You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 06, 2016, 04:24:13 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Free speech on Twitter?  (Read 4572 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Maiz

Re: Free speech on Twitter?
« Reply #25 on: February 22, 2016, 03:46:55 AM »
Someone unironically using 'sjw' is a record scratch. 'Social Justice Warrior Culture' is like vacuum appearing and eating all sound for a couple seconds. Comparing this to the Cultural Revolution is like, I don't know. The death of sound, maybe?

Which culture has fallen? And from where? What is the pinnacle of culture to you? Why is Twilight any worse than the silly stuff people read two/three/four/five/six/seven/etc centuries ago? Why do you want to police and censure what Click writes? Have you legitimately read her stuff? What arguments is she making? What advances the course of human civilization? What makes something worthy of study? What is bottom-barrel culture? What is top-barrel culture? Where does this very site fit in this whole cultural fall idea?
« Last Edit: February 22, 2016, 06:09:53 AM by Maiz »

Offline Far eyes

Re: Free speech on Twitter?
« Reply #26 on: February 22, 2016, 07:25:13 AM »
What always strikes me funny about the "sjw" is there creed of absolute annihilation of anything that dos not fit there narrow world view. Really they kind of remind me of the French revolution. Now i am just going to sit here and wait for the revolution to devour it self with any luck.

You know honestly this generation needs its George Carlin, and people like him just to knock some of the wind out of the righteous sales. Taking your own dumb shit to seriously is like the number 1 disease of this generation.
 

Offline ReijiTabibito

  • Gatecrasher
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: Titanian Autonomous University, Gate Studies Dept.
  • Gender: Male
  • There cannot be another Fall.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Free speech on Twitter?
« Reply #27 on: February 22, 2016, 09:40:45 AM »
Someone unironically using 'sjw' is a record scratch. 'Social Justice Warrior Culture' is like vacuum appearing and eating all sound for a couple seconds. Comparing this to the Cultural Revolution is like, I don't know. The death of sound, maybe?

You may think the comparison isn't apt.  I disagree.  The whole point of the Cultural Revolution was to promote and inculcate Maoist thought amongst the Chinese people (cloaked in the guise of protecting 'true' Communist ideology), and purge dissenting viewpoints (such as that held by Deng Xiaoping).

One viewpoint.  One correct way of looking at things.  Decided by a small handful of people.

You've already got the movement clamoring for hate speech codes, involving the police in these matters, and an insistence on 'academic justice' (IE, telling the right story) over academic freedom.

And that's nothing to say of the fact that revoking the First Amendment - which is effectively what they're trying to do - isn't just a pipe dream anymore.  A couple of guys went to Yale and spent 1 hour asking students to sign a petition to overturn the First Amendment.  They got almost one signature per minute.  And keep in mind, Yale is supposed to be the bastion of liberal principles.

Which culture has fallen? And from where? What is the pinnacle of culture to you?

If we're talking about the US, then Western European-based culture.  From where?  I can't really say how high, but I would say our peak time culturally was somewhere in the range of the 1700s to the start of the 20th century.  I'm a bit of a classicist, so I use the following definition for culture: "a pursuit of total perfection by means of getting to know, on all the matters which most concern us, the best which has been thought and said in the world."

Why is Twilight any worse than the silly stuff people read two/three/four/five/six/seven/etc centuries ago?

It's NOT.  The difference is that A: you didn't have university educators confusing it for real academic work, and B: we haven't any idea what that silly stuff is, because the vast majority of it no longer exists (or is inaccessible to the average person).  Twilight is going the same way as all that silly stuff from a while ago, it just hasn't happened yet.

Why do you want to police and censure what Click writes?

I don't.  But I don't think her scribblings on 50 Shades of Grey should be considered 'acceptable' collegiate level work, much in the same way that a high school English teacher should not accept a book report based on Dick and Jane.  It's beneath the level of academic rigor that should be demanded for that level of education.  I'm not asking her to go out and read Eco's The Name of the Rose, but she can certainly find something better than this.

Have you legitimately read her stuff? What arguments is she making?

No, I haven't.  Mainly because her stuff isn't either available for reading, or I don't have money to be flashing around to buy an article online.

What advances the course of human civilization? What makes something worthy of study?

Quite simply?  Knowledge.  The more we understand something, the more knowledge we gain and can thus better ourselves.  But while studying anything is going to add to our knowledge base, not everything is equally worthy of study.

Things worthy of study are things that can actually be used to benefit mankind.  I go and I study engineering, I can learn how to build bridges, houses, structures necessary for the existence of modern industrialized society.  I go and I study something like Twilight, what can I do with that?

When I was at university, I had a choice - I could study science or I could study history as my major.  I picked the former, because while I recognized that science was harder and required more study and thought and idea, I also recognized that science can be used to build.  The smartphone in your pocket, self-driving cars, rocket flight?  Science.  Furthermore, I realized that there's no money in history, unless you are a university professor, a New York Times-bestselling writer, or work in a museum.

What is bottom-barrel culture? What is top-barrel culture?

Kanye West, the Kardashians, Jersey Shore, to give the three examples that immediately spring to my mind.  I could probably list a few more, but they are the exemplars of it.  (Plus, one of them would probably get me lynched.)

Lord of the Rings, The Wealth of Nations, Lovecraft & Derleth.  And I understand that none of us can be concerned with high-minded culture all the damn time.  I admit that I get chuckles from watching things like World's Dumbest and enjoy loading my Monty Python DVDs into the player for another round of silliness.  There's nothing wrong with a good bit of humor and low-brow things.  But when everything is low-brow, when there is no appeal to higher nature and everything is just sex and violence, that's not a good thing.

Now i am just going to sit here and wait for the revolution to devour it self with any luck.

That's what it's doing right now.  The people the revolution is eating?  Are the people who started it back in my parent's generation.  Insistence on ideological purity is dangerous, because you can always be accused of not being pure enough if you go out of lockstep with the movement.

You know honestly this generation needs its George Carlin, and people like him just to knock some of the wind out of the righteous sales. Taking your own dumb shit to seriously is like the number 1 disease of this generation.

This generation has its Carlin.  He's called George Carlin.  He talked about a lot of things - the thing I keep remembering from him?  "Political Correctness is Fascism disguised as Manners."

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Free speech on Twitter?
« Reply #28 on: February 22, 2016, 09:55:19 AM »
This generation has its Carlin.  He's called George Carlin.  He talked about a lot of things - the thing I keep remembering from him?  "Political Correctness is Fascism disguised as Manners."

The problem is that George Carlin isn't seen as 'relevant' by many people because he isn't still talking.  Gadflies (which can be oh-so-necessary) lose their effectiveness when they stop buzzing and biting.  Our generation had Carlin.  This generation - not so much.

Offline Far eyes

Re: Free speech on Twitter?
« Reply #29 on: February 22, 2016, 10:45:13 AM »
The problem is that George Carlin isn't seen as 'relevant' by many people because he isn't still talking.  Gadflies (which can be oh-so-necessary) lose their effectiveness when they stop buzzing and biting.  Our generation had Carlin.  This generation - not so much.

This is kind of what i mean. Though man he would get a kick out of poking fun at this shit i am sure ...

Offline ReijiTabibito

  • Gatecrasher
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: Titanian Autonomous University, Gate Studies Dept.
  • Gender: Male
  • There cannot be another Fall.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Free speech on Twitter?
« Reply #30 on: February 22, 2016, 11:01:01 AM »
The problem is that George Carlin isn't seen as 'relevant' by many people because he isn't still talking.  Gadflies (which can be oh-so-necessary) lose their effectiveness when they stop buzzing and biting.  Our generation had Carlin.  This generation - not so much.

Humanity would be in a pretty sorry state if we fully embraced the belief that because you are dead you aren't relevant anymore.  But I agree with you that it's not the same without him around.

I'm also afraid that if we're expecting a new Carlin for a new generation, we're going to be sorely disappointed.  Comedians used to do colleges as part of their bread and butter.  Now more and more of them are avoiding the places altogether.  Expecting this more 'enlightened, tolerant' generation to produce a George Carlin is a bit out of their realm, methinks.

Offline Maiz

Re: Free speech on Twitter?
« Reply #31 on: February 22, 2016, 11:21:48 AM »
You may think the comparison isn't apt.  I disagree.  The whole point of the Cultural Revolution was to promote and inculcate Maoist thought amongst the Chinese people (cloaked in the guise of protecting 'true' Communist ideology), and purge dissenting viewpoints (such as that held by Deng Xiaoping).

One viewpoint.  One correct way of looking at things.  Decided by a small handful of people.

You've already got the movement clamoring for hate speech codes, involving the police in these matters, and an insistence on 'academic justice' (IE, telling the right story) over academic freedom.

And that's nothing to say of the fact that revoking the First Amendment - which is effectively what they're trying to do - isn't just a pipe dream anymore.  A couple of guys went to Yale and spent 1 hour asking students to sign a petition to overturn the First Amendment.  They got almost one signature per minute.  And keep in mind, Yale is supposed to be the bastion of liberal principles.

Oh no! Someone is doing a petition, this is exactly like the Cultural Revolution! [aside for people reading this: http://abovethelaw.com/2015/12/yale-students-sign-a-petition-to-repeal-the-first-amendment-stop-being-stupid/ ]  And it is definitely connected to government oppression as well! Social justice warriors are just shooting people in the streets for not listening to them! Except, like, this is all sarcasm and you are a reactionary over exaggerater.

Other places have hate speech laws and they seem pretty okay. Also, universities regularly use 'academic freedom' to hurt people. Your posturing about universities is a little misguided. They fuck up a lot and hold a ton of actually harmful views. They have actively hurt people in the past and the present, but you seem not to care.

Quote
If we're talking about the US, then Western European-based culture.  From where?  I can't really say how high, but I would say our peak time culturally was somewhere in the range of the 1700s to the start of the 20th century.  I'm a bit of a classicist, so I use the following definition for culture: "a pursuit of total perfection by means of getting to know, on all the matters which most concern us, the best which has been thought and said in the world."

Why Western Euro based culture? What makes this timespan so great? Why does our peak culture cover slavery and colonization? Why do you use that definition of culture?

Quote
It's NOT.  The difference is that A: you didn't have university educators confusing it for real academic work, and B: we haven't any idea what that silly stuff is, because the vast majority of it no longer exists (or is inaccessible to the average person).  Twilight is going the same way as all that silly stuff from a while ago, it just hasn't happened yet.

Why does this matter? Why can't a scholar have the academic freedom to study what she wants? Why must scholars go through you first?

Quote
I don't.  But I don't think her scribblings on 50 Shades of Grey should be considered 'acceptable' collegiate level work, much in the same way that a high school English teacher should not accept a book report based on Dick and Jane.  It's beneath the level of academic rigor that should be demanded for that level of education.  I'm not asking her to go out and read Eco's The Name of the Rose, but she can certainly find something better than this.

No, I haven't.  Mainly because her stuff isn't either available for reading, or I don't have money to be flashing around to buy an article online.

So, you don't actually know what her work says or claims or argues or anything. Instead you continuously attack her because she does not conform to your ideas of what good knowledge means. Who decided the level of academic rigor? Why is it you? Why don't you read her stuff first?

Quote
Quite simply?  Knowledge.  The more we understand something, the more knowledge we gain and can thus better ourselves.  But while studying anything is going to add to our knowledge base, not everything is equally worthy of study.

Things worthy of study are things that can actually be used to benefit mankind.  I go and I study engineering, I can learn how to build bridges, houses, structures necessary for the existence of modern industrialized society.  I go and I study something like Twilight, what can I do with that?

I haven't read her stuff, so I can't make claims about what it does or doesn't do. But why do you get to say what knowledge is? Is she not contributing to knowledge? Just because it doesn't seem relevant to you doesn't mean it doesn't have something to say. Who made you the judge of what is scholarly pursuit? How come studying Twilight isn't important, but studying Shakespeare is?

Quote
When I was at university, I had a choice - I could study science or I could study history as my major.  I picked the former, because while I recognized that science was harder and required more study and thought and idea, I also recognized that science can be used to build.  The smartphone in your pocket, self-driving cars, rocket flight?  Science.  Furthermore, I realized that there's no money in history, unless you are a university professor, a New York Times-bestselling writer, or work in a museum.

This is an incredibly biased opinion! Why is science harder? Why do you think it requires more study/thought/idea? Why do you think humanities can't build things?

Quote
Kanye West, the Kardashians, Jersey Shore, to give the three examples that immediately spring to my mind.  I could probably list a few more, but they are the exemplars of it.  (Plus, one of them would probably get me lynched.)

So, people who are not white or Western European descended are bottom barrel culture? Why? Why do you have an issue with pop culture? Have you heard Kanye's stuff? What makes it bottom barrel culture? What about the Kardashians? Jersey Shore?

Quote
Lord of the Rings, The Wealth of Nations, Lovecraft & Derleth.  And I understand that none of us can be concerned with high-minded culture all the damn time.  I admit that I get chuckles from watching things like World's Dumbest and enjoy loading my Monty Python DVDs into the player for another round of silliness.  There's nothing wrong with a good bit of humor and low-brow things.  But when everything is low-brow, when there is no appeal to higher nature and everything is just sex and violence, that's not a good thing.

Lord of the Rings is boring, badly written, and honestly a fucking yawn fest. I guess The Wealth of Nations might be interesting to some one, but I have more joy in my life than to read it for fun. Lovecraft is horrifically racist and honestly overrated. Never heard of Derleth but I don't like the way he has two 'e's in his name so clearly he contributed nothing. Why do you consider your opinions worth more than mine? (I am assuming your response with this question)
« Last Edit: February 22, 2016, 11:26:27 AM by Maiz »

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Free speech on Twitter?
« Reply #32 on: February 22, 2016, 11:36:07 AM »
As someone who has lived through a number of different 'pop cultures', I can only say this:

Linked because I'm not sure how old that top guy is in the picture.

Offline ReijiTabibito

  • Gatecrasher
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: Titanian Autonomous University, Gate Studies Dept.
  • Gender: Male
  • There cannot be another Fall.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Free speech on Twitter?
« Reply #33 on: February 22, 2016, 11:54:40 AM »
Oh no! Someone is doing a petition, this is exactly like the Cultural Revolution! [aside for people reading this: http://abovethelaw.com/2015/12/yale-students-sign-a-petition-to-repeal-the-first-amendment-stop-being-stupid/ ]  And it is definitely connected to government oppression as well! Social justice warriors are just shooting people in the streets for not listening to them! Except, like, this is all sarcasm and you are a reactionary over exaggerater.

Exaggerator.

And I don't care that the petition might actually have been faked, or the students might have been lied to, or anything like that.  And they may not be shooting people in the streets now, but that's because the cancer hasn't metastasized to the brain.  More to the point, do you not understand the insane logic behind signing a petition to ban the right to petition?

Other places have hate speech laws and they seem pretty okay. Also, universities regularly use 'academic freedom' to hurt people. Your posturing about universities is a little misguided. They fuck up a lot and hold a ton of actually harmful views. They have actively hurt people in the past and the present, but you seem not to care.

Name one.  Just one.  Please, name one harmful view that universities on the whole embrace.

Why Western Euro based culture? What makes this timespan so great? Why does our peak culture cover slavery and colonization? Why do you use that definition of culture?

...because the people who founded the United States of America, and built the country were from Western Europe?

It covers slavery and colonization because those were unfortunate events that happened in the timespan.  I never said that that timeframe was perfect, I just said it was the best.  You can have a best at something and still have things that aren't perfect.

Why does this matter? Why can't a scholar have the academic freedom to study what she wants? Why must scholars go through you first?

They shouldn't go through me.  Academic integrity and honesty should be handled, like I was taught, through peer review.  The people in the profession should decide what's worth studying and what's not.  But the regressive left has essentially built themselves an echo chamber inside academia - which goes against peer review.

So, you don't actually know what her work says or claims or argues or anything. Instead you continuously attack her because she does not conform to your ideas of what good knowledge means. Who decided the level of academic rigor? Why is it you? Why don't you read her stuff first?

What part of I can't did you miss?

I haven't read her stuff, so I can't make claims about what it does or doesn't do. But why do you get to say what knowledge is? Is she not contributing to knowledge? Just because it doesn't seem relevant to you doesn't mean it doesn't have something to say. Who made you the judge of what is scholarly pursuit? How come studying Twilight isn't important, but studying Shakespeare is?

...I just said that I don't get to decide, that should be left to the experts.

As for Twilight vs Shakespeare, you're right.  I shouldn't judge.  After all, the Bard only wrote 400 years ago.  It's not fair to judge them with the same stick.  Tell you what.  400 years from now, if people are still studying Twilight, you can come find my grave and tell me I was wrong.  I won't be able to reply, because I'll be dead, but you know, semantics.

So, people who are not white or Western European descended are bottom barrel culture?

Show me where I said that.  Please.  I ask you.

Have you heard Kanye's stuff? What makes it bottom barrel culture? What about the Kardashians? Jersey Shore?

I have.  It's nothing special to write home about.  Keep in mind that Kanye said he would boycott the Grammy Awards unless he won Album of the Year...despite not being nominated.

The Kardashians, Jersey Shore, Real Housewives...they're all cut from the same cloth: watching badly behaved people.  These are supposed to be our cultural icons?  The people our children are supposed to look up to?

And why do you think it's not bottom barrel culture?  Hm?  What's good and uplifting and inspiring about any of it?

Lord of the Rings is boring, badly written, and honestly a fucking yawn fest. I guess The Wealth of Nations might be interesting to some one, but I have more joy in my life than to read it for fun. Lovecraft is horrifically racist and honestly overrated. Never heard of Derleth but I don't like the way he has two 'e's in his name so clearly he contributed nothing. Why do you consider your opinions worth more than mine? (I am assuming your response with this question)

How do you know?  Have you read Lord of the Rings?  Why do you think it's such a 'fucking yawn fest'?  Have you read HP Lovecraft?  And yes, you're right, he was totally racist in a time where nobody else was.  I guess that means that I shouldn't read anything that was written by people who were sexists or racists or bigots.  Can you recommend some non-sexist/racist/bigoted material for me to absorb?

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Free speech on Twitter?
« Reply #34 on: February 22, 2016, 12:03:28 PM »
Her work is incredibly easy to find. I just did it in ten seconds on the bus. Google melissa click articles. First result is a bio page. It contains links to articles. Why exactly can't you do the same? Have you tried or are you lying?

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Free speech on Twitter?
« Reply #35 on: February 22, 2016, 12:10:23 PM »
I wrote an essay in 7th grade about a Shakespeare play. Because it was about Shakespeare, does it make my middle school essay of higher literary merit and quality than a college-level academic paper about the popularity of Twilight?

Offline ReijiTabibito

  • Gatecrasher
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: Titanian Autonomous University, Gate Studies Dept.
  • Gender: Male
  • There cannot be another Fall.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Free speech on Twitter?
« Reply #36 on: February 22, 2016, 12:15:22 PM »
I'm assuming you mean her Missouri faculty page?

If you are, then a few things to note.  One - some of those articles are pay-to-read.  I'm currently living paycheck to paycheck, I'm not tossing down $32.95 for a book I can live without.

Two - of the remaining articles left, a couple of those are just quick 2 minute summaries on her work there.  At least, I'm assuming they are.

Three - one article is literally about the troubles various Missouri U faculty members faced while pregnant.  If I wanted an explanation on that, I don't need to read an article, I can just pick up the phone and call a few people I know.

I wrote an essay in 7th grade about a Shakespeare play. Because it was about Shakespeare, does it make my middle school essay of higher literary merit and quality than a college-level academic paper about the popularity of Twilight?

That depends.  Did your 7th grade English teacher ask you to write it at a collegiate level?  Quality is one of those subjective terms that changes depending on where you go and who you talk to.  A good quality paper written by a high school sophomore isn't going to look the same as a good quality paper written by a doctorate student, even if they are on the same subject.

Offline Maiz

Re: Free speech on Twitter?
« Reply #37 on: February 22, 2016, 12:18:28 PM »
Exaggerator.

And I don't care that the petition might actually have been faked, or the students might have been lied to, or anything like that.  And they may not be shooting people in the streets now, but that's because the cancer hasn't metastasized to the brain.  More to the point, do you not understand the insane logic behind signing a petition to ban the right to petition?

Okay you can think this but it seems incredibly paranoid.

Quote
Name one.  Just one.  Please, name one harmful view that universities on the whole embrace.

It appears that the ppl behind the video didnt say it was a ban but something more nuanced and complex, thats different. And it is common for universities to use 'academic freedom' to hide racist/sexist reasons for not tenuring people (or to hide sexual harassment)

Quote
...because the people who founded the United States of America, and built the country were from Western Europe?

It covers slavery and colonization because those were unfortunate events that happened in the timespan.  I never said that that timeframe was perfect, I just said it was the best.  You can have a best at something and still have things that aren't perfect.

Why is it the best? How are slavery and colonization not inherently tied to culture at this time? Why can they be separated?

Quote
They shouldn't go through me.  Academic integrity and honesty should be handled, like I was taught, through peer review.  The people in the profession should decide what's worth studying and what's not.  But the regressive left has essentially built themselves an echo chamber inside academia - which goes against peer review.

If her work was published in a journal, then it was peer reviewed. You seem to know little abt academia

Quote
What part of I can't did you miss?

...I just said that I don't get to decide, that should be left to the experts.

As for Twilight vs Shakespeare, you're right.  I shouldn't judge.  After all, the Bard only wrote 400 years ago.  It's not fair to judge them with the same stick.  Tell you what.  400 years from now, if people are still studying Twilight, you can come find my grave and tell me I was wrong.  I won't be able to reply, because I'll be dead, but you know, semantics.

Like Kythia pointed out, her articles are available online :)

Quote
Show me where I said that.  Please.  I ask you.

I have.  It's nothing special to write home about.  Keep in mind that Kanye said he would boycott the Grammy Awards unless he won Album of the Year...despite not being nominated.

The Kardashians, Jersey Shore, Real Housewives...they're all cut from the same cloth: watching badly behaved people.  These are supposed to be our cultural icons?  The people our children are supposed to look up to?

And why do you think it's not bottom barrel culture?  Hm?  What's good and uplifting and inspiring about any of it?

What you elevate and what you cast down say it very clearly! I don't think it's bottom barrel culture because I don't think such a thing exists.

Quote
How do you know?  Have you read Lord of the Rings?  Why do you think it's such a 'fucking yawn fest'?  Have you read HP Lovecraft?  And yes, you're right, he was totally racist in a time where nobody else was.  I guess that means that I shouldn't read anything that was written by people who were sexists or racists or bigots.  Can you recommend some non-sexist/racist/bigoted material for me to absorb?

Why does it matter if I've read them or not? You are happy to give your opinions about things you haven't read at all. No where did I say you can't read it but why should I consider it high culture? And if you legitimately want non sexist/racist/bigoted material, you could google a bunch of different things and find some useful stuff

Quote from: ReijiTabibito
Two - of the remaining articles left, a couple of those are just quick 2 minute summaries on her work there.  At least, I'm assuming they are.

Three - one article is literally about the troubles various Missouri U faculty members faced while pregnant.  If I wanted an explanation on that, I don't need to read an article, I can just pick up the phone and call a few people I know.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide
At first, we were shocked by the interest in and praise for Twilight's message of abstinence. We thought surely teens would find this message irrelevant and puritanical, especially against the backdrop of the hypersexualized American media landscape in which teen characters typically engage in hookups and other sexually permissive activities.

[2.6] Nevertheless, as we have reflected more on the fans' interpretation, the draw to Twilight's abstinence message makes sense. In general, the girls idolized Edward Cullen as a romantic hero. We must connect this idolization to where teen girls are developmentally. In adolescence, girls become interested in romance and dating. Not surprisingly, at the same time, they become more aware of social norms that suggest that they should have romantic feelings for someone of the opposite sex (Simon, Eder, and Evans 1992). Typically, young girls develop crushes on teen idols (and we see Edward here as fulfilling the role of the teen idol, albeit a fictional one) as a way of acknowledging their emerging sexual feelings in a safe, nonthreatening way (Engle and Kasser 2005). In this context, Twilight's Edward is a powerful exception to typical teen boys, who are often viewed by girls as only interested in sex (McRobbie 1991). In contrast, the teen idols to whom girls are typically drawn project a feminine form of masculinity that is sexually nonthreatening and thus accessible (Engle and Kasser 2005; Karniol 2001; McRobbie 1991; Sweeney 1994). Edward represents a "safe" sexuality: his simultaneous passion for Bella and his protection of her virtue result in a romantic hero who is both sexually charged and chaste.

[2.7] The appeal of Twilight's abstinence that we discovered by interviewing and surveying fans was not the most frequently mentioned topic by our sample, yet it was perhaps one of the most eye-opening themes that we uncovered. We went into the project thinking that teen fans would roll their eyes at Twilight for not containing enough sex. Instead, Twilight appealed to some of the fans we studied precisely because it was not oversaturated with sexual permissiveness.

...

[5.5] Our analysis of Twilight's fans and messages suggests that the series is influential in teens' understanding of sexuality. Because "the media [have] become the key site for defining codes of sexual conduct" (McRobbie 2004, 257), they are an important site of investigation of gender and sexuality norms.

This is fascinating. Maybe actually read it, you know? And why is it bad to write an article about people's lived experiences? Why are you so anti-intellectual?
« Last Edit: February 22, 2016, 12:19:41 PM by Maiz »

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Free speech on Twitter?
« Reply #38 on: February 22, 2016, 12:19:34 PM »

That depends.  Did your 7th grade English teacher ask you to write it at a collegiate level?  Quality is one of those subjective terms that changes depending on where you go and who you talk to.  A good quality paper written by a high school sophomore isn't going to look the same as a good quality paper written by a doctorate student, even if they are on the same subject.

That's not really relevant - you are dismissing the value or quality of this person's articles because of their subject matter, without ever having read them or anything about them other than that they exist and are about something you don't like. My point is that the subject matter is irrelevant to the quality of the work and the professionalism it is written at, exactly as you are arguing in return.

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Free speech on Twitter?
« Reply #39 on: February 22, 2016, 12:21:44 PM »
Sorry, you lost me. My comment was in response to your repeated and emphasised insistence that you couldn't read her articles. It now seems you can but don't want to read even the free ones for various reasons, have I understood right? What did you originally try when you came to the conclusion you couldn't read them?

Offline ReijiTabibito

  • Gatecrasher
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: Titanian Autonomous University, Gate Studies Dept.
  • Gender: Male
  • There cannot be another Fall.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Free speech on Twitter?
« Reply #40 on: February 22, 2016, 12:37:43 PM »
That's not really relevant - you are dismissing the value or quality of this person's articles because of their subject matter, without ever having read them or anything about them other than that they exist and are about something you don't like. My point is that the subject matter is irrelevant to the quality of the work and the professionalism it is written at, exactly as you are arguing in return.

So if subject matter is irrelevant to the quality of the work and professionalism it's written at, then what are we supposed to take away from that?  It's okay to write about anything at long as it's good quality and professional in return?

That said, this has nothing to do with what you think about the topic at hand.

Why are you so anti-intellectual?

*empty room echo*

Sorry, you lost me. My comment was in response to your repeated and emphasised insistence that you couldn't read her articles. It now seems you can but don't want to read even the free ones for various reasons, have I understood right? What did you originally try when you came to the conclusion you couldn't read them?

I made the rookie mistake of clicking the first link in the bunch, seeing the pay-to-read, and assuming that all the rest were the same.  But at least I went back and found I was wrong rather than arrogantly assume that I was right.

Online LisztesFerenc

Re: Free speech on Twitter?
« Reply #41 on: February 22, 2016, 12:40:11 PM »
The Council is a concession of Twitter to the SJWs, who will use it to suppress free speech in the name of social justice and 'correct' speech.

  Why is this automatically a bad? Twitter is a private entity, it is free to impose a "correct speech" policy that supersedes the government's free speech, and whilst I agree it is problematic in practice to manage, I don't see it automatically being bad. Plenty of websites do not allow political discussions because of how heated they become, yet life goes one. I don't buy this all or nothing approach whereby we cannot possible regulate some of the more nastier debate tactics on the internet and twitter. Again, I do however acknowledge their implementation will be tricky and could be counter productive, but to dismiss the possibility of their success sounds  a lot like a perfect solution fallacy.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Free speech on Twitter?
« Reply #42 on: February 22, 2016, 12:43:13 PM »
I made my feelings about the topic at hand bluntly clear on the first page - this is reactionary panic for the sake of reactionary panic, with a hefty dose of complaining about a problem that doesn't exist.

Offline ReijiTabibito

  • Gatecrasher
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: Titanian Autonomous University, Gate Studies Dept.
  • Gender: Male
  • There cannot be another Fall.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Free speech on Twitter?
« Reply #43 on: February 22, 2016, 12:52:32 PM »
Twitter is a private entity, it is free to impose a "correct speech" policy that supersedes the government's free speech, and whilst I agree it is problematic in practice to manage, I don't see it automatically being bad.

That can be a particularly dangerous precedent.  If you say that private entities are allows to supersede the authority of the government, even in one case, for something that might potentially be beneficial, you risk someone using that precedent down the road for something that's not so nice.

I don't buy this all or nothing approach whereby we cannot possible regulate some of the more nastier debate tactics on the internet and twitter. Again, I do however acknowledge their implementation will be tricky and could be counter productive, but to dismiss the possibility of their success sounds  a lot like a perfect solution fallacy.

We can.  It's called teaching people to debate properly and not be a total jerk.  Also, just to point out.  Any restriction on free speech is technically against the Constitution.  However, we are willing to recognize that some trade-offs are more beneficial.  We don't allow people to shout fire in a crowded theater falsely because of the potential consequences of that action.

I made my feelings about the topic at hand bluntly clear on the first page - this is reactionary panic for the sake of reactionary panic, with a hefty dose of complaining about a problem that doesn't exist.

You and I say it doesn't exist, but the fact remains that people still think that it is.

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Free speech on Twitter?
« Reply #44 on: February 22, 2016, 12:56:32 PM »
Any restrictions on free speech is against the constitution? Seriously? So Oniya, above, posting a link because there was a child in the image was her bowing to unconstitutional rules?

I think you've overstated your case there. Wind it back a bit.

Offline Far eyes

Re: Free speech on Twitter?
« Reply #45 on: February 22, 2016, 12:57:19 PM »
As someone who has lived through a number of different 'pop cultures', I can only say this:

Linked because I'm not sure how old that top guy is in the picture.

Lets not even pretend the rest of those guys are any place near Freddie Mercury level, vocally or artistically. On a good day most of the top 3 can sort of hit a note. Freddie Mercury had a 5 octave range voice, if you know anything about vocalists you know how mind blowing that is.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Free speech on Twitter?
« Reply #46 on: February 22, 2016, 12:59:03 PM »
I don't think we are saying the same thing. You've been talking about how 'SJWs' are causing the downfall of modern civilization by militantly forcing everyone to exist in padded pillows of non-offensive language. I'm saying that is ridiculous, and entirely a construct of people with persecution complexes looking for something to feel attacked about.

Case in point, the OP. This supposed 'council' has literally no power or ability, no authority, and no relevance, but because it might possibly have some potential ability to maybe censor someone according to some undefined arbitrary standard, it's the end of Twitter. It's fearmongering for no end except manufactured outrage.

Online LisztesFerenc

Re: Free speech on Twitter?
« Reply #47 on: February 22, 2016, 01:02:45 PM »
We can.  It's called teaching people to debate properly and not be a total jerk.  Also, just to point out.  Any restriction on free speech is technically against the Constitution.

  No, the government restricting your freedom of speech is against the Constitution. Private business and citizens are permitted to in their own private space.

Offline ReijiTabibito

  • Gatecrasher
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: Titanian Autonomous University, Gate Studies Dept.
  • Gender: Male
  • There cannot be another Fall.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Free speech on Twitter?
« Reply #48 on: February 22, 2016, 01:06:16 PM »
Any restrictions on free speech is against the constitution? Seriously? So Oniya, above, posting a link because there was a child in the image was her bowing to unconstitutional rules?

I think you've overstated your case there. Wind it back a bit.

Free speech means you get to say whatever you want, and not have to worry about the police coming to your house to lock you up because you said it.  In the wake of the Missouri stuff, the local police actually told people to call them to report hurtful speech.  That is not the government's business.

Also, I point out that Oniya posted the link (as opposed to the regular picture) because she was unable to ascertain the age of Bieber (hiss!) in that particular image, and E has a voluntarily-agreed upon rule not to depict children under the age of 16.  There was another picture, of Josef Stalin with a small child, that was linked for the exact same reason.  Oniya can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that the rule about 'no pictures of people under 16' is less to do with free speech and more to do with laws and statutes regarding child pornography.

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Free speech on Twitter?
« Reply #49 on: February 22, 2016, 01:09:06 PM »
It's not clear you've fully understood what free speech is. Rules regarding posting child pornography are a restriction on free speech. And hence, per you, unconstitutional.

I think I'm done. Nice talking with y'all. Enjoyed it.