppressed than those with Borderline Personality disorder? ). Personality types? Extroverts vs Introverts?

Affiliations? General consensus puts the figure of Freemasons killed in the Holocaust at about 100,000. Just for being Freemasons. Are they as oppressed as the 6 million Jews killed? More opposed than those not killed by Hitler?

The number of categories becomes endless.

When "Black people killed by cops" statistics are reported, do they count someone who is 25% Black as part of that statistic? Sidenote, I've never seen a report about "Fillipinos killed by Police". Shouldn't we have seperated reports about "Gay Black Muslims killed by police" and "Queer Black atheists"?

We haven't even talked about all other factors making up a person. Social status. Financial status. Political leaning. Educational background. Childhood background. Weight. Fitness level. Shoe size....

It's a dangerous game to play.

And in my view, quite a racist, sexist, snobbish etc. game.


"I have a dream. I have a dream that one day, a person shall not be judged by the colour of their skin, their gender, their sexuality, their religion, their mental health.....err....Now I forget the point I was trying to make".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 02, 2020 3:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9914
Very interesting survey results on BLM here

https://civiqs.com/results/black_lives_ ... oomIn=true

50% support.

Main groups that support are (according to this):
- College educated
- Young people
- Women
- Non-whites
- Democrats

Men who support this are clearly just poon hounds.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4832
troglodiet wrote:
Let's start with race, which is ironically also called a "social construct" by the"left", except when assigning victim status.


Santa wrote:
Well the US is quickly moving towards a state of ethnic unrest and discord and it's explicit. Currently it's everyone against the whites.


Sure, it's all the "left" assigning victim status here.


Something can be a social construct and still have victims, by the way. If we were to suddenly decide that redheads were a different category of person and treat them as different to 'normal' people, that would be a social construct but would result in real differences in experiences and outcomes. And - for all that people are unique - there would suddenly be commonalities and shared experiences between redheads that would otherwise not have existed.

There would almost certainly be discussion about how 'red' a person would need to be to be a redhead, too; exactly what shade of 'strawberry blonde' counts as 'ginger'?

Inevitably, there would be justifications for treating redheads differently. There would be pseudo-scientific pontificating about their having a genetic link to Neanderthals, which would explain why they aren't able to achieve as much as 'normal' people. Others would understand that they aren't necessarily very genetically different from normal people, but also point out that there is a 'ginger culture' that does not have the same values as normal culture. At least partly because of the fact that gingers have the commonalities and shared experiences of being treated differently.

Some redheads might be proud of being redheads. Generally, being attacked from outside strengthens group bonds and gives people a sense of community and belonging. Even when they have little in common except the existence of a social construct that categorises people based on hair colour.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4832
Santa wrote:
Very interesting survey results on BLM here

https://civiqs.com/results/black_lives_ ... oomIn=true

50% support.

Main groups that support are (according to this):
- College educated
- Young people
- Women
- Non-whites
- Democrats

Men who support this are clearly just poon hounds.


Most strongly opposed? Old, white conservative men. There's a surprise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2020 8:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33937
Tiktok and the evolution of digital blackface, from Wired

https://www.wired.com/story/tiktok-evol ... blackface/

Insane.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2020 9:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9914
Stupidity coming to a moronic woke lefty brain near you.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/new ... d=12353756

I bet she votes for Jacinda.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2020 12:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9914
In the latest retractgate...

Quote:
Attractiveness of women with rectovaginal endometriosis: a case-control study
Women with rectovaginal endometriosis were judged more physically attractive than women with peritoneal or ovarian endometriosis and than women with other benign gynecological conditions.


Gone. How will we ever know the truth?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6008
Location: Roodepoort
Santa wrote:
In the latest retractgate...

Quote:
Attractiveness of women with rectovaginal endometriosis: a case-control study
Women with rectovaginal endometriosis were judged more physically attractive than women with peritoneal or ovarian endometriosis and than women with other benign gynecological conditions.


Gone. How will we ever know the truth?




Well that's my search history fúcked.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2020 5:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3111
Santa wrote:
In the latest retractgate...

Quote:
Attractiveness of women with rectovaginal endometriosis: a case-control study
Women with rectovaginal endometriosis were judged more physically attractive than women with peritoneal or ovarian endometriosis and than women with other benign gynecological conditions.


Gone. How will we ever know the truth?

WTF!









Did they use the sniff test to judge?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2020 8:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14195
Santa wrote:
In the latest retractgate...

Quote:
Attractiveness of women with rectovaginal endometriosis: a case-control study
Women with rectovaginal endometriosis were judged more physically attractive than women with peritoneal or ovarian endometriosis and than women with other benign gynecological conditions.


Gone. How will we ever know the truth?


Cor, check out endometriosis on that sheila. A-woooo-ga


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12879
Location: Coalfalls
naki wrote:
Santa wrote:
In the latest retractgate...

Quote:
Attractiveness of women with rectovaginal endometriosis: a case-control study
Women with rectovaginal endometriosis were judged more physically attractive than women with peritoneal or ovarian endometriosis and than women with other benign gynecological conditions.


Gone. How will we ever know the truth?


Cor, check out endometriosis on that sheila. A-woooo-ga

I'm getting a coronabona just thinking about it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2020 9:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9914
Crewshaaall research.

Quote:
Recently, mounting anecdotal reports – mostly by heterosexual women on Internet-based dating platforms – have drawn attention to the frequency of men sending unsolicited photos of their own genitals (i.e., “dick pics”). While initial research has documented that the sending of unsolicited nude pictures is fairly common, with generally similar underlying motivations for sending solicited and unsolicited images, understanding recipients’ experiences has social-behavioral research, clinical, and potentially legal implications. In a U.S. sample of 2,045 women of all sexual identities and 298 gay/bisexual men, we found that among those who had ever received a “dick pic”, nearly all (91%) had also received an unsolicited “dick pic.” Women of all sexual identities predominantly experienced negative responses to these unsolicited nude images, with only a minority selecting any positive or neutral/ambivalent reactions. Additionally, women who experienced more unsolicited advances from men in the last year were more likely to select multiple negative reactions, and younger (vs. older) women selected more negative and neutral/ambivalent responses. Conversely, gay and bisexual men responded positively, with few choosing any negative or neutral/ambivalent responses. Findings highlight gendered dynamics of unsolicited sexting and misaligned reactions to male senders, raising questions about sexual harassment in the digital age.


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... ode=hjsr20

So is making it illegal homophobic?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2020 1:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3111
Lumped into this thread.




Even NASA

https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 ... -nicknames

"Nasa has signaled it is joining the social justice movement by changing unofficial and potentially contentious names used by the scientific community for distant cosmic objects and systems such as planets, galaxies and nebulae."



The term Siamese twin is now deemed taboo.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2020 2:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9914
Glaston wrote:
Lumped into this thread.




Even NASA

https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 ... -nicknames

"Nasa has signaled it is joining the social justice movement by changing unofficial and potentially contentious names used by the scientific community for distant cosmic objects and systems such as planets, galaxies and nebulae."



The term Siamese twin is now deemed taboo.


You can't say taboo as it was culturally appropriated from the Polynesian tapu.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2020 2:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14267
What's the new term - Thai arse-buddy?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2020 2:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 18186
Glaston wrote:
Lumped into this thread.




Even NASA

https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 ... -nicknames

"Nasa has signaled it is joining the social justice movement by changing unofficial and potentially contentious names used by the scientific community for distant cosmic objects and systems such as planets, galaxies and nebulae."



The term Siamese twin is now deemed taboo.

And you're mad about this?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2020 2:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 18186
Santa wrote:
Glaston wrote:
Lumped into this thread.




Even NASA

https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 ... -nicknames

"Nasa has signaled it is joining the social justice movement by changing unofficial and potentially contentious names used by the scientific community for distant cosmic objects and systems such as planets, galaxies and nebulae."



The term Siamese twin is now deemed taboo.


You can't say taboo as it was culturally appropriated from the Polynesian tapu.

The sun never shines in Santa land.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2020 3:43 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2669
Santa wrote:
Glaston wrote:
Lumped into this thread.




Even NASA

https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 ... -nicknames

"Nasa has signaled it is joining the social justice movement by changing unofficial and potentially contentious names used by the scientific community for distant cosmic objects and systems such as planets, galaxies and nebulae."



The term Siamese twin is now deemed taboo.


You can't say taboo as it was culturally appropriated from the Polynesian tapu.

As was 'appropriate', from the Latin. That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1754 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 40, 41, 42, 43, 44

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 6.Jones, Evil_G, Google Adsense [Bot], johnstrac, lorcanoworms, maverickmak, Mr Mike, Rinkals, Saint, towny and 70 guests


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