The Culture War

[constant escape]

Intriguing. Are the axes actual axes? Are those avatars the extremities or the averages?

 

[version]

I doubt they put that much thought into it. It's clearly a joke. Here's the original tweet.

 

[linebaugh]

tell us a joke constant

 

[constant escape]

tell us a joke constant

Happy Holidays!

 

[Mr. Tea]

I liked this version of the chart:

 

[entertainment]

This seems completely insane to me.

BBC staff told attending LGBT pride protests in any capacity can breach new impartiality rules

The BBC has issued new guidance for staff on political impartiality

inews.co.uk

can you cover football if you support a team is the big question

 

[sus]

NYTimes & the media continues trying to position itself as the 4th branch of US government:

 

[sus]

This seems completely insane to me.

BBC staff told attending LGBT pride protests in any capacity can breach new impartiality rules

The BBC has issued new guidance for staff on political impartiality

inews.co.uk

Note the two causes that are listed as examples of banned political participation—BLM and LGBT rallies. The writer has an angle and a political sympathy, and they assume you share it; they're trying to make you mad, which is why they wrote the article. So you share it, angrily.

Good chance this exists because staffers were complaining about one of their colleagues attending a TERF or pro-police rally or something.

That's the kinda event that liberals are OK with suspending journos for attending ("You can't employ racists!"). But you can't write politically neutral company policy saying "don't attend a rally hosted by the wrong tribe."

Note, also, that the BBC explicitly says auto-suspension is not policy—that the real policy is you should ask permission before attending a politically controversial event.

In other words, they'll just continue with a policy of discretion. "LGBT pride? Go for it!" "TERF event? Don't you think that's a bit... politically charged?"

I'm not and would never attend a TERF or pro-police rally, but let's be clear about the dynamics in play.

 

[linebaugh]

TERF is a bad example here. Theres plenty of legitimate reason not to want to have terfs in an office space with trans people in it.

 

[sus]

Eh, not that it's worth getting into but there are trans TERFs. They just disagree about the meaning of a word, which is "woman." Which is just to say that while lots of actual transphobia rallies under the TERF flag, some of them are caught in a verbal dispute, or want to make biological distinctions in certain relevant settings, or whatever it might be. Kinda like how there was a difference between actual homophobes and people who were fine with civil unions but wanted to protect the institution of marriage. Members of coalition groups aren't a monolith.

 

[linebaugh]

Regardless its an ideology with the sole and express focus on the subjectivity of a certain type of person from outside said type. thats a no go for any reasonable business.

 

[linebaugh]

theres nothing about a pro-police or republican rally that is trying to define what makes the other a certain type of person

 

[linebaugh]

The LGBT rally ban is ridiculous because its not really a political rally nor is it attempting to affect outside its own space. Whether or not someone was erroneously reprimanded for being a republican is outside the point, its an over reaction.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Eh, not that it's worth getting into but there are trans TERFs. They just disagree about the meaning of a word, which is "woman." Which is just to say that while lots of actual transphobia rallies under the TERF flag, some of them are caught in a verbal dispute, or want to make biological distinctions in certain relevant settings, or whatever it might be. Kinda like how there was a difference between actual homophobes and people who were fine with civil unions but wanted to protect the institution of marriage. Members of coalition groups aren't a monolith.

that's a bad example and a false equivalency

protecting the "institution of marriage" is the same protection of heternormative hegemony as homophobia, it's just less virulent. it's separate but equal. and if it's just about the word itself and not substantive differences then is it worth protecting? the debate is just a semantic one over "woman", it's about how the definition of that word impacts peoples' lives and determines what kinds of options they do and don't have available to them, as well as how it reflects external validation of gender identity. there is no equivalent to "civil union" in that comparison.

also, TERFs don't hold rallies or events. no one self-labels as a TERF.

no offense here, but it's a pretty bad comparison

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

also, do you have any evidence about all the assumptions you're making?

i.e. what inspired this policy, how the BBC will enforce it - especially in the specific selective way you're describing, etc

or are they just yunno yr assumptions

 

[linebaugh]

gus was trying to make the contrarian point about the liberal media and got a little over zealous. we can forgive him

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

LGBT rally ban is ridiculous because its not really a political rally nor is it attempting to affect outside its own space

exactly yeah, it's not inherently exclusionary. neither is a pro-police or GOP rally.

whereas, say, an openly racist rally obviously is, or a self-proclaimed TERF rally would be, if such a thing actually existed

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

gus was trying to make the contrarian point about the liberal media and got a little over zealous. we can forgive him

I know that, and I do

I'm open to hearing criqitues of liberal cultural hegemony, there are certainly valid ones to be made

I just want them not to become apologies for other, even shittier hegemonies in that process of critiquing

 

[constant escape]

Well trying to remain neutral according to the paradigm of the old cultural regime, is bound to appear reactionary to the newly forming cultural regime, no? The whole point being that the status quo is shifting.

 

[linebaugh]

Well trying to remain neutral according to the paradigm of the old cultural regime, is bound to appear reactionary to the newly forming cultural regime, no? The whole point being that the status quo is shifting.

the idea is that being gay is supposed to a universal outside the sways of culture and politics. Which is essentially what you're saying, but the 'status quo' remark suggests something about dominant ideology, and being gay isnt ideological.