What's in the news?

[Vergil Tanner]

No, sexism is prejudice based on sex. Now, if you said "They've ruined Doctor Who by having them played by a woman because women can't act," that would be sexist. Just saying "I don't think that The Doctor should be a woman" isn't inherently sexist, because their reasoning hasn't been included. The statement can be sexist or not, it depends entirely on the context and the opinions of the people involved. Context and Intent, in these situations, is King. And as soon as you turn around and call them sexist for that opinion, you've now shut down the conversation and you're as bad as the people who are accusing the people who like the casting of being "Liberal Extremists," "PC Police" and "Cucks." You are on the same level as them. So why don't we keep the name calling to a minimum, because it doesn't achieve anything and just makes the people doing it look intolerant of opposing opinions.

[LisztesFerenc]

No, sexism is prejudice based on sex. Now, if you said "They've ruined Doctor Who by having them played by a woman because women can't act," that would be sexist. Just saying "I don't think that The Doctor should be a woman" isn't inherently sexist, because their reasoning hasn't been included. The statement can be sexist or not, it depends entirely on the context and the opinions of the people involved. Context and Intent, in these situations, is King. And as soon as you turn around and call them sexist for that opinion, you've now shut down the conversation and you're as bad as the people who are accusing the people who like the casting of being "Liberal Extremists," "PC Police" and "Cucks." You are on the same level as them. So why don't we keep the name calling to a minimum, because it doesn't achieve anything and just makes the people doing it look intolerant of opposing opinions.

  People volunteer information when they have reasons, like you with James Bond. Didn't need to ask or anything, you explained. There is no reason at this stage to be opposed to a female Doctor other sexism. Plenty of reason to be skeptical, to have doubts, none to be opposed. Its sexists, there's no other way of looking at it. Just like the people saying it was "White genocide" (yes, really) because Finn was black and men's rights activists were boycotting because Rey wasn't male, didn't actually have legitimate arguments.

  If people had a coherent argument to make about why the Doctor shouldn't be female, they would have made it, like you did for James Bond.

[Lustful Bride]

Ha, I love this. Several Nuns got together to build a chapel in the path of a gas Pipeline to prevent it from being built and ruining the land.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/catholic-nuns-in-pa-build-a-chapel-to-block-the-path-of-a-gas-pipeline-planned-for-their-property/ar-BBEyPAt?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=HPCOMMDHP15

[Vergil Tanner]

  People volunteer information when they have reasons, like you with James Bond. Didn't need to ask or anything, you explained. There is no reason at this stage to be opposed to a female Doctor other sexism. Plenty of reason to be skeptical, to have doubts, none to be opposed. Its sexists, there's no other way of looking at it. Just like the people saying it was "White genocide" (yes, really) because Finn was black and men's rights activists were boycotting because Rey wasn't male, didn't actually have legitimate arguments.

  If people had a coherent argument to make about why the Doctor shouldn't be female, they would have made it, like you did for James Bond.

Yes, because people on Twitter are going to spend eighteen tweets going into why they dislike the choice. People on Facebook are going to spend half an hour writing an intelligent discourse that most people aren't going to read.

The fact that I am here giving you another way of looking at it shows that when you say "There's no other way of looking at it, they're all sexists" shows that you're wrong. Yeah, they might not be getting into it, but just because they aren't volunteering their reasons doesn't mean that their reasons are sexist. It just means that they don't necessarily feel like going into a huge ranting post about it because they might not have the time or inclination. Saying "If you don't volunteer your reasons, you're just a sexist asshole" is, frankly, stupid and narrow minded. The difference in your example is that those idiots who complained about Finn being black gave their reason; White Genocide. I'll also say that happening to cast a black actor in a role is a little different to casting a traditionally male character as a female. The same sort of thing would happen if you remade Sherlock Holmes with a Female as Holmes; they aren't inherently sexist, they're just not fans of the change.

Accusing everybody of sexism because they haven't proven that their reasons aren't sexist is far too much like "Guilty until proven innocent," isn't it?

[LisztesFerenc]

Yes, because people on Twitter are going to spend eighteen tweets going into why they dislike the choice. People on Facebook are going to spend half an hour writing an intelligent discourse that most people aren't going to read.

  I actually have seen reasons, my favorite one was "Time Lords, therefor no girls".

Accusing everybody of sexism because they haven't proven that their reasons aren't sexist is far too much like "Guilty until proven innocent," isn't it?

  As long the penalty for sexism is fines or prison time, sure.

  What's that? It isn't? When that that comparison just falls apart entirely doesn't it?

  Anyway, we've already spent far too much time arguing one topic in a thread not designed for this. You can have the last word if you wish.

[Vergil Tanner]

  I actually have seen reasons, my favorite one was "Time Lords, therefor no girls".

That's just stupid. But yeah, that person gave their justification, and you can judge them on it. if they don't give their reasons, it's unfair to judge them based on the fact that they just so happen to disagree with you.

As long the penalty for sexism is fines or prison time, sure.

  What's that? It isn't? When that that comparison just falls apart entirely doesn't it?

That's just asinine. I'm sorry, but no, the comparison holds up. You don't assume the worst of somebody and tell them "I'm wrong? Well prove it!" The correct, fair position is to suspend judgement on their motives and guilt or innocence until evidence either way has been presented. Otherwise, you just risk looking judgmental and arrogant.

[LisztesFerenc]

That's just stupid. But yeah, that person gave their justification, and you can judge them on it. if they don't give their reasons, it's unfair to judge them based on the fact that they just so happen to disagree with you.

  Okay, I know I said I wouldn't respond, but this does seem to be an opportunity for some common ground between. How long do you think its fair me to wait before, in the absence of a coherent argument as to why Doctor Who must be played by a male actor, concluding that people complain without knowing anything about the seasons beyond the detail of the female actor are being sexist? Or I am to eternally grant them the benefit of the doubt if they never elaborate?

[Vergil Tanner]

  Okay, I know I said I wouldn't respond, but this does seem to be an opportunity for some common ground between. How long do you think its fair me to wait before, in the absence of a coherent argument as to why Doctor Who must be played by a male actor, concluding that people complain without knowing anything about the seasons beyond the detail of the female actor are being sexist? Or I am to eternally grant them the benefit of the doubt if they never elaborate?

You do. If they never give any indication either way, you don't necessarily have to give them the benefit of the doubt, but you should suspend judgement until you get that evidence either way. If you never get that evidence, then never pass judgement. You don't get to say "I don't know, therefore X." It's the same way as with a Deity; you don't get to say that you know either way until you see that evidence. Now, if you see them elsewhere behaving in a way that makes you think that they are a certain type of person, you can use that evidence to weigh your beliefs one way or another, of course. But you should suspend judgement until you have the evidence either way. That's what is fair and reasonable; you don't get to accuse somebody of something without cause. That's how witchhunts begin, and that's how the Court of Guilty Until Proven Innocent works.

[LisztesFerenc]

You do. If they never give any indication either way, you don't necessarily have to give them the benefit of the doubt, but you should suspend judgement until you get that evidence either way. If you never get that evidence, then never pass judgement. You don't get to say "I don't know, therefore X." It's the same way as with a Deity; you don't get to say that you know either way until you see that evidence. Now, if you see them elsewhere behaving in a way that makes you think that they are a certain type of person, you can use that evidence to weigh your beliefs one way or another, of course. But you should suspend judgement until you have the evidence either way. That's what is fair and reasonable; you don't get to accuse somebody of something without cause. That's how witchhunts begin, and that's how the Court of Guilty Until Proven Innocent works.

  Fair enough. I disagree. In my mind, communicating in the age of the internet is not hard, and if you have time and energy to go online and complain about something, you have should have the time an energy to also explain why. Failure to do so invites others to reach their own conclusion, if you don't like that, then give them something.

[Vergil Tanner]

But that's like saying "If you don't want somebody to believe you did something, you should volunteer evidence that you didn't at all times." Hardly fair to expect somebody to always have to defend themselves from accusations preemptively, and if you've already decided that their reasons are sexist, doesn't that risk confirmation bias?

[LisztesFerenc]

But that's like saying "If you don't want somebody to believe you did something, you should volunteer evidence that you didn't at all times."

  No it isn't. In your example, your bringing up something completely out of the blue. I'm referencing something they actually said.

Hardly fair to expect somebody to always have to defend themselves from accusations preemptively, and if you've already decided that their reasons are sexist, doesn't that risk confirmation bias?

  No, if they can come up with a non-sexist justification for their objection to a female actor with the information they had available at the time, it happens sometimes, though rarely. Usually people complaining on the internet without justifying their opinions, are doing because they don't have a good justification for them.

  I guess and break away again, the last words can be yours, hopefully for real this time.

[Vergil Tanner]

  No it isn't. In your example, your bringing up something completely out of the blue. I'm referencing something they actually said.

No, you're referencing a statement regarding their opinion, absent context or reasoning and ascribing meaning to it...which is the same thing.

Usually people complaining on the internet without justifying their opinions, are doing because they don't have a good justification for them.

Does that apply to the people who were complaining that The Doctor had never been a woman, absent justification?

[Oniya]

Ha, I love this. Several Nuns got together to build a chapel in the path of a gas Pipeline to prevent it from being built and ruining the land.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/catholic-nuns-in-pa-build-a-chapel-to-block-the-path-of-a-gas-pipeline-planned-for-their-property/ar-BBEyPAt?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=HPCOMMDHP15

This is sort of in my neck of the woods - I recall seeing a notice about the Lancaster Against Pipelines group, and told Mr. Oniya that they should get together with the local Amish to do something like this.  For those of you who don't know, there is a tradition among the Amish called a 'barn raising' - where the entire community gets together and builds an entire barn in one day.  You'll drive by an open field one day and the next day there's a fully functional barn there.  I'd even commented that it would be even more effective if they made it a church.

[TheGlyphstone]

This is sort of in my neck of the woods - I recall seeing a notice about the Lancaster Against Pipelines group, and told Mr. Oniya that they should get together with the local Amish to do something like this.  For those of you who don't know, there is a tradition among the Amish called a 'barn raising' - where the entire community gets together and builds an entire barn in one day.  You'll drive by an open field one day and the next day there's a fully functional barn there.  I'd even commented that it would be even more effective if they made it a church.

I do hope it gets to the Supreme Court, that would be a deliciously ulcer-ridden case to argue for a right-leaning court. On one side, big business. On the other, religious freedom.

[gaggedLouise]

Saudi Arabian authorities are pondering whether to order the police to track down a young native woman who had the gall to post a video of herself walking down the street in a miniskirt. Really the sort of thing to send out a national police alert for, right? 

The brief video clip was shared on Snapchat by the woman herself, then on twitter, and there have been many comments - some admiring her courage, some outraged and demanding for her to be arrested and whipped. 

UPDATE: Apparently, the police have now caught up with the offender. If she goes on trial and is handed a serious punishment (jail, public whipping, a sizable fine etc) I'll expect Amnesty and others to campaign for her cause. Getting the UN on board is not likely to happen.

[Vergil Tanner]

Saudi Arabian authorities are pondering whether to order the police to track down a young native woman who had the gall to post a video of herself walking down the street in a miniskirt. Really the sort of thing to send out a national police alert for, right? 

The brief video clip was shared on Snapchat by the woman herself, then on twitter, and there have been many comments - some admiring her courage, some outraged and demanding for her to be arrested and whipped. 

The president of the UN Council of Human Rights, everybody!

[gaggedLouise]

The president of the UN Council of Human Rights, everybody!

Well, don't bet on any help from the experts of said council...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/anger-after-saudi-arabia-chosen-to-head-key-un-human-rights-panel-10509716.html

UN Watch, an independent campaigning NGO, has discovered that Mr Trad, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador at the UN in Geneva, has been elected as chair of a panel of independent experts on the UN Human Rights Council.

As head of a five-strong group of diplomats, the influential role would give Mr Trad the power to select applicants from around the world for scores of expert roles in countries where the UN has a mandate on human rights. Such experts are often described as the ‘crown jewels’ of the HRC, according to UN Watch,

[Formless]

Saudi Arabian authorities are pondering whether to order the police to track down a young native woman who had the gall to post a video of herself walking down the street in a miniskirt. Really the sort of thing to send out a national police alert for, right? 

The brief video clip was shared on Snapchat by the woman herself, then on twitter, and there have been many comments - some admiring her courage, some outraged and demanding for her to be arrested and whipped. 

And yet the article does not mention any official source on 'when' or 'what' the authorities has said. Seems like their sources on the matter are just a few social media users who 'called for justice'.

[Lilias]

New plastic £10 note featuring Jane Austen unveiled

[gaggedLouise]

And yet the article does not mention any official source on 'when' or 'what' the authorities has said. Seems like their sources on the matter are just a few social media users who 'called for justice'.

Honestly, Saudi authorities are not known for being very open and honest on issues that are seen as "sensitive" or could lead to bad publicity for them. I think I'm trusting the BBC and their judgment of sources more than some spokesman of the Saudi police or some other government agency on this one. Plus I think the BBC's sources here would be people in or close to the Saudi police or at the nterior ministry, not just some twitter or facebook activists.

[Vergil Tanner]

New plastic £10 note featuring Jane Austen unveiled

Eh. I'm not that fussed about who's on the money I use to buy unhealthy food...that being said, I don't think Jane Austen should be it. I mean...she wrote some mediocre books. If we're going for authors, put fucking JRR Tolkien on the bill. His books were a LOT more influential and groundbreaking than Austen's...

[Lilias]

Eh. I'm not that fussed about who's on the money I use to buy unhealthy food...that being said, I don't think Jane Austen should be it. I mean...she wrote some mediocre books. If we're going for authors, put fucking JRR Tolkien on the bill. His books were a LOT more influential and groundbreaking than Austen's...

Perhaps in another 200 years or so.

[Vergil Tanner]

We put Winston Churchill on the banknote and he's only been dead for 50 years. >.>
But hey, if that's the way we have to go, why not put Agatha Christie on the note instead? At least her books were entertaining...

[Sara Nilsson]

Eh. I'm not that fussed about who's on the money I use to buy unhealthy food...that being said, I don't think Jane Austen should be it. I mean...she wrote some mediocre books. If we're going for authors, put fucking JRR Tolkien on the bill. His books were a LOT more influential and groundbreaking than Austen's...

Plenty of people would say Tolkien's book are not all that good (as much as I enjoy them i wouldn't say they are all that fantastic). So that is just a matter of taste what is good or not. And like her work or not it has been influential.

[Vergil Tanner]

Well, I'm not saying that Austen wasn't influential, but she was nowhere near as influential as Tolkien. Prior to him, the genre of High Fantasy didn't even exist, and he's shaped most of what we consider "Fantasy;" Orcs, wizards, a quest to destroy a magical object, the popular image of Elves, the whole Elves Vs Dwarves thing...before Tolkien, all the Fantasy was either hidden in the real world or accessed via a portal. Tolkien was really the first Fantasy Author who set it in an entirely different world without any mention of Earth, and went all in on the different warring species with their own independent histories. Narnia sooooort of did that kind of thing, but it was released at about the same time and Lewis and Tolkien were mates soooo yeah.

I mean. Wheel of Time, Eregon, Game of Thrones, pretty much anything by Brandon Sanderson, The Discworld, Tad Williams, Robin Hobb...none of it would have existed without Tolkien. I mean, how many movies and books and video games would never have existed without Tolkien? Hell, I don't think it's a stretch to say that things like Dungeons and Dragons would have ever even been conceived without Tolkien. As influential as Austen was...she can't even begin to touch the legacy that Tolkien left behind. I can agree that Tolkiens books aren't for everybody, but the note isn't really about quality. It's about historical importance, it's about influence, it's about heritage. Churchill wasn't universally popular, but he was the wartime PM. Florence Nightingale wasn't really that important in terms of the Crimean War - the groups that came after her did the real work - but it was her insistence on cleanliness that bought the soldiers time, and her image in the popular mindset that allowed those issues to be brought to light in the first place.

I mean, my crack about Agatha Christie being a better writer was slightly facetious; my biggest objection to Austen is that she may have been influential...but nowhere near as influential as some of the other options. And to compare her influence to Tolkien...she doesn't hold a candle to his legacy, in my humble opinion.