And then the Woke came for Golden Gaytimes

[ronburgundy]

I feel confident that sanity shall prevail.

But what kind of times are we living in?

These two sentences capture the 'woke derangement syndrome' that characterizes nearly every one of your posts and threads.

Some powerless nobody rando has an opinion and expressed offense that, as you admit, is highly unlikely to have any meaningful impact. Yet, you still think it's a big deal and make the irrational inference that it reflects some fundamental change to society. People like this guy have always existed. There have always been people with stupid opinions getting offended over nothing, you just never heard about them. The only difference is that now you hear about every one of them, in part b/c they have social media they use to voice those opinions, and b/c you clearly spend much of your day hunting down every inane opinion of powerless randos you can find to fuel your irrational notions that the world is suddenly under siege by them.

 

[Metaphor]

These two sentences capture the 'woke derangement syndrome' that characterizes nearly every one of your posts and threads.

Some powerless nobody rando has an opinion and expressed offense that, as you admit, is highly unlikely to have any meaningful impact. Yet, you still think it's a big deal and make the irrational inference that it reflects some fundamental change to society.

The inference might be mistaken; I cannot see how it is 'irrational'.

People like this guy have always existed. There have always been people with stupid opinions getting offended over nothing, you just never heard about them. The only difference is that now you hear about every one of them, in part b/c they have social media they use to voice those opinions, and b/c you clearly spend much of your day hunting down every inane opinion of powerless randos you can find to fuel your irrational notions that the world is suddenly under siege by them.

I spend much of my day working, not, as you fantasize, 'hunting down powerless randos'.

The Golden Gaytime story was in several media outlets in Australia, and in pinknews UK. I did not seek it out. I don't even know how one would go about seeking out powerless randos.

 

[ronburgundy]

These two sentences capture the 'woke derangement syndrome' that characterizes nearly every one of your posts and threads.

Some powerless nobody rando has an opinion and expressed offense that, as you admit, is highly unlikely to have any meaningful impact. Yet, you still think it's a big deal and make the irrational inference that it reflects some fundamental change to society.

The inference might be mistaken; I cannot see how it is 'irrational'.

It's irrational b/c of the the clear and obvious fact is that there is nothing remotely new about some people having inane and extreme opinions. In fact, it is a statistical certainty that on most issues there will be some of the 7 billion people on the planet with extreme positions. So, to think as you do that it reflects some societal change or threat is irrational, and to ignore the obvious fact that you make efforts to seek out such cases is irrational.

People like this guy have always existed. There have always been people with stupid opinions getting offended over nothing, you just never heard about them. The only difference is that now you hear about every one of them, in part b/c they have social media they use to voice those opinions, and b/c you clearly spend much of your day hunting down every inane opinion of powerless randos you can find to fuel your irrational notions that the world is suddenly under siege by them.

I spend much of my day working, not, as you fantasize, 'hunting down powerless randos'.

The Golden Gaytime story was in several media outlets in Australia, and in pinknews UK. I did not seek it out. I don't even know how one would go about seeking out powerless randos.

You post most days about meaningless anecdotes of rando nobodies all over the world. So, either you're spending lots of time hunting them down, or you deliberately select information sources that do the work for you, screening and directing you to you these types of cases. Either way you're choosing to selectively attend to this info. Maybe the FB and Google algorithms have identified your addictive obsessions that trigger you to fall for clickbait.

 

[Metaphor]

It's irrational b/c of the the clear and obvious fact is that there is nothing remotely new about some people having inane and extreme opinions.

There's something new about the lack of embarrassment people feel airing these extreme minority opinions. Also, you do not know how widespread bizarre views were in the past, so you cannot say 'they have always been there to the same extent'.

In fact, it is a statistical certainty that on most issues there will be some of the 7 billion people on the planet with extreme positions. So, to think as you do that it reflects some societal change or threat is irrational, and to ignore the obvious fact that you make efforts to seek out such cases is irrational.

I don't seek out these cases, but I suppose your own evaluation of what I do with my time is more accurate than my lived experience of it.

You post most days about meaningless anecdotes of rando nobodies all over the world. So, either you're spending lots of time hunting them down, or you deliberately select information sources that do the work for you, screening and directing you to you these types of cases. Either way you're choosing to selectively attend to this info. Maybe the FB and Google algorithms have identified your addictive obsessions that trigger you to fall for clickbait.

Put me on 'ignore' if you do not believe the words I say, or you find my choice of thread topics annoying and you do not have the will to simply not respond when you see them. One thing I have never done is come into somebody else's thread, attack their character, attack their topic choices, call them a liar about their lived experiences, and bring up unrelated shit they find to be 'more important', as if any thread on this message board is going to change world affairs one iota.

 

[ronburgundy]

There's something new about the lack of embarrassment people feel airing these extreme minority opinions. Also, you do not know how widespread bizarre views were in the past, so you cannot say 'they have always been there to the same extent'.

People post pics of their breakfasts. Of all the changes to what personal things people publicly reveal, stupid opinions is among the least of them.
Like most psychological features (and most traits in nature) opinions are on a continuous distribution, and "extreme" is nothing but the tails of the distribution. That makes extreme opinions a near statistical certainty. Most of the opinions you reference are rare and NOT widespread today, so it doesn't matter if they were widespread in the past. There is nothing about society in general or changes to it that can be rationally inferred by finding extreme opinions in a world where billions of opinions are publicly posted every day.

I don't seek out these cases, but I suppose your own evaluation of what I do with my time is more accurate than my lived experience of it.

I could care less what you claim to do. I know what is plausible as a matter of objective odds. I know that the odds are near zero that any person on the planet would just randomly stumble upon all the mostly minor inconsequential stories from all around the world your posts focus on. You'd either have to be spending several hours a day scouring all types of news outlets, ignoring 99.9% of what you encounter to focus only to these types of stories, or relying upon sources that do that gathering and filtering work for you.

You post most days about meaningless anecdotes of rando nobodies all over the world. So, either you're spending lots of time hunting them down, or you deliberately select information sources that do the work for you, screening and directing you to you these types of cases. Either way you're choosing to selectively attend to this info. Maybe the FB and Google algorithms have identified your addictive obsessions that trigger you to fall for clickbait.

Put me on 'ignore' if you do not believe the words I say, or you find my choice of thread topics annoying and you do not have the will to simply not respond when you see them. One thing I have never done is come into somebody else's thread, attack their character, attack their topic choices, call them a liar about their lived experiences, and bring up unrelated shit they find to be 'more important', as if any thread on this message board is going to change world affairs one iota.

You're spreading nonsense designed to undermine and create strawmen of those trying to fight centuries of real bigotry. You put this guy forward in an effort to delegitimize real efforts to fight bigotry, just as you do when you cherry pick the most extreme positions of some feminists in an effort to attack feminism. Everything I said is directly relevant to exposing that, and you don't get to set the terms of the dialogue to try and ensure that doesn't happen.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Named when "gay" predominately meant happy/lively. There is no indication it was originally named to offend. "Gay" to define happy is nearly archaic in today's usage. But most importantly, Golden Gaytime today is not offensive (in my hetero opinion) to the homosexual community. The ice cream bar and it's name has endured, even teenagers. It should hold fast.

As far as I'm concerned a brand is not at fault for the meaning of the word changing over time even if the new meaning is insulting. People should be aware of older meanings of a word because they will sometimes encounter them.

I'm reminded of the woman who wouldn't let me pick up my order because "she" wasn't there--simply assuming "Loren" must be a female and not even looking at my ID in her hand. Reality: When I was born "Loren" was male, "Lauren" was female. Now both spellings are exclusively female.

 

[Metaphor]

People post pics of their breakfasts. Of all the changes to what personal things people publicly reveal, stupid opinions is among the least of them.
Like most psychological features (and most traits in nature) opinions are on a continuous distribution, and "extreme" is nothing but the tails of the distribution. That makes extreme opinions a near statistical certainty. Most of the opinions you reference are rare and NOT widespread today, so it doesn't matter if they were widespread in the past.

"Most"? Have you done an audit of any kind?

In fact, whether an opinion is widespread or not isn't the point: some ideas have cultural purchase beyond what would be expected if you polled the number of people who agree or disagree. A recent thread I created was about the (hired, then cancelled before she started) editor of Teen Vogue. If you polled the American public on whether someone should be fired because they made three Tweets ten years ago when they were 17 that included racist sentiments about Asian habits and appearance, I suspect most people would say 'no'. If you polled the people on this board, I suspect most people would say 'fuck off, nobody wants to hear about your crusade, Metaphor'.

And yet, she was cancelled. And note that I almost certainly disagree with almost every thought Alexi McCammond has ever had. I believe she would have taken Teen Vogue in an even more extreme Woke direction than it currently is. But my principles are not jettisoned when applying them to people I disagree with.

And on other topics, I'm the minority opinion, and what I've posted about is a majority opinion. In the thread about the man that was arrested and jailed in Canada for calling his daughter 'she', not only is the Canadian legal system 'on board', nearly every poster (with some exceptions) were also 'on board'.

I could care less what you claim to do. I know what is plausible as a matter of objective odds. I know that the odds are near zero that any person on the planet would just randomly stumble upon all the mostly minor inconsequential stories from all around the world your posts focus on. You'd either have to be spending several hours a day scouring all types of news outlets, ignoring 99.9% of what you encounter to focus only to these types of stories, or relying upon sources that do that gathering and filtering work for you.

I don't want to argue further with you about your claims about how I spend my time. I accept that you believe yourself to be right.

You're spreading nonsense designed to undermine and create strawmen of those trying to fight centuries of real bigotry.

I'm doing no such thing. I am posting on topics I find interesting and which I am concerned about.

You put this guy forward in an effort to delegitimize real efforts to fight bigotry, just as you do when you cherry pick the most extreme positions of some feminists in an effort to attack feminism. Everything I said is directly relevant to exposing that, and you don't get to set the terms of the dialogue to try and ensure that doesn't happen.

You don't get to set the terms of what I post about, though you are free, I suppose, to continue to fantasize about my motives.