Dumb Political Correctness

[bystander]

As bad as Republicans can be, the other side will always be worse. Dont let them win

"And it's really shocking how many men on the internet are defending the whole trans thing. Straight men are all about the trans, and you have to wonder what the heck is going on."

Reading that article convinced me that I have no idea what the heck is going on either, but I'll try to answer the question about straight men:

1) They are scared to do anything anti-heterosexual for fear of being attacked by the Left
2) They are virtue-signaling Liberals
3) They stay silent

Maybe there are other possibilities but I guarantee if you're a straight white male you better STFU about this one because there's no way you can follow the politically correct trail that will please everyone because that trail does not exist.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I found the article. Completely absurd. Was Bundy special? No. He was an evil freak. Was he smart? Extremely. Stupid people don't pull off that many murders. Furthermore, the judge who presided over his case acknowledged his legal talents. Does any of that make him any less of a monster? No. But was he just your average white guy? No.

 

[nashhorn]

Dear God I am so confused. Thank goodness my kids are all grown and somewhat Norma (by my definition). Grandkids may be a different story but their parents can deal with them,,,,,,I hope.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I found the article. Completely absurd. Was Bundy special? No. He was an evil freak. Was he smart? Extremely. Stupid people don't pull off that many murders. Furthermore, the judge who presided over his case acknowledged his legal talents. Does any of that make him any less of a monster? No. But was he just your average white guy? No.

Bundy was smart but the real limitation that resulted in a cross country serial murderer was the lack of technology at the federal and state level. Bundy exposed the flaw in a purely local investigation process.

They had him in Seattle but didn't have enough evidence to charge him. He the moved to Utah. Then he was caught in Aspen, twice. Escaped then ended up in Florida. Before any national crime databases, DNA, etc, policing was primarily a local affair.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

BTW, just started watching the Netflix series on the Bundy tapes. Maybe that's what's sparking all the Bundy stuff now... interesting info for sure.

You're full of crap on thet Beatles,

Meh... if I have to be full of crap about something, I'm cool with it being this one.

Now it's no longer enough to throw serial killers in jail. It's important that we expose their whiteness and strip away any of the excuses for why they got away with it as long as they did. This generation is hands-down the most aggressive bunch of back-seat driving virtue-signalers in all of recorded history.

 

[Joe Fan]

....Now it's no longer enough to throw serial killers in jail. It's important that we expose their whiteness and strip away any of the excuses for why they got away with it as long as they did. This generation is hands-down the most aggressive bunch of back-seat driving virtue-signalers in all of recorded history.

I think most serial killers are white. There is a causation/correlation there but there about where the story ends.

A band too

 

[mchammer]

Nope, it is Chuck Berry plus one step evolution. It’s in there. When the songs come up on Pandora, I’ll note them and the album.

How many you guys recognize this one by the Beatles? Again, beyond Chuck Berry but before their mega hits.

 

[Mr. Deez]

How many you guys recognize this one by the Beatles? Again, beyond Chuck Berry but before their mega hits.

In some circles, it's cool to bash the conventional wisdom and the most popular acts. Some ignore context, diminish the importance of their strengths, or amplify the importance of their weaknesses or perceived weaknesses. Sometimes there's a basis to do that, but sometimes the conventional wisdom is conventional for a reason. The Beatles are such an example.

Chuck Berry was a great artist. The Beatles would be the first to admit that and the fact that he (like Carl Perkins, Elvis, Buddy Holly, and others) was a major influence on their work, especially their early work. However, they started sounding less and less like Berry with albums like Help and Rubber Soul. Albums like Revolver (which I consider their best work), Sgt. Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, Yellow Submarine, and the White Album were miles away from Chuck Berry. The influence wasn't gone, but it was overshadowed by much more complex and advanced components of their music. Interestingly, they somewhat returned to more of a Chuck Berry sound in parts of Let it Be and Abbey Road.

I also think there's a tendency to judge and define the Beatles by what made them famous, which was corny (by today's standards) - stuff like I Wanna Hold Your Hand, Love Me Do, etc. I think it's much fairer to judge a band by the totality of its work and in context. People do the same thing to the Beach Boys. They dismiss them as makers of cheesy surf and fast car music, when they also need to be considering stuff like the Pet Sounds album and what was supposed to be on the abandoned Smile album, which was truly brilliant work that even Leonard Bernstein hailed as great music. But some people just like their conclusions rather than the evidence. Same junk happens in politics.

 

[Joe Fan]

Now the NYT tells us Mary Poppins is racist

 

[Joe Fan]

toxic femininity?

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Horn6721]

Rashaad MUST be making a joke......
isn't he?

 

[Htown77]

The entire article on that one deserves to be posted:

Phoenix restaurant says this is a photo of coal miners. But I see offensive blackface
Opinion: Who determines what's offensive? A photo in a downtown Phoenix restaurant raises this key question.

A few weeks ago, I attended a holiday party at a downtown Phoenix restaurant. I walked around to view the photographs on the wall.

Then a photograph caught my attention.

Friends said, “It’s coal miners at a pub after work.” It was a photograph of coal miners with blackened faces. I asked a Latinx and white woman for their opinion. They said it looked like coal miners at a pub after work. Then they stepped back, frowned and said it’s men in blackface.

I asked the waitress to speak with a manager. Instead, I spoke with a white restaurant owner. I explained to him why the photograph was offensive. Evidently, someone else had made a similar comment about the photograph before.

Yet, the photograph remained on the wall. He said he would talk to the other owners and get back to me. While leaving, I asked him had he spoke with the other owners. He had not spoken with them, but mentioned Google said it's coal miners after work.

In art, everyone sees something different
Who determines what's offensive?

For me, the coal miners disappeared and a film honored for its artistic merit, despite being the most racist propaganda films ever, D.W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation” (1915) surfaces, in which white actors appeared in blackface. The white owner saw coal miners in the photograph. Therefore, it was not offensive.

Fact: The photograph shows coal miners’ faces covered in soot. The context of the photograph is not the issue.

Students have painted their faces black at the Arizona State University Sun Devils’ Blackout football game. During Halloween people are encouraged not to wear blackface. Phoenix Institution of Contemporary Art showcased Bob Carey’s portrait of himself in blackface.

Art can be a trickster. People view artwork once and subsequently see something different.

That photo tells me I'm not welcome

Viewers cannot determine the intention of an artist’s work. Art also exposes society’s blind spots. Blackface is only a glimpse of a larger issue. The larger issue is the lack of representation of marginalized people and their voices in Phoenix.

Frequently, I enter art galleries and I am not represented in the art, which leads to uneducated curation for exhibitions. While shopping I am ignored because it is assumed I unable to purchase anything, or I am followed by a security guard because it is assumed that I am a threat to the store.

Each assumption is based on a stereotype. Blackface caricatures stereotypes of black people.

At the downtown Phoenix restaurant, my concern that the photograph of men in blackface was a threat to me and my face and voice were ignored.

A business’ photograph of men with blackened faces culturally says to me, “Whites Only.” It says people like me are not welcome.

The operators of that downtown restaurant can choose to take the photograph down, leave it up or create a title card with an intention statement. No matter their decision, I think the photograph should be taken down — sacrificing one image for the greater good.

 

[Htown77]

Three points:

1. @ShAArk92 has pointed out before that if you are someone who sees a photograph of coal miners in a restaurant as a threat and major problem, you have lived a pretty easy life. You have no clue what real problems or threats are. You do not know much about adversity.

2. On the racism front, if this is what we are focussed on, then it does not seem like racism is a major problem anymore. I am not saying racism is not a problem anymore. I am saying whatever problems still exist are cheapened and obscured by articles like this.

3. This same stupidity is used to justify removing confederate statues and other history. This is the same asinine argument as “this confederate statue was erected to threaten black people”. No they were not. Like every other veterans or war memorial, they exist to honor veterans and war dead. Instead people have actually believed the same stupid thought process behind that article that everything is meant to be offensive and a threat to “name your group”.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Of all the crazy in his post, two things came to me:

Frequently, I enter art galleries and I am not represented in the art, which leads to uneducated curation for exhibitions.

In other words: "If the art isn't about me or my culture, then it's "uneducated" and apparently not worth displaying.

Viewers cannot determine the intention of an artist’s work. Art also exposes society’s blind spots.

So here's the huge flaw in his logic. If society has a "blind spot" that means it can't be seen. So if an artist puts up a piece of art that offends someone, then they are automatically deemed racist if they don't immediately take it down. So my answer to a "blindspot" in my culture is to get the art censored so no one else can see it, and not accept any alternative view but the one that comes from my particular experience. And "they're free to take it up or leave it," but the message is you're not welcomed there because I put up a picture that you didn't like because I thought it was appropriate for MY restaurant, and when you demanded that it be removed, my underling didn't immediately take something down that they didn't have a right to take down.

And this is somehow supposed to make us closer and less polarized.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Nothing is off limits. Literally nothing.

 

[Joe Fan]

In art, everyone sees something different
Who determines what's offensive?....

 

[Joe Fan]

another hoax?

 

[Monahorns]

Anyone who sees a picture of coal miners drinking beer with coal dust all over their faces, should not feel offense or contempt but sympathy. That was a hard life. So hard they didn't have the wherewithal to wash their faces after work. That is a beat down kind of life.

 

[Monahorns]

Well, to be fair. If the Rams wins, all that is true because of the horrendous no call.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Three points:

1. @ShAArk92 has pointed out before that if you are someone who sees a photograph of coal miners in a restaurant as a threat and major problem, you have lived a pretty easy life. You have no clue what real problems or threats are. You do not know much about adversity.

2. On the racism front, if this is what we are focussed on, then it does not seem like racism is a major problem anymore. I am not saying racism is not a problem anymore. I am saying whatever problems still exist are cheapened and obscured by articles like this.

3. This same stupidity is used to justify removing confederate statues and other history. This is the same asinine argument as “this confederate statue was erected to threaten black people”. No they were not. Like every other veterans or war memorial, they exist to honor veterans and war dead. Instead people have actually believed the same stupid thought process behind that article that everything is meant to be offensive and a threat to “name your group”.

You're actually giving this doofus's position way more credibility than it deserves. This is not a painting or a sculpture that is subject to interpretation. This is a photograph. What's in a photograph is objective. It's either a bunch of guys in blackface, or it's not. We know it's not. If he "sees" something else, he is delusional and should not be taken seriously. He needs his mental health checked.

 

[nashhorn]

“.......for the greater good”, my A***.•

 

[Htown77]

This is not apainting or a sculpture that is subject to interpretation.

The problem with political correctness is everything is interpreted as offensive. It is the same “how I can interpret X to be offensive” or “how can I give X an interpretation to support my dislike of it and calls for removal.” However, as you point out and are correct about, this is worse than normal because it is on par with saying the sky is orange. That said, it is still derivative of the same thought process of incorrectly interpreting things as offensive.

Saying a picture of dirt covered coal miners is people in blackface is baloney.

Saying a war memorial, generally placed next other war memorials, erected to honor the dead from a war was actually erected to intimidate african americans is also baloney along the same line of factually incorrect thinking. The same disingenuous and outright stupid argument of false, negative interpretation is being used in both instances.

 

[Monahorns]

The purpose of Political Correctness is to use language to gain power over others. It's working perfectly.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The problem with political correctness is everything is interpreted as offensive. It is the same “how I can interpret X to be offensive” or “how can I give X an interpretation to support my dislike of it and calls for removal.” However, as you point out and are correct about, this is worse than normal because it is on par with saying the sky is orange. That said, it is still derivative of the same thought process of incorrectly interpreting things as offensive.

Saying a picture of dirt covered coal miners is people in blackface is baloney.

Saying a war memorial, generally placed next other war memorials, erected to honor the dead from a war was actually erected to intimidate african americans is also baloney along the same line of factually incorrect thinking. The same disingenuous and outright stupid argument of false, negative interpretation is being used in both instances.

You're trying to link the goofball with the photo with the Confederate memorials. They're not equivalent - at best a wild stretch. You're embarassing yourself, Dude. When you get me on your side because I ignored the component of your point that is nonsense, your shouldn't go back and celebrate the nonsensical part and force me to slap your nuts on the issue again. Just take my agreement, and enjoy the credibility and gravitas that come with that. Lol

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Oh boy. Here we go.

 

[Htown77]

@Mr. Deez An insincere and factually incorrect argument was made that confederate war memorials honoring the dead were put up to “intimidate african americans.” It is asinine and not truthful. It has been cited continuously as a reason to pull them down. It is the same thought process as this man had: “My feelings matter, not the facts or truth.” He argues the photo of a coal miner intimidates him. These factually incorrect arguments and their purposes are equivalent and of the same vein. You can still maintain your position while conceding that prong was as BS as this man’s coal miner photo article.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Mr. Deez]

Oh boy. Here we go.

Lol. The guy is right 99 percent of the time. He's one of the sharpest minds here. But unfortunately he's most passionate about that 1 percent of the time - can't resist the urge to not only talk about it but celebrate it. I tried to just let that **** slide, and he's doing everything he can not to let me do it.

 

[bystander]

The entire article on that one deserves to be posted:

Phoenix restaurant says this is a photo of coal miners. But I see offensive blackface
Opinion: Who determines what's offensive? A photo in a downtown Phoenix restaurant raises this key question.

A few weeks ago, I attended a holiday party at a downtown Phoenix restaurant. I walked around to view the photographs on the wall.

Then a photograph caught my attention.

Friends said, “It’s coal miners at a pub after work.” It was a photograph of coal miners with blackened faces. I asked a Latinx and white woman for their opinion. They said it looked like coal miners at a pub after work. Then they stepped back, frowned and said it’s men in blackface.

I asked the waitress to speak with a manager. Instead, I spoke with a white restaurant owner. I explained to him why the photograph was offensive. Evidently, someone else had made a similar comment about the photograph before.

Yet, the photograph remained on the wall. He said he would talk to the other owners and get back to me. While leaving, I asked him had he spoke with the other owners. He had not spoken with them, but mentioned Google said it's coal miners after work.

In art, everyone sees something different
Who determines what's offensive?

For me, the coal miners disappeared and a film honored for its artistic merit, despite being the most racist propaganda films ever, D.W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation” (1915) surfaces, in which white actors appeared in blackface. The white owner saw coal miners in the photograph. Therefore, it was not offensive.

Fact: The photograph shows coal miners’ faces covered in soot. The context of the photograph is not the issue.

Students have painted their faces black at the Arizona State University Sun Devils’ Blackout football game. During Halloween people are encouraged not to wear blackface. Phoenix Institution of Contemporary Art showcased Bob Carey’s portrait of himself in blackface.

Art can be a trickster. People view artwork once and subsequently see something different.

That photo tells me I'm not welcome

Viewers cannot determine the intention of an artist’s work. Art also exposes society’s blind spots. Blackface is only a glimpse of a larger issue. The larger issue is the lack of representation of marginalized people and their voices in Phoenix.

Frequently, I enter art galleries and I am not represented in the art, which leads to uneducated curation for exhibitions. While shopping I am ignored because it is assumed I unable to purchase anything, or I am followed by a security guard because it is assumed that I am a threat to the store.

Each assumption is based on a stereotype. Blackface caricatures stereotypes of black people.

At the downtown Phoenix restaurant, my concern that the photograph of men in blackface was a threat to me and my face and voice were ignored.

A business’ photograph of men with blackened faces culturally says to me, “Whites Only.” It says people like me are not welcome.

The operators of that downtown restaurant can choose to take the photograph down, leave it up or create a title card with an intention statement. No matter their decision, I think the photograph should be taken down — sacrificing one image for the greater good.

You can't win sometimes. This opinion is why I think racism will never be solved in America. The sensitivity levels go beyond true racism. It's very sad.