#cancelcolbert #banbossy, sexism, racism and all that juicy stuff.

[Ivory11]

DISCLAIMER: Please, if you want to post here be civil! I really don't want this page turning out like so many others. If you're against the people I'm about to bring up, please just state why, and if you're for those people, don't start snapping or throwing insults at others, everyone has their right to their own opinion, my own will be stated here along with the data, and I would like to hear your CIVIL feedback on this. the difference between a lively and insightful debate is politeness and respect for others, no matter how outlandish their views may seem to you.

So, two things here, both have happened in the last couple months, i will begin with the "cancel Colbert" thing.

Suey Park, a young Asian woman (trust me, the race thing is important here) has recently started her own little campaign to take down "the white man" after Steven Colbert, popular American political pundit made a tweet saying he would open the "Ching chong ding dong agency of sensitivity to Asians" as a parody of something said on a news network that he critiqued. well, Suey Park sees this as a sign of the "white heteropatriarchy" at work and wanted to start her own movement to remove white men from being able to say anything about non-whites... obviously she did this by broadcasting her own barrages of racial taunts and racist accusations at any white man she came across, including in this video below where she is being interviewed by the Huffington Post where she states quite openly that she doesn't think white men have the right to have opinions on this matter unless they are in blind support of her (and that her feelings have an effect on her argument)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNK-e6nnFGY

I'm not sure how to post videos on this forum so you'll have to follow this.

Here also is an article written on the TIME magazine website about "the white male hetero-patriarchy oppressing me" I WISH I was being sarcastic there.

http://time.com/58743/cancelcolbert-activists-we-will-protest-this-until-it-ends/

Tell me, what do you think? another nutcase doomed to fail the moment she vocalized her "case"? or do you think she raises a valid point and deserves respect? Is she anti-racist or just plan racist against white people?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

the next one up on our agenda, Ban Bossy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dynbzMlCcw

now this one won't have a long paragraph stating the details, I'll just summarize it like this.

A group of extremely rich (many billionaires) women want to make the act of calling girls "bossy" illegal, essentially banning a word, that kind thing done in N Korea.

Obviously my point of view on this matter is "If you can't handle being called bossy, then you don't deserve to be in charge of shit" but what do you think? do you think the word "Bossy" should be made illegal?

[Avis habilis]

A group of extremely rich (many billionaires) women want to make the act of calling girls "bossy" illegal, essentially banning a word, that kind thing done in N Korea.

This is at very, very best an incredibly skewed perspective.

[Ivory11]

This is at very, very best an incredibly skewed perspective.

I honestly cannot find a way to say it any less skewed, shocking as that is, how would you say it?

[Avis habilis]

"They want people to stop discouraging women & girls from exhibiting the same sort of assertiveness & leadership that they reward men for."

I certainly wouldn't have invented, out of whole cloth, a campaign to make it a legal offense to use a particular word.

[Ivory11]

but boys are called bossy too but there's no controversy about it.

tell me, who would you rather have in leadership positions?
someone who has been coddled and been fiercely shielded from all criticism? or someone who has gone through it all, learned from it and learned to see issues from different perspectives?

everyone is rewarded for leadership, girls and boys, however while boys naturally rather take the position of leadership rather than just having everyone like them girls naturally would rather be liked than be a leader, you can ask any child of either gender this. I'm not saying that girls shouldn't be leaders, but I think leaders should never ever be shielded from criticism, in fact they should be thrown into facing all criticism, regardless of gender.

and if you actually watch the video, they are blatantly calling for a banning of the word "bossy" that is the goal of the whole campaign (even though it's been shot down entirely by now, the fact it had such big backers should have us concerned)

[Beguile's Mistress]

They are asking people to ban the word bossy from their speech and their descriptions of women who are assertive and in control not from the English language.  There is no mention of making the ban a legal issue or turning the word bossy into hate-speak.

Bossy is a description of an attitude and I've encountered many bossy people in my time from school days through the present.  A perfect example of a bossy person is Lucy van Pelt from the comic strip "Peanuts."  When I come across a person who has the attitude that it's their way or the highway and talks to those they supervise in a demeaning or aggressive manner I call them bossy.

I'm a boss and I've been called bossy by people who tell me what they are going to do at their job rather than taking the direction it is my responsibility to give them.  Some people just don't like having a boss.

[Avis habilis]

but boys are called bossy too....

Less often than girls & for more extreme behavior.

tell me, who would you rather have in leadership positions?
someone who has been coddled and been fiercely shielded from all criticism?

No. Good thing they haven't suggested anything that could even honestly be mistaken for that, eh?

and if you actually watch the video, they are blatantly calling for a banning of the word "bossy" that is the goal of the whole campaign (even though it's been shot down entirely by now, the fact it had such big backers should have us concerned)

I already have, repeatedly, & it takes a purposeful effort of will to believe they're suggesting that it be made illegal to use the word. They're saying that we should stop discouraging girls from taking charge by criticizing them for exhibiting the same behavior men are rewarded for. That's it. The use of "ban" is purely, obviously, unmistakably figurative.

[Lilias]

'Bossy' is not a compliment. 'Bossy' doesn't mean 'boss-like' - it means 'pushy and overbearing'. If you have two people exhibiting the same behaviour and only one is called 'bossy', that one is being denigrated. It's as simple as that.

[Kythia]

but boys are called bossy too but there's no controversy about it.

Huh?  Yes there is.  There's an entire internet campaign to ban the word "Bossy".  There's a video about it further up in the thread.  You posted it yourself.  When I watched it - a good 20 or 30 seconds ago now - it made no mention of banning it solely in relation to girls but allowing it for boys.  The message was "ban bossy".

[Valthazar]

Ivory11 does bring up a good point though.  It's unfortunate how most women in the US (and most people in general here) are just trying to make ends meet with any full-time/part-time job to just pay the bills and raise a family, and for whatever reason, Sheryl Sandberg thinks achieving leadership roles is the central issue facing women today.  She's part of a different socioeconomic strata, and thus, naturally may have difficulty relating to the struggles that ordinary men and women face.

[kylie]

Suey Park, a young Asian woman (trust me, the race thing is important here) has recently started her own little campaign to take down "the white man" after Steven Colbert, popular American political pundit made a tweet saying he would open the "Ching chong ding dong agency of sensitivity to Asians" as a parody of something said on a news network that he critiqued.

I think I have some idea from the video about how you might come to feel this way...  I also think Suey was not really receptive to the probably reasonable questions about the role of satire one way or another.  I'm inclined to say there, she mistook a reasonable enough analytic question for a character attack.  And she jumped from that into assuming that a character attack in this situation, would likely be due to some unexplored racist assumptions. 

       Still, with all that being said?  In the video, I don't believe I  heard her say the movement directed at Colbert or perhaps his channel was aimed to do that (by that, I mean: "take down the white man" in a general sense of removing all white men from the conversation anywhere).  Before that mess erupted at the end, she said the movement was intended to encourage white liberals to help deal with racism in some ways beyond joking about it, which they [we, as in me at least] do perhaps rather often -- and often enough, I think without much other obvious engagement. 

        She did say she thinks that the jokes are not the most helpful response from her point of view as one of the subjects, and that she feels there are more effective options available for people including Whites to participate in.  She did not get around to discussing them.  But in her defense, I have to say she also was not given a follow-up question regarding exactly what those other options might be.  Some might even say that an ideally sympathetic interviewer, someone who was very interested in similar problems and positive solutions, would ask something about the positive solutions.  Instead, the interviewer kept pressing her about whether maybe she should give Colbert/ Comedy something more of a break in this situation. 

         Suey did hint that this particular line of questioning struck her as rather confrontational.  I doubt she got to thinking it through just then.  But I wonder if she didn't think so partly because it had the effect of once again, making the talk more about reactions to Colbert -- and not so much about possible reactions to racism generally... 

A little aside here.  Just might make her seem more human?

  ...I'm really doubting she was very conscious of it at the time.  In such an interview where the issues are intense and you're not always sure who's on what side, you often do not have an ideal setting to consider things at this level and react with just the right words.  You don't always think to change the question tossed at you, when maybe you really should.  I've been in those situations and it's sometimes the most frustrating thing, even when you do realize later just what went wrong.

... But racism -- that is at least putatively, what Colbert was talking about (yes satirzing) when this all began.  At this point toward the end, in a way Suey is also kind of right, because the interview becomes all about evaluating his good name.  And the whatever to do about racism, besides joke, gets lost.  Instead we have the white guys left behind making understandably hurt, if dry (dare I say, they might be knowingly ironic?), comments at the end about how she's gone and silenced their opinions.  Which she has -- I think you're right there.  But, with the mess that erupted along the way, I suppose many people have missed just how, or why that happened.

obviously she did this by broadcasting her own barrages of racial taunts and racist accusations at any white man she came across, including in this video below where she is being interviewed by the Huffington Post where she states quite openly that she doesn't think white men have the right to have opinions on this matter unless they are in blind support of her (and that her feelings have an effect on her argument)

This is just one video.  I don't have anything just now on whatever else she, or perhaps others if it is a group or movement, have said elsewhere.  And you don't seem to have given proof it's "obviously" happened either.  Unless you mean to imply that is the only way anyone can criticize someone like Colbert in that situation.  I don't think it is.  In fact, here, is a critique of what Colbert/ Comedy did (and didn't do) that sounds more plausible to me.  It's a sizable article with (imo) some uneven writing -- but picking the parts I think would convince me best:

The tweet is part of a bit on the Redskins reportedly making a charitable foundation to offset the uproar over the clear problems with its team name. In the context of the full segment, I believe the satire is appropriate — if incredibly uncomfortable for me. However, I also believe that absent of explicit reference to what it is satirizing — adding #Redskins, or something — the tweet itself loses it satirical context and becomes wholly racist.

There’s a way to poke fun at the pseudo-racial tolerance of conservatives towards racial minorities – a ploy frequently used by those at Fox News and clearly something that Dan Snyder is invoking over at the Washington Redskins with his announcement of his charitable foundation.

This — a tweet that uses similar racial slurs in the absence of reference to Dan Snyder or the Redskins – is not it...

... the tweet appears in the absence of the satirical context, and runs the danger of perpetuating the very stereotypical images — in this case against Asians — that Colbert is satirizing regarding Native Americans. Thus, this tweet violates my rules of proper satire, which is that each example of the satire must make clear what it is you are satirizing, lest the satire be mistaken for actual hatespeech.  In the absence of this, it — the tweet – becomes indistinguishable from actual anti-Asian racism; particularly as it is re-tweeted and shared (again, in the absence of context), as tweets are wont to do.

       So back on the level where Suey was saying she started (before blowing up a bit much at the endless focus on Colbert)...  She was right.  Here's some (white, monied, and celebrity with a following) guy picking on racism in a context where it may not be so clear to everyone where he stands...  And she may fairly wonder, what else is he doing to actually deal with the economic or social patterns of racism?  In regard to that question, the author of this same page says, Colbert's own history of talking about race in the media is not so smooth. 

This isn’t the first time I’ve questioned the Colbert Report’s depiction of Asian Americans. Last year, I wrote about a segment that Colbert did on some anti-Asian statements made by Bill O’Reilly wherein Colbert, himself, basically spent several minutes making his own flurry of anti-Asian puns and jokes. And, in 2012, Colbert made this joke (as transcribed here)...

[Zakharra]

 I listened to it with an open mind and she has some points, but she also seems to go overboard with her opinion that whites, white men too) don't or shouldn't have a valid opinion that doesn't agree with her. In that she comes off as kind of bigoted herself.  As it is, I try to take everyone as they are. Skin color and gender don't mean much to me and if I dislike a person, it's because I dislike the person. Not because I dislike their skin color or the fact that  have boobs or a penis. It's a person;s attitude and actions that determine who I dislike or like.  Too many people are too quick to play the racist/sexist card on anyone that says something they disagree with. I remember a quote someone said, I am not sure who though. It is: 'I'm not racist, I hate everyone equally'  I'm not like that, but I do think that when someone dislikes or hates someone, it's not always racist and/or sexist. It just might be because they dislike the person because of who they are, not what. And some people are just dicks.

[Valthazar]

I respect her criticism of Colbert if that is her perspective, but I think it is unfortunate that she associated his actions with "white people" in general.

[Kythia]

I love that reappropriate blog, Kylie.  Thanks for the point there (and also thanks for the thoughtful analysis, but mainly the point.)

[Callie Del Noire]

I respect her criticism of Colbert if that is her perspective, but I think it is unfortunate that she associated his actions with "white people" in general.

Well I've been told (by activists like her) that as a Southern WASP I'm innately part of the problem. I don't think trashing Colbert will get anything done on the 'team mascot' side. It's just a new trend.

that being said..the starting tweet? Very offensive.. but satire and parody do tab dance across the line a lot.

[Valthazar]

Well I've been told (by activists like her) that as a Southern WASP I'm innately part of the problem. I don't think trashing Colbert will get anything done on the 'team mascot' side. It's just a new trend.

And that's why I'm concerned that much of this unnecessary blame thrown on "white people" is unfortunately adding extra fodder for extremist groups to gain new recruits.  Sadly, White Nationalist (supremacist) groups are growing at some of the fastest rates in US history.  If you read the "About Us" and "Why You Should Join" sections of largely mainstream racist forums (such as Stormfront), you'll see them using examples of double standards such as this to cajol otherwise moderate Caucasians to join their cause.

Let us call us out the individual perpetrators of racism and sexism - and avoid attaching blame to large demographics.

[Aiden]

We all know the Steven Colbert we see on the show is just a character.

As for the ban bossy, I think it is stupid.

I say we ban the following words I also used in grade school which I now feel will oppress our children from striving to what they want to be. Also, they should get participation trophies for a victory they do not deserve!

Booger head
Dookie Face
Assmunch
etc etc.

People are to damn sensitive these days.

[consortium11]

I do actually have some sympathy towards the whole "ban bossy" movement.

Yes, I'm sure there are examples of men being called "bossy" as a negative, but my own experiences (and in a debate such as this I don't think we'll ever be able to go beyond anecdote) it is far more frequently applied to women... and just as often when a man does something that would lead to a woman being labeled "bossy" they instead get a term which has at least some positive traits attached ("forceful", "commanding" etc).

Bossy seems to me to be part of a fairly long list of words and phrases... frumpy, sassy, frigid, battle-axe, feisty, vivacious, shapely etc etc... that on paper are gender neutral but in reality are used to refer to women the vast majority of the time (and when they are used to describe a man it's normally deliberately to play up supposed feminine qualities in a negative sense).

Whether being called "bossy" is a serious issue and/or reason why there are generally less women in stereotypically high powered roles is a rather different question... but I can at least see the issues with the language involved.

That said, I also have a lot of sympathy for Valthazar's point. It often seems that most of the feminist issues that get a lot of media time and a lot of high profile backers are the issues that impact on relatively few women... the frequency with which the proportion of women in boardrooms for major companies rears it's head being a good example. That's not something that will have any direct impact on the vast, vast majority of women, just as it will have no direct impact on the vast, vast majority of men who were never in contention to be board members of a major company even with the privilege being male brings. On a side point I do note that when quotas have been brought in the result was utterly unsurprising to those who understood the business world... it didn't lead to more women in boardrooms, it led to the same women in more boardrooms (the so-called "Golden Skirts").

That's not to say that people can only fixate on one issue at a time or that there isn't space for campaigns to get more women on banknotes, more women in boardrooms or to "ban Page 3" (in a major UK paper Page 3 features a photo of a topless woman with a trite caption about some topical news). It's just that it seems that these campaigns draw a disproportionate amount of media attention and support away from other issues that directly impact on far more women (and people in general)'s daily lives.

... the tweet appears in the absence of the satirical context, and runs the danger of perpetuating the very stereotypical images — in this case against Asians — that Colbert is satirizing regarding Native Americans. Thus, this tweet violates my rules of proper satire, which is that each example of the satire must make clear what it is you are satirizing, lest the satire be mistaken for actual hatespeech.  In the absence of this, it — the tweet – becomes indistinguishable from actual anti-Asian racism; particularly as it is re-tweeted and shared (again, in the absence of context), as tweets are wont to do.

I can't agree with this.

Well, actually I sort of can.

Yes, if you take the tweet and remove all context from it, it may well come across as racist. In fact, it almost certainly does. But that's because you've removed it from all context. It's a tweet by (or at least from the account of) a noted satirist, arguably the most prominent satirist of this age, a man who has pretty much made an entire career out of satire. The tweet contains a pretty much direct quote from the show where he was making quite clear that if you view the Redskins' name as racist then having the "Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation" was likewise racist. Hell, it was publicised at pretty much exactly the same time. It's quite clear that it's satire of the Washington Redskins' actions... and if you remove the racist portion of the quote out then it no longer becomes satire because it's not actually satirising anything. His point wasn't just that setting up the "Original Americans Foundation" didn't solve the issue of offence caused by the Redskins name, his point was that by including "Redskins" in the foundation name you compound the issue. He can't satirise that without including an offensive term in his satirical foundation's name... to not do so misses the point.

Not having #redskins attached to the end doesn't change that. The context is still there.

I mean, even with the #redskins that the author of the reappropriate piece suggests would have made it appropriate, is it? What if I don't know the context that Colbert is a satirist and I just saw that? Wouldn't it be reasonable to think he's supporting the Washington Redskins rather than lampooning them? What happens if I have no idea that there's any controversy about the name "Redskin"? What happens if I have no clue about American Football and have no idea there's even a team called the Washington Redskins? Without that context even with a #redkins at the end, isn't it still flat out racist?

Yes.

Because I've stripped it of context.

What happens if I didn't know Jonathan Swift was Irish? What happens if I didn't know he was a satirist? What happens if I didn't know he regularly attacked the British powers-that-be for their attitude to Ireland and the Irish poor? Without that context to guide me wouldn't I think that he was seriously suggested that the Irish poor should sell their children to be eaten? Much the same can be applied to Gulliver's travels... without the context of Swift's views on the Tory's negotiations with France then Gulliver urinating on a burning palace is just a crass aside rather than a serious point... it loses its satirical power.

If you remove satire from context it is no longer satire... satire only works because of context.

Hell, let's put this as simply as possible.

Is the tweet in question racist?

Yes.

Because it's satirising the fact that if the issue is that you have a racist term in an organisations name it doesn't solve the issue by repeating the term in another, linked, organisation even if the organisation has positive aims. Without using a racist term (or terms) as part of the satirical name then the entire thing falls apart.

[Kythia]

Following that through though, consortium, it seems like you're saying "Colbert cannot be racist.  Anything he says that appears racist should correctly be interpreted as satire".

[Oniya]

Following that through though, consortium, it seems like you're saying "Colbert cannot be racist.  Anything he says that appears racist should correctly be interpreted as satire".

Only if there's appropriate context for the satire.  If a comedian walks into a bar (couldn't resist) and says something racist out of the blue, with nothing to provide it context (he's not there for Open Mic night or anything), then he very well could be racist.

[Valthazar]

I'm struggling to understand why we should criticize Colbert for his remarks, given the much more overt statements comedians such as Dave Chappelle and Russell Peters make about other ethnic groups.  People justify their humor because they "make fun of everyone."  Why can't the same be said of Colbert if we truly are viewing all of us as equals?

[Avis habilis]

Well, as I understand it the deal with Colbert was he was actually mocking another organization's crass language & that got lost in translation. (So to speak.)

[Kythia]

Only if there's appropriate context for the satire.  If a comedian walks into a bar (couldn't resist) and says something racist out of the blue, with nothing to provide it context (he's not there for Open Mic night or anything), then he very well could be racist.

Yeah, I agree.  it did seem like consortium was saying that "Stephen Colbert said it" is appropriate enough context though:

Yes, if you take the tweet and remove all context from it, it may well come across as racist. In fact, it almost certainly does. But that's because you've removed it from all context. It's a tweet by (or at least from the account of) a noted satirist, arguably the most prominent satirist of this age, a man who has pretty much made an entire career out of satire.

Thus any tweet he makes is obviously satire?

[Oniya]

Tweets being what they are, seeing a 'racist' tweet from a comedian would prompt me to look for context.  That's my biggest problem with Twitter as a whole - damn near everything is out of context.  (That and the fact that my inner editor cringes at the forced abbreviations people use.)

[Valthazar]

Thus any tweet he makes is obviously satire?

The tweet came from the official Colbert Report show Twitter account, not his personal one, so I think satire should be assumed.

[consortium11]

Following that through though, consortium, it seems like you're saying "Colbert cannot be racist.  Anything he says that appears racist should correctly be interpreted as satire".

No, not at all.

But if he's saying something racist (and I fully admit the wording used... in both the tweet and the show... was racist because that was pretty much the point) while obvious satirising the fact that an organisation trying to handle complaints that its name is racist isn't helping its cause or not being racist by repeating the questionable word in a separate organisation it controls (albeit one with supposedly positive intentions). He's pointing out that if you view the term "redskin" as offensive in the context of an American Football team name then it remains offensive if put in the name of a foundation. You can't satirise that without using an offensive term in the satirical name... that's the point he's satirising.

The reappropriate piece agrees with me. It flat out says that put in the context of the Redskins debate, the satire was appropriate. The issue they have is that there wasn't a #redskins at the end of the tweet and that supposedly stripped it of all context. I don't agree... for me the context is still there and a #redskins at the end does nothing to explain it for anyone who isn't already aware of the context.

I basically follow Oniya's logic... if Colbert said it without anything else having walked into a bar (or in passing) then it would almost certainly not be satire. But he didn't. He said it as a part of a satirical performance in a satirical show where he plays a satirical character and is satirising a story. In that context how does anyone see it as anything but satire?

Thus any tweet he makes is obviously satire?

Talking about context, it may be worth noting the next line in my reply...

The tweet contains a pretty much direct quote from the show where he was making quite clear that if you view the Redskins' name as racist then having the "Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation" was likewise racist.

It's all clearly in the context of the show (and if I recall correctly the tweet actually went out pretty much during the segment... and from the show's official twitter as opposed to his personal one which only adds to that). If a post is made on twitter from the official account of a satire show during the satire show directly quoting the satire show from a segment where the satire show was satirising something I'm fairly certain we can take from the context that it was satire.

[Kythia]

It's all clearly in the context of the show (and if I recall correctly the tweet actually went out pretty much during the segment... and from the show's official twitter as opposed to his personal one which only adds to that). If a post is made on twitter from the official account of a satire show during the satire show directly quoting the satire show from a segment where the satire show was satirising something I'm fairly certain we can take from the context that it was satire.

That all only applies if you know that though.  Like Oniya said about context in Twitter.  If I've never heard of Colbert or the redskins and I happen to glance at a friend's phone while she's checking twitter and see that...

Sure, if I look into it I'd conclude it was satire, pretty hard not to.  But its not, and we agree on this, immediately parsable (word?) as such without that context.  "#thisisasatircaljoke" would ruin it, but something connecting it to the wider world rather than just a racist statement on its own that requires meta-knowledge to interpret isn't too much to ask, I feel.  #comedycentral, say.

[Valthazar]

Edit: accidental satire post oops  ;)

[consortium11]

That all only applies if you know that though.  Like Oniya said about context in Twitter.  If I've never heard of Colbert or the redskins and I happen to glance at a friend's phone while she's checking twitter and see that...

Sure, if I look into it I'd conclude it was satire, pretty hard not to.  But its not, and we agree on this, immediately parsable (word?) as such without that context.  "#thisisasatircaljoke" would ruin it, but something connecting it to the wider world rather than just a racist statement on its own that requires meta-knowledge to interpret isn't too much to ask, I feel.  #comedycentral, say.

But #comedycentral runs into the exact same problem that not knowing who Colbert is or about the Redskins controversy raises... what happens if I have no idea that Comedy Central is a tv channel specialising in comedic offerings or that it even exists? Again, removed from context, the satire disappears. Actually in that case couldn't it actually make things worse? After all, if someone doesn't know what Comedy Central is then couldn't a #comedycentral actually indicate that the author thought the tweet was really funny (remember, shorn of context) in the same way that someone may put #failcentral after a tweet describing an "epic fail" (in the meme sense)?

To go back to an earlier point, A Modest Proposal is generally regarded as one of, if not, the greatest pieces of satire ever recorded. Yet there is nothing within the work itself that spells out it's a satire. It's the meta-knowledge... of Swift, of his views on Ireland, of the debates in Parliament and by the powers-that-be about the situation of Ireland, of Swift's views on such people and those who profited from the suffering that turn it from someone legitimately arguing that the Irish should sell their children so they can be eaten to a satire on the way the Irish were being (mis)treated and contemptuously viewed.

[Ebb]

The Onion is a humorous publication. It deliberately attempts to appear like a serious newspaper, that's part of the joke.

It is not terribly uncommon that someone will see a link to an Onion article, perhaps one that a friend posted to Facebook, and being unaware of the fact that The Onion is humor they will have a strong reaction to the substance of the article. Or, more likely, just the headline. Even professional publications (albeit mostly ones outside the US, who might have less familiarity with the source) have fallen for the joke in this manner.

We make fun of these people, and rightly so.

http://literallyunbelievable.org/
http://thoughtcatalog.com/hudson-hongo/2013/08/the-35-best-times-someone-on-facebook-thought-the-onion-was-real/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/29/fooled-by-the-onion-8-most-embarrassing-fails.html

A certain amount of due diligence and contextual awareness is not too much to ask.

[Valthazar]

Oh sorry, my mistake, lol

[Kythia]

Mmmm, good points (Ebb and consortium11).  I hadn't come across Colbert before this and am maybe over-emphasising the fact people wouldn't know it was satire.  I didn't, though, attempt to form an international movement pro or against him or blog about said, so maybe my lack of "due diligence and contextual awareness" is a tad more forgivable.

[Valthazar]

No he's talking to me, that screen shot was accidentally from the onion, my bad.

[Kythia]

No he's talking to me, that screen shot was accidentally from the onion, my bad.

His point stands though, that confusing satire with reality is something that we make fun of.  I hadn't noticed he was addressing you - thought he was just using The Onion as an example - but who he was talking to doesn't, in this case, change the point.

A certain amount of due diligence and contextual awareness is not too much to ask.

[Ebb]

Nope, Kythia's right - I was addressing the general context, using The Onion as hopefully a more well-known example than Colbert.

But I think we're all good here, nothing more to see. Kythia, the next time you start an international movement decrying the inappropriate use of racist language I trust you will check with me first.

[Sabby]

This is the same girl who went on Josh Zepps and refused to explain her position on the grounds that Josh would just dismiss her. She later took to Twitter and claimed she'd been censored.

Forgive me if I approach any grievance of hers with extreme skepticism.

[Orval Wintermute]

kylie, about Suey saying jokes aren't helpful. Mel Brooks said that one of his aims in life was to turn Hilter into a joke, he wants it so that when people look at pictures of Hilter they don't see a dictator, an unholy terror, a terrible powerful man but instead Brooks wants people to see a nothing, a nobody, an insignificance, a joke. Obviously context is important, but I'll take Mel Brooks' view over Suey Park's any y day of the week on this one.

[vtboy]

"Bossy" is doubleplus ungood Oldspeak. I promise I will no more crimethink.

But what will I rename my milk cow?

[Oniya]

Mel Brooks said that one of his aims in life was to turn Hilter into a joke, he wants it so that when people look at pictures of Hilter they don't see a dictator, an unholy terror, a terrible powerful man but instead Brooks wants people to see a nothing, a nobody, an insignificance, a joke.

'Hey, is this England?'  (To Be or Not To Be)

[Beguile's Mistress]

dictionary.com defines bossy as:  given to ordering people about; overly authoritative; domineering.   It lists the synonyms highhanded, officious, dictatorial, overbearing, and abrasive on the same page.

banbossy.com displays the following message:

When a little boy asserts himself, he's called a “leader.” Yet when a little girl does the same, she risks being branded “bossy.” Words like bossy send a message: don't raise your hand or speak up. By middle school, girls are less interested in leading than boys—a trend that continues into adulthood. Together we can encourage girls to lead.

The problem isn't the word.  Banning use of the word bossy isn't going to change the attitude.  I stopped watching sitcoms a long time ago because the women in those shows are more often than not portrayed as overly authoritative, domineering, highhanded, officious, dictatorial, overbearing and abrasive.  It seems that from an early age girls and young woman are taught this is normal behavior.  I don't find it normal at all for any gender. 

Getting rid of the word isn't going to change a person's bad behavior whether that is acting as described above or seeing one gender in a different light than others when they behave the same.  Exchanging the word assertive for bossy when talking about everyone is what should be done but only if none of the words above apply.

I work with and supervise a highly diverse group of people.  Our policy is to treat everyone the same which means expecting the same from everyone without exception according to the position they hold.  We discourage use of pejorative descriptions and criticisms when discussing people and use negative adjectives (such as those above) only when reviewing an employee for job performance or advancement and their ability to interact with their coworkers.  That is what needs to be done everywhere by everyone if we are going to find a way to stop calling one gender bossy when they behave the same as others who are described as assertive.

[vtboy]

The problem isn't the word.  Banning use of the word bossy isn't going to change the attitude.

Precisely.

And, hopefully, changing the attitude will not lead to banning use of the word.

[kylie]

kylie, about Suey saying jokes aren't helpful. Mel Brooks said that one of his aims in life was to turn Hilter into a joke, he wants it so that when people look at pictures of Hilter they don't see a dictator, an unholy terror, a terrible powerful man but instead Brooks wants people to see a nothing, a nobody, an insignificance, a joke. Obviously context is important, but I'll take Mel Brooks' view over Suey Park's any y day of the week on this one.

        I do think humor has a significant place, but I also think it has certain limits on its effectiveness across society.  There is even a potential for humor to be appropriated by reactionaries or ignorant parties, and used more as a diversion.  It quite commonly is.  Notice how often, in everyday situations, any mention of controversy (especially, with an abused sizeable minority) is soon channeled into "uncomfortable laughter" and maybe a few, sometimes bawdy quips: These often serve to publicly shut off the whole issue with some illusion of "casually" juggling it for a moment.  This is a large part of why Colbert, or at least Comedy's tweet in this particular situation, may come off as hugely inconsiderate (if not intentionally ambiguous, no one can really ever say with finality) when it circulates.

         The Mel Brooks example is perhaps interesting, but again within limits...  (Though didn't he take a lot of flak for something similiar, or maybe worse??  But I didn't follow that one.)  One can, I hope, make some people think Hitlerites, etc. are banal and ridiculous by joking, and that audience might then avoid supporting or joining the said camp.  But I'm not sure how much of that is preaching to the choir.  It won't convince people who believe humor is a sign of excessive frivolousness or otherwise "against" their declared values. 

         For example, quite a few American conservatives pointedly refuse to deal with even the more insightful of liberal jokes about their policies -- they say, because they are too joking, "too sarcastic" for civil discussion!   (Personal experience?  But if that sounds weird, there was research a few years back, using Colbert in fact, on how various political camps respond to humor.  Just the technical abstract here, but some aggressive commentary on it maybe.)  I am not saying US conservatives and fellow travelers are generally interested in following a whole Nazi social program.   Hell, I certainly wouldn't say they are the only ones to ever dismiss well-intentioned humor.  But it's an example I know.  The sort of focus on "seriousness" and even sometimes, on "respect" used in that tone of uptight uniformity, as a precondition for admittance to discussion which quite a few conservatives and Nazis (among ohers?) have shared, shows that sometimes humor does not jolt people to think about their ways or associations.  So if one is concerned about people behind undesired policies actually adjusting their behavior because of what you say, then humor may not touch those people.  In fact, their image is all about being "tough" and "serious" and by default, they often claim that anyone else must be "uncivil" or "disrespectful."  (Maybe it does double duty -- if you're tough enough, how could anyone else really have a say anyway?) 

          More cynically, I would say:  Some leaders should be quite aware they are pursuing some policies that are grossly unfair and reasonably open to public ridicule...  (Not neatly limited to putative "conservatives," yes.)  So what do they do?  They say in effect that for anyone to ridicule any such serious business of theirs, to be a critic, to find any irony or any rumple in the facade, is to be a traitor.  And traitors are not to be listened to; they are to be ignored, branded childish and clownish or maybe attacked.  You can see this most clearly with Snowden or the "support the troops" rhetoric from 9/11 well into Iraq...  But there is a bit of that flavor on many issues, whenever someone makes light of a glaring problem in hopes of making people think.  (Part of Snowden's problem is that he made the US government look foolish, laughable for how much it relied on massive contracting and how little control it had.  And again with Iraq, thousands of people in New York joking about Bush this, Shrub and Dick that -- all quite valid jokes...  But should more people be involved actually changing the intel collecting rules or perhaps helping refugees in Iraq and Syria in the meantime, instead of just joking maybe?) 

        Simply joking, also does not necessarily lead to investments in practical projects like say giving more air time to actual minorities or contributing to house building, food kitchens, abortion clinic help, or what have you on whichever issue.  People can often just crack a joke, show how sympathetic and enlightened they are, and go on home.

           Now all that being said...  I would be the last person to say humor is generally pointless or completely useless on all fronts.  I'm rather often attacked for "using too much sarcasm" by people who you know surprise, often also don't like what I'm trying to say about issues where the irony is just boiling over, if anyone cares to look around. 

          I don't quite feel like Suey is actually is trying to say all humor is always pointless, either.  I think it's more that she has the impression some very visible people who joke, are not particularly invested in dealing with racism.  That may mean they don't generally seem to talk about it enough to be consistently informed and involved for her taste.  Or it might mean, they just don't tend to join in concrete, time-consuming projects to deal with racism -- they only talk glib about it, whether they are calling some attention to it or not.  As she says, many liberals joke but do very little else involved directly with the problem, on the ground.  Some people are very concerned that merely calling attention to a problem, and not putting in hours and helping hands to directly get to know it and fix it more in person, actually tends to glorify the original state of affairs -- it becomes a "discussion topic" more than a solution in this view.  I would not go quite that far myself.  But it is something to be concerned about, so I can understand that too. 

          But out of all that wider problem which is in fact out there...  Colbert can appear as something of an extreme case.  He has a big national audience, and he (as well as his network in the current twitter mess) sometimes jokes messily enough that people can sometimes wonder what side he's really on, so he's kind of an obvious example for her to pick out.  That is, if I understand the thrust of the Reappropriate blog and just assuming it's correct in saying he has tended to abuse race jokes somewhat himself in the past (I don't follow the guy at all, myself).

        Sometimes Suey really overstates her case, and she did blow up a bit at the end...  But I think to understand everything she intends as a whole:  Consider how she says there are other things people could be doing that might be more helpful (at least, certainly as she sees it).  Maybe if people were talking about those half as often as they were joking and not doing anything else, or as often as they were defending people's rights to joke without discussing the context of those jokes, then she wouldn't be so easily upset?  It's unfortunate the interview never really got into just what projects she would like more people to join. 

[Callie Del Noire]

Yeah, I agree.  it did seem like consortium was saying that "Stephen Colbert said it" is appropriate enough context though:


Thus any tweet he makes is obviously satire?

Honestly? 140 characters is a bit hard at times to use as a medium for commentary at all.

[meikle]

Ivory11 does bring up a good point though.  It's unfortunate how most women in the US (and most people in general here) are just trying to make ends meet with any full-time/part-time job to just pay the bills and raise a family, and for whatever reason, Sheryl Sandberg thinks achieving leadership roles is the central issue facing women today.  She's part of a different socioeconomic strata, and thus, naturally may have difficulty relating to the struggles that ordinary men and women face.

Women in leadership positions is so incredibly important for the improvement of standards for women in all strata of society I can't believe anyone could say this seriously.

Here's one of the struggles that ordinary women face: nearly all of the people in charge of our lives are men.

[Valthazar]

Women in leadership positions is so incredibly important for the improvement of standards for women in all strata of society I can't believe anyone could say this seriously.

I think most people of average to below-average means base their truest sense of happiness on being able to provide a basic quality of life for themselves and their families.

Women in leadership positions is absolutely an important priority to focus on.  But before addressing that, perhaps we should focus on helping women (and men) achieve a basic semblance of financial autonomy first.

Even here on E, I've chatted with several women who would love to be stay-at-home moms if only their family finances could allow for it.  To them, Sandberg's remarks seem very much out-of-touch with their everyday realities.

[Kythia]

But before addressing that, perhaps we should focus on helping women (and men) achieve a basic semblance of financial autonomy first.

This isn't an either/or situation.  We can do both.  In fact, there are synergies possible meaning it's easier to do both at once than one at a time.

[meikle]

Even here on E, I've chatted with several women who would love to be stay-at-home moms if only their family finances could allow for it.  To them, Sandberg's remarks seem very much out-of-touch with their everyday realities.

Even stay-at-home moms benefit from women in positions of power elsewhere in their community.  Their daughters will benefit, too, whether they want to stay at home or pursue another path.  It's a very short-sighted, dangerous view to take that if something does not have an imminent physical impact on one's life that it's not important.

[Valthazar]

This isn't an either/or situation.  We can do both.  In fact, there are synergies possible meaning it's easier to do both at once than one at a time.

Of course, I wasn't suggesting an end to these initiatives to help more women enter leadership positions.  As I said, it is critical.  But the lack of corresponding initiatives, to represent the range of men and women's views at the base of the socioeconomic ladder, is what is concerning to me.

It is a shame that most families of average means cannot afford to have one parent stay at home with their child when he or she is young - let alone afford daycare.  Most of the women I know (and their husbands), are more concerned about the well-being of their children than in either of their leadership statuses at work.  Sandberg is fortunate to have the financial means to afford care for her children, but I don't think she represents the views of average moms and dads.

[Kythia]

Of course, I wasn't suggesting an end to these initiatives to help more women enter leadership positions.  As I said, it is critical.  But the lack of corresponding initiatives, to represent the range of men and women's views at the base of the socioeconomic ladder, is what is concerning to me.

It is a shame that most families of average means cannot afford to have one parent stay at home with their child when he or she is young - let alone afford daycare.  Most of the women I know (and their husbands), are more concerned about the well-being of their children than in either of their leadership statuses at work.  Sandberg is fortunate to have the financial means to afford care for her children, but I don't think she represents the views of average moms and dads.

She has different primary concerns, certainly.  But look at it this way.  Lets assume, unexamined, that a majority of females would like to be stay at home mums for at least a portion of their child's life.  Surely female bosses - understanding that drive - are more likely to arrange worklife so that such family duties are possible?

Finally, can we not conflate the desires of "women" with the desires of "mothers".  You've gone from "men and women" at the base of the socioeconomic ladder straight into talking about families without pausing for breath.  I recognise its a very easy segue to make and I don't blame you for doing so.  But focusing women's issues purely on mother's issues/family issues excludes a lot.

[Sabby]

She has different primary concerns, certainly.  But look at it this way.  Lets assume, unexamined, that a majority of females would like to be stay at home mums for at least a portion of their child's life.  Surely female bosses - understanding that drive - are more likely to arrange worklife so that such family duties are possible.

Any reason why these changes couldn't be proposed by female (and even male) employees and then enacted by their male boss?

Not saying that doing so renders female bosses unnecessary, just I don't see having a male boss as being a problem for such a thing. I mean, I'm pretty sure there are stay at home fathers and fathers who want to support their stay at home mothers in the work force. The gender of the boss seems completely irrelevant to enacting such policies.

[Kythia]

Any reason why these changes couldn't be proposed by female (and even male) employees and then enacted by their male boss?

Not saying that doing so renders female bosses unnecessary, just I don't see having a male boss as being a problem for such a thing. I mean, I'm pretty sure there are stay at home fathers and fathers who want to support their stay at home mothers in the work force. The gender of the boss seems completely irrelevant to enacting such policies.

No, you're right.  Such things could (arguably should) be implemented by any gender.  But, to date, they haven't.  Or haven't extensively at least. 

So no, there's no "reason" per se, but the evidence is that they won't be.   

[Avis habilis]

Any reason why these changes couldn't be proposed by female (and even male) employees and then enacted by their male boss?

Any reason that's an argument against trying to increase the number of women in leadership positions?

[Sabby]

I'm confused Avis, did you mean 'any reason why not?'. The sentence doesn't seem to work otherwise.

[Valthazar]

Surely female bosses - understanding that drive - are more likely to arrange worklife so that such family duties are possible?

I don't know if we can say empirically that simply having a female boss is more likely to improve women's issues.  I don't think female CEOs and executives are immune from falling into the same trap as male CEOs in pursuing corporate decisions that maximize efficiency and shareholder wealth.  For example, Marissa Mayer openly rejects being called a feminist, and has made decisions that seem to adversely affect women in many ways.

I think it's interesting you mentioned not confusing women with mothers, because even here with some of the women in my evening classes, I'm noticing many of the unmarried women (without kids) frequently criticize the decisions of married women (with kids).  In a group project, a younger woman is put-off by the fact that another woman who recently had a child isn't able to contribute as much.  Her remark: "If you were going to have a kid, then why did you sign up for a graduate class?"  You'd be surprised how many young, ambitious women without kids seem put off by notions of a work/life balance.

[Kythia]

Sabby - Is there any reason that (that = the quoted sentence) is an argument against more women in leadership positions.

I think it's interesting you mentioned not confusing women with mothers, because even here with some of the women in my evening classes, I'm noticing many of the unmarried women (without kids) frequently criticize the decisions of married women (with kids).  In a group project, a younger woman is put-off by the fact that another woman who recently had a child isn't able to contribute as much.  Her remark: "If you were going to have a kid, then why did you sign up for a graduate class?"  You'd be surprised how many young, ambitious women without kids seem put off by notions of a work/life balance.

No.  I wouldn't.  Hence pointing out that the two groups are not the same.

[Sabby]

As I said, stating that the gender of the boss is irrelevant is not a statement against women in leadership roles. How anyone could deduce such is beyond me.

[Valthazar]

No.  I wouldn't.  Hence pointing out that the two groups are not the same.

That's the point I'm making - there are two directions to the women's rights movement at present - one focusing on single, unmarried women, and another focusing on married women with children.  Often times, they are antagonistic in their missions.

Sheryl Sandberg is managing to dip her feet into both categories.  She's a 44 year old woman, able to hold a marriage, while still having the financial flexibility required to pursue her career to the fullest degree.

[Kythia]

That's the point I'm making - there are two directions to the women's rights movement at present - one focusing on single, unmarried women, and another focusing on married women with children.  Often times, they are antagonistic in their missions.

"Single, unmarried women" and "married women with children".  It's possible to be single and have children, or to be married and not.  It's possible to be a married woman with children whose husband/wife/whatever is the primary caregiver.  It's possible to have a lot of different structures.  Your argument that structure x should be focused on before structure y is inherently limiting to a large number of people.

[Valthazar]

Perhaps I should have worded it as being "having kids" vs. "not having kids" - and this applies for both men and women.

Women's rights issues (and people's rights in general) are both similar and markedly different depending on which category you look at.

[Kythia]

Perhaps I should have worded it as being "having kids" vs. "not having kids" - and this applies for both men and women.

Women's rights issues (and people's rights in general) are both similar and markedly different depending on which category you look at.

Indeed.  Which is why we shouldn't focus on one before another.

[Orval Wintermute]

Women in leadership positions is so incredibly important for the improvement of standards for women in all strata of society I can't believe anyone could say this seriously.

Here's one of the struggles that ordinary women face: nearly all of the people in charge of our lives are men.

It really frustrates me when I see things like this. Having women in leadership positions isn't important, but neither is having men in leadership positions. Surely the only qualifications that matter are the leadership qualities of the individual.
If people are placed in positions not because of who they are but because of what they are (male\female,white\black,tall\short) then doesn't that undermine them and do a disservice to everyone else that follows? I opens the gates to the "They didn't get the job because they were good, they got it because they were [insert defining characteristics here]"
I completely in favour of equality; but equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes.

[Sabby]

I agree with Orval. Gender shouldn't even be a consideration when hiring.

[Valthazar]

I also agree with Orval, in the sense that one's productivity should be tied to one's earnings.  Part of the reason I brought up the example of those younger women in my class is because they feel they are entitled to better jobs and better pay for voluntarily choosing not to have kids and putting in more hours/productivity in at work (as they rightly should).  Many of them feel offended that concessions should be made for men or women who chose to have children, and thus need a work/life balance (due to having kids).

Not saying that's an ideal perspective, but it's certainly an interesting one.

[Shjade]

Sidetracking from the current conversation to address the original topic for a minute:

I tried dipping into the #cancelcolbert conversation for a day. Not a really concerted effort - I didn't strain myself trying to be heard or anything - just put in a brief, reasonable (I hope) statement here and there to try calming down the outrageous levels of rhetoric and hate exploding on all sides of the thing.

I didn't get a single direct response. Anywhere. From anyone. At least not as far as I could see; being relatively unfamiliar with Twitter, I'm sure it's possible I overlooked something, but I'm 90% sure no one even tried addressing what I brought up.

What was I bringing up? That all sides were incendiary without cause. Not "you should stop talking" or "your voice shouldn't be heard" or etc., just pointing out that responding to a situation you describe as racist by telling entire racial groups they have no right to speak on the subject is not an effective way to reach the moral high ground or begin a productive discussion on any topic. That decrying death threats sent to Suey on the one hand is considerably undermined by turning around and telling people to kill themselves for disagreeing with you on the other. It's possible no one responded to these observations because they felt it was unproductive, or they didn't want to allow any space for arguments that broach the possibility their methods were ineffective or unreasonable. Maybe they didn't see a point in responding to a twitter account with such minimal history and activity on it, or they just thought I wasn't contributing anything worthwhile to the discussion. These are all plausible causes for the total lack of reply.

Personally, though, I think it's because these statements were coming from a handle that was neither gender or ethnicity-specific, not readily identifiable to easily categorize or stereotype, and as such was anathema to their bite-size, snap judgment methodology. They didn't want to deal with someone they'd have to address purely on their stated position rather than by racial or gender characteristics they could promptly use to denigrate or entirely ignore this new person outright rather than consider what they were saying. It was easier to act like I wasn't there.

Frankly, if that's not the most hilarious hypocrisy in the context of their stated goals, I don't know what is.

The topic brought up by #cancelcolbert is a real and serious issue that needs to be addressed. #cancelcolbert itself, and the way people rallying around it behave, is a farce.

[Oniya]

Honestly? 140 characters is a bit hard at times to use as a medium for commentary at all.

Especially when half of it gets eaten up by those ubiquitous hashtags.

[Shjade]

Even more annoying, replying to someone eats up characters. Since it has to include their handle. :|

[Kythia]

I guess its fair enough in a way.  It wasn't designed for conversations after all.

[Neysha]

So, two things here, both have happened in the last couple months, i will begin with the "cancel Colbert" thing.

Suey Park, a young Asian woman (trust me, the race thing is important here) has recently started her own little campaign to take down "the white man" after Steven Colbert, popular American political pundit made a tweet saying he would open the "Ching chong ding dong agency of sensitivity to Asians" as a parody of something said on a news network that he critiqued. well, Suey Park sees this as a sign of the "white heteropatriarchy" at work and wanted to start her own movement to remove white men from being able to say anything about non-whites... obviously she did this by broadcasting her own barrages of racial taunts and racist accusations at any white man she came across, including in this video below where she is being interviewed by the Huffington Post where she states quite openly that she doesn't think white men have the right to have opinions on this matter unless they are in blind support of her (and that her feelings have an effect on her argument)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNK-e6nnFGY

I'm not sure how to post videos on this forum so you'll have to follow this.

Here also is an article written on the TIME magazine website about "the white male hetero-patriarchy oppressing me" I WISH I was being sarcastic there.

http://time.com/58743/cancelcolbert-activists-we-will-protest-this-until-it-ends/

Tell me, what do you think? another nutcase doomed to fail the moment she vocalized her "case"? or do you think she raises a valid point and deserves respect? Is she anti-racist or just plan racist against white people?

I won't say she's a nutcase, just another pathetic Race masterbaiter. I'd be annoyed if I didn't find her seriousness to have an almost satirical quality to it. The amount of persecution she feels from inoffensive satire and almost compels me to advance her condition by wishing more inoffensive satire can be directed towards her in order to increase her feelings of hopeless dejection, not out of any feeling of schadenfreude, but because the thought an adult can dedicate so much time and effort in propagating misery upon others because they intentionally choose to not process humor like a normal people as well as finding themselves unable to ignore it when it can be easily ignored, makes me hope the cure at least for their race masterbaiting can be found via deluging them in more of it. It might not change their minds, but at least their pathetic voices will be drowned out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeErTVCqV6I

I find this far more offensive, because Dat Phan isn't fucking funny... at all.

As for bossy, it sounds like a stupid word to ban, much less waste time for a PSA on. But in danger of being sucked into a conversation about gender issues and historical issues pertaining to equality, I'll just say that's my own personal opinion and I'm sure it's not based in fact or something.

[meikle]

It really frustrates me when I see things like this. Having women in leadership positions isn't important, but neither is having men in leadership positions. Surely the only qualifications that matter are the leadership qualities of the individual.

Having women in leadership positions:

*provides women with role models that aren't models or mothers
*shows young women that entering a career (or any other organization) does not have to mean stopping at the bottom rung
*encourages women (in the work place, for example) to bring problems that they face (especially, eg, sexual harassment issues) to authority figures (when they may not, otherwise, eg when all of their bosses are men)
*overall encourages safety and comfort for women within an organization by providing them with authority figures who are familiar with struggles that women face

At no fucking point did I say anything about "Women should be given special privileges and jobs they haven't earned" so get over yourself.

[Sabby]

Calm down Meikle, if you feel Orval misunderstood you, you can say so without flinging insults. This topic is incendiary enough as it is.

[Neysha]

Choke on it Sabby.

(note not the original quote, meikle deleted her initial post I was replying to so I'm basing this one off of memory)

Anyone remember that discussion we had a while back about getting sick of toxic stuff on the forums? Just suddenly seeing some parallels in that discussion and this one. And familiar faces...

[meikle]

Calm down Meikle, if you feel Orval misunderstood you, you can say so without flinging insults. This topic is incendiary enough as it is.

I didn't insult anyone.  Learn to fucking read, Sabby.

[Nadir]

Let's calm this down, please.

[Avis habilis]

Thread locked.