The next battleground-'Cancel Culture & Identity Politics' - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15149980
Unthinking Majority wrote:Well Disney did turf white Peter Parker Spider-Man and replaced him with black Miles Morales Spider-Man for all the kids.

Don't forget all the new Disney Star Wars TV shows and movies where there's isn't one new good guy main character that's a white male. But of course most of the bad guys are white men. Oh and for the The Force Awakens poster in China, Disney made the black main character Finn a lot smaller on the poster because the Chinese are racist against blacks & don't like them. Oh and then in The Last Jedi they made all the good guy leaders women and spent the movie showing them boss the men around. No identity politics here!


I haven't noticed that but regardless I do not think any of this is wrong. Artists, directors, producers reimagine things all the time, especially when they figure it may have better commercial success.
#15150006
Unthinking Majority wrote:This is what she said: "I am 100% against the banning of any books, and my school did not ban any texts, to my knowledge. That is an assumption the author of the article made, and it is factually incorrect. It was simply our 9th grade ELA team’s decision last year to reimagine many of the units in our curriculum to best meet the needs of our students."

Ok, so the 9th grade ELA team removed it from the curriculum for some kind of political identity politics reasons. It sounds like it was removed from all grade 9 ELA classrooms by an agreement between all the teachers. So her and the "ELA team" just proudly banned it from the 9th grade curriculum lol. What's is the difference exactly?


The differences between one possible scenario that you imagine and another one?

Anyway, you seem to understand that the students can still access The Odyssey in any other class, at the library, and probably download an electronic copy over the school wifi. No student is being denied access to this work.

Yes it does matter, it matters a lot. If it was removed to add more of a variety of authors ok that's understandable. If it was removed because it was "offensive" and "not PC" that's disgusting censorship nonsense.


Then it seems that you need to provide evidence that it was “removed because it was "offensive" and "not PC"”, as you suggest. While you are satisfying or ignoring this demand, let us look at your weird idea that a person’s reason for not teaching a particular book amount to censorship.

Censorship is the suppression or prohibition of information. No one is suppressing The Odyssey, or prohibiting others from reading it. One class decided not to teach it. That is it, and that is not censorship no matter what the reasons for doing so are.

ELA = English Language Arts. If you're teaching English language arts there's going to be a lot of studying of dead European men. I have no problem including women authors and whatnot in the curriculum, but they also shouldn't be re-writing or censoring history. It's not Shakespeare's fault there weren't a lot of non-white women writing English plays back in his day.


Since they do not seem to be rewriting or censoring history, this seems more like an unsupported accusation than an argument.

Ms. Levine says her ELA class is 90% Latinx students. So I assume she probably wants more diverse set of authors. Ok that's fine. But why would you be "very proud" to remove The Odyssey specifically from the curriculum if not for censorship reasons? Levine is full of BS, yes I think she's lying and being deceitful to cover her butt.

She said she was "very proud" to remove the book from the curriculum. That's disgusting.


You are assuming it has to be about censorship, in order to prove this is about censorship. This is circular logic.

Maybe she was proud because it takes a lot of hard work to make curriculum changes for a class while simultaneously moving your course online during a global pandemic and she thinks her team did a good job and should be lauded.

That seems just as plausible as your censorship claim. Can you show why your claim is more plausible?

She said "I don't believe in banning books" and yet it she was "very proud" to remove a book from her curriculum. Sounds like she's a book censor to me. #BookBurner. If it was up to her who knows she might even want to remove it from her entire school's curriculum if she had the power. As I said, she's full of BS.

She's saying 2 different things at the same time. How do you ban books from your own curriculum and not believe in banning books at the same time? Her plan isn't "secret", she "very proudly" told us her plan in her tweet and now she's backpeddling & double-talking because people are mad at her.


You seem to think that not including books to be taught in a class is the equivalent of banning them. If that is the case, please note that each and every English class ever bans the vast majority of books every time, according to your logic.
#15150028
Pants-of-dog wrote:The differences between one possible scenario that you imagine and another one?

Anyway, you seem to understand that the students can still access The Odyssey in any other class, at the library, and probably download an electronic copy over the school wifi. No student is being denied access to this work.

Ya until this crazy lady becomes principal.

Maybe she was proud because it takes a lot of hard work to make curriculum changes for a class while simultaneously moving your course online during a global pandemic and she thinks her team did a good job and should be lauded.

:lol: :lol: c'mon dude...

That seems just as plausible as your censorship claim. Can you show why your claim is more plausible?

Read the tweet she responded to again, and then her tweet again:

Original tweet: "I want to remind y’all that this disruption work is a marathon, not a sprint. Be like Odysseus and embrace the long haul to liberation (and then take The Odyssey out of your curriculum because it’s trash). #DisruptTexts"

Levine's response tweet: "Haha - very proud to say we got the Odyssey removed from the curriculum this year!"


The original tweet supports "disruption work" in order to gain "liberation" [on these oppressive shackling texts??] and calls on educators to "take The Odyssey out of your curriculum because it’s trash". Then Levine laughs "Haha!" and "very proud" she got the book removed from curriculum.

This is a crazy Stalinist bitch. What exactly are you not understanding here?? "Remove The Odyssey because it's trash!"..."Haha! Ya very proud I got it removed". #DisruptTexts!. She's a feminist psycho. There's all sorts of feminist and PC criticism of the book out there, the book refers to some women characters as whores and sluts and such.

This teacher clearly supports the suppression of this book for #cancelculture reasons, she probably thinks it's "trash" too given her "Haha" snicker. These people are PSYCHO. The book is 3 millennia old! It's one of the oldest recorded stories EVER. Does she expect Moses to be an intersectional feminist too? This crazy loon needs to stay the hell away from our children or she'll turn them into Stalinist nutjobs too. You want to add female authors or non-white authors and have to shuffle out some books as a result? Ok great! But don't go to war with ancient works of art FFS. As I said, crazy censoring nutbars. OMG THE 2800 y/o LITERARY PATRIARCHY HELP LIBERATE US OMG! :knife:

If every era in history of Western Civilization has been an oppressive white patriarchy then these people are at war with the history of western civilization. Cancel Homer, cancel Thomas Jefferson and Washington, then they'll go after Shakespeare because he referred to a woman as a "shrew", and it will go on and on. These people are crazy.
#15150153
@Unthinking Majority

Since all you seem to have is insults towards these women, as well as unverifiable predictions, and you have not addressed the arguments and sources that show the book is not banned, I assume we are done.

Again, since nothing is being banned, prohibited, suppressed, or cancelled in any way, this is not cancel culture.
#15150237
pugsville wrote:All Politics *IS* Identity politics.

I have to strongly disagree with this.

Politics is the social distribution of resources. That's its basis. Sharing stuff.

All the behaviorism that was added on along the way has more to do with a few damaged people "wanting more than others."

In healthy natural societies, these people are shunned. But for some reason, we have been trained to adore these damaged greedbags

It;s always been with us.

Humans who don't crush this type of insane greed-based behavior are dooming their own children to indignities.

...

As a gay male, I have watched commerce and the super-rich EXPLOIT *what I do with my dick* in order to sell products and services that have nothing to do with my dick whatsoever.

ID politics is a red herring (and strategy of the powerful greedbags) to distract you from meaningful social justice - which is concentrated on the Maslow Needs ladder and helping everyone to climb it.
#15150410
noemon wrote:I find your attempts to shoot the messenger as prejudice.

I'm not shooting the messenger. I'm tearing up the message, throwing it in the trash, and looking in amazement at the person who brought it, who it normally far more sensible than to fall for this bollocks and then try to amplify it.

I did not read the Spectator before I posted a single sentence to describe the case as best as I could. My description is not any different than the BBC's. And you have not made a single argument as to why it is "unhelpful" or "misleading".

I said many times why it's misleading. I've pointed out you made up the bits about redefining terms, that universities are "cancelling" Homer, and claimed the SOAD student "pressed charges". And these fictions are obviously unhelpful in any discussion about reality. So is the hysteria you're trying to drum up.

claim " students sought to redefine the terms "respect", "safety" & "welfare" in an attempt to cancel out various opinions" when it seems to have been about the university calling for "respect" rather than "tolerance"
That is absolutely false. See Telegraph article for criticism.

No, it's correct. There's bugger all in the Telegraph about redefining those terms. Read the damn thing again.

The person who started the campaign to cancel Homer is telling you: "This is not sprint but a marathon".

It's not a "campaign to cancel Homer". You're making shit up again. It's a campaign to broaden the curriculum.

Are you saying that if this group gets more schools and universities to cancel Homer, you will then change your attitude and if yes where is the threshold?

I'm saying that a school, of which you'd never heard until the Wall Street Journal whipped you up into a froth of conservative reactionary wailing and chest-beating about the fall of Western civilization, has the right to set its own English curriculum without ridiculous strawmen being set up from across the Atlantic. Get a sense of perspective, for god's sake. If more schools decide to drop the Odyssey, then they should talk about it - in the schools.

The whole of a US state, the whole of the US, the whole of Europe?

Trashy "slippery slope" arguments will get you nothing but laughter.

What exaggeration do you speak of? The use of the term "press charges"?

Yes, that's one.

That is what I understood from the fact that 'The Lawyers for the state of Israel'

and that's another

were involved and the fact that this person received "compensation to settle".

And that's the point. You understood incorrectly.

it's also the opinion of SOAS's appeal panel.
That was not their opinion until the 'Lawyers for the State of Israel' got involved.

Again, calling them 'Lawyers for the State of Israel' is misleading. This is why this thread is a steaming pile of shit. You're doing it on purpose now. So what if there were lawyers involved? With yearly fees that he wanted back of around £20,000, it's understandable that he'd want some legal advice on it.

So? where is the line that students should use when discussing politics of a state that is brutally occupying another nation for 50 years now and why is the uni liable for the political opinions of students?

It's not just "when discussing" and "the political opinions of students"; it was the atmosphere where students verbally attacked and insulted him, and there were antisemitic symbols around the place.

What on earth are you saying? That unis should go around checking student views on political matters around the world and tell them what to think of them? That uni should interfere in the student union decision to endorse the BDS? :eh:

Strawman.

Calling China fascist is offensive to numerous Chinese apologists but it is true nevertheless.

Calling a Jewish person a Nazi is in no way similar to calling a country fascist. You know this very well (hint: the PoFo rules about insulting people v. institutions or ideas), but in your determination to produce the most hysterical PoFo thread ever seen, you're just spouting bollocks after bollocks now.

You have done exactly what this person accused the uni of, you have tried to create an environment under which anyone who is talking about this matter in a way you disagree with is a "Trumpard".

You have an obsession with the word "Trumpard". It's your word; I didn't mention Trump at all. You protest too much. If you think that me disagreeing with your posts creates an environment that oppresses everyone else, then you really have lost all understanding about what a discussion forum is.

You have entirely ignored the cited examples provided by the UKLFI that in their view amount to "toxic antisemitism".

No, I didn't ignore them; I said
For instance, as a Jew he was accused of covering up Israeli war crimes and called a "white supremacist Nazi".

Do you believe that these examples cited are 'mistreatment' in any way, shape or form?

Yes.

Do you believe that SOAS and its Student Union must be required to remove their endorsement for the BDS?

No.

The cultural disaster is seemingly logical people trying to defend this.

At least you've stopped saying that replying to your own posts was a "strawman". This whole thread is a hysterical over-reaction to and exaggeration of minor incidents in a few local instances. It's a re-run of 90s Tories shouting "it's political correctness gone mad!" at anything which disturbs their rose-tinted memories of their own childhoods.
#15150417
Prosthetic Conscience wrote: claim " students sought to redefine the terms "respect", "safety" & "welfare" in an attempt to cancel out various opinions" when it seems to have been about the university calling for "respect" rather than "tolerance"

No, it's correct. There's bugger all in the Telegraph about redefining those terms. Read the damn thing again.


False:

Telegraph wrote:The argument began in March. Under pressure from the Cambridge student union, university authorities decided to introduce a new “statement on freedom of speech” that, in true Orwellian fashion, did the opposite of what its title suggested. It would have required that everyone on campus, scholars, speakers and students, “be respectful” of “differing opinions” and “diverse identities”. What this “respect” should entail was not defined, but it is clear that it would not mean respecting the “differing views” of Cambridge fellows like Noah Carl, who was fired last year for defending sceptical attitudes towards immigration and arguing for free scientific inquiry into genes and intelligence. The new policy, for example, listed various grounds on which the university could ban speakers, including the idea that they might threaten the “welfare” of anyone on campus, again without defining what this meant.

Alarmed at the implications, a philosophy don called Arif Ahmed decided to take a professional risk. He was already on the advisory council of an outfit called the Free Speech Union (as am I), but he had not yet done anything to attract special attention from woke activists. Nonetheless, he set about gathering 25 signatures from fellow academics needed to force a vote on the matter. Doing so was not easy. Academics were afraid of being attacked by the same mob who had gotten Dr Carl fired. Eventually, however, he reached his target.

He and his allies tabled amendments to the policy, replacing the demand for “respect” with a requirement for “tolerance”, deleting the list of reasons to ban speakers and replacing it with a commitment to allow all speakers so long as they didn’t break the law, libel or harass anyone. At this point, Cambridge could have decided to negotiate. It would have been a straightforward matter for the university council to endorse the uncontroversial idea of “tolerance” or else solicit the views of its faculty and students outside the coterie making the decisions. Instead, the council dug in.

Months later, Cambridge finally staged the vote. The result, thought to be unprecedented in its 800 year history, was a monumental defeat for the university bigwigs. Out of nearly 1,700 academics who voted, just 162 supported the new policy. Over 200 voted for no change and 1,316 voted to introduce the tolerance policy proposed by Dr Ahmed. His allies ranged from radical feminists to Christian conservatives, libertarians and old-school Left-wingers worried about the free speech rights of university staff. If vice chancellors were MPs, then Cambridge’s Stephen Toope has just become the Michael Portillo of the academic world.


Prosthetic Conscience wrote:It's not a "campaign to cancel Homer". You're making shit up again. It's a campaign to broaden the curriculum.


If you repeat this too often, you might actually convince your own self.



Prosthetic Conscience wrote:I'm saying that a school, of which you'd never heard until the Wall Street Journal whipped you up into a froth of conservative reactionary wailing and chest-beating about the fall of Western civilization, has the right to set its own English curriculum without ridiculous strawmen being set up from across the Atlantic. Get a sense of perspective, for god's sake. If more schools decide to drop the Odyssey, then they should talk about it - in the schools.


Frothing at the mouth with insults just demonstrates your desperation.

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Trashy "slippery slope" arguments will get you nothing but laughter.


You argued that 1 US school cancelling Homer is not a big deal, how many schools is a big deal? or is it "Spiderman is better, lets cancel Homer"? You going for dismissing it as nothing, or agreeing with them? Have you even made up your mind?

Have you considered your own actions and how you are proving people's concerns merely by asserting these cheap excuses, in the service of what cause? The cause of "I don't like it, let's remove it". Is that the standard you are aiming to normalise?

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:And that's the point. You understood incorrectly.
it's also the opinion of SOAS's appeal panel.
Again, calling them 'Lawyers for the State of Israel' is misleading. This is why this thread is a steaming pile of shit. You're doing it on purpose now. So what if there were lawyers involved? With yearly fees that he wanted back of around £20,000, it's understandable that he'd want some legal advice on it.


UKLFI=UK Lawyers for Israel.

UKLFI wrote:Mr Lewis’ complaints about the toxic atmosphere during his time at SOAS from 2018 to 2019 included the following examples:

On 01/03/2019 an email was sent from the Student Union (SU) to all students stating that “yesterday there were a group of external individuals, … apparently filming a piece on how SOAS is an antisemitic institution.”

The email continued: “We are sending round this statement to reaffirm our commitment as a Students’ Union to our Boycott, Divest and Sanction Israel Policy (BDS), which passed in March 2015. SOAS SU was the first UK Students’ Union to vote for and support the BDS campaign launched in 2005.” Mr Lewis said that this was an abuse of the SU’s power and was intended to make a political statement at the expense of Jews and Israel.

Those who are Jewish or pro-Israel on campus are labelled and referred to as ‘Zionists’. The term is used as an offensive, antisemitic blanket term to label anyone with a Jewish connection who advocates a position that might be to Israel’s benefit; to them Zionism in general is akin to fascism and racism.

Antisemitic graffiti can be found on campus lockers, antisemitic symbols and statements can be found scribbled or scratched into desks in the library and on the walls of bathroom stalls.

There is a large sign in the window by the door of the main SOAS building proclaiming SOAS’s support for BDS.


The "antisemitic" examples cited in the UKLFI website is fair to assume that these are the worst they could muster.

Your splitting hairs has the only purpose to evade/muddy the actual points. Your exaggerations, evasions and disingenuous attitude are far worse than anything I may have misunderstood. You 're not even interested in discussing this because there is no way to justify it.

This person left the uni on his own accord because he could not handle being called a "Zionist" by fellow students and because the Student Union of SOAS supported the pro-Palestinian BDS campaign well before he even joined the uni. He left and then asked for his money back, the uni gave him £500, he then got the UKLFI(UK Lawyers for Israel) to press the university with -what seem to me as- charges of antisemitism and the University decided to settle for £15000 compensation instead of taking this any further. There is absolutely no exaggeration on what I said nor any intention to mislead readers which is what you are accusing me of since you have no way to justify these nonsense and your only argument is to attempt to shoot the messenger. I also linked to the article for people to read.

This is precisely what happened to the T.

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:It's not just "when discussing" and "the political opinions of students"; it was the atmosphere where students verbally attacked and insulted him, Calling a Jewish person a Nazi is in no way similar to calling a country fascist. You know this very well (hint: the PoFo rules about insulting people v. institutions or ideas), but in your determination to produce the most hysterical PoFo thread ever seen, you're just spouting bollocks after bollocks now.


Why is the University responsible for the political opinions of its students regarding an apologist for the criminal actions of the State of Israel against Palestinians? Criminal actions highlighted by several UN resolutions and Human Rights organisations?

Reality:

UKLFI wrote:Those who are Jewish or pro-Israel on campus are labelled and referred to as ‘Zionists’.


Why is that insulting and why would the uni be liable for students describing another student as a "Zionist"?

Is the university liable to compensate the students that this person called "antisemitic" and likely "Nazi" too?

Prosthetic Conscience wrote: and there were antisemitic symbols around the place.


Which ones and where?

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Strawman.


The Canadian-Jewish student demanded that support for BDS be removed because he claims that such a support is "antisemitic". He took issue with a sign declaring that support and he took issue with the official SOAS SU endorsement of BDS.

It is not a strawman to ask you why do you believe that the SOAS University should have demanded from its student union to remove the official support from BDS in order to accommodate the political feelings of a Jewish student or else be termed "antisemitic" and face legal threats & sanctions?

Intimidating BDS supporters in the UK is also part of the reason that Jeremy Corbyn got cancelled.

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:You have an obsession with the word "Trumpard". It's your word; I didn't mention Trump at all. You protest too much. If you think that me disagreeing with your posts creates an environment that oppresses everyone else, then you really have lost all understanding about what a discussion forum is.


:lol: I don't at all, you are pretending not to understand the analogy. You are misrepresenting me and frankly doing all those things you are frothing at the mouth that I am supposedly guilty of.

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:No, I didn't ignore them; I said
For instance, as a Jew he was accused of covering up Israeli war crimes and called a "white supremacist Nazi".


Of course you did, you totally ignored the examples cited in the UKLFI website and instead went with an unsubstantiated one that is not actually even mentioned in the examples cited by the UKLFI. Even if this is true why is the University liable for damages for the political opinions of their students? You have not answered, but rather opted for insults and misrepresentations.

At least you've stopped saying that replying to your own posts was a "strawman". This whole thread is a hysterical over-reaction to and exaggeration of minor incidents in a few local instances. It's a re-run of 90s Tories shouting "it's political correctness gone mad!" at anything which disturbs their rose-tinted memories of their own childhoods.


That's just your opinion. You are the only one going into a hysterical overdrive slinging insults and mud but no actual argument.
#15150455
Cancel Culture and Young Children

"When I was three, my friends and I liked to poo in our pants.

One day, my mother - a social justice warrior - started trying to brainwash me into using toilets like "a normal person" she said. So my three-year-old friends and I had a meeting, and we agreed to cancel my mother.

Today, at the age of 15, I am free to continue to soil my pants.

Never let some SJW get into your head. I mean, where does this end - listening to counter-intuitive narratives?"

(based on a true story)
#15150499
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Unthinking Majority

Since all you seem to have is insults towards these women, as well as unverifiable predictions, and you have not addressed the arguments and sources that show the book is not banned, I assume we are done.

Again, since nothing is being banned, prohibited, suppressed, or cancelled in any way, this is not cancel culture.


Original tweet: "I want to remind y’all that this disruption work is a marathon, not a sprint. Be like Odysseus and embrace the long haul to liberation (and then take The Odyssey out of your curriculum because it’s trash). #DisruptTexts"

Levine's response tweet: "Haha - very proud to say we got the Odyssey removed from the curriculum this year!"

Their opinion: F*** The Odyssey! It's trash! Get it out of your curriculum. Do not teach it! Works of art are oppressive patriarchy. This is a marathon to liberation. :knife:
#15150505
@Unthinking Majority

You can repeat those two tweets as much as you want.

I have provided explanations for these two tweets that are just as plausible as your idea about censorship.

I also provided more information from the actual teacher that corroborates my interpretation and directly contradicts your interpretation. You simply accused the woman of being a liar with no evidence.

I also provided direct quotes from the Disrupt Text movement that directly contradicts your claims, and provides an alternate explanation that actually promotes more diversity of thought than simply reusing traditional canons. If I recall correctly, you accused them of lying as well, and again with no evidence.

I also explained that even if she was lying, she has no power to suppress or prohibit The Odyssey even if she wanted to. You have agreed to this but somehow keep believing the contradictory claim that she is suppressing and prohibiting The Odyssey.

I believe that summarises our discussion. Please let me know if there is anything I have missed.
#15150510
@Pants-of-dog The only person you have convinced of something(what?) is your own self and even that I'm not so sure.

If you believe you have a point to make, quote and argue it.

----------

For many people including myself as I wrote in the forum in November -of course this is not just my opinion but the opinion of Newton and probably all European intellectuals, scientists and philosophers- Homer's Iliad and Odyssey is the foundational document of western liberal civilisation, like the Bible is for Christianity and the Q'uran for Islam, Homer is for the Enlightenment and Liberalism.

Hence the comment for "liberation" by #disrupttexts, they feel that cancelling Homer will liberate people from 'Western Liberal Civilisation' and hence the glee and the refusal to talk to journalists and the WSJ.

Unlike the texts above, Homer has survived the test of time without ever being declared a 'Holy & Infallible Text' even though the minds who have counted for something throughout history have all considered it the Wholiest of all texts.

Homer does not demand religious loyalty nor does he make any pretences of authority, its poetry(poiesis=creation) not administration. It has been produced by poets not by authorities; its power is resting and requires no acolytes to operate. It speaks for itself to those who are interested and keen.

noemon wrote: Essentially at its core, is the deconstruction of authority for the sake of liberty. My favourite summation of our civilisation came from Boris Johnson when he distilled it into the cries of Achilles when King Agamemnon took his slave woman, his pain, sorrow, rage & despair led the warrior to question the King and then abandon him forcing the King to come to terms with the warrior. These cries of injustice and the force required for a human to make the jump from being part of a herd of sheep to seeking a place at the King's table is what has been driving all these advances forward. "Who cares that you call yourself King". That is what our civilisation is & has been all about.
#15150514
Apparently book clubs now only recommend books where virtually all are about characters and/or authors who are black or POC. I think it's great to have more diversity of english authors but why do we have to go from one extreme to another. I think it would be good if say half of the recommended books were about black/POC given 2020 and the Floyd protests etc., but this is just weird:



#15150515
noemon wrote:@Pants-of-dog The only person you have convinced of something(what?) is your own self and even that I'm not so sure.

If you believe you have a point to make, quote and argue it.

----------

For many people including myself as I wrote in the forum in November -of course this is not just my opinion but the opinion of Newton and probably all European intellectuals, scientists and philosophers- Homer's Iliad and Odyssey is the foundational document of western liberal civilisation, like the Bible is for Christianity and the Q'uran for Islam, Homer is for the Enlightenment and Liberalism.

Hence the comment for "liberation" by #disrupttexts, they feel that cancelling Homer will liberate people from 'Western Liberal Civilisation' and hence the glee and the refusal to talk to journalists and the WSJ.

Unlike the texts above, Homer has survived the test of time without ever being declared a 'Holy & Infallible Text' even though the minds who have counted for something throughout history have all considered it the Wholiest of all texts.

Homer does not demand religious loyalty nor does he make any pretences of authority, its power is resting and requires no acolytes to operate it. It speaks for itself for those who are interested and keen.


@noemon ; I just had to ''like'' what you wrote because in a concise manner you truly distilled the essence of Modern civilization as being the continuation of the Greco-Roman classical pagan drive for self-autonomy at it's core. I'm not saying that I agree with it, but I appreciate it that the understanding is there.

@Potemkin , you definitely know where I'm coming from with this.
#15150520
Ganeshas Rat wrote:Homer is the foundation of literature. The foundation of liberalism is Pericles' Funeral Oration.

Indeed. Homer cannot be described as "liberal" in any meaningful sense. Having said that, Homer is both the first and the greatest of the epic poets, and epic poetry was regarded as the highest of all art forms for several millennia. 'Cancelling' Homer just because you don't like his aristocratic glorification of hierarchy and combat is rather narrow-minded. In its own way, it's just as bad as those Victorian prudes who bowdlerised Shakespeare by crossing out all the naughty bits before presenting the texts in class. The only difference is that it's now done in the name of "political correctness" - the modern version of Puritanism - rather than in the name of sexual propriety.
#15150522
Potemkin wrote:Homer cannot be described as "liberal" in any meaningful sense.


Homer is the one who deconstructed both divine and temporal authority, without which there can be no foundation for Liberty.

Achilles, Odysseus & Nestor form the Prototypes of Hellenic Liberalism. The epics are the official foundational documents of the tradition of the 7 Liberal Arts & Sciences that have been compulsory education for ancient Greece, Rome, Byzantium, Enlightened Europe and modern Western education.

Ganeshas Rat wrote:Homer is the foundation of literature. The foundation of liberalism is Pericles' Funeral Oration.


Well, I can't argue with that nor split hairs over it. I think we both know what we both mean.
#15150525
Unthinking Majority wrote:Well Disney did turf white Peter Parker Spider-Man and replaced him with black Miles Morales Spider-Man for all the kids.


Disney had nothing to do with Miles Morales.

MM was invented by Marvel staff after Obama’s election and the unsuccessful campaign to have Donald Glover play Spider Man.

Disney did not get involved until the animated show based on the Ultimate Marvel universe.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 21

Her being female is neither here nor there. Pri[…]

Longterm, following more widespread automation, […]

That is a variable number. Sometimes it is the n[…]

The stimulus package has passes with every republi[…]