Chairchucker

Hello just a brief report from Australian politics. IYKYK

Gromnir you're on drugs and you should put them down. What I actually said: protesting is not censorship. What you somehow got out of that: violence is OK if I like the person doing it.

Hey I just quickly looked up the info and that appeared to be the response from the source I found. If they were assaulting people then, I guess the issue is not censorship but assault.

Removing the feelings each side have for each other from the context of why is ridiculous. If what you care about most in a conflict is the level of discourse, rather than the historical and current context, you're monumentally missing the point. Protests are not 'banning freedom of speech', nor are they censorship. They are exercises of the protesters' own free speech. It appears the 'violence' spoken of didn't happen until after the police went to try and disperse the protest, or as you might call it 'censor or ban their freedom of speech'. (Although that would in some ways be more accurate than the way you used it, since the police have got some kind of government connection going on.) In the counter example you offer, I might indeed be bothered by a pro-choice speaker being protested at a conservative university, but it wouldn't be because 'how dare you protest a speaker that's censorship', (it isn't censorship!) it would be because I disagree with their position, and think that the position they're taking is harmful. In much the same way that I was annoyed by antivaxx protesters because I think what they're doing is harmful. Oh cool let's talk about those things, too. Going to war over pronouns seems bad, people definitely shouldn't invade other sovereign nations over a linguistics issue. (lol I kid, just a light barb about your use of hyperbole.) But honestly, what do you mean by 'go to war'? For the most part I don't see a great deal of vitriol from the so-called 'woke' crowd about simple pronoun mistakes, more just a 'hey just so you know, this person prefers they/them pronouns' or whatever the case may be. I have definitely seen stronger criticism where it is clear that people are making a point of intentionally not using someone's preferred pronouns, which is honestly reasonable, because where there is intent, it is clear that someone is deliberately addressing someone else in a manner they don't want to be addressed, which seems somewhat disrespectful. BTW let's have an aside about trans people, because they're a somewhat likely candidate for preferring a different pronoun to what people might assume. A statistic that you might occasionally see regarding trans people is that amongst that section of the population, there is a relatively high percentage of people with depression, with suicidal thoughts, or who have attempted suicide. The statistic I just found from a quick internet search was something like 43% of people interviewed had attempted suicide. (This was in Australia.) Interestingly though, there were a few factors that were noted to reduce that statistic. Things like access to gender affirming surgery or hormones, social support from friends, family, co-workers etc, and lack of institutional discrimination. You know, things like just treating them like the gender they identify as, including using preferred pronouns. So, when people advocate for using others' preferred pronouns, one of the reasons is it's just better for their mental health, and at the risk of being DRAMATIC, is one of the many things that contributes towards making people less likely to try to kill themselves. To remove it from the context of trans people, I've known people who preferred to be known by their middle name, or by a certain version of their first name, and addressing them by the way they prefer, and making sure they're OK with what I'm calling them, is just common courtesy, and if I were to intentionally call them by a name or version of name that they didn't want to be called, that would be a jerk move. Now, I'm not as familiar with some of the discourse around safe spaces and trigger warnings. They're just a few of many things that I've seen held up as a straw man far more often than I've seen demands for either. Having said that, neither are really unreasonable things to exist. It's why content warnings exist in media in the first place. People want to know what they're getting into. If you take a victim of sexual assault to see a movie about sexual assault without warning them beforehand, that's kind of a jerk move, the same as if you take someone with conflict related PTSD into a movie with a lot of gunfire. It's a considerate move to 'warn' people that media might include one of their 'triggers', and no one should be mocked for doing this. Regarding Agatha Christie, as previously pointed out, this is not what censorship means. A publishing house electing to modify the content of their own works is just editing. It's always happened, it happened before when, for example, they edited Agatha Christie's book 'Ten Little (N-words)' (which also contained that word repeatedly throughout) to 'And Then There Were None,' or to 'Ten Little Indians.' The UK edition apparently didn't completely phase out the original title until 1985. I'm not sure whether that move received the same kind of performative, misguided outrage as the recent move. Probably more outrage than when they BRUTALLY CENSORED Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone by calling it The Sorcerer's Stone in the USA. Edits happen for all kinds of reasons, but for some reason it's only the ones designed to remove slurs and stuff like that which receive performative outrage. (Although to be fair a lot of people did mock the USA for being perceived as not educated/smart enough to read a book called The Philosopher's Stone) I started writing this before I went to netball, so there's probs been some more responses by now, but I don't want to lose my progress so JUST PO

Oh sure, one side is trying to strip the rights from minorities and destroy the planet, but the other side engaged in some very uncivil discourse, so who's to say which side is worse?

And it might also be good to not uncritically 'both sides' a situation where one side is mocking the other for wanting LGBTQ people to be allowed to exist, I guess we could all do things differently ey?

No difference ey. Both sides ey. There may have been some hyperbole, but generally speaking in the current climate when people criticise others as being 'woke', it's because they are doing things like calling out systemic injustice, pointing out that climate change exists, (this one's weird, acknowledgement of a scientific consensus shouldn't have a use in a pejorative that seems to be trying to criticise people for caring about people's feelings or whatever) suggesting that trans people should be allowed to exist, that sort of thing, so frankly no, they're not the same thing, and you've applied zero critical thought to this conclusion.

I don't go around calling myself a 'libtard', but I still know to disregard the opinions of people who use that as a pejorative, too.

People vote for her because she hurts the people they've been told to hate. EDIT: Great example in that clip of how people who use 'woke' as a pejorative are worthless and should be ignored.

Hmmm, it seeeeems like Ezra might be a terrible person, so I might skip that one.

Saw Polite Society, it was excellent, goes very hard. Fun action, pretty funny, escalates in an entertaining way.

Florida should love Dame Edna, Barry Humphries called being trans a 'fashion', and called people who sought gender reaffirming surgery 'mutilated men'.

A largely correct stance tbh. Bud light did a partnership with Dylan Mulvaney. Dylan Mulvaney is trans. Conservatives got mad and performatively destroyed a bunch of Bud Light, declaring they would instead switch to Coors Light, a brand that has been supporting LGBT causes for years, or any number of other beers that are owned by the same company that owns Bud Light.

Firstly, yes, put all the politicians in prison. I think some of the reasons the USA went in to bat for the ghost of Khashoggi a bit harder than for any number of other atrocity victims is that: a. A lot of victims of atrocities are 'just' being exploited to an extra degree, and the USA is broadly ok with exploiting workers, whereas Khashoggi was actively murdered b. They might want to set a precedent that it's not OK to silence journalists.

Not sure you do, TBH. I think murderers should be held accountable.