Leaving woke culture and God

[Brian63]

Both Margaret Court Smith and Arthur Ashe had large fan basses worldwide that brought their countries' tennis standing a great deal of respect. Both deserve honors.

According to your subjective standards. The subjective standards of others are different, and they disagree.

Also, absolutely nothing is stopping you from honoring either/both of them. You can privately send them cards, publicly name your own awards and arenas after them, etc. You completely have that right. Some other private entities also have similar rights, and they made a different calculation than you about how they want to exercise theirs.

 

[skepticalbip]

Both Margaret Court Smith and Arthur Ashe had large fan basses worldwide that brought their countries' tennis standing a great deal of respect. Both deserve honors.

According to your subjective standards. The subjective standards of others are different, and they disagree.

Yeah, that's true. But then there is no way to discuss anything with people who think that anyone who has a worldview that differs from their own is evil and must be destroyed. Reality is that there are intolerant people. Some of them even see little to no difference between someone using the "wrong" pronoun and them being a child rapist.

 

[Brian63]

"evil and must be destroyed"? Where and why do you keep coming up with these strawmen, again and again? Saying that we do not name this trophy or arena because we reject your views after you is NOT the same as saying "you are evil and must be destroyed."

Some of them even see little to no difference between someone using the "wrong" pronoun and them being a child rapist.

Some of them can indeed see a difference, but note that the difference is one of size and scope. The principle remains. There are indeed instances where you would also note an athlete's performance on the field and recognize their great ability, while also deeming them unworthy of certain other honors because of their off the field behaviors.

When I use the child rapist example, it was not to equate the 2 scenarios as you mistakenly read. It was to expose the flaw in your argument---when in one breath you say that only on the field achievements should matter. Then in the next breath you take a different approach and effectively say "Well, yeah, okay in certain cases their off the field behaviors should be taken into account too." Which is the exact same thing you criticize others for doing.

 

[skepticalbip]

Some of them even see little to no difference between someone using the "wrong" pronoun and them being a child rapist.

Some of them can indeed see a difference, but note that the difference is one of size and scope.

So you agree with my point? You see them as different only in scope, not as completely different classes. This is the same nonsense as a vegan who sees using milk and/or eggs as the same but only different in scope as genocide.

You see not being woke as evil (but a bit less evil than child rape) and the vegan sees using milk or eggs as evil (but a bit less evil than genocide).

But then maybe you are also a militant vegan so also think using milk or eggs really is evil, only different is scope from committing genocide.

 

[Brian63]

So you agree with my point? You see them as different only in scope, not as completely different classes.

It can be any variety, and not change the relevant point. If you want to establish your own trophies and arenas, you can decide who to name them after. Other people can do the same too.

If you name a trophy after someone who you think was the GOAT of your sport, and then you later learn they were also a serial killer on the side, you can disassociate that trophy from that athlete. If some fan comes after you and says "Hey skepticalbip, you are being woke and PC and are acting like a mob for doing that!" then how would you react? Would you think that person is making a strong or weak point?

 

[jab]

The difference being that I know of absolutely no better American tennis player who was nominated for the honor but rejected because the PC police objected.

But I thought you objected to "woke" stadium namings when there are more successful athletes in the filed who are being passed over.

Bill Tilman, a far more successful American tennis player than Ashe, and apparently even a media star for awhile (according to Wikipedia) would be a name too far for you, I suspect. A convicted child molester--no amount of great tennis would validate an honour to them without bringing a stain to the honouring body. But a persistent homophobic bigot--no stain at all on the honouring body.

As a gay man and a tennis fan, I am divided on post-career honours to Maggie C S, who has used to fame to speak out against gay and lesbian rights, cause me to look askance at the bodies that honour her, and think twice about dealing with them. But I can't quite feel totally outraged.

What I find appalling on this forum is the handwaving away of concerns about a famous person's public bigotry as being "woke". Maggie C. S. has a public record as a very successful tennis player and also a public record as a bigot.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's another piece of woke insanity from Sweden

https://www.aftonbladet.se/nojesbla...gar-tv4s-storserie-fejk-fran-borjan-till-slut

One of the biggest TV production in Swedish history is a documentary about a number of historical Swedish queens. Based on the work of Kristina Sjögren, who is not an historian. She's a lecturer in gender studies. Sweden's leading historian (and a professor) slams it as nothing but lies. Her defense is that women's stories have been silenced throughout history so it's ok to make up stuff. But she's made up pretty major things, like what government Sweden had at times. And the political situation around Europe. Major fuck-ups. The series had 900 000 viewers, (out of a population of 10 million).

What's the point of making a historical documentary if you don't care about history? Why call it a documentary? It's fake news. It's nothing but progressive woke feminist propaganda being continuously pumped out in Sweden.

It's sad when a population is so deluded.

Worth noting is the story of another documentary, in Norway. It came out in 2010. Up to that point Sweden and Norway were very similar when it came to feminism and woke. Then the main channel of state television in Norway allowed one alternative documentary to give a bit more of a balanced picture. Hjernevask. In the documentary experts on gender and biologists are interviewed about gender. This is actual experts on gender, not lecturers in gender studies. Over night gender studies in Norway dies and all of their lecturers are forced to move to Sweden and continue their work there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask

In Sweden this nonsense of one sided leftist state sponsored propaganda is allowed to continue. There's no attempt to create any kind of debate, or opposing sides. It's all one sided.

There's a sharp divide between those educated and able to, on their own, read foreign media and those who aren't educated and just swallow what they're told by the government. I can't see this ending well.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here's another piece of woke insanity from Sweden

Is that woke or just flat out false. I'm tired of reading people complaining about nutty liberals as some sort of new thing when there have always been nutty liberals.

What's the point of making a historical documentary if you don't care about history? Why call it a documentary? It's fake news. It's nothing but progressive woke feminist propaganda being continuously pumped out in Sweden.

In the US, we have to be very careful in watching documentaries on channels like National Geoographic, Discovery, History, Animal Planet due to the gross exaggeration, pulp science, and flat out false claims made or appear to make. That isn't woke, it is ratings. So documentaries not being so documentary... and even nature shows clearly being over edited for drama is something that is becoming endemic in television. This is something that needs to stop... but it is hardly a "woke" liberal disease that has spread all over.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's another piece of woke insanity from Sweden

Is that woke or just flat out false. I'm tired of reading people complaining about nutty liberals as some sort of new thing when there have always been nutty liberals.

The problem is that the nutty liberals are in power. This was labelled as a documentary. Not as a "drama documentary", or "based on a true story". It's also on mainstream television, and one of the most well funded and high profile documentaries ever made in Sweden. While I'm for anybody doing anything and a multitude of opinions being voiced. So I'm not against nutty liberals telling their story. The problem is that it's completely one sided. We only get the nutty liberal version in Sweden.

Another example is our national gallery. So that's all the most famous paintings through Swedish history, they all have informative plaques next to them explaining what it's about. Last year it was decided to replace them all with plaques informed by gender studies. Loony fringe feminism has been elevated to state ideology. And no other perspectives are allowed in public communication from the state. Since Sweden is a socialist country the majority of the media is state financed, or heavily state financed. It's a problem.

What's the point of making a historical documentary if you don't care about history? Why call it a documentary? It's fake news. It's nothing but progressive woke feminist propaganda being continuously pumped out in Sweden.

In the US, we have to be very careful in watching documentaries on channels like National Geoographic, Discovery, History, Animal Planet due to the gross exaggeration, pulp science, and flat out false claims made or appear to make. That isn't woke, it is ratings. So documentaries not being so documentary... and even nature shows clearly being over edited for drama is something that is becoming endemic in television. This is something that needs to stop... but it is hardly a "woke" liberal disease that has spread all over.

That's a fair point. When Swedes watch stuff on National Geographic or the History channel (both show American shows only) we tend to assume it's bullshit. But as soon as something is from Sweden we give it more dignity. I hadn't thought of that. But it's totally how Swedes think. It's weird.

To quote a Swedish documentary filmmaker I spoke to at a party, "only idiots get informed by documentaries. Smart people read books"

 

[repoman]

 

[GenesisNemesis]

If being Woke makes me an evil Communist, so be it! I would rather be an evil Communist!

 

[DrZoidberg]

If being Woke makes me an evil Communist, so be it! I would rather be an evil Communist!

No. Being woke means being disingenuous. It means replacing actual self development and understanding for other people with just saying politically correct things. There's a mismatch between opinion and action.

The equivalent on the Conservative side is men going on about God and the sanctity of marriage while banging their mistress.

 

[repoman]

Woke may at times like this Three Dog Night song Easy to be Hard

"Easy To Be Hard"

How can people be so heartless
How can people be so cruel
Easy to be hard
Easy to be cold

How can people have no feelings
How can they ignore their friends
Easy to be proud
Easy to say no

Especially people who care about strangers
Who care about evil and social injustice
Do you only care about the bleeding crowd
How about a needy friend
I need a friend

 

[GenesisNemesis]

If being Woke makes me an evil Communist, so be it! I would rather be an evil Communist!

No. Being woke means being disingenuous. It means replacing actual self development and understanding for other people with just saying politically correct things. There's a mismatch between opinion and action.

The equivalent on the Conservative side is men going on about God and the sanctity of marriage while banging their mistress.

If being disingenuous makes me an evil Communist, then I would rather be an evil Communist!

 

[Politesse]

Woke may at times like this Three Dog Night song Easy to be Hard

It's not actually a Three Dog Night Song, though they did cover it. It's from the musical Hair originally. Sheila is a debutante, slumming it with a group of free lovers she runs across while on break from school at NYU. Berger is an free spirit who de facto leads the group around, so of course she goes right to him, since whoever's in charge must surely owe her attention. But not twenty minutes of show time after they start hanging together, she starts complaining that he pays too little attention to her, too much to all the other people in the Tribe. You know, his already established friendships and projects, that she knew all about going in but now takes offense to. So she sings this whiny song which you have quoted. Sheila may genuinely think Berger is being cruel, but the truth is that she herself is acting like a demanding, entitled jerk, who has no good reason to feel slighted just a guy didn't drop everything to service her feelings exclusively. I mean basically, she's insisting on being allowed to run with the hippies, then whining that her new boyfriend is one. Get over yourself, you know? You don't get to tear apart other people's lives just because your ego is bruised by not being the queen of the world at the moment.

Your sympathies are clear, but for me, I'll take a Berger over a Sheila any damn day.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If being Woke makes me an evil Communist, so be it! I would rather be an evil Communist!

No. Being woke means being disingenuous. It means replacing actual self development and understanding for other people with just saying politically correct things. There's a mismatch between opinion and action.

The equivalent on the Conservative side is men going on about God and the sanctity of marriage while banging their mistress.

If being disingenuous makes me an evil Communist, then I would rather be an evil Communist!

But why say you are something you are not? Why claim you hold an opinion you don't support? I don't understand what you are taking a stand for?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Woke may at times like this Three Dog Night song Easy to be Hard

It's not actually a Three Dog Night Song, though they did cover it. It's from the musical Hair originally. Sheila is a debutante, slumming it with a group of free lovers she runs across while on break from school at NYU. Berger is an free spirit who de facto leads the group around, so of course she goes right to him, since whoever's in charge must surely owe her attention. But not twenty minutes of show time after they start hanging together, she starts complaining that he pays too little attention to her, too much to all the other people in the Tribe. You know, his already established friendships and projects, that she knew all about going in but now takes offense to. So she sings this whiny song which you have quoted. Sheila may genuinely think Berger is being cruel, but the truth is that she herself is acting like a demanding, entitled jerk, who has no good reason to feel slighted just a guy didn't drop everything to service her feelings exclusively. I mean basically, she's insisting on being allowed to run with the hippies, then whining that her new boyfriend is one. Get over yourself, you know? You don't get to tear apart other people's lives just because your ego is bruised by not being the queen of the world at the moment.

Your sympathies are clear, but for me, I'll take a Berger over a Sheila any damn day.

That film is awesome. But timing is a factor. It was made in the eighties during the punk, OPEC crisis, Reagan and Thatcher era. It was made by and for people who thought hippies were a joke. Being a hippie could not be less cool than when the film came out. Its a lovingly made satire. But it is a satire. The hypocrisy and rediculousness of the hippies is what the film makes fun of.

The funny thing is that hippies rarely understand they are being made fun of. They think it's a tribute to hippies. That's some skilled writing.

 

[repoman]

I did not know much about the musical, I thought it came out later than 1967 more like 1969. Holy crap, the cultural vanguard was moving fast as lightning then.

Also, in the movie scene her boyfriend is rude to her before she sings - not sure about the play.

Finally the movie came out in 1979.

 

[Tharmas]

I did not know much about the musical, I thought it came out later than 1967 more like 1969. Holy crap, the cultural vanguard was moving fast as lightning then.

Also, in the movie scene her boyfriend is rude to her before she sings - not sure about the play.

Finally the movie came out in 1979.

According to Wikipedia the musical was first performed in 1967. In my opinion, interpreting it as a crafty satire of the counter culture is a bit of a stretch.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I did not know much about the musical, I thought it came out later than 1967 more like 1969. Holy crap, the cultural vanguard was moving fast as lightning then.

Also, in the movie scene her boyfriend is rude to her before she sings - not sure about the play.

Finally the movie came out in 1979.

According to Wikipedia the musical was first performed in 1967. In my opinion, interpreting it as a crafty satire of the counter culture is a bit of a stretch.

The film and the musical are quite different in what they are trying to be.

The stage musical is mostly about using profanity on stage and being naked. Shock value. I think the story was secondary. That's why it became famous. The ambition level of the productions couldn't be more different.

But just like the film its made by people in the culture poking fun at themselves. They were NOT trying to glorify the culture. The difference is that when they made the film its made by and for ex-hippies rather than being made at the height of the culture. That makes it quite different.

A major difference is that what shocked people in 1967 was seen as competely harmless in 1980. The contexts change what it is trying to be.

I'm a spawn of hippies. I grew up in this shit