welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

2013-07-08: Women Only Space 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 6184
Location: California

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

...so girls are also made of butter?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sammich



Joined: 21 Jun 2012
Posts: 37

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam wrote:
If it wasn't false, shit like the gay rights crusade would be going completely differently. It's a culture battle which is primarily being driven forward not by persuading 'fence sitters' and entrenched bigots away from their position through compassionate argument, but rather is mostly marked by the constant act of gay rights advocates shaming one side into silence, ruthlessly and ceaselessly rendering anti-gay sentiments to a realm of deviance that becomes reflexively criticized. They are shamed and silenced, effectively, to the end that it minimizes the intergenerational transmissibility of their ideals.


That...is really not how I would interpret the events that have led to as much as a 30 point swing in favor of Americans approving of same sex marriage since the early 90's. I haven't seen any large scale shaming campaigns. What I have seen is increasing scientific evidence discrediting the idea of homsexuality as a choice, heartfelt personal appeals from children of gay couples, an increase of positively portrayed gay characters in media, horror stories from persecuted homosexuals, and increasing negative stereotypes of hardline evangelical Christians who have been the backbone of the anti-gay movement. The latter can be considered a form of shaming, but the only occurrences I can think of where they directly addressed the anti-gay components have been high profile anti-gay activists or politicians who were discovered to be closeted homosexuals.

I will admit the utility in shaming politicians, but winning political battles is very different from winning social battles. If you can get the right politicians to shut up at the right time, you can get legislation passed. This does not necessarily entail social change.

Which brings me to the counterexample of racism. For 50 years Americans have tried to shame racism into submission. Did it work or did it simply make the racists quieter while they continued to disproportionately arrest minorities, deny minorities rental agreements, favor whites for raises and promotions, portray almost exclusively single race couples in media, scapegoat minorities for economic problems, divide cities and suburbs along racial lines, caricature anti-racism groups like the ADL and ACLU, and institute policies that disenfranchise minority voters. This is to not even touch upon the amazingly still existent scientific racism, mostly because the subtlety of it would take another wall of text to deconstruct.

And as the generations come and go, the silence racists were shamed into is evaporating and it has created a legacy of what is often called privilege, the tendency of whites to deny the existence of racism, even as they promulgate it.


Last edited by sammich on Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:44 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sammich



Joined: 21 Jun 2012
Posts: 37

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meant to edit a line, hit quote instead.

Last edited by sammich on Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:43 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pun



Joined: 30 Mar 2013
Posts: 35
Location: United States

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ShadowCell wrote:
...so girls are also made of butter?

... yes. or chemical x if you need a dairy free substitute
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3352

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sammich wrote:
Sam wrote:
If it wasn't false, shit like the gay rights crusade would be going completely differently. It's a culture battle which is primarily being driven forward not by persuading 'fence sitters' and entrenched bigots away from their position through compassionate argument, but rather is mostly marked by the constant act of gay rights advocates shaming one side into silence, ruthlessly and ceaselessly rendering anti-gay sentiments to a realm of deviance that becomes reflexively criticized. They are shamed and silenced, effectively, to the end that it minimizes the intergenerational transmissibility of their ideals.


That...is really not how I would interpret the events that have led to as much as a 30 point swing in favor of Americans approving of same sex marriage since the early 90's. I haven't seen any large scale shaming campaigns. What I have seen is increasing scientific evidence discrediting the idea of homsexuality as a choice, heartfelt personal appeals from children of gay couples, an increase of positively portrayed gay characters in media, and increasing negative stereotypes of hardline evangelical Christians who have been the backbone of the anti-gay movement. The latter can be considered a form of shaming, but the only occurrences I can think of where they directly addressed the anti-gay components have been high profile anti-gay activists or politicians who were discovered to be closeted homosexuals.

I will admit the utility in shaming politicians, but winning political battles is very different from winning social battles. If you can get the right politicians to shut up at the right time, you can get legislation passed. This does not necessarily entail social change.

Which brings me to the counterexample of racism. For 50 years Americans have tried to shame racism into submission. Did it work or did it simply make the racists quieter while they continued to disproportionately arrest minorities, deny minorities rental agreements, favor whites for raises and promotions, portray almost exclusively single race couples in media, scapegoat minorities for economic problems, divide cities and suburbs along racial lines, caricature anti-racism groups like the ADL and ACLU, and institute policies that disenfranchise minority voters. This is to not even touch upon the amazingly still existent scientific racism, mostly because the subtlety of it would take another wall of text to deconstruct.

And as the generations come and go, the silence racists were shamed into is evaporating and it has created a legacy of what is often called privilege, the tendency of whites to deny the existence of racism, even as they promulgate it.


The thing is, shifts in cultural mores are generational. Fifty years ago it was illegal in many states for black and white folks to get married. Now an eyelash isn't batted.....except by racist old grandparents.

also you misinterpret the reason for the existence of privilege, or at least you're linking it to the tactic of shaming without ...well any real backup for that claim.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sammich



Joined: 21 Jun 2012
Posts: 37

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
The thing is, shifts in cultural mores are generational. Fifty years ago it was illegal in many states for black and white folks to get married. Now an eyelash isn't batted.....except by racist old grandparents.

also you misinterpret the reason for the existence of privilege, or at least you're linking it to the tactic of shaming without ...well any real backup for that claim.


Can the change of generations account for a 10 to 15 point change in attitudes towards gay marriage between 2003 and 2013? I don't think the number of elderly deaths can account for that.

I overstated the link between the quieting of racists and privilege, yes. That is not the only reason, only one of many. It directly contributes to the tendency of privileged whites to engage in privileged behaviors while claiming racism is a thing of the past.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3352

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sammich wrote:
Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
The thing is, shifts in cultural mores are generational. Fifty years ago it was illegal in many states for black and white folks to get married. Now an eyelash isn't batted.....except by racist old grandparents.

also you misinterpret the reason for the existence of privilege, or at least you're linking it to the tactic of shaming without ...well any real backup for that claim.


Can the change of generations account for a 10 to 15 point change in attitudes towards gay marriage between 2003 and 2013? I don't think the number of elderly deaths can account for that.

I overstated the link between the quieting of racists and privilege, yes. That is not the only reason, only one of many. It directly contributes to the tendency of privileged whites to engage in privileged behaviors while claiming racism is a thing of the past.


No but the number of young people becoming politically active, voting and taking part in causes increased dramatically post 9/11.

And who cares if some douchebag privileged whites behave in douchebag privileged ways? They'll be the minority within 20 years or so anyway, both ethnically and as registered voters.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sammich



Joined: 21 Jun 2012
Posts: 37

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
No but the number of young people becoming politically active, voting and taking part in causes increased dramatically post 9/11.

And who cares if some douchebag privileged whites behave in douchebag privileged ways? They'll be the minority within 20 years or so anyway, both ethnically and as registered voters.


1) Increased political activism doesn't affect opinion polls unless the activists are actually effecting a change in opinions.

2) I choose to assume you are making a joke in poor taste.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yinello



Joined: 10 May 2012
Posts: 2903
Location: Behind you

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Geeze Slick, addicted to cookies much?
_________________
No one is every truly alone with pizza.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3352

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

1. Increased political activism does increase ones willingness to take part in opinion polls, and generally ones familiarity with the issues.

2. No, just a simple statement of fact. There will always be people who are racist/sexist/homophobic douchebags. They will always exist, they will always do and say douchebag things. If the culture moves enough they'll keep those things to themselves or their immediate family. Slipups will be met with public scorn and censure (paula deen) and they'll either keep it to themselves or suffer the social consequences and potential financial ruin.

And yes my math was off...around about 2050 is likely when whitey will get to count himself as a minority with current projections.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sammich



Joined: 21 Jun 2012
Posts: 37

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
1. Increased political activism does increase ones willingness to take part in opinion polls, and generally ones familiarity with the issues.

2. No, just a simple statement of fact. There will always be people who are racist/sexist/homophobic douchebags. They will always exist, they will always do and say douchebag things. If the culture moves enough they'll keep those things to themselves or their immediate family. Slipups will be met with public scorn and censure (paula deen) and they'll either keep it to themselves or suffer the social consequences and potential financial ruin.

And yes my math was off...around about 2050 is likely when whitey will get to count himself as a minority with current projections.


That is true of informal opinion polls, the kind you see on sites like ABC News and TIME, but not true of scientific polls like Gallup. Scientific polling is designed to prevent skewing from more or less vocal groups, although it is susceptible an effect, the name of which escapes me at this moment, that causes people to lie about their opinions, even in private polls, due to social pressures. The amount of this effect on any particular issue is extremely difficult to determine.

Maybe you are right and racists will slowly dwindle and remain quiet. Or maybe as he the enlightened bullies slacken in the face of less apparent bigotry, the bigotry will return to the public domain, as has been the case with racism in the last 15 years.

..."whitey"?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
merest



Joined: 15 May 2011
Posts: 325

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Surprisingly low-key way to resolve the situation; I'm honestly surprised at the diplomacy of it. Perhaps, despite feeling betrayed by him, she still likes him on some level. But as for Xanthe, I am not sure that she holding her staff right; she couldn't swing it down upon his head, holding it thus, nor swing it at him. She would have no heft. The best she could do is poke him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fritterdonut



Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 1212
Location: Hedonism

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

merest wrote:
I am not sure that she holding her staff right; she couldn't swing it down upon his head, holding it thus, nor swing it at him. She would have no heft. The best she could do is poke him.


Of my somewhat limited knowledge of various types of Quarterstaff or stick fighting technique, that's actually a relatively proper stance. Minimal chance of breaking the staff, while still allowing for quick jabs, blocks, and parries.

Swinging a staff as one would a baseball bat makes for easily telegraphed movements, allowing for your opponent to grab it lengthwise or otherwise block it, as well as a high chance of breakage. The extra reach you would gain from swinging doesn't really outweigh the negatives, unless you were fighting against a very slow or unskilled opponent. Precise blows with a short, gripped up swing or quick jabs to sensitive areas (groin, abdomen, facial region) are a much safer bet.



Note the wide grip, to give better control, and the wide stance, to provide better stability.

TL;DR: I read a book on how to defend oneself with an umbrella (or any other stick-like object).
_________________
To get things done, you must love the doing, not the secondary consequences. The work, not the people. Your own action, not any possible object of your charity.
-Howard Roark, The Fountainhead
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Theia



Joined: 31 May 2013
Posts: 90
Location: California

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fritterdonut wrote:
merest wrote:
I am not sure that she holding her staff right; she couldn't swing it down upon his head, holding it thus, nor swing it at him. She would have no heft. The best she could do is poke him.


Of my somewhat limited knowledge of various types of Quarterstaff or stick fighting technique, that's actually a relatively proper stance. Minimal chance of breaking the staff, while still allowing for quick jabs, blocks, and parries.

Swinging a staff as one would a baseball bat makes for easily telegraphed movements, allowing for your opponent to grab it lengthwise or otherwise block it, as well as a high chance of breakage. The extra reach you would gain from swinging doesn't really outweigh the negatives, unless you were fighting against a very slow or unskilled opponent. Precise blows with a short, gripped up swing or quick jabs to sensitive areas (groin, abdomen, facial region) are a much safer bet.



Note the wide grip, to give better control, and the wide stance, to provide better stability.

TL;DR: I read a book on how to defend oneself with an umbrella (or any other stick-like object).


What book is this? That sounds really interesting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ronald



Joined: 17 Sep 2007
Posts: 3456

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, the little sparkle mark between Slick and Xanthe in Panel 3, what if anything should that be taken to mean?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 2 of 7

 
Jump to:  
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
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group