4 ms·

> "Just because someone [...] recognises [sic] the fact that sexually reproducing mammals like us come in two sexes [...] does not mean they are 'right wing'."

> "Just because someone [...] recognises [sic] the fact that sexually reproducing mammals like us come in two sexes [...] does not mean they are 'right wing'." Yeah super weird, why would I bring up the most-often conflated term in right-wing discourse regarding transgender rights when you repeat their views almost verbatim? SUPER weird. I've read the New Discourses assessment, thanks for sharing. Unfortunately, it didn't really shed light on any new topic or idea, but finding the author to be a self-professed nationalist was of little surprise. If I may suggest some reading, pick up a copy of The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. I wouldn't mind lending mine, either - I'll even cover shipping charges.

the_third_wave 4y ago
"right-wing discourse" "self-professed nationalist" Please stop throwing labels and start talking substance. On that book suggestion I have another pointer for you to read which poses a number of questions related to the use of the "Jim Crow" moniker for explaining problems with the American justice system. You can download the PDF, no postage needed: Racial Critiques of Mass Incarceration: Beyond the New Jim Crow http://ssrn.com/abstract=1966018 http://ssrn.com/abstract=1966018
- spencerflem 4y ago
  look, the label is only used because it is logical and reasonable to assume someone using the rhetoric of one group is likely to hold their views. I notice you have not said your own opinion on transgender issues, only tried to deflect it as "labels and not substance" and as for your article, that sort of discussion is important to have (both the book which I like and your article which is well written and academic and better than I was expecting ). Talking the issue is doing CRT The banning crowd wants to make this sort of discussion illegal in schools
  - the_third_wave 4y ago
    I have not mentioned my own views on "transgender" issues or "racial justice" issues or any other issues as these are of no concern to the issue here, that being the question whether any issue is ripe for satire no matter who does the satirising. I do not mention my views so as not to muddle the issue, not because they are secret. We're talking about satire, not about sex or religion or ideology. My views on humour and satire are relevant so I'll give them: anything is ripe for satire and humour is in the eye and ear of the beholder. That does not mean everything makes for good satire and everything which is deemed humorous by some is good humour but it does mean the limits to humour and satire are to be set by the laws of the land, not by a self-styled thought police. The Onion is free to satirise anything they want and so is the Babylon Bee. You do not have to find their satire funny nor do you have to read or watch it, that is up to you. As long as they do not violate the law - which, at least in theory, is shaped through a democratically (or in the case of the USA a representational republic-ally - they are free to wander where they want.
    - boston_clone 4y ago
      Extraordinary; all this discussion just to get back to square zero. No one has advocated that the government step in and censor the Bee because what they’re doing is illegal. People are being critical because the content they publish legitimizes lies and punches down on marginalized groups. If you enjoy that kind of content, you should feel free to go where those views are welcome; I am making it plain that it is not welcome here.
      - the_third_wave 4y ago
        While you may not like what the Bee or the Onion or any other publication satirises that does not mean it is "not welcome here". Others find the same satire a welcome relief from a narrative which is being pushed hard, often with the threat of unemployment and social ostracisation as a threat for disobedience.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        boston_clone 4y ago
        Just because you call it a narrative doesn’t mean it’s false; just because people are worried about being unemployed doesn’t mean we need to listen to the hypotheses of morons. Neo-nazis should worry about losing their job. People that promote misinformation about public health should be pilloried. People who want to remove rights from women, transgender people, minorities, immigrants, etc. and treat them as anything less than human deserve social ostracization.
    - spencerflem 4y ago
      exactly what Boston said - the conversation started with someone (you?) saying it's ironic Onion fans hate the bee. It's not ironic, the bee is hated because it's in favor of Big Lie conspiracies, anti trans hate, and anti gay hate. Nobody was saying they should be illegal. You posting pro - Bee content makes me feel unwelcome here, since it's advocating for direct harm. Again, not illegal, no real world consequences, but I don't want to be on this site anymore. I can only hope stronger people make you uncomfortable enough to move to truth social or mastodon or something and I will be able to return to a site I used to love.

the_third_wave 4y ago

"right-wing discourse" "self-professed nationalist" Please stop throwing labels and start talking substance. On that book suggestion I have another pointer for you to read which poses a number of questions related to the use of the "Jim Crow" moniker for explaining problems with the American justice system. You can download the PDF, no postage needed: Racial Critiques of Mass Incarceration: Beyond the New Jim Crow http://ssrn.com/abstract=1966018 http://ssrn.com/abstract=1966018

spencerflem 4y ago
look, the label is only used because it is logical and reasonable to assume someone using the rhetoric of one group is likely to hold their views. I notice you have not said your own opinion on transgender issues, only tried to deflect it as "labels and not substance" and as for your article, that sort of discussion is important to have (both the book which I like and your article which is well written and academic and better than I was expecting ). Talking the issue is doing CRT The banning crowd wants to make this sort of discussion illegal in schools
- the_third_wave 4y ago
  I have not mentioned my own views on "transgender" issues or "racial justice" issues or any other issues as these are of no concern to the issue here, that being the question whether any issue is ripe for satire no matter who does the satirising. I do not mention my views so as not to muddle the issue, not because they are secret. We're talking about satire, not about sex or religion or ideology. My views on humour and satire are relevant so I'll give them: anything is ripe for satire and humour is in the eye and ear of the beholder. That does not mean everything makes for good satire and everything which is deemed humorous by some is good humour but it does mean the limits to humour and satire are to be set by the laws of the land, not by a self-styled thought police. The Onion is free to satirise anything they want and so is the Babylon Bee. You do not have to find their satire funny nor do you have to read or watch it, that is up to you. As long as they do not violate the law - which, at least in theory, is shaped through a democratically (or in the case of the USA a representational republic-ally - they are free to wander where they want.
  - boston_clone 4y ago
    Extraordinary; all this discussion just to get back to square zero. No one has advocated that the government step in and censor the Bee because what they’re doing is illegal. People are being critical because the content they publish legitimizes lies and punches down on marginalized groups. If you enjoy that kind of content, you should feel free to go where those views are welcome; I am making it plain that it is not welcome here.
    - the_third_wave 4y ago
      While you may not like what the Bee or the Onion or any other publication satirises that does not mean it is "not welcome here". Others find the same satire a welcome relief from a narrative which is being pushed hard, often with the threat of unemployment and social ostracisation as a threat for disobedience.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - boston_clone 4y ago
        Just because you call it a narrative doesn’t mean it’s false; just because people are worried about being unemployed doesn’t mean we need to listen to the hypotheses of morons. Neo-nazis should worry about losing their job. People that promote misinformation about public health should be pilloried. People who want to remove rights from women, transgender people, minorities, immigrants, etc. and treat them as anything less than human deserve social ostracization.
  - spencerflem 4y ago
    exactly what Boston said - the conversation started with someone (you?) saying it's ironic Onion fans hate the bee. It's not ironic, the bee is hated because it's in favor of Big Lie conspiracies, anti trans hate, and anti gay hate. Nobody was saying they should be illegal. You posting pro - Bee content makes me feel unwelcome here, since it's advocating for direct harm. Again, not illegal, no real world consequences, but I don't want to be on this site anymore. I can only hope stronger people make you uncomfortable enough to move to truth social or mastodon or something and I will be able to return to a site I used to love.