Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: The Perpetually Offended

  1. #1
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    25,061
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 78 Times in 76 Posts

    Default The Perpetually Offended

    I'm watching FNC's Red Eye I DVR'd from last night and was inspired to start this thread after the below story was featured.

    Feel free to post stories of those suffering perpetual sand in their nether regions and victimhood here so we can all laugh at them!


    ‘Emotionally Fragile Student Body’: Serving Mexican Food At ‘Intergalactic’ Movie Night Now Racist

    April 17, 2015




    This is unreal. Stevenson College, a residential college at the University of California, Santa Cruz, has reportedly apologized to students after a college-sponsored movie night ruffled some feathers. The offense? Serving Mexican food on “intergalactic” night. Get it? Aliens from outer space, aliens from Mexico — it’s racist! Or something:













    Not so much hilarious as sad.










    And unfortunately, the idea that his type of behavior on campus is creating more conservatives is probably wishful thinking:




    We’re doomed.

  2. #2
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    25,061
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 78 Times in 76 Posts

    Default Re: The Perpetually Offended

    Another one, also featured on Red Eye a couple weeks ago.


    Clorox Apologizes After ‘Where’s The Bleach?’ Tweet About New Emoji Icons Is Deemed Racially Insensitive

    April 11, 2015

    Clorox is trying to clean up a mess on social media after a tweet the company made.

    The Oakland-based company joked about the new multicultural emoji icons released for iPhones, but many didn’t find it funny.

    The tweet said, ‘New emojis are all right, but where’s the bleach?’

    Clorox is best known for its bleach. The new emojis include black and brown faces. On Twitter, many called the tweet racially insensitive. Others sided with Clorox, saying critics were being overly sensitive.

    Nonetheless, Clorox removed the tweet and issued an apology, saying “We wish we could bleach away our last tweet. Didn’t mean to offend.”

    The company said it was referring only to the new toilet, bath and red wine emoji icons.

    Clorox apology:










    @Dill_Pickles04 @FoxNews I liked that #Clorox Tweet, thought it was pretty funny ! People are too Politically Correct now. ;-)
    — Marc Bouchard (@bb27mwr) April 11, 2015






  3. #3
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,612
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 28 Times in 28 Posts

    Default Re: The Perpetually Offended

    Perpetually butthurt.

    Dicks.

    All.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  4. #4
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    25,061
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 78 Times in 76 Posts

    Default Re: The Perpetually Offended

    Butthurt?

    Dicks?

    Man, you really floated that softball over the plate.

  5. #5
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,612
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 28 Times in 28 Posts

    Default Re: The Perpetually Offended

    /snicker.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  6. #6
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,612
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 28 Times in 28 Posts

    Default Re: The Perpetually Offended

    You know sometimes the obvious has to be stated so the "perpetually ignorant" will actually see themselves for what they are, right?

    LOL
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  7. #7
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    25,061
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 78 Times in 76 Posts

    Default Re: The Perpetually Offended


    University Report: A Room Full of White People Is a Microaggression

    Apparently, just being in certain rooms is a microaggression.

    May 12, 2015

    According to a new report released by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, just “walking into or sitting in” a classroom full of white people is a microaggression in itself.

    “Students of color reported feeling uncomfortable and unwelcomed just walking into or sitting in the classroom, especially if they were the only person of color, or one of a few,” stated the report, which designated the experience a microaggression.

    “People do not necessarily say I do not belong, but I feel as if I do not when I am in a classroom and I am the one non-White person,” said one student, identified as a Latina female, who is quoted in the report.

    The report, titled “Racial Microaggressions,” was based on an online survey of more than 4,800 students of color during the 2011–12 academic year, and it found more than 800 examples of such microaggressions on campus. Now, that may seem like a lot — but it’s important to recognize that this high number could signify the prevalence of a tendency to assume that almost anything is racist rather than the prevalence of racism itself.

    Don’t get me wrong — some of the examples are totally unacceptable and definitely racist. One Asian student reported having “been told to go back to running a Laundromat,” and a multiracial student reported that she once “overheard other White students discussing admissions and laughing about how the only reason stupid Mexicans could get into this school was due to affirmative action.”

    Those things are definitely racist and offensive. There’s no doubt about that.

    But a lot of the report’s “most commonly described” racial microaggressions could also be interpreted as having nothing to do with racism at all. “Being the only student of color in the classroom” was on that list, as was “being discouraged during meetings with one’s academic advisor” (one student determined that her adviser had questioned her choice of major only because “she realized I was African American,” and therefore, “in her mind, I wasn’t able to successfully complete the major”); “being dismissed or ignored by the instructor before or after class” (an African-American male stated, “when I raise my hand, I am often not called upon”); “receiving hostile reactions to participation in the classroom discussion” (one student said she has “witnessed and felt that when a minority student tries to correct [a] comment . . . they are then viewed as angry or defensive when in reality they are simply trying to inform others of what is true”); and “being excluded from participating in a group project” (one student says he keeps quiet in these situations because “I feel as though what I have to say often doesn’t matter to the rest of the group members.”)

    But don’t advisers question students’ major choices all the time? Isn’t that actually their entire job? Hasn’t every participation-eager student had a professor that he feels doesn’t call on him enough? Isn’t it possible that people who act annoyed or upset about being publicly corrected are just upset about being publicly corrected in general rather than because they were corrected by a minority student specifically? Doesn’t the group-project example sound more like the kind of general shyness/self-doubt/social anxiety that anyone can experience rather than a sign of institutional racism?

    Despite the fact that so many of these “microaggressions” are designated as such based on questionable assumptions, the study still recommends that the school take drastic measures to stop them: requiring that all students complete a “General Education requirement about race, White privilege, and inequality in the United States” as well as “both a non-Western culture and a US people of color cultural course”; fundamentally altering the curriculum to ensure that a third of all college 101 classes “include diversity and inclusion”; providing workshops, trainings, campaigns, and brochures “to help students identify when racial microaggressions are occurring”; creating a “slogan or language” — such as the phrase “Racism Alert” — to use when they identify one; and developing a “mechanism for students to report perceived racial microaggressions.”

    Call me cynical, but I have a lot of doubts about these suggestions. First of all, I could see college students mocking a phrase like “Racism Alert!” rather than taking it seriously, which could just create further discomfort for everyone involved. Furthermore, what material specifically is the report suggesting that the school eliminate in order to make room for this kind of widespread anti-microaggression curriculum?

    Some of these policies could even create tangible disadvantages for minority students. For example, picking the right major is a crucial decision, and experienced advisers definitely have the ability to help students pick one that’s going to benefit them most — but putting advisers at risk of being branded racists forever in a campus-reporting system for offering this kind of advice to students of color might discourage them from doing so.

    No doubt, racism and sexism exist. But it’s important to carefully examine problems before jumping to do something to try and solve them just so you can say that you’re trying — especially when some of the ideas run the risk of making things worse.

  8. #8
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    25,061
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 78 Times in 76 Posts

    Default Re: The Perpetually Offended


    Columbia Students Claim Greek Mythology Needs A Trigger Warning

    May 14, 2015

    “Not far from the walls of Enna, there is a deep pool,” begins Ovid’s version of the rape of Persephone. “While [Persephone] was playing in this glade, and gathering violets or radiant lilies, while with girlish fondness she filled the folds of her gown, and her basket, trying to outdo her companions in her picking, [Pluto], almost in a moment, saw her, prized her, took her: so swift as this, is love.”

    The Greek myth has been recounted for thousands of years in hundreds of languages, scores of countries and countless works of art. It’s considered a cultural touchstone for Western civilization: a parable about power, lust and grief.

    Now, however, it could be getting a treatment it’s never had before: a trigger warning.

    In an op-ed in the student newspaper, four Columbia University undergrads have called on the school to implement trigger warnings — alerts about potentially distressing material — even for classics like Greek mythology or Roman poetry.

    “Ovid’s ‘Metamorphoses’ is a fixture of Lit Hum, but like so many texts in the Western canon, it contains triggering and offensive material that marginalizes student identities in the classroom,” wrote the four students, who are members of Columbia’s Multicultural Affairs Advisory Board. “These texts, wrought with histories and narratives of exclusion and oppression, can be difficult to read and discuss as a survivor, a person of color, or a student from a low-income background.”

    The April 30 op-ed has stirred debate on campus and online.

    “Grow up, open up, care less about your identity and more about your passions,” wrote one of hundreds of commenters. “Such an insufferable breed of self-centered Care Bears.”

    The op-ed comes at a time of intense debate about trigger warnings, a term that is 20 years old but only recently has become a proxy for broader issues such as political correctness, identity politics, liberal arts education and sexual assault.

    The phrase can be traced back to the treatment of Vietnam War veterans in the 1980s, according to BuzzFeed’s Alison Vingiano. Psychologists started identifying “triggers” that sent vets spiraling into flashbacks of past traumas. With the rise of the Internet in the late ’90s, feminist message boards began using “trigger warnings” to warn readers of content that could stir up painful or paralyzing memories of sexual assault.

    Trigger warnings quickly spread to include discussions of everything from eating disorders to self injury to suicide. In 2010, sex blogger Susannah Breslin wrote that feminists were using the term “like a Southern cook applies Pam cooking spray to an overused nonstick frying pan.” Breslin argued that trigger warnings were pointless or, even worse, self-defeating. A trigger warning is “like a flashing neon sign, attracting *more* attention to a particularly explicit post, even as it purports to deflect the attention of those to whom it might actually be relevant.”

    By 2012, The Awl’s Choire Sicha argued that the phrase had “lost all its meaning.

    “Alerts have been applied to topics as diverse as sex, pregnancy, addiction, bullying, suicide, sizeism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, slut shaming, victim-blaming, alcohol, blood, insects, small holes, and animals in wigs,” Jenny Jarvie wrote last year in the New Republic. “Certain people, from rapper Chris Brown to sex columnist Dan Savage, have been dubbed ‘triggering.’ Some have called for trigger warnings for television shows such as ‘Scandal’ and ‘Downton Abbey.'”

    But the Internet debate over trigger warnings is nothing compared to the controversy over their use on American university campuses. Last year, students at the University of California at Santa Barbara passed a resolution asking professors to put trigger warnings on class syllabuses and allow students to skip classes containing “content that may trigger the onset of symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.”

    “Oberlin College has published an official document on triggers, advising faculty members to ‘be aware of racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, ableism, and other issues of privilege and oppression,’ to remove triggering material when it doesn’t ‘directly’ contribute to learning goals and ‘strongly consider’ developing a policy to make ‘triggering material’ optional,” Jarvie wrote. “Chinua Achebe’s ‘Things Fall Apart,’ it states, is a novel that may ‘trigger readers who have experienced racism, colonialism, religious persecution, violence, suicide and more.’ Warnings have been proposed even for books long considered suitable material for high-schoolers: Last month, a Rutgers University sophomore suggested that an alert for F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby say, ‘TW: suicide, domestic abuse and graphic violence.'”


    Critics on both the left and the right have expressed concern that these trigger warnings are impinging upon free speech and undermining the meaning of a liberal arts education, where students from all walks of life are exposed to new and often disturbing ideas.

    “What began as a way of moderating Internet forums for the vulnerable and mentally ill now threatens to define public discussion both online and off,” Jarvie wrote. “The trigger warning signals not only the growing precautionary approach to words and ideas in the university, but a wider cultural hypersensitivity to harm and a paranoia about giving offense.”

    “In reality, trigger warnings are unrealistic,” argued Breslin, the sex blogger. “They are the dream-child of a fantasy in which the unknown can be labeled, anticipated, and controlled. What trigger warnings promise — protection — does not exist. The world is simply too chaotic, too out-of-control for every trigger to be anticipated, avoided, and defused.”

    “Hypersensitivity to the trauma allegedly inflicted by listening to controversial ideas approaches a strange form of derangement — a disorder whose lethal spread in academia grows by the day,” Harvey Silverglate opined in the Wall Street Journal. “What should be the object of derision, a focus for satire, is instead the subject of serious faux academic discussion and precautionary warnings. For this disorder there is no effective quarantine. A whole generation of students soon will have imbibed the warped notions of justice and entitlement now handed down as dogma in the universities.”

    And yet, it’s no coincidence that trigger warnings have arisen just as sexual assault finally becomes part of the national conversation. As Katie J.M. Baker pointed out in a recent BuzzFeed article, discussing rape and sexual assault simply is different than discussing other societal ills. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 1 in 5 women in America have been raped. “As far as brutal crimes go, there won’t be any murder victims sitting in class, but statistically, there will likely be survivors of sexual assault,” Baker wrote.

    “Of course I understand the import of studying rape in law school,” one Harvard Law graduate told Baker. “That I expect rape to be taught with the understanding that 1 in 5 women are assaulted while in college, and therefore there are very likely survivors sharing the law school classroom does not mean I am afraid. It means I care.”

    In their op-ed, the Columbia undergrads — all women of color — recount the story of another female student.

    “During the week spent on Ovid’s ‘Metamorphoses,’ the class was instructed to read the myths of Persephone and Daphne, both of which include vivid depictions of rape and sexual assault,” they write. “As a survivor of sexual assault, the student described being triggered while reading such detailed accounts of rape throughout the work. However, the student said her professor focused on the beauty of the language and the splendor of the imagery when lecturing on the text. As a result, the student completely disengaged from the class discussion as a means of self-preservation. She did not feel safe in the class. When she approached her professor after class, the student said she was essentially dismissed, and her concerns were ignored.”

    The students then call on Columbia to “issue a letter to faculty about potential trigger warnings and suggestions for how to support triggered students” and institute “a mechanism for students to communicate their concerns to professors anonymously, as well as a mediation mechanism for students who have identity-based disagreements with professors.”

    “Finally, the center should create a training program for all professors, including faculty and graduate instructors, which will enable them to constructively facilitate conversations that embrace all identities, share best practices, and think critically about how the Core Curriculum is framed for their students,” the students write.

    Conservative critics claim that the Columbia students want to silence class discussion of certain texts.

    “The hyperbolic language of trauma that’s used! Sheesh,” wrote Elizabeth Nolan Brown in Reason. “Apparently this discussion of Ovid was so threatening it was a matter of self-preservation to ignore it. If that’s really true — if the mere discussion of rape causes this student to feel panicked and physically unsafe — than she needs help treating severe post-traumatic stress disorder, not a f—— trigger warning.”

    “Op-eds like this are a call for academic vandalism, defacing culture and history with the ugly graffiti of modern class, race, and sex-war politics,” John Hayward wrote in a Breitbart blog titled “Campus special snowflakes melt upon contact with Greek mythology.

    In the case of the Columbia students, however, they say they want more discussion, not less. A trigger warning on Ovid’s “Metamorphoses” might help a student who has suffered sexual assault stay engaged by offering her a chance to discuss the brutality in the text — not just its beauty.

    “Our vision for this training is not to infringe upon the instructors’ academic freedom in teaching the material,” the students conclude. “Rather, it is a means of providing them with effective strategies to engage with potential conflicts and confrontations in the classroom, whether they are between students or in response to the material itself. Given these tools, professors will be able to aid in the inclusion of student voices which presently feel silenced.”




  9. #9
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,612
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 28 Times in 28 Posts

    Default Re: The Perpetually Offended

    wtf is a trigger warning?
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  10. #10
    Super Moderator Malsua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,020
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts

    Default Re: The Perpetually Offended

    It means

    "Un Politically correct thought ahead, be prepared to be offended"
    "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
    -- Theodore Roosevelt


  11. #11
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    25,061
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 78 Times in 76 Posts

    Default Re: The Perpetually Offended

    A new one for the Perpetually Offended files.


    Port Authority To Remove 'Ziggin' Zaggin' Decals On Buses Because Of Racial Slur Complaint

    June 3, 2015

    Port Authority of Allegheny County said Wednesday it will remove promotional slogans on nine buses that appear to spell a racial slur when read backward or viewed in a mirror.

    Transit agency spokesman Jim Ritchie said a driver complained Tuesday after seeing the message “Ziggin Zaggin” on a bus in her vehicle's rear-view mirror.

    “Port Authority certainly did not intend for this message to offend anyone,” agency spokesman Jim Ritchie said.

    “However, due to recent complaints about how this message appears when read backward, we have decided to remove the message from our vehicles,” Ritchie said. “We apologize to anyone who may have been offended.”

    “Ziggin Zaggin” was part of a larger promotional campaign that put messages such as “Rockin' Rollin',” “Movin' Groovin',” and “Movin' Shakin' ” on the sides of buses in 2003.

    All of the buses bearing those slogans are within a year of being retired from Port Authority's 700-bus fleet.

    Ritchie said agency workers would peel off the decals.

    If the outline of the letters still can be seen when the letters are gone, Ritchie said the agency would “find a way to cover it with advertising of some sort” within the next couple of weeks. The work will “probably cost us nothing extra,” Ritchie said.

  12. #12
    Literary Wanderer
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,590
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts

    Default Re: The Perpetually Offended

    I'm sorry to be so vulgar, but...

    WHAT A BUNCH OF PUSSIES WE'VE BECOME!!!

    The fathers of this nations and the clans and tribes we were once sired from would be seriously embarrassed to be associated with such a bunch of flaming pansies.

    These people need to put their damn pants on, lace up their boots and fight the good fight. Stop complaining and whining.

    Honestly, who the hell said in life there would be no offense, that things wouldn't be a constant uphill battle? Even the Bible indicates that life is going to be hell - always, until you die.
    Last edited by MinutemanCO; June 4th, 2015 at 17:14.

  13. #13
    Super Moderator Malsua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,020
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts

    Default Re: The Perpetually Offended

    Lol, Niggaz Niggiz.


    I'll take "Who stole my wallet and broke into my garage for $200 Alex"
    "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
    -- Theodore Roosevelt


  14. #14
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    25,061
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 78 Times in 76 Posts

    Default Re: The Perpetually Offended

    I can't take credit for this...


  15. #15
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    25,061
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 78 Times in 76 Posts

    Default Re: The Perpetually Offended

    The newest whipping boy in the Perpetually Offended... Jurassic World! Bet you didn't see that one coming!


    Jurassic World Now Accused of Racism

    Apparently, the abbreviation for one of the dinosaur species sounds like a British racial slur

    June 19, 2015

    As if all of its sexism wasn’t bad enough, it appears that Jurassic World may have a racism problem, too.

    The controversy: The film features a dinosaur species called Pachycephalosaurus, which at times characters call “pachys,” which sounds too much like “paki,” which is a slur for South Asian people that’s used in Britain.

    Many on social media expressed shock at hearing the word — and particularly with hearing the line “The Pachis are out of containment!” once the dinos had escaped.

    British comedian Guzzy Bear has even released a video calling for a boycott of the film — but it seems more like a lighthearted joke than an outraged call to action:







    Voices: 'Jurassic World' Has A Mother Of A Problem

    June 16, 2015

    Like so, so many of you, I bought a ticket to see Jurassic World this past week. I went for the dinosaur fights. I went to see America's new favorite movie star, Chris Pratt, in action. I went to recapture that feeling I had when I saw the original as a child.

    Unfortunately, I walked out of the theater not with the sense of wonder and amazement Jurassic Park gave my 10-year-old self, but instead with a familiar mix of anger and depression that Hollywood had churned out yet another aggressively sexist blockbuster.

    I was angry and saddened, and maybe a little bit disgusted, but I wasn't surprised. I had been worried about the movie ever since a certain clip that debuted a few months ago featured some troublesome dialogue, so troublesome it caused rival blockbuster director Joss Whedon, a self-proclaimed feminist, to call it "70s era sexist" on Twitter. My concerns had only been magnified by early reviews of the movie that lobbed similar charges against it. But I was not quite prepared to sit through two hours and 10 minutes designed to instruct women -- and the multitudes of young girls who will be toted to see it with their parents -- that the choice not to be a mother is wrong. Not just wrong, but that to exist as a woman without also being a mother actively makes you a bad person.

    Jurassic World has three main villains: The Indominus Rex dinosaur that is causing havoc and killing adorable brontosauruses for sport, Vincent D'Onofrio's military contractor who wants to use the mayhem as an excuse to turn dinosaurs into weapons, and Bryce Dallas Howard's Claire, the cold, childless career woman who runs the park.

    The basic plot of Jurassic World centers around Claire, who, along with the park's owner, has allowed the mad scientists to create a bigger, badder dinosaur to attract new visitors. But creating this monster is not why the movie treats her as one of its villains; her great crime is having the audacity to do things like not know her nephews' ages, ask her employee (Chris Pratt's Owen) to do a task, and take care of the business of the massive theme park she has been entrusted to run.

    Claire is constantly demonized in the film for not being close or taking care of her two nephews who come to visit her and the park. She is too busy working to spend time with them, and she shuffles them off onto her assistant (a character the movie finds so heinous she actually dies one of the most graphic and brutal deaths). When the Indominus Rex gets loose of course those two little scamps are right in the middle of the mayhem, and Claire enlists the help of Owen to save the boys. After some sweet-talking from him as the two traipse through the jungle (while she is, inexplicably, still wearing a white skirt suit and stilettos, making her damsel-in-distress look complete), Claire straightens out her priorities. By the end of the film she has abandoned her career (and whatever responsibilities she had to the park and the thousands of people who died there) in favor of dreams of motherhood and romantic overtures from Owen, and has thus been redeemed in the eyes of the film.

    As Marlowe Stern wrote for The Daily Beast, Jurassic World is inherently a movie "about a woman's 'evolution' from an icy-cold, selfish corporate shill into a considerate wife and mother."

    While there's nothing wrong with being or wanting to be a wife and mother, there's also absolutely nothing wrong with making the opposite choice. The Claire at the beginning of the movie is so cold she can't reasonably answer questions about whether or not the dinosaurs of the park are happy -- she responds by saying she can't scientifically measure their emotions. When she cannot tell Owen the ages of her nephews, he gawks at her like she can't name the President. These are not the qualities of a morally bad person. But the movie would like you to think so. And that's a problem.

    Jurassic World is not the first huge blockbuster to suggest that for women, goodness is inherently linked to motherhood -- it's not even the first one of 2015. In a hugely controversial scene in this summer's second-biggest movie, Avengers: Age of Ultron, Scarlett Johansson's character reveals that she was sterilized in the training program that turned her into a KGB assassin, in order to make it easier for her to kill people. After sharing this secret with her love interest, Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner/The Hulk, she turns to him and says "Still think you're the only monster on the team?" implying that her monstrosity is tied to her inability to bear children. The fact that she has saved the world multiple times as a childless woman couldn't matter less.

    The unsettling implications about motherhood are not the only times Jurassic is sexist. In an early exchange between Claire and Owen, an exchange between an employer and an employee, he responds to her request that he help with the Indominus's enclosure by suggesting she have sex with him, a conversation that ought to have gotten him fired for sexual harassment. Later Claire will share a dramatic kiss with Owen during the film's climax that will, I kid you not, feature swelling background music. Too bad he has no respect for her as a person or a boss. The film also feels the need to punctuate Claire's every triumph -- whether she's killing a pterodactyl or saving the day entirely -- by marveling at her ability to do anything at all. When Claire does something good, the movie might as well be flashing a sign that says, "Wow, can you believe a girl just did that? Woo wee!"

    Jurassic World presents itself as a step forward for the 22-year-old franchise, but the treatment of Claire is a massive step back from the way, for example, Laura Dern's Ellie was portrayed in the original in 1993. Ellie was a strong, confident woman (in boots, not heels) who was on equal footing with her partner, Alan (Sam Neill). If you followed her through to the disappointing sequels, she did eventually choose to become a stay-at-home mom, which is totally fine, because the movie respects her right to make that choice.

    I hope they respect my choice to sit out on Jurassic World 2.

  16. #16
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,612
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 28 Times in 28 Posts

    Default Re: The Perpetually Offended

    Man gets community service for defacing Confederate monument



    Print Email


    2 hours ago
    (0) Comments


    RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — A man must perform 100 hours of community service after pleading guilty to defacing a Confederate monument in Richmond, Virginia.


    Media outlets report that 39-year-old Joseph Weindl of Richmond pleaded guilty Thursday to defacing a public monument. A Richmond General District Court judge suspended a 90-day jail sentence and ordered community service. Weindl also must pay $200 in restitution.


    Police say Weindl spray-painted an "L'' on the base of a monument honoring Confederate President Jefferson Davis on June 28.


    Weindl's attorney, Daniel Watkins, said earlier this week that his client regrets the action.


    Confederate symbols have been the focus of debate since the June 17 massacre at an African-American church in Charleston, South Carolina. Authorities say the accused gunman had posed in photographs with the Confederate battle flag.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  17. #17
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,612
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 28 Times in 28 Posts

    Default Re: The Perpetually Offended

    Man who vandalized Confederate statue ‘deeply regrets’ actions

    Posted 8:00 pm, June 30, 2015, by Web Staff






    Joseph Weindl

    RICHMOND, Va. — Joseph Weindl issued a statement through his attorney saying he “deeply regrets” vandalizing the Jefferson Davis monument.
    “Mr. Weindl will pay back his debt, and he remains committed to exploring positive and lawful channels to foster meaningful dialogue on both sides of this highly contentious issue,” wrote attorney Daniel Watkins, who recently represented UVa. student Martese Johnson in his case against the Alcohol Beverage Control.
    This past weekend, a day after someone spray painted “Black Lives Matter” on the monument honoring the former president of the Confederate States of America, Weindl was arrested by local police for spray-painting the letter ‘L’ on the same monument.
    Weindl was caught by police Friday night, around 10:30 p.m., after receiving a report of vandalism in progress at the Jefferson Davis Monument in the 2500 block of Monument Avenue.
    Police said the man they hope to charge for a felony for spray-painting a letter did not confess to spray-painting the phrase “Black Lives Matter” onto the Jefferson Davis statue.

    Police said that by the time they arrived there was no vandalism in progress. Working with descriptions of the suspect and suspect vehicle provided by a witness and evidence obtained at the scene, detectives were able to identify Weindl.
    Police arrested Weindl without incident, and he provided a full confession informing law enforcement that he used glow-in-the-dark spray paint to draw the letter ‘L,’ for loser, in what his attorney said was Weindl’s misguided attempt to highlight the ongoing discussions involving Confederate relics in the days after the tragic massacre at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina.
    I spoke with Mr. Weindl at length regarding this incident. He deeply regrets what he did and he wants to apologize to the community for this criminal act. In fact, he does not believe that the statues memorializing Jefferson Davis and other Confederate leaders should be torn down. However, he wants to continue the conversation so that members of the community acknowledge that the continued existence of these memorials operates as a place of pain for some members of the community. He understands the unintended consequences that go with sanitizing this region’s history. Moving forward, Mr. Weindl hopes to partner with community stakeholders to find ways to honor our history by acknowledging the significant progress that has taken place.
    Weindl has denied vandalizing the monument the previous night, when the phrase “Black Lives Matter” was spray-painted on the granite base of the monument.
    That investigation remains open.
    On June 29, 2015, police charged Mr. Weindl with intentionally defacing a public monument, a Class 1 misdemeanor. Police indicated that they will likely try to charge him with a felony, saying in a press release that the charge will be upgraded to a felony “when the cost of cleaning up the damage is shown to exceed $1,000.”
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •