[QUOTE=HuffPost SA Editorial]
Garland’s** underlying analysis**[…] is pretty standard for feminist theory.
[/quote]
That’s defending the article’s premises, not the conclusion, as “standard feminist thought”.
[QUOTE=HuffPost SA Editorial]
This doesn’t necessarily mean we agree or endorse everything in Garland’s blog
[/QUOTE]
That’s not a defense of the disenfranchisement of White men, it’s a defense of the underlying idea that the patriarchy is fundamentally unequal…which I have no problem with.
I agree that some discussion and condemnation of the disenfranchisement solution offered would have been nice in that first editorial, but that’s an oversight that’s already been corrected by HuffPoSA. Call me when Breitbart prints a* mea culpa* like that…
Which the person in the story wasn’t. They’d - quite understandbly - never encountered the term before and were not thrilled at people giving them shit over something that sounds almost made up to the average person, particularly one who isn’t “Woke” or whatever the hip term is at the moment.
Despite what people in SJW land want you to think, there’s really not a large number of “non-binary gender” people in Australia; the last statistics I worked out from what I could glean from the Australian Bureau of Statistics suggested a few thousand at most. I’ve never met one, for example.
I shouldn’t have to spell this part out but I will: The fact there’s not many “non-binary” people doesn’t mean it’s OK to decide they don’t deserve the same rights as anyone else, or are second-class people or whatever.
But it does mean it’s not reasonable for the average person to take their potential existence into account when planning for stuff like a pub gig and who will be in the lineup.
Thus: Declaring a non-binary person to be a freak or an abomination etc = extremely not cool.
Beginning a speech with “Ladies and gentlemen…” only to have some member of the offenderati say “that’s exclusionary!” = completely warrants an “Oh, for fuck’s sake” and an eye-roll, IMHO.
That’s one way to read the first editorial. I felt the editor was deliberately obfuscating and conflating objections to the controversial (to say the least) conclusion with the boilerplate analysis that preceded it.
I really can’t see it as an “oversight”. Pillay’s article was deliberately disingenuous; she tried to spin it as if the angry response was because of disagreement with the feminist analysis rather than because of the disenfranchisement “solution”.
Why would she write the equivocal, “This doesn’t necessarily mean we agree or endorse everything in Garland’s blog,” rather than something clear like, “We disagree with Garland’s disenfranchisement proposal”? That’s not an “oversight”.
If we’re setting standards by Breitbart, then journalism is in a bad way. That’s like the people who say Islamophobia in the West is OK because the religious discrimination in Saudi Arabia is far worse.
It’s concerning that they think it’s newsworthy, so you bring it here because it’s not? Did the person think it was newsworthy because someone complained or newsworthy because of the result? Because I would think you would think the result was newsworthy, since you seem to be highly oppressed by SJWs.
‘When questioned why there were “no women or non-binary performers” in the line-up, Mr Peadon, posting as his event services company Greenroom Canberra, replied: “Why do I have too (sic) even think about this shit? What the f*** is a non-binary?”.’
That’s stupid shit right there.
You have a later post where you defend this because you don’t know any non-binary people. How about women? The question asks about both.
You don’t have to agree with the original question, or be the sort of person who would ever think to ask the original question, to think the dude came off as a giant idiot. From this article, there is no way to know if the band pulled out because of the “controversy” of having a total of 20 comments or if the band pulled out because the dude came off as a giant idiot.
So if your complaint is that it’s completely unfair for a total of 20 comments to be made about an issue, some of them in support of a giant idiot, I find your complaint weak.
And if your complaint is that it’s completely unfair for a band to pull out because an organizer looked like a giant idiot and that somehow people are responsible for the dude looking like a giant idiot, I find your complaint even weaker.
As for the aggregator, I misunderstood. I thought you were saying the twitter account you mentioned was how you found out about this story. Apparently, it is just how you find out about those other outrages which outrage you.
And since I forgot to address it before, your explanation of what “raging” means to you pretty much encapsulates “non-standard.”
Generally, I got the sense the HuffPoSA editorial staff wasn’t going to take a stance one way or the other on *anything *in the blogs - until now, of course. They’ve let some pretty racist shit slide before.
I’m not too hung up on defending them, though, this was a bad reaction by them from the start, and they should have condemned it, even if it was a genuine source. Our side doesn’t *need *miss-steps like this, or Zille’s pro-colonialism tweets, or Zapiro’s rape cartoons.
I was just using them as a touchstone for the type of media enjoyed by the kind of asshole who says “SJW” as a pejorative.
Also because “ANN7” wouldn’t really mean anything to the rest of these assholes
Okay…so, in this analogy, I represent the university, right? If so, it follows that I would only invite people to speak at my house for the edification of my kids. So if all my kids objected to my inviting a speaker to my house, I probably wouldn’t invite him, because I’d have absolutely no reason to. If, however, some of my kids did want to hear the speaker and the rest of my kids didn’t, I’d turn to the ones who didn’t want to hear the speaker and say “Look, some of your brothers and sisters think they will learn something from this guest. It’s unfair to them for me to disinvite the guest just because you are offended by his views. Besides, if you find his views offensive, the best way to combat them is to hear them in his own words and question him directly. Furthermore, if I disinvite the guest because you’re offended by his views, what happens when you want me to invite a guest and your brothers and sisters demand I disinvite him because they’re offended, too? You wouldn’t like that, would you? So how about you treat your brothers and sisters the way you yourselves would like to be treated and let them listen to their speaker. Make your displeasure known, by all means, but don’t keep the guest from speaking.”
Then I’d sit in my armchair by the fire and smoke a pipe or something.
I work in the media and have to deal with a lot of this SJW nonsense; it’s not just exclusively a “people being internet people on the internet” thing I can be mildly amused by in between meetings of Straight White Men Imperialist Patriarchy Money Fight Club.
No, it’s not. It’s a perfectly reasonable reaction.
Neither of those were my complaint. My complaint was that someone was putting on a live gig, a tiny handful of people complained on Facebook about something that was clearly not a deliberate thing (the promoter wasn’t deliberately trying for an all-male line-up or trying to exclude anyone), promoter says “Oh, for fuck’s sake” and suddenly The country’s most respected news outlet has a fucking story on it - possibly because someone at the ABC agreed with the complainers.
No, I get my other outrages from the media - mostly in Australia, although I do read foreign news like the BBC closely and social media is very helpful as well. I actually got that story from the r/Australia subreddit.
Since words can mean different things in different places, how about you stop focussing on one particular word I used and look at the overall point I was making?
Of course intentions matter. Intentions are often the best way we have of determining whether someone is behaving morally. A surgeon isn’t the same as Jack the Ripper just because they’re both cutting people with a knife. Even if the patient dies, they’re not the same.
Bullshit. We’ve already had this conversation – why bother trying to spread this bullshit again? Some small number of assholes on the left (and on the right, for that matter) use violence to suppress speech. This doesn’t reflect any more on “the left” as a whole than it does on the right.
It’s both. The organiser of the event was criticised (and I’m not saying he didn’t overreact, because it seems to me that he did) because his lineup didn’t include acts with non-binary performers. There’s no intention that he intended to exclude non-binary performers but the people giving him shit over it chose to act as though he did.
It’s a classic SJW tactic. Upon finding a person’s actions to be objectionable, they seek to determine that person’s lowest, least charitable possible motive and then act as though they’ve isolated the only real one.
Edit: Would you admit that, at least in principle, the notion that a person’s intentions are irrelevant isn’t always true?
FIRE, a right-leaning free speech organization, keeps a database of disinvitation incidents. According to them, efforts to disinvite speakers come from the left about twice as often as from the right. At first glance, that might tend to suggest this is a bigger problem on the left. But there are about three times as many college age Democrats (and an even bigger disparity if you account for the fact that they’re in college). Accordingly, if the right and left had equal propensity to disinvite speakers, you’d actually expect a bigger left-right disparity. As it stands, the numbers suggest this is a bigger problem on the left than the right.
Of course, that’s just one right-leaning organization’s database. But I’ve yet to see better data.
