What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The “Woke” thread (1 Viewer)

Last edited by a moderator:
Snotbubbles said:
It would be better if comics would present the message that his sexual orientation is irrelevant.  
Click to expand...
It's probably easy for us to say that.   I think people like consuming entertainment that reflects their life and allows them to see characters like them in the stories.   In that context, I think it's relevant and refreshing to see some of these changes.  

 
rockaction said:
This has been coming plain as day since the real thrust started about ten years ago. They weren't stopping with Confederate General statues, they were coming after everyone who was a part of the system. One can make good faith arguments about why we shouldn't revere slaveholders, but one cannot -- and could not -- have made good faith arguments that this slippery slope wasn't exactly where we were going to land. Washington and Jefferson and those who were in Virginia and the South were never escaping the relentless extension of analogical logic. They couldn't possibly. 
Click to expand...
We need to stop scrutinizing historic figures through the lens of todays norms. It is just not possible to assume that a person living a few hundred years ago could ever think and act the same way we do today. You would need to cancel the whole society then b/c aside from massive contributions or actions that got that person in the spotlight to begin with, pretty much every single person of that time thought, acted and spoke the same. 

Canceling people like Washington or Jefferson wipes away the contributions they made to this country simply because they actually contributed. Unlike some other salve owning family down the dirt road who did nothing of notoriety and simply just owned salves and profited off of them. But he will get a pass b/c of the fact that he never did anything worthy of being remember 200+ years later. 

We can agree that things like slave owning and genocide are unacceptable acts today. However like it or not, that was the norm years ago. I can only imagine what people 200 years from now may think about us? Will we be looked at as environmental criminals simply because we owed gas fueled cars? Or population abusers because we had more than 1 kid? 

Its sad that people cant see through the garbage rhetoric

 
glvsav37 said:
We need to stop scrutinizing historic figures through the lens of todays norms. It is just not possible to assume that a person living a few hundred years ago could ever think and act the same way we do today. You would need to cancel the whole society then b/c aside from massive contributions or actions that got that person in the spotlight to begin with, pretty much every single person of that time thought, acted and spoke the same. 

Canceling people like Washington or Jefferson wipes away the contributions they made to this country simply because they actually contributed. Unlike some other salve owning family down the dirt road who did nothing of notoriety and simply just owned salves and profited off of them. But he will get a pass b/c of the fact that he never did anything worthy of being remember 200+ years later. 

We can agree that things like slave owning and genocide are unacceptable acts today. However like it or not, that was the norm years ago. I can only imagine what people 200 years from now may think about us? Will we be looked at as environmental criminals simply because we owed gas fueled cars? Or population abusers because we had more than 1 kid? 

Its sad that people cant see through the garbage rhetoric
Click to expand...
There's a whole lot of historical context that needs to be understood for a proper evaluation of these men if we are not to be absolutists. It's a shame that our dialogue trends toward logical extensions and the extremity that logical exercises and discrete categories bring, rather than a nuanced look that takes into account the time period in which they were alive. I fear that in the future we won't get that nuanced approach, and that the condemnation by analogy and revisionism will lead the way.

 
glvsav37 said:
We need to stop scrutinizing historic figures through the lens of todays norms. It is just not possible to assume that a person living a few hundred years ago could ever think and act the same way we do today. You would need to cancel the whole society then b/c aside from massive contributions or actions that got that person in the spotlight to begin with, pretty much every single person of that time thought, acted and spoke the same. 

Canceling people like Washington or Jefferson wipes away the contributions they made to this country simply because they actually contributed. Unlike some other salve owning family down the dirt road who did nothing of notoriety and simply just owned salves and profited off of them. But he will get a pass b/c of the fact that he never did anything worthy of being remember 200+ years later. 

We can agree that things like slave owning and genocide are unacceptable acts today. However like it or not, that was the norm years ago. I can only imagine what people 200 years from now may think about us? Will we be looked at as environmental criminals simply because we owed gas fueled cars? Or population abusers because we had more than 1 kid? 

Its sad that people cant see through the garbage rhetoric
Click to expand...
Yikes

 
Roger Sterling said:
Yikes
Click to expand...


Actually the "yikes" could go for the whole world since the start of mankind.    And much of it still today in other lands.

Could you imagine being tossed off a building tied up because you are gay? Or stoned to death because you want out of a a marriage?  Or having you wife and daughters raped and taken away by armed so called military?  Still happening today.

 
Snotbubbles said:
It would be better if comics would present the message that his sexual orientation is irrelevant.  
Click to expand...
Can you flesh this out a bit? Superman had a love interest. Are you thinking it will be better that there is no love interest aspect to junior’s story? Or it’s fine if he has a love interest and it turns out to be a dude, there’s just no need to talk about it before it happens?

 
bigbottom said:
Can you flesh this out a bit? Superman had a love interest. Are you thinking it will be better that there is no love interest aspect to junior’s story? Or it’s fine if he has a love interest and it turns out to be a dude, there’s just no need to talk about it before it happens?
Click to expand...


Yes, it's a comic book.  I believe that the target audience of these comics are pre-teens and young adults.  There isn't a need to inundate them with sexual themes on this type on that medium.  That it's been done before, doesn't make it ok.  I also don't believe as Karma said above that the average person looks at a comic book character to see if they are relatable to them, especially a made up character that isn't even of the human race.  If an individual needs to have Superman or Superman's son be relatable to them, then they probably aren't mature enough to handle the sexual topics being proffered anyway.  To me, the message to young people should be that your sexual preference doesn't need to be broadcast to the general public because it's a personal matter.    

 
KarmaPolice said:
I agree that's dumb, but that link didn't have to do with those two specifically.   You would classify that as "evil" too?  

ETA:  I didn't even see either of the colleges talked about on that list you provided.  
Click to expand...


The silencing of non-riotous speech is evil.    

 
Snotbubbles said:
Yes, it's a comic book.  I believe that the target audience of these comics are pre-teens and young adults.  There isn't a need to inundate them with sexual themes on this type on that medium.  That it's been done before, doesn't make it ok.  I also don't believe as Karma said above that the average person looks at a comic book character to see if they are relatable to them, especially a made up character that isn't even of the human race.  If an individual needs to have Superman or Superman's son be relatable to them, then they probably aren't mature enough to handle the sexual topics being proffered anyway.  To me, the message to young people should be that your sexual preference doesn't need to be broadcast to the general public because it's a personal matter.    
Click to expand...
Are you saying that it was wrong to have Lois Lane as a love interest in Superman comics?

 
bigbottom said:
Are you saying that it was wrong to have Lois Lane as a love interest in Superman comics?
Click to expand...


I'm saying that Superman's sex life isn't something that needs to be fleshed out in comic books, especially considering the target audience.  It's an unnecessary plot line and the story could have been written such that Superman and Lois Lane were best friends and all the emotional attachments that Superman had for Lois would still apply.

 
Snotbubbles said:
I'm saying that Superman's sex life isn't something that needs to be fleshed out in comic books, especially considering the target audience.  It's an unnecessary plot line and the story could have been written such that Superman and Lois Lane were best friends and all the emotional attachments that Superman had for Lois would still apply.
Click to expand...
Understood, but that seems like an unusually puritanical view. I mean Snow White and Cinderella had love interests after all.

 
It is bad to remove Thomas Jefferson. It is good to remove Confederate statues. We can have “cancel culture”, it can be a good thing, and then we can criticize it when it goes too far, as in this case. We needn’t use the Jefferson example to condemn the entire movement; there are no slippery slopes. 

 
Snotbubbles said:
I'm saying that Superman's sex life isn't something that needs to be fleshed out in comic books, especially considering the target audience .  It's an unnecessary plot line and the story could have been written such that Superman and Lois Lane were best friends and all the emotional attachments that Superman had for Lois would still apply.
Click to expand...
Comic book readers get older all the time. In order to be competitive DC has to have sophisticated, adult storylines for their characters. 

 
timschochet said:
It is bad to remove Thomas Jefferson. It is good to remove Confederate statues. We can have “cancel culture”, it can be a good thing, and then we can criticize it when it goes too far, as in this case. We needn’t use the Jefferson example to condemn the entire movement; there are no slippery slopes. 
Click to expand...


How can you say there is no slippery slope when the largest city in America just sled all the way down the slope?  It has reached a mainstream part of the movement.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Besides, the fundamental premise that people should be canceled because they do not conform to societal norms is wrong.  It is amazing how people umderstand it when they are the ones being castrated, but as soon as they are the ones doing the castrating it becomes a great idea.   People can not handle power.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
How can you say there is no slippery slope when the largest city in America just sled all the way down the slope?  It has reached a mainstream part of the movement.  
Click to expand...
Because it’s good to remove certain people and bad to remove others. The problem with your argument is that, according to you, we never should have started this in the first place, and I don’t accept that. 

 
Snotbubbles said:
Yes, it's a comic book.  I believe that the target audience of these comics are pre-teens and young adults.  There isn't a need to inundate them with sexual themes on this type on that medium.  That it's been done before, doesn't make it ok.  I also don't believe as Karma said above that the average person looks at a comic book character to see if they are relatable to them, especially a made up character that isn't even of the human race.  If an individual needs to have Superman or Superman's son be relatable to them, then they probably aren't mature enough to handle the sexual topics being proffered anyway.  To me, the message to young people should be that your sexual preference doesn't need to be broadcast to the general public because it's a personal matter.    
Click to expand...
I am not talking about the average person.  The average person is represented a ton in culture.   
 

I am also not saying it has to be comic books, but just saying that people like to see others they can relate to in things.   It's natural.   Now, we don't need to inject it in every story, but I think that we are seeing more black, female, bi, whatever characters like this is a good thing.   

As far as the 2nd bolded, I think you underestimate how often straight people do this without thinking about it.   Hell, just little things like reading through the TV and movie threads - how often do we interject how hot the actress is in show/movie?  Has 0 to do with the content, but we have to comment and broadcast our sexuality.  Seems like when gay or bi people do similar it's more "come on, keep that to yourself - it's private".  

As somebody else pointed out - I think you are also underestimating the age of people reading these comics.  

 
jon_mx said:
Besides, the fundamental premise that people should be canceled because they do not conform to societal norms is wrong.  
Click to expand...
No it isn’t. It depends on the person and the societal norms they’re not conforming to. 
For instance: if it were suddenly revealed that President Biden was a secret Nazi with a shrine to Adolf Hitler in his bedroom, that would be the end of most people’s support for him. And after he resigned in disgrace, he would become effectively canceled. And that’s right. 

 
timschochet said:
No it isn’t. It depends on the person and the societal norms they’re not conforming to. 
For instance: if it were suddenly revealed that President Biden was a secret Nazi with a shrine to Adolf Hitler in his bedroom, that would be the end of most people’s support for him. And after he resigned in disgrace, he would become effectively canceled. And that’s right. 
Click to expand...


I wish I had your confidence. I think he comes out with a few "c'mon man's", blames Russia, and his PR team laughs it off, with MSM backing them all the way.

I am really sad over the ease with which people are being manipulated.

 
Roger Sterling said:
Yikes
Click to expand...
Why "Yikes" ??

People in Roman times thought having men eaten by lions was entertaining
Citizens in Ghengas Khan's time celebrated when he returned with his enemies heads on spikes.

You dont think that most people in the south (and some in the north) thought slavery was a a normal part of life? 

I wonder what they thought about Transgenders? Or the use of assault rifles?  Oh right, they didnt exist. So you cant hold them to the thought processes and standards that exist today. 

James Madison proposed and wrote the 2nd amendment. Should we cancel him because of all these school and workplace shootings we have? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
No it isn’t. It depends on the person and the societal norms they’re not conforming to. 
For instance: if it were suddenly revealed that President Biden was a secret Nazi with a shrine to Adolf Hitler in his bedroom, that would be the end of most people’s support for him. And after he resigned in disgrace, he would become effectively canceled. And that’s right. 
Click to expand...
But context matters. Being a "natzi" today is commonly known as wrong and not acceptable bc we have a pretty solid history to back that up.

However owning slaves in Colonial times was as common as owning a car today with no precedent to show otherwise. We have the luxury of looking at the past and critiquing it, but when you are living in the current time and it was socially acceptable, I dont completely blame them for it. I can separate the contributions to our country and the nuances of his everyday life. I'm not saying slavery was ok or acceptable, but it was acceptable back then for their own reasons. 

Similar example would be Bill Cosby. His comedy was great, but unbeknownst to everyone, he was drugging and raping women.  At no time in his life, was that an acceptable action. So even though it came out years after his career ended, I have no problem never watching anything he did ever again. 

In 100 years, it may be socially decided that betting money and profiting off of men playing a barbaric game for our entertainment, which turned out to be detrimentally bad for their health and caused high rates of premature disablement and suicides, was evil and outlawed. Should any contribution you or I possibly do in our lifetimes be removed b/c we participated in that entertainment?


But that said, there are currently societies and cultures that still engage in slavery and other barbaric acts. Yet we have "Canceled" our historic figures with more hatred and vitriol than we direct at those current groups. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Because it’s good to remove certain people and bad to remove others. The problem with your argument is that, according to you, we never should have started this in the first place, and I don’t accept that. 
Click to expand...


Throughout history, man's ability to abuse power is right near 100 percent. We are empowering faceless mobs to cancel people based on the flimsiest of evidence.  There is no due process.  No checks and balances.  People are being publicly lynched all the time with no recourse.  A few super popular people may be able to overcome, but for the most part people are being unfairly casted out for the most minor alledged infractions.  It is a mob mentality which has no place administering rapid cancelations in a civil and free society. 

 
glvsav37 said:
But context matters. Being a "natzi" today is commonly known as wrong and not acceptable bc we have a pretty solid history to back that up.

However owning slaves in Colonial times was as common as owning a car today with no precedent to show otherwise. We have the luxury of looking at the past and critiquing it, but when you are living in the current time and it was socially acceptable, I dont completely blame them for it. I can separate the contributions to our country and the nuances of his everyday life. I'm not saying slavery was ok or acceptable, but it was acceptable back then for their own reasons. 

Similar example would be Bill Cosby. His comedy was great, but unbeknownst to everyone, he was drugging and raping women.  At no time in his life, was that an acceptable action. So even though it came out years after his career ended, I have no problem never watching anything he did ever again. 

In 100 years, it may be socially decided that betting money and profiting off of men playing a barbaric game for our entertainment, which turned out to be detrimentally bad for their health and caused high rates of premature disablement and suicides, was evil and outlawed. Should any contribution you or I possibly do in our lifetimes be removed b/c we participated in that entertainment?


But that said, there are currently societies and cultures that still engage in slavery and other barbaric acts. Yet we have "Canceled" our historic figures with more hatred and vitriol than we direct at those current groups. 
Click to expand...


Also being a nazi in today's society could be as simple as supporting voter ID laws.  

 
Sparky Big Time said:
I believe the true definition of a "nazi" has been discarded and now instead refers to anyone that does not fall in line with leftist radicalism.
Click to expand...


The biggest crime today is between suggesting there might have been voter fraud or gasp, suggesting that vacinne mandates are right.  Either of those crimes of mass destruction will get you thrown off social media. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
Throughout history, man's ability to abuse power is right near 100 percent. We are empowering faceless mobs to cancel people based on the flimsiest of evidence.  There is no due process.  No checks and balances.  People are being publicly lynched all the time with no recourse.  A few super popular people may be able to overcome, but for the most part people are being unfairly casted out for the most minor alledged infractions.  It is a mob mentality which has no place administering rapid cancelations in a civil and free society. 
Click to expand...
Lynching means being strung up a tree and hung until dead by an angry mob. It doesn’t mean what you’re describing here. 

 
glvsav37 said:
But context matters. Being a "natzi" today is commonly known as wrong and not acceptable bc we have a pretty solid history to back that up.

However owning slaves in Colonial times was as common as owning a car today with no precedent to show otherwise. We have the luxury of looking at the past and critiquing it, but when you are living in the current time and it was socially acceptable, I dont completely blame them for it. I can separate the contributions to our country and the nuances of his everyday life. I'm not saying slavery was ok or acceptable, but it was acceptable back then for their own reasons. 

Similar example would be Bill Cosby. His comedy was great, but unbeknownst to everyone, he was drugging and raping women.  At no time in his life, was that an acceptable action. So even though it came out years after his career ended, I have no problem never watching anything he did ever again. 

In 100 years, it may be socially decided that betting money and profiting off of men playing a barbaric game for our entertainment, which turned out to be detrimentally bad for their health and caused high rates of premature disablement and suicides, was evil and outlawed. Should any contribution you or I possibly do in our lifetimes be removed b/c we participated in that entertainment?


But that said, there are currently societies and cultures that still engage in slavery and other barbaric acts. Yet we have "Canceled" our historic figures with more hatred and vitriol than we direct at those current groups. 
Click to expand...
Thomas Jefferson’s statue should not be removed for exactly the reasons you state here.

Robert E Lee’s statues should be removed, because unlike Jefferson, they were put up as monuments to white superiority over blacks. 

 
timschochet said:
Thomas Jefferson’s statue should not be removed for exactly the reasons you state here.

Robert E Lee’s statues should be removed, because unlike Jefferson, they were put up as monuments to white superiority over blacks. 
Click to expand...


We should learn from history. Not remove it.  That is what the Taliban and ISIS do.  They destroy and homoginize history.  That is what we want to emulate?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JIslander said:
Yeah, lets not "celebrate/ honor" slave owners etc.  History isn't changing.
Click to expand...


If you're going to make a blanket statement like you just did then you best get behind the fact that  just about every group of people in America and the World have owned slaves at one point or another. 

So, we basically can't honor anyone, right?

and history changes all the time - by those who want to revise it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chappelle

I’m sure Dave Chapelle will be fine and someone will pick up whatever he’s trying to create, but an example of content being cancelled.

If Chapelle is getting the pressure we are assured lesser known content creators are crushed by it.  Why even bother trying creating provocative, controversial, non woke content.

 
djmich said:
Lord of the Flies

“The Ottawa School Board removed the classic, Lord of the Flies, from its curriculum after its advisory committee on equity agreed with a student who said the book’s themes were outdated and too focused on white, male power structures.”
Click to expand...
:lmao:

If that's what they got out of it they definitely didn't read the damn book.  Fs all around.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
OP/ED "The Trouble With Socialism Is That Eventually You Run Out Of Other People's Money." (4/22/22 21:05PST)
2 3
Replies
138
Views
3K
Toby2ElectricBugaloo
T
GordonGekko
OP/ED: Explaining Why Donald Trump Going To Prison Would Be Good For America (7/12/22 21:26 PST)
Replies
3
Views
340
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Hypothetical: Does Japan's Birth Rate Crisis Justify The Permanent Banning Of All Their Abortions? (6/22/22 00:50 PST)
Replies
4
Views
485
Zigg
Z

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top