White privilege and other matters

[Slick]

Interesting email signature from someone employed at a University that we are collaborating with in England:


Becca H
(she/her)
Careers Officer

I see that fairly regularly now tbh, amongst some of our younger staff members. On email sigs or screen names etc. I'm entirely comfortable with it.

See it quite often from the civil service as well now. Seems a bit superfluous but hardly an issue

[Uncle fester]

In response to an online poll asking if the Sterling won penalty against Denmark was a dive or not, the head of basketball Ireland tweeted "black dives matter".

He's no longer head of basketball Ireland.

[robmatic]

Interesting email signature from someone employed at a University that we are collaborating with in England:


Becca H
(she/her)
Careers Officer

\
Bit daft for folk with an obviously gendered name.

Unless they prefer not to be gendered and ask to be referred to as they.

That would make more sense but not the case here. Although if you were non-binary, surely you would choose to go by a non-gendered name?

[notfatcat]

Interesting email signature from someone employed at a University that we are collaborating with in England:


Becca H
(she/her)
Careers Officer

I see that fairly regularly now tbh, amongst some of our younger staff members. On email sigs or screen names etc. I'm entirely comfortable with it.

See it quite often from the civil service as well now. Seems a bit superfluous but hardly an issue

It will be an issue when you need to recall 50, 100, 200, who knows how many different pronouns. It should be an issue now but anything for an easy life.

[Biffer]

\
Bit daft for folk with an obviously gendered name.

Unless they prefer not to be gendered and ask to be referred to as they.

That would make more sense but not the case here. Although if you were non-binary, surely you would choose to go by a non-gendered name?

The point would be, who are you to decide that for them.

[robmatic]

Unless they prefer not to be gendered and ask to be referred to as they.

That would make more sense but not the case here. Although if you were non-binary, surely you would choose to go by a non-gendered name?

The point would be, who are you to decide that for them.

Well, I don't think there was any indication that I would be deciding for them? There is an element of social consensus involved when it comes to gender though, and I'm just saying that I would expect non-binary folk to be quite conscious of that.

I once dated a girl who was called Nine (as in the number), a name which she had chosen because it was no conceivable way gendered.

[Biffer]

Surely you would.....

That sets an expectation you have of what someone else would do. I absolutely accept that isn't deliberate on your part. It's just a statement of a societal norm. But it's a society from forty years ago.

[notfatcat]

That sets an expectation you have of what someone else would do.

This is the problem.

[robmatic]

Surely you would.....

That sets an expectation you have of what someone else would do. I absolutely accept that isn't deliberate on your part. It's just a statement of a societal norm. But it's a society from forty years ago.

Do we now live in a society that doesn't have gendered names? Somebody should tell all the people having children and naming them in such an antiquated fashion.

[Ymx]

Funnily enough it was for the first time yesterday I saw someone on linked in

It had his name and then (he / him).

Wut?

[Mr Bungle]

Funnily enough it was for the first time yesterday I saw someone on linked in

It had his name and then (he / him).

Wut?

Those are their pronouns. Where have you been these last couple of years?

[GogLais]

In response to an online poll asking if the Sterling won penalty against Denmark was a dive or not, the head of basketball Ireland tweeted "black dives matter".

He's no longer head of basketball Ireland.

Crikey. So I could be sacked for describing this thread as “Black lives chatter”?

[Ymx]

Funnily enough it was for the first time yesterday I saw someone on linked in

It had his name and then (he / him).

Wut?

Those are their pronouns. Where have you been these last couple of years?

“Their”. You mean his

But however, but wouldn’t that be the default assumption. Why need to point it out. Unless it’s making some stupid point.

[Rinkals]

Wouldn't the gender neutral pronoun be 'It'?

Or is that a little controversial?

[Mr Bungle]

Funnily enough it was for the first time yesterday I saw someone on linked in

It had his name and then (he / him).

Wut?

Those are their pronouns. Where have you been these last couple of years?

“Their”. You mean his

But however, but wouldn’t that be the default assumption. Why need to point it out. Unless it’s making some stupid point.

He’s standing in solidarity with they/them amongst the countless other combinations.

[Biffer]

Wouldn't the gender neutral pronoun be 'It'?

Or is that a little controversial?

Not your decision how someone else should be addressed

[Rinkals]

Wouldn't the gender neutral pronoun be 'It'?

Or is that a little controversial?

Not your decision how someone else should be addressed

Yes.

I was trying to be funny.

Obviously a mistake when discussing this topic.

I am in complete agreement: if people feel strongly about how they addressed, then they have every right to ask to be addressed in that manner. Whether their request is granted depends on the circumstances. For example, if you were to ask to be addressed as "Your Majesty", I may or may not comply. Depending on who you were.

[Ymx]

Those are their pronouns. Where have you been these last couple of years?

“Their”. You mean his

But however, but wouldn’t that be the default assumption. Why need to point it out. Unless it’s making some stupid point.

He’s standing in solidarity with they/them amongst the countless other combinations.

Sure, do we now need to superfluously identify ourselves for every group we belong to.
Ymx (he/him, five fingers, white oppressor)

[notfatcat]

“Their”. You mean his

But however, but wouldn’t that be the default assumption. Why need to point it out. Unless it’s making some stupid point.

He’s standing in solidarity with they/them amongst the countless other combinations.

Sure, do we now need to superfluously identify ourselves for every group we belong to.
Ymx (he/him, five fingers, white oppressor)

I think it depends on how self-centred you are.

[Mr Bungle]

“Their”. You mean his

But however, but wouldn’t that be the default assumption. Why need to point it out. Unless it’s making some stupid point.

He’s standing in solidarity with they/them amongst the countless other combinations.

Sure, do we now need to superfluously identify ourselves for every group we belong to.
Ymx (he/him, five fingers, white oppressor)

I’m not advocating, just explaining.

[Ymx]

thanks.

It will probably backfire on the guy, coming across as toxic masculinity or something. Certainly someone will find it offensive

[Uncle fester]

In response to an online poll asking if the Sterling won penalty against Denmark was a dive or not, the head of basketball Ireland tweeted "black dives matter".

He's no longer head of basketball Ireland.

Crikey. So I could be sacked for describing this thread as “Black lives chatter”?

No because this thread is specifically about race and related issues but Sterling's dive had nothing to do with him being black so for it to be brought up in commentary is odd at the very least.

[GogLais]

In response to an online poll asking if the Sterling won penalty against Denmark was a dive or not, the head of basketball Ireland tweeted "black dives matter".

He's no longer head of basketball Ireland.

Crikey. So I could be sacked for describing this thread as “Black lives chatter”?

No because this thread is specifically about race and related issues but Sterling's dive had nothing to do with him being black so for it to be brought up in commentary is odd at the very least.

Not sure how commentary comes into it but I haven’t seen the tweet. He’s either suggested that black players dive more than white players or he’s simply made a pun, we don’t know which without reading his mind. If we give him the benefit of the doubt should he lose his career? I don’t think black players dive more than white but I thought the comment was funny. Lucky I’m retired.

[Rinkals]

In response to an online poll asking if the Sterling won penalty against Denmark was a dive or not, the head of basketball Ireland tweeted "black dives matter".

He's no longer head of basketball Ireland.

Crikey. So I could be sacked for describing this thread as “Black lives chatter”?

No because this thread is specifically about race and related issues but Sterling's dive had nothing to do with him being black so for it to be brought up in commentary is odd at the very least.

I suspect he was making a joke.

Which just goes to affirm what I said earlier: namely that it's unwise to joke about these matters.

[GogLais]

Crikey. So I could be sacked for describing this thread as “Black lives chatter”?

No because this thread is specifically about race and related issues but Sterling's dive had nothing to do with him being black so for it to be brought up in commentary is odd at the very least.

I suspect he was making a joke.

Which just goes to affirm what I said earlier: namely that it's unwise to joke about these matters.

I’d guess you’re right but should you lose your livelihood for making a joke? I thought we had guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

[Sandstorm]

“Their”. You mean his

But however, but wouldn’t that be the default assumption. Why need to point it out. Unless it’s making some stupid point.

He’s standing in solidarity with they/them amongst the countless other combinations.

Sure, do we now need to superfluously identify ourselves for every group we belong to.
Ymx (he/him, five fingers, white oppressor)

One hand only? You can add physically disadvantaged to your list.

[Slick]

No because this thread is specifically about race and related issues but Sterling's dive had nothing to do with him being black so for it to be brought up in commentary is odd at the very least.

I suspect he was making a joke.

Which just goes to affirm what I said earlier: namely that it's unwise to joke about these matters.

I’d guess you’re right but should you lose your livelihood for making a joke? I thought we had guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Not to the 10’s of outraged white people on Twitter

[Mahoney]

I’d guess you’re right but should you lose your livelihood for making a joke? I thought we had guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In criminal law (though they've ditched that wording, the jury just have to be "sure" now).

In civil law it's just the "balance of probabilities".

Unless he sues this was neither criminal nor civil law.

[Rinkals]

No because this thread is specifically about race and related issues but Sterling's dive had nothing to do with him being black so for it to be brought up in commentary is odd at the very least.

I suspect he was making a joke.

Which just goes to affirm what I said earlier: namely that it's unwise to joke about these matters.

I’d guess you’re right but should you lose your livelihood for making a joke? I thought we had guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

I suspect the issue at hand is whether someone who jokes about it is suitable for the job, considering that a large proportion of his constituents (if that's the right word) probably don't see the funny side.

[Slick]

I suspect he was making a joke.

Which just goes to affirm what I said earlier: namely that it's unwise to joke about these matters.

I’d guess you’re right but should you lose your livelihood for making a joke? I thought we had guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

I suspect the issue at hand is whether someone who jokes about it is suitable for the job, considering that a large proportion of his constituents (if that's the right word) probably don't see the funny side.

I remain to be convinced that a large proportion of Basketball Ireland would be outraged

[GogLais]

I suspect he was making a joke.

Which just goes to affirm what I said earlier: namely that it's unwise to joke about these matters.

I’d guess you’re right but should you lose your livelihood for making a joke? I thought we had guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

I suspect the issue at hand is whether someone who jokes about it is suitable for the job, considering that a large proportion of his constituents (if that's the right word) probably don't see the funny side.

I get that but - and I realise it’s a narrow line - but is he joking about the situation or was he playing with words?

[sorCrer]

Playing with words surely and quite funny too (in an edgy sort of way before I get booted).

[Rinkals]

I’d guess you’re right but should you lose your livelihood for making a joke? I thought we had guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

I suspect the issue at hand is whether someone who jokes about it is suitable for the job, considering that a large proportion of his constituents (if that's the right word) probably don't see the funny side.

I remain to be convinced that a large proportion of Basketball Ireland would be outraged

I bow to your superior knowledge of the inclination of Irish Basketball players to tolerate perceived racism.

[Slick]

I suspect the issue at hand is whether someone who jokes about it is suitable for the job, considering that a large proportion of his constituents (if that's the right word) probably don't see the funny side.

I remain to be convinced that a large proportion of Basketball Ireland would be outraged

I bow to your superior knowledge of the inclination of Irish Basketball players to tolerate perceived racism.

It’s you that apparently has the superior knowledge

[Rinkals]

I remain to be convinced that a large proportion of Basketball Ireland would be outraged

I bow to your superior knowledge of the inclination of Irish Basketball players to tolerate perceived racism.

It’s you that apparently has the superior knowledge

In which case, neither of us has any idea of whether Irish Basketball players would be tolerant of intrinsic racism.

One could hazard a guess, though.

[Uncle fester]

Crikey. So I could be sacked for describing this thread as “Black lives chatter”?

No because this thread is specifically about race and related issues but Sterling's dive had nothing to do with him being black so for it to be brought up in commentary is odd at the very least.

I suspect he was making a joke.

Which just goes to affirm what I said earlier: namely that it's unwise to joke about these matters.

You don't think it's a bit weird that his thought process was: "I'm going to make a joke so let's start with his skin colour".

[Rinkals]

No because this thread is specifically about race and related issues but Sterling's dive had nothing to do with him being black so for it to be brought up in commentary is odd at the very least.

I suspect he was making a joke.

Which just goes to affirm what I said earlier: namely that it's unwise to joke about these matters.

You don't think it's a bit weird that his thought process was: "I'm going to make a joke so let's start with his skin colour".

Good point.

I am not a follower of English football (I presume it's football?) and have no idea of the race of the player referred to, but yes: the pun may initially be deemed relatively inoffensive, but the drawing of the player's race into the equation does imply a racist mindset.

[Tichtheid]

The right is winning the culture war because its opponents don’t know the rules

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ulture-war

[GogLais]

No because this thread is specifically about race and related issues but Sterling's dive had nothing to do with him being black so for it to be brought up in commentary is odd at the very least.

I suspect he was making a joke.

Which just goes to affirm what I said earlier: namely that it's unwise to joke about these matters.

You don't think it's a bit weird that his thought process was: "I'm going to make a joke so let's start with his skin colour".

I don’t know but I don’t think he started off thinking he had to come up with a joke about race - he may have just noticed that dives rhymes with lives and it went on from there.

[Random1]

Post modernism is all about interpretation, nothing is inherent, there is no objective reality. It (post modernism) has been taken up for political purposes and smashed together with Marxism repeatedly until both ends are flat, then they hold it up and say, "see, they fit together"

We could just as easily say that Conservatism is all about the individual take on things, it has far more in common with post modernism in that regard than Marxism does, likewise the major religions have more in common with it than Marxism (though it's a bit of stretch, I'll grant you, but no more than Marxism)

Again, I go back to some looking at a couple of French guys in the 60s, such as Derrida, who identified as politically Marxist, and that scares teh shit of of people, whereas in France it was no big deal to be a member of the Communist Party, especially back then, the mayor of the village I lived in was in the Communist Party - no biggie.

I'm not an academic, but on various rugby forums I have contact with those who are, and post modernism isn't seen as being any kind of force in Academia any more, either in literary theory or political theory. It will still have a place in art museums, but so will Impressionism.
Post modernism is just a label, a bogie man, that the Right use to spread fear. It doesn't seem to be manic here in the UK, but we do follow a lot of what happens in the States.

Fundamentally disagree with a couple of things in there.

Things are clearly inherent in postmodernism, that’s precisely what a social construct is i.e. some characteristic that is bestowed by the societal lens through which you see the world. Whether that be western cultural lens or through a patriarchal lens.

The parallel you draw with conservatives and the individual is also a common misconception of PM. Pm is collectivist, not individual in its philosophy. The fact that it logically ends up at individualism is actually one of a series of contradictions in the philosophy.

I wish I had more time to devote to this, but I simply don't. I also don't have time right now to construct a better answer than just jotting down a few thoughts that occurred whilst reading through your answer;

There has been a long dialogue between individualism and collectivism in the Christian Church, I grew in the church and it in fact its teachings led me to Socialism. The point being that what seems to be a dichotomy (individualism/collectivism) is not confined to postmodernism.

One of the points of this discussion was to show that

Depends whether you think post modernism is derived/influenced by Marxism.

For me, the philosophical links between them feel well established.

Therefore I think current culture war stuff can be seen as a Marxist product.

I think that even drilling down here we are still trying to show "well established" links from Marxism to Postmodernism, and it isn't so easy, one could just as well argue that the Enlightenment was a precursor to Marxism and if we are saying, as you did previously, that even though PM is at odds with Marxism in very fundamental ways, it is a precursor -

When I said that there are philosophical links I meant as a progression of the philosophy in an evolutionary sense. Without Marxism, I’m not sure we’d have post modernism, just as without Kant, you don’t get post modernism.

We could equally say that without Descartes, Hume, Spinoza (now there is a head fuck of a thinker), Rousseau etc we wouldn't have Postmodernism.
Without Hegel we don't get Dialectical Materialism, but Andrew Neil and his merry band at GB News aren't going after old Geordie Hegel.

Hegel was a lightweight, it says so in the song.

To be fair, in the quote you take from me, I did say the links are clear in my mind.

No probs if you disagree - I just see the links of power dynamics leading to oppression being baked in to a construct as being integral to both philosophies.

And yes, Marxism is linked to the enlightenment. Philosophy is the same as any continuum of ideas, they’re evolutions of each other. It’s one of the things I love about philosophy: it’s just humans trying to work shit out with nothing but imagination. The example you give of Hegel is a good one - PM is heavily influenced by his fuck-witted imagination.

On the dichotomy of individualism vs collection not being isolated to PM - I agree; religion has that aspect too, but the difference for me is that PM’s collectivism and Marxism’s collectivism is based upon actively generating power through collectivism to change the social construct.

So, did you switch religion for socialism, or are you a disciple of both?