Im afraid I cant see the bigger picture on cancelled tv shows/statues

[Elegiac]

I don't sound unfair here, but the opposite of letting such mediums circulate is, well, censorship.

Censorship is good sometimes? Shocking concept, I know, but unrestricted speech is the law in exactly no developed country for a reason.

It is not a binary choice, either, as seen when Warner Brothers began attaching this disclaimer to a lot of its older projects.



Similarly, when Disney released a lot of its old wartime shorts which are, in a word, problematic - it did so with prologues by various academics/historians explaining the context in which these clips exist.

I didn't understand this nor am I familiar with the later.

I really don't think you're prepared to engage in a discussion about depictions of ethnic and cultural groups in media if you don't know what Birth of a Nation is, dude. It's kind of required reading.

[Endus]

I't clearly says its a structure on their homepage. They want to "disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another"

Important word in bold that you deliberately ignored to attack an argument different from what they were actually talking about.

In exactly the way I already described.

The nuclear family is the most common variant at least here in Scandinavia, and I dont see how its existence is problematic towards people who choose other family systems. Even "Collective" ones that your clearly marxist organization is pushing as a solution.

It's a fictitious anachronism. The term basically dates back to the Atomic Era of the '40s, and the family framework it describes is a non-standard one for that time, and one that has turned out to be unconstructive and in many cases directly harmful to personal outcomes.

But thanks for the laugh at tacking on "Marxist" and demonstrating how thoroughly rooted in McCarthyist propaganda your views are.

[Elegiac]

To be fair, I never said it was simply because of that. I just said that it's something that's not being talked about. You can change everything, but if you keep giving guns and power to ignorant people then the impact you could have had diminishes. Take this out of the whole racial context. Do you feel safe knowing that the people that "protect you" did their training in 3 months? It has to change

Why on earth would I take it out of the racial context? You cannot discuss policing in America without discussing racial animus. It's like asking me to discuss photosynthesis without talking about sunlight.

[Endus]

Why on earth would I take it out of the racial context? You cannot discuss policing in America without discussing racial animus. It's like asking me to discuss photosynthesis without talking about sunlight.

Taking American police structure and policy "out of the racial context" is like trying to discuss Western expansionism "outside of the colonial context".

It's impossible, because it's fundamentally and deeply defined within that very context.

[PosPosPos]

No, it is a straw man you built, because you are in fact the bigot my friend.

You said you were willing to tolerate bigotry for the sake of some contrived pretext. That tolerance of bigotry is what makes you a bigot, where I am not.

You are however more than welcome to point out how you somehow didn't say what you clearly said earlier, I am awaiting the inevitable "what I really really meant" from you.

[Elegiac]

Taking American police structure and policy "out of the racial context" is like trying to discuss Western expansionism "outside of the colonial context".

It's impossible, because it's fundamentally and deeply defined within that very context.

Well yeah but that's the game, man. Can't acknowledge systemic racism if you always remove things from the context of racism. :galaxybrain:

[Adam Jensen]

It's a way of saying "hey look we're fixing the problem" without fixing the problem or arresting Breonna Taylor's murderers

[Jotaux]

Canada's requirements are only 5 weeks more of training, and while we aren't doing great still way better than the US. I doubt those 5 weeks are making all the difference.

Obviously, the quality of training matters as well but I think there's another factor at play as well as the amount of training.

[Grimbold21]

Censorship is good sometimes? Shocking concept, I know, but unrestricted speech is the law in exactly no developed country for a reason.

It is not a binary choice, either, as seen when Warner Brothers began attaching this disclaimer to a lot of its older projects.



Similarly, when Disney released a lot of its old wartime shorts which are, in a word, problematic - it did so with prologues by various academics/historians explaining the context in which these clips exist.



I really don't think you're prepared to engage in a discussion about depictions of ethnic and cultural groups in media if you don't know what Birth of a Nation is, dude. It's kind of required reading.

Them being problematic is still not grounds to have them removed.

Required reading for... what exactly? What course am I engaging here?

[Elegiac]

Them being problematic is still not grounds to have them removed.

That's your opinion, but given that the presence of these monuments has done exactly fuck all to actually inform the public about the truth then maybe we should be questioning why they should exist at all.

Required reading for... what exactly? What course am I engaging here?

I was under the impression you wanted people to consider your position informed.

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

And no, this isn't just "American history", this has to do with the inception of blockbuster cinema as a concept.

[Themius]

I don't sound unfair here, but the opposite of letting such mediums circulate is, well, censorship.



I didn't understand this nor am I familiar with the later.

Regardless, I suppose we fundamentally disagree. I don't think the sensible nature of certain topics portrayed in whatever type of medium is cause to have them partially or fully censored.

It seems like an awfully childish position to take. If I may be so reductive, it's like applying the logic of myself watching DBZ when I was 13 and trying to go Super Saiyan to adulthood. Yes, yes. they are plenty of ignorant people out there.

- - - Updated - - -



The similarity and point is that both, I assume, portray horrible situations and systems. That's the entire gist of this discussion, that media portrayals of, at the very least, controversial situations ought not to be grounds for their removal, well, according to some people anyway.

Also, my familiarity with Gone with the Wind goes as far as it being an example of the above.

If you are not familiar with gone with the wind maybe don't talk about it? Maybe don't try to draw comparisons with a movie that shows how great it is to be a mammy, while trying to compare to it 12 years a slave which is a more honest representation of the horrors of the time.

You can't admit ignorance, but still contend.

[Ragnarohk]

Why on earth would I take it out of the racial context? You cannot discuss policing in America without discussing racial animus. It's like asking me to discuss photosynthesis without talking about sunlight.

Maybe I expressed myself incorrectly. Even as a white person, I would not feel safe with some random guy that graduated in 3 months. Solving the race thing is good, i'm all for that. I'm just trying to bring up an issue that I thought was relevant.

[Elegiac]

If you are not familiar with gone with the wind maybe don't talk about it? Maybe don't try to draw comparisons with a movie that shows how great it is to be a mammy, while trying to compare to it 12 years a slave which is a more honest representation of the horrors of the time.

You can't admit ignorance, but still contend.

I am a connoisseur of Western Culture that does not make the West look bad. /s

[Grimbold21]

That's your opinion, but given that the presence of these monuments has done exactly fuck all to actually inform the public about the truth then maybe we should be questioning why they should exist at all.



I was under the impression you wanted people to consider your position informed.

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

And no, this isn't just "American history", this has to do with the inception of blockbuster cinema as a concept.

So we are at a difference of opinions then. That's perfectly fine and a good debate to have, and one that I went through a few times during my masters. However, I was talking about media. But, in regard to statues, my positions have been made clear elsewhere.

I consider my position informed. I have read books depicting, at the minimum, contentious situations. Not being familiar with the book you wish me to be doesn't dismiss that.

[Aurgjelme]

Important word in bold that you deliberately ignored to attack an argument different from what they were actually talking about.

In exactly the way I already described.



It's a fictitious anachronism. The term basically dates back to the Atomic Era of the '40s, and the family framework it describes is a non-standard one for that time, and one that has turned out to be unconstructive and in many cases directly harmful to personal outcomes.

But thanks for the laugh at tacking on "Marxist" and demonstrating how thoroughly rooted in McCarthyist propaganda your views are.

"Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary puts the approximated first-time usage of the word to between 1925-1947.

The word `nuclear` supposedly originated from the Latin word `nucleus`, which in turn originates from the Latin word `nux` which translates roughly into `nut` in English, a sort of metaphoric reference to the core of something (use your average nutty fruit as an example).

Thus the nuclear family is the family with a single core (i.e the parents) ```plus``` direct descendants (the children)"

"In the past, a family that prayed together, lived together. This meant a joint family system that included grand parent along with all their sons, their wives and their children. The eldest man was the head of the family and had the ‘deciding vote’ and his word was law. The women worked in the kitchen together and looked after the children whilst the men worked or ran their family business. There was, allegedly, a lot of emotion shared and they bonded well. This was given a special category of its own - the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).

However, the younger generation widened its horizons and saw that there was much more to life than the harboured style of existence. Brides with advanced education did not cotton to the interference and forced style suggested by the mothers-in-law. A broader point of view emerged in conflict, thus causing a rift within the HUF. The first seeds of dissent had been sowed. The solution seemed to be to move away from the HUF and maintain peace. This gave birth to the concept of nuclear families that set up their own establishment, lived their own lives with self-determined standards and values and reared their own children in a different way. The nuclear family members have visiting rights and try to keep bonds."

I am glad I could give you a giggle comrade.

[Grimbold21]

If you are not familiar with gone with the wind maybe don't talk about it? Maybe don't try to draw comparisons with a movie that shows how great it is to be a mammy, while trying to compare to it 12 years a slave which is a more honest representation of the horrors of the time.

You can't admit ignorance, but still contend.

Did I speak about Gone with the Wind? I did not. I didn't mention nor did I expand on it.

Like I said, I'm familiar with it to the extent that I know it deals with controversial themes, which is, again, what this is about.

[PosPosPos]

I am glad I could give you a giggle comrade.

Your comrades in Republicans would love to giggle with a fellow bigot in you, as they discriminate against LGBTQs, racial minorities, and the middle-lower classes.

It's fun how you try to pretend a problem created by your Republican comrades isn't a problem, in order to propagate said problem.

[Themius]

Did I speak about Gone with the Wind? I did not. I didn't mention nor did I expand on it.

Like I said, I'm familiar with it to the extent that I know it deals with controversial themes, which is, again, what this is about.

No, it is and has always been about context and history you decided to move goalpost and make it about something extremely narrow to suit yourself.

No one else is fucking that chicken... you can keep fucking that chicken by yourself if you want.

[Grimbold21]

No, it is and has always been about context and history you decided to move goalpost and make it about something extremely narrow to suit yourself.

No one else is fucking that chicken... you can keep fucking that chicken by yourself if you want.

Moving goalposts? Hold on, let me see

My original post was, basically: It is as if we've forgotten that satire, jokes in general, or actors playing certain characters are not themselves representative of moral positions related to the situation that is being portrayed.

The discussion with Elegiac moves on to literature that has controversial themes, and that's what I was always arguing about. Controversial works or works containing such representations shouldn't be censored.

I don't believe that constitutes moving goal posts.

[Aurgjelme]

Your comrades in Republicans would love to giggle with a fellow bigot in you, as they discriminate against LGBTQs, racial minorities, and the middle-lower classes.

It's fun how you try to pretend a problem created by your Republican comrades isn't a problem, in order to propagate said problem.

Hehe, no. I dont have any republican friends I'm afraid. Whatever friends i have in America mostly vote democrats or does not give a shit and stays out of the wasps nest.

I live in glorious socialist nation of Scandinavian utopia and I vote labor. I've walked in pride marches since 2003 and I've never discriminated anyone because of their skin color =)