Murph Posted September 20, 2019 Posted September 20, 2019 Crazed Vegans and Transvestites lose their minds at Chick Fil A: https://pjmedia.com/trending/watch-some-vegans-and-transvestites-protest-the-new-toronto-chick-fil-a/
Ssnake Posted September 20, 2019 Posted September 20, 2019 (edited) They were, like, forced to do it because of all the red basecaps. How can you not protest in the face of such apparel aggression?Think of the children! Edited September 20, 2019 by Ssnake
R011 Posted September 20, 2019 Posted September 20, 2019 (edited) Crazed Vegans and Transvestites lose their minds at Chick Fil A: https://pjmedia.com/trending/watch-some-vegans-and-transvestites-protest-the-new-toronto-chick-fil-a/A couple of weeks ago, a small number of usual suspects, and the protest lasted perhaps an hour. There are two universities within a ten minute walk of this location. Day long prtests of several hundred or more are quite common, especially during the school year. This one was barely worth noting save for the media attention. It's astroturf failure. Edited September 20, 2019 by R011
Wobbly Head Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 (edited) Canada's Mr Dress up is at it again. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5319859 Liberal leader's appearance at Mississauga, Ont., event Saturday was delayed 90 minutesLiberal Leader Justin Trudeau vowed he won't change how he campaigns despite being the target of an undefined threat that forced him to wear a bulletproof vest and beef up protective measures during a rally in Mississauga, Ont., on Saturday. I have very little knowledge of VIP protection but even I am calling BS on this one. The comment section will probably be shut down soon as it isn't following the narrative. Edited October 13, 2019 by Wobbly Head
glenn239 Posted October 17, 2019 Posted October 17, 2019 Americans scream blue bloody murder at the idea of foreigners interfering in their elections. So, naturally, Obama endorses Trudeau in attempt to influence Canada's election Monday, https://time.com/5703267/barack-obama-justin-trudeau-canadian-elections/
MiloMorai Posted October 17, 2019 Posted October 17, 2019 Well it is 'above board' unlike in the USA where it was 'under the table'.
DougRichards Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/school-life/never-seen-something-so-disrespectful-student-suspended-amid-row-over-lgbtq-rainbow-poppy/news-story/72f9e2999ac01a6ec9e7a4ba15236343 How dare a student exclaim that Remembrance Day is not all about those of the alphabet?
Rick Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/school-life/never-seen-something-so-disrespectful-student-suspended-amid-row-over-lgbtq-rainbow-poppy/news-story/72f9e2999ac01a6ec9e7a4ba15236343 How dare a student exclaim that Remembrance Day is not all about those of the alphabet?Most depressing on how diabolical the stench of liberalism truly is. The modern education system is not building men and women up, but depressingly giving them spines and brains of jello.
MiloMorai Posted November 11, 2019 Posted November 11, 2019 https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/school-life/never-seen-something-so-disrespectful-student-suspended-amid-row-over-lgbtq-rainbow-poppy/news-story/72f9e2999ac01a6ec9e7a4ba15236343 How dare a student exclaim that Remembrance Day is not all about those of the alphabet?Most depressing on how diabolical the stench of liberalism truly is. The modern education system is not building men and women up, but depressingly giving them spines and brains of jello. More to the story, https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/how-a-rainbow-poppy-from-the-uk-reportedly-led-to-a-student-suspension-in-manitoba/ar-BBWAvJk?ocid=spartanntp
R011 Posted November 12, 2019 Posted November 12, 2019 I'm sure the creator of the rainbow poppy meant no disrespect, but the poppy already has a specific meaning. It isn't a matter of homophobia, a pink poppy for cancer would be as inappropriate.
R011 Posted November 12, 2019 Posted November 12, 2019 I'm sure the creator of the rainbow poppy meant no disrespect, but the poppy already has a specific meaning. It isn't a matter of homophobia, a pink poppy for cancer would be as inappropriate.
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 12, 2019 Posted November 12, 2019 I'm sure the creator of the rainbow poppy meant no disrespect, but the poppy already has a specific meaning. It isn't a matter of homophobia, a pink poppy for cancer would be as inappropriate. Exactly. Nobody has made a specific LBGT Crucifix or Crescent have they? For the same reason, the symbols are already inclusive. The creator didnt mean any respect and I can see that. But its depressing how many people jump on these things, ostensibly as a symbol of inclusivity, when what they really want to express is why they are different from everyone else.
Rick Posted November 12, 2019 Posted November 12, 2019 I'm sure the creator of the rainbow poppy meant no disrespect, but the poppy already has a specific meaning. It isn't a matter of homophobia, a pink poppy for cancer would be as inappropriate. Exactly. Nobody has made a specific LBGT Crucifix or Crescent have they? For the same reason, the symbols are already inclusive. The creator didnt mean any respect and I can see that. But its depressing how many people jump on these things, ostensibly as a symbol of inclusivity, when what they really want to express is why they are different from everyone else. The poppy is a victim of cultural appropriation.
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 12, 2019 Posted November 12, 2019 Well, misappropriation in this case. There are many cases when I dont have an issue with cultural appropriation. About 5 years ago to commemorate the start of WW1, a young Muslim woman printed a Hijab with poppies on it. It was her way of showing respect, and fair enough. Plenty of muslims died in British service in both wars. And you could after all, just use it as a scarf depending on your identity. It wasnt JUST identifying with one sub group of the fallen. This to me is different. Its altering the message to be saying this is an LBGT symbol. Thats less appropriation than misappropriation. Its says its only the LBGT community that is relevant in the symbol. Well, thats just my view fwiw....
Panzermann Posted November 12, 2019 Posted November 12, 2019 (edited) That is exactly how the people talking all the time about "cultural appropiation" use the term. Someone (or group) steals a cultural feature from another culture. In this case the LGBT radicals from the general public of the UK. (or commonwealth) Edited November 12, 2019 by Panzermann
RETAC21 Posted November 18, 2019 Posted November 18, 2019 (edited) Really? Most everyone owns at least one screwdriver. But Canadians likely own a screwdriver that few outside Canada would recognize. https://youtu.be/R-mDqKtivuI Edited November 18, 2019 by RETAC21
Wobbly Head Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 Really? Most everyone owns at least one screwdriver. But Canadians likely own a screwdriver that few outside Canada would recognize. Once you start using Robertson screwdrivers you won't want to use anything else they are better than any other screw type.
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 That is exactly how the people talking all the time about "cultural appropiation" use the term. Someone (or group) steals a cultural feature from another culture. In this case the LGBT radicals from the general public of the UK. (or commonwealth) Well, its a complex subject, and I dont claim to be learned in such things. But it strikes me that cultural appropriation happens everywhere. We all drink coca cola, we listen to music from all round the world. It seems even Hong Kong celebrates November 5th. The New Zealand All Blacks all do the Haka whatever their lineage is. Few seemingly find issue in these things. Im not sure its the right word for when its done in a negative sense, such as that LBGT poppy, or for example, Jazz, where white musicians took black music and took credit for it. Or, God help us, blackface. There is one kind of appropriation where its celebrating the culture of a minority, or sub group, and another where its pretending it doesn't exist and modifying its culture or icons as its own motiff, or just plain ridiculing it. It strikes me as 2 separate things. Maybe im overthinking it.
Ssnake Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 "Cultural appropriation" is a combat phrase wielded by people who have no idea how cultural evolution works. You could just as well describe sexual reproduction as "gene approriation". It's absurd. Nobody gets any poorer from the spread of ideas. As much as I am with the Italians that pineapple doesn't belong on a Pizza, Italians have no exclusive control over Pizza recipes worldwide and for all eternity. Just like Jazz music can be played and enjoyed by anyone except those who imposter and aggrandize theselves as the new morality police.It's yet another pus flowing from the sores that identity politics create.
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 (edited) Yes, but in the case of Jazz you had a black group of musicians who were making the music, not getting credit for it, or if they were, getting ripped off by White Record producers. Which is not entirely the same as saying a white guy has the right to play jazz. Of course he does, but that is different from what was apparently happening in the 1920's where the black guys could rarely get gigs in public, or record deals. We can see the context now, then, im not sure it was that simple. That is wholly different from say, a white musician today who does Rap. Because we all know where Rap came from, and quite clearly Black Musicians got their due in pioneering it. If thats cultural appropriation, its not really in the same league. I agree mostly with what you say, nobody should have a copyright on such things. At the same time, if a minority or group is creating something, they should get due credit for it. The LBGT poppy above, as presented, is clearly something else , where they are attempting to replace a long extant symbol with another, just for political posturing. Once again, I think its perhaps a case of inadequate language hiding meaning. Edited November 19, 2019 by Stuart Galbraith
Ssnake Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 Yes, but in the case of Jazz you had a black group of musicians who were making the music, not getting credit for it, or if they were, getting ripped off by White Record producers. Which is not entirely the same as saying a white guy has the right to play jazz. Sure, but then again, pretty much everybody gets robbed in the music business. Maybe they got robbed more because as blacks they made "even better victims" than the usual broke-ass musician unless he is lucky enough to gain celebrity status. The thing that changed in the 1900s...1920s was that there were two media revolutions that were particularly prominent for musicians. Before the invention of the grammophone a singer/orchestra could fill but a single concert hall, and make money on that evening from exactly that one performance. Everybody who wanted to hear that singer had to travel there. Enrico Caruso is famous because he was one of the first opera singers available on mass-produced record, and the fame helped feeding the fame and sell more records. He's the model case, the first prototype of the phenomenon of a pop star.In the 1920s the next force multiplier was added to the music business - radio. Radio could air music, it had to air music. Every radio station had to fill hours every day, and the best way to fill the time between commercials was advertisement for musicians. And while, in theory, there was copyright law, as a musician you could in practice enforce it only if you had a really good agent. Guess who had no really good agents? Pretty much every broke-ass musician. And those suffering from illiteracy were even more vulnerable. And that was the fate of the black Jazz musicians at the time. They were stuck in the old business model of filling a concert hall (well, a speakeasy bar mostly) so their style had to be discovered and made popular for the radio and record market and guess who were the only ones who could do it? Other musicians with really good agents. And then of course record label producers. Without doubt some of them were racists, does that make the whole history of the spread of a music style a racist practice?You could also look at the whole situation through an indentity lense and call it systemic racism.Or you use the Marxist lens and speak of the repression of the lower classes by means of economic exploitation.Or the free-market lens and say that, eventually, black musicians won the Jazz battle with their own superstars - Louis Armstrong, Nat Cole, etc. Was Elvis Presley a culturally appropriating racist?He, more than other white musicians at the time, gave the blacks credit for what he took and then transmogified into something entirely new (and then Marty McFly helped out Marvin Barry, and the rest's music history). If Presley was racist, everybody is a racist - and then nobody is.
Ssnake Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 WRT your example of rainbow poppies, well, that's what letter noodle activists do. They are professional attention seekers, and they got yours.
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 Yes, but in the case of Jazz you had a black group of musicians who were making the music, not getting credit for it, or if they were, getting ripped off by White Record producers. Which is not entirely the same as saying a white guy has the right to play jazz. Sure, but then again, pretty much everybody gets robbed in the music business. Maybe they got robbed more because as blacks they made "even better victims" than the usual broke-ass musician unless he is lucky enough to gain celebrity status. The thing that changed in the 1900s...1920s was that there were two media revolutions that were particularly prominent for musicians. Before the invention of the grammophone a singer/orchestra could fill but a single concert hall, and make money on that evening from exactly that one performance. Everybody who wanted to hear that singer had to travel there. Enrico Caruso is famous because he was one of the first opera singers available on mass-produced record, and the fame helped feeding the fame and sell more records. He's the model case, the first prototype of the phenomenon of a pop star.In the 1920s the next force multiplier was added to the music business - radio. Radio could air music, it had to air music. Every radio station had to fill hours every day, and the best way to fill the time between commercials was advertisement for musicians. And while, in theory, there was copyright law, as a musician you could in practice enforce it only if you had a really good agent. Guess who had no really good agents? Pretty much every broke-ass musician. And those suffering from illiteracy were even more vulnerable. And that was the fate of the black Jazz musicians at the time. They were stuck in the old business model of filling a concert hall (well, a speakeasy bar mostly) so their style had to be discovered and made popular for the radio and record market and guess who were the only ones who could do it? Other musicians with really good agents. And then of course record label producers. Without doubt some of them were racists, does that make the whole history of the spread of a music style a racist practice?You could also look at the whole situation through an indentity lense and call it systemic racism.Or you use the Marxist lens and speak of the repression of the lower classes by means of economic exploitation.Or the free-market lens and say that, eventually, black musicians won the Jazz battle with their own superstars - Louis Armstrong, Nat Cole, etc. Was Elvis Presley a culturally appropriating racist?He, more than other white musicians at the time, gave the blacks credit for what he took and then transmogified into something entirely new (and then Marty McFly helped out Marvin Barry, and the rest's music history). If Presley was racist, everybody is a racist - and then nobody is. Absolutely, which is why I say you cannot have culture appropriation as an effect of race, because there are plenty of examples in the 50's and 60's of people taking something, playing with it, and turning it into something new. Im aware of the Rolling Stones giving due credit to black musicians for what they created, but it didnt hold them back form going off the wall and creating something completely different and brilliant. Ok, here is another very silly example of cultural appropriation. Freedom Fries.
Rick Posted November 19, 2019 Posted November 19, 2019 "Cultural appropriation", a term du-jour, is only applicable from non-white to white. Never the other way around.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now