Asking for it was she?
Well, that’s a disingenuous post. “Asking for it” would normally be used in the context of some sexual assault, right? WTF is it doing here?
Anyway, the point of the author’s piece, from what I understand in this thread, is that we shouldn’t be so sensitive about the language we use and hear and if someone is sexist towards her, she would just laugh it off. MrDibble basically calls her out on that with his little blondie comment, and now you’re coming to her defense for some reason. She’s the one who is saying that non-woke sexist language is fine by her. MrDibble is saying it’s not OK, and showing how awful it can be by using it. You’re essentially agreeing with MrDibble that such language is awful and out of place, but arguing with him.
It’s a very strange back-and-forth between you two here.
Let me know when you make up your mind, and I’ll get back to you.
To the OP, my experience has been that issues with language policing and other complaints about woke culture are vastly, vastly overblown in the media, and especially right-wing media. The actual negative effect on daily life has been minimal, bordering on immeasurably small. However, the positive effect of being aware of other people’s differences and using proper language, pronouns, and phraseology has been tremendously positive for minorities (racial, gender, sexual) and women. Women and minorities can go through the day without biting their tongue, consciously avoiding unwanted sexual advances, smiling on the outside while steaming on the inside. Office life was basically a minefield for women and minorities – and that is no longer true to a great extent. I don’t think we’re at the end of this journey, but we’ve made great strides in the last couple of decades.
The importance of language in re to interacting with women and minorities is not so much in the words themselves but rather in the mental framework and preconceptions that using particular language boxes the user into.
The brunt of the impact is disproportionately felt by stubbornly opinionated non-woke liberal writers like her. If an actual right wing journalist or opinion writer is attacked by woke left wingers, that’s only going to increase their cred. Unless they go really far beyond the pale, it will not hurt their careers. Whereas liberals who are not going to get jobs at National Review have to navigate this woke minefield or find themselves unemployable. So not that many people actually get canceled, because most of them learn a lesson from those who do–and it has a chilling effect.
We see a similar effect in television. Bill Maher has kept his job so far, but will another generation of people like him have a chance to get where he has? I seriously doubt it. And that’s a great loss.
Can you explain what “non-woke” means in this context? Is she an anti-transexual liberal writer? A racist liberal writer? She wants to continue to call Caitlin Jenner “Bruce”? Woke has become a snarl word like the phrase “politically correct” – basically meaning that, boo hoo, I can’t offend minorities like I used to.
Even if I grant (which I do not) that this has had a chilling or negative effect on some older liberal writers and entertainers, even then I would say that the effect on the daily lives of women and minorities of various sorts has made it worth it. The psychological effect of being able to go into a meeting as a woman or minority and not have to put up with some bullshit stereotyping must be amazing.
Ambivalid, I completely agree with you – it’s not just the words, it’s the mental framework leading to them. If we change how we speak to each other, it helps develop a mental framework with fewer prejudices and stereotypes.
It’s not always easy. I knew and worked with a transwoman who transitioned while on the job, and it was difficult for me to get used to the new pronouns, but I got there. A little inconvenience for me was nothing compared to the psychological relief she must have felt when finally able to be herself in the office.
Famously the authorities have come to accept that perhaps “believe all victims” was not a good policy.
https://www.met.police.uk/henriques
(At pG 27).
Rittersport, you’re talking about office niceties. I’m talking about a chilling effect that leads liberal writers and entertainers to feel constrained from piping up about the presumption of innocence and due process. Or the importance of being proportional: did you see how quickly Matt Damon changed his tune when the Twitter mob went after him for saying we shouldn’t treat a pat on the butt as being the same degree of offense as rape or child molestation? It was clear his career was in jeopardy if he didn’t “get right” on that issue.
Along with what **SlackerInc **said, one of the biggest signs that someone is not trustworthy is when they present their side, or their case, as a 100% ironclad perfect cause for which there are ***no ***problems or drawbacks. It instantly reeks of used-car salesmanship and an agenda.
If on the other hand, someone argues passionately for their cause, saying, “Yes, our proposal has Flaws X, Y, and Z, but we believe that, overall, the benefits of the proposal significantly outweigh the drawbacks,” then that becomes very credible and is much more trust-able.
I thought we’d agreed that off-colour remarks were OK as long as they were satire? Or are they only OK if you think you know which side of the line I’m coming from?
That was some pretty poor satire, unless your whole interaction with MrDibble was satire? Then, hats off to you, because you definitely whooshed me.
SlackerInc, so can you explain what non-woke means in that context? Separately, I’m not sure that bringing up famous celebrities who still have a successful career is proving what you think it is.
Regarding your work comment, for every twitter mob that convince Matt Damon to choose his words more carefully, there are thousands of women who don’t have to worry about getting a “friendly” pat on the butt. Again, I think the trade-off is worth it.
…on the one hand you worry about the chilling effect of Twitter mobs going after Matt Damon, and on the other hand you think that Twitter is unmoderated and that if you can’t handle a few not-positive responses then Twitter is not the platform for you.
The whiplash I had from reading these two responses damn near took my head off. Why are you worried about the chilling effect? If Matt Damon can’t handle a few Twitter mobs he should just get off Twitter, problem solved is it not? Are we only chilling speech when the mobs are allegedly woke?
Begin with the assumption that I’m a liberal in pretty much any way you could ever divine, certainly further to the political left than the USA democrats, then consider my posts from that starting point.
So, satire, I guess? I found your interaction with MrDibble to be baffling, but I guess I was getting whooshed. Second time in a couple of weeks – I have to up my game here.
BB, apples and oranges. Damon didn’t tweet, he made comments in an interview that got a Twitter mob after him that jeopardized his career. The point I was making in the other post you quoted is that no one has the right to post on Twitter and get only positive responses. Very different things.
And of course there is significant fault there that does not lie with the Twitter mob itself. If the people who made hiring decisions in Hollywood didn’t care what that mob said and just treated it as a forum for people to interact, promote things, and debate, it would not be a problem if a bunch of people on there were mad at him.
IOW there is no reason Twitter should actually have the power to “cancel” anyone. But like most kinds of power, it is not a physical or tangible thing and it exists for whatever sociological reason. And that’s not good.
Wait, what? 
It’s an absolutely perfect illustration of my point:
To wit:
I’m sure this was a genuine change of heart, and not what his agent told him he had to do to remain employable. :rolleyes:
…not different things at all. Speech can either be chilled by Twitter mobs or it isn’t. In both examples you talk about Twitter mobs either “forced” Damon to change his position or they “forced” a person to abandon twitter. In both cases there is a chilling effect on speech. You can’t oppose one and not oppose the other.
Can you prove that they do care? Matt Damon still gets work. I think that Damon is a sexist misogynist with a blind-spot to diversity, and all of my woke SJW friends agree with me and we talk about it often and we talk about it loudly and it hasn’t made a single fucking difference to Matt Damon’s hiring status. He’s currently executive producing 3 movies. Featured in one movie this year, starred in another, and is in pre-production on a third.
Hollywood don’t give a fuck about woke twitter mobs. One would think if they were listening that they would do better than 5 women director nominees for best directing Oscar out of over 400 nominations.
“Cancel” is just the latest bullshit lingo that we can add to “politically correct” and “social justice warrior” and “woke” and “virtue signalling” that is used to nullify and shut down debate. Twitter doesn’t have the power to “cancel” anyone.
You would rather believe some sort of conspiracy theory than maybe he actually listened to the women who were his dear friends and he loved them and respected them and supported what they’re doing and decided to “get in the back seat and close my mouth for a while” because he was hurting people that he loved and respected. Damon (in your cite) explicitly does not call out the Twitter mobs. He explicitly holds his friends accountable for his change in heart.
This only fits your narrative and it only “illustrates your point” if you believe and accept that Damon is lying his ass off.
Sooo…Matt Damon is a “sexist misogynist” (are there non-sexist misogynists?) who respectfully listened to his women friends and followed their guidance and is really sincere in his apology. OK then. :dubious:
Lol, yup just like Slacker is definitely 100% a liberal. Yesirree.
Virtually no one is 100% pure anything, but I am a hell of a lot more of a liberal than I am a conservative.