I remember being is cosmo school and all any of them wanted was to go to starbucks. FTS I am driving the extra few miles to raceway for some real coffee. Fuck those starbucks snacks too. Give me a decent gas station any day of the week. Seriously, what is up with the clerk at starbucks expecting a tip. i can go down to the gas station and get a cup of coffee, a couple of snacks, and actually dropo 3 dollars on the minimum wage clerk there and still have more money left over than the regular charge of a starbucks coffee. I do not have to talk to a pretentious little snot who calls themselves a barista and expects a tip on a ten dollar cup of over processed coffee. Oh, and I can go to the fucking gas station at three in the morning and it is open without a 20 minute line of hipster trash.
Is my ass goblin needing some attention? I would say i probably have something more recent you could pull out of context to play pretend with. You should probably work on that.
I agree. And the guy was arrested and charged with assault. Doesn’t change the fact that someone reacted to what he said.
So there's nothing I can possibly say or do to UA to get clocked in the chops? Interesting.... No...fuck that..it's gotta be a trap.
Oh! Sorry! So close! The real answer we were looking for was... If you were a suicidal trans teen, he'd be like "you little drama queen!! I'll kill you myself!!! ". See, you just have to think about it a little more before hitting send.
No-one is legally prohibiting you from saying dumb shit. Society is saying there are consequences to saying dumb shit. In other words, you have the right to fuck around, you just don't like the "and find out" bit.
Some of the consequences go too far though - the whole "deplatforming" thing and hounding people out of jobs. It's pure McCarthyism. I mean, when someone tried to get Dayton sacked we all recognised it was out of order despite the fact he's limping example of failed humanity and probably shouldn't be within a light year of influencing any young mind, but we also recognised that wasn't our call to make. We knew there was a line between treating an individual, who we regard as despicable, with contempt and actively sabotaging his life.
That is opinion. You may feel some of those things go too far, but it would seem that is a variable judgment.
For fuck's sake. Put on your work name tag, the hat, the uniform, then go on you tube and say a bunch of shit that that is opposite of what you know your company has put out publicly. See how fast you get fired. And before you bitch that Carrarro or who ever wasn't wearing Disney shit - every fucking body knows with which tv show she is currently was affiliated.
Point of order, McCarthyism was a government led phenomenon. It influenced private concerns but it wasn't implemented independently by those concerns as part of an effort to protect their brand image. This is a different beast in that Disney are under far less external pressure from authorities per we and in thrall rather to the free market. I'm withholding comment for now on whether that's a good thing but the distinction is at the very least real. We've privatised our censorship (if censorship this is) and the conversation about that can't happen productively without acknowledging it.
@Jenee and @spot261 I'm in no way defending those demanding Carraro should not have lost her job, she was a visible representative of Disney and very much in the public eye. When you're in the public eye at that level you trade a certain amount of pros for a certain amount of cons, and one of those is your speech either gets moderated or you get shitcanned. I'm assuming that's been a beef around here whilst I've been busy elsewhere given it's obviously the first assumption you both made? I'm more on about how the likes of several universities have reversed invitations because debate is more difficult than simply dictating a viewpoint, and there have been several instances of trying to get people's jobs being removed, again, for opinion. The attacks on Suzanne Moore spring immediately to mind.
It has very much been a beef here and many other places with people making very similar sounding points to your own to attack her dismissal. Apologies if I misrepresented you on that point but even so I'm not sure that McCarthyism is particularly informative as a framework for understanding the vagaries of current affairs. Should university lecturers be facing sanction for their indiscretions? I could only offer opinion on a case by case basis.
Agreed. It's just the current excuse. Haven't heard about it. But, it sounds like (from her page on Wikipedia) she wrote an article saying to the affect that advocating for transgender rights can be detrimental to cisgender rights. If that's the case, then I understand a university changing their mind about having her speak there - especially if the community is vocally against it. At the very least, they want to avoid any possible violence. But, again, that isn't "cancel culture", that is life. That is having consequences for actions.
*Googles* Ah, she's a TERF. Well, same thing I said about JK Rowling. She shouldn't be attacked and threatened, but she's also an asshole. These things can both be true. Mistreatment doesn't make her innocent. Telling the public that innocent people are literally a threat endangers fucking lives. She didn't say "I don't like pistachio ice cream".
Tipper Gore trying to get rap music banned was cancel culture. Saying something stupid and getting fired for it is not.
Then find a different, suitably derogatory term for the miserable little ghouls scouring your entire social media history for that time you said something inthenthitIVE, then leading a campaign to ruin you for heresy against doctrine.
Given McCarthyism is defined as making accusations of subversion, IMO it pretty much fits in this instance. @Diacanu encapsulates this well by dismissing Suzanne Moore as a TERF, which is incorrect. She defended Selina Todd, who was targeted for addressing Womens Place UK (which, incidentally, does contain some genuine TERFs), and both are making the case of biological sex and not wishing that to be subsumed by some of the more extreme aspects of some trans groups. Now there are aspects of her article I take issue with (that sex isn't a spectrum - yes, it is) but she's not a TERF, she's a woman terrified of seeing the ground feminism has gained, lost and does so in a lot less obnoxious way than, say, Germaine Greer. There is a lot of silly stuff on all sides - South Park actually dealt with this in a rather neat way - but biological sex is a fact, and is locked down at conception and we currently have no way of altering that (when we do, that should solve a lot of arguments), and biological gender is determined at the end of the first trimester which is where things get complicated and we hit a more obvious spectrum. I take great pleasure in telling people we're all trans as, at the end of that first trimester we change from proto-female into whatever comes out the other side. It's not quite as much fun as telling Christians Eve was a transgender clone, but its close.
How many past debates should we cancel because they went against prevailing orthodoxy at the time? How many past marches for social justice should have been banned for fear of possible violence? Surely that the fear comes from talking about ideas should indicate how wrong it is. If the idea is wrong, challenge it, skewer it. Especially at universities, they're meant to be there for learning, for debate and discussion. Churches, Mosques and Temples are for scripture. Having a view isn't the same as an action, and conflating the two puts society on dangerous grounds.
So she didn't say that advocating for trans rights poses a threat to cis women? Cuz if she did, that's the essence of TERFhood. The Macho Man Randy Savage episode?
Or just call everyone you disagree with a TERF, CHUD, Nazi, incel or whatever new term the left comes up with and Dicky adopts and be done with it. You see, calling someone names requires no further thought and is quite convenient.
