• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Sign in to follow this  
ChronosCat

NP Friday Sep 28, 2018

Recommended Posts

http://egscomics.com/egsnp/assorted-18a-011

Less-safe-for-work alternate on Patreon (patron only): https://www.patreon.com/posts/assorted-2018-11-21706941 and on Twitter: https://twitter.com/egsafterdark/status/1046189366505349120

 

[space for reaction]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cowabunga, dude! I totally dig Catboy Elliot and Surfer Tedd. And the alternate version is even more righteous!

Edited by ChronosCat
added twitter link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... yeah, some language changes doesn't make sense. Probably most of them. But don't worry, if you start forbidding using some word in name of political correctness, it will get MUCH WORSE.

... for example, after the long process of words for sexual acts becaming something not polite to say, we now got to point when you can just say "they are doing it" and everyone knows what you mean.

( ... although ... saying "she knows him" was already clear two thousand years ago ...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

But don't worry, if you start forbidding using some word in name of political correctness, it will get MUCH WORSE.

This has been true as long as government has existed. And it is very hard to completely erase a concept. There are still records of the Pharaoh Hachepsut, for example.

Still, certain rulers made really good tries, like those Chinese Emperors that decided to reset history by burning all existing records to assure a new Year Zero starting with them. It didn't really work, no-one believed it, but they did destroy numberless invaluable and important texts and works of literature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:
4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

But don't worry, if you start forbidding using some word in name of political correctness, it will get MUCH WORSE.

This has been true as long as government has existed. And it is very hard to completely erase a concept. There are still records of the Pharaoh Hachepsut, for example.

Still, certain rulers made really good tries, like those Chinese Emperors that decided to reset history by burning all existing records to assure a new Year Zero starting with them. It didn't really work, no-one believed it, but they did destroy numberless invaluable and important texts and works of literature.

True. Attempts to erase something is not new and current wave is more like return of what was here just few centuries ago ...

... also, yes, it never worked as well as the ones doing it though. On the other hand, lot of important texts were lost, and even more stuff which wasn't written in first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hkmaly said:

True. Attempts to erase something is not new and current wave is more like return of what was here just few centuries ago ...

It does have something new to it. In several cases it is revolutionary, from large numbers at the bottom of the pyramid demanding the change of the top, rather than conservative, imposing the silencing of the bottom. Demanding the cessation of use of the N-word, for example.

The nearest case of this I can think of is that Byzantine Emperor who changed the state language of Byzantium from Latin to Greek because Greek was the language of the common citizen and Latin only used by the privileged few, though that came from the top, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

It does have something new to it. In several cases it is revolutionary, from large numbers at the bottom of the pyramid demanding the change of the top, rather than conservative, imposing the silencing of the bottom. Demanding the cessation of use of the N-word, for example.

Are you SURE it's large numbers? ... and, actually, seems not to be at the bottom either, although it's true it's not top which makes it new already.

In history, the usual way of change was first, get to the top, second, do the change. (Often, getting to the top included cutting off current top. Specifically their heads.) The idea you can skip first step is very new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

Are you SURE it's large numbers?

Go pick any of a large number of Black people in the US and call them the N-word. Use a statistically significant amount, say, a thousand or so. Then note down how many of them weren't offended and you'll have a decent starting idea of the percentage involved. If you want to be sure, pick Black people at the bottom of the social pyramid, they should not be hard to find.

In fact, just go into the middle of the Chicago slums and shout the N-word as loudly as you can about a half dozen times. The reaction should tell you everything you need to know. Only warn me before doing it, I want to stand back a bit first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being "the" Great Bambino has a curse, of course. Speaking of which, then how about Bambi?

Oh, the comic? "There are no words."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
16 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Are you SURE it's large numbers?

Go pick any of a large number of Black people in the US and call them the N-word. Use a statistically significant amount, say, a thousand or so. Then note down how many of them weren't offended and you'll have a decent starting idea of the percentage involved. If you want to be sure, pick Black people at the bottom of the social pyramid, they should not be hard to find.

In fact, just go into the middle of the Chicago slums and shout the N-word as loudly as you can about a half dozen times. The reaction should tell you everything you need to know. Only warn me before doing it, I want to stand back a bit first.

I expect answers like "Say it again, I dare you!" :)

More seriously, I meant that the ones we actually hear the call for stop using that word from are not the ones at the very bottom. Those might not like it but if it would be just them, the majority and the decision makers would just ignore them. Like, was Martin Luther King Jr. at bottom? No, he was outstanding student, skipping classes, he was attending college, had B.A. in sociology and B.Div. (that's something to do with theology) and then Ph.D. He was working at Church, wasn't unemployed or minimal wage employee on fast food chain. That's NOT bottom. And there is not that many people like this either. They told the bottom they don't need to tolerate it, that they can AFFORD to not like being called the N-word ... and they also told them that their position will get better if they wouldn't be called that. And THAT is what the bottom really wants (unsurprisingly). The word is just symbolic target, it's not fault of the word that they are at bottom.

It might work with the N-word, but too much activists now are focusing just on the words, up to the point when they fail doing any real progress in their cause. To be fair, it's harder for them to make any real progress because objectively, the people they fight for (or at least claim to fight for) are NOT in as bad positions as African Americans were in 1955.

(Except women in traditional Arabic countries, but not many activists are fighting for them.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

More seriously, I meant that the ones we actually hear the call for stop using that word from are not the ones at the very bottom. Those might not like it but if it would be just them, the majority and the decision makers would just ignore them. Like, was Martin Luther King Jr. at bottom? No, he was outstanding student, skipping classes, he was attending college, had B.A. in sociology and B.Div. (that's something to do with theology) and then Ph.D. He was working at Church, wasn't unemployed or minimal wage employee on fast food chain. That's NOT bottom.

I must disagree. Martin Luther King was exceptional but he was middle class at best and his power stemmed from the bottom. What is more, he was also planted squarely beneath the oppression he was fighting. He was not the equal of a white man in a similar position.

2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

And there is not that many people like this either. They told the bottom they don't need to tolerate it, that they can AFFORD to not like being called the N-word ... and they also told them that their position will get better if they wouldn't be called that. And THAT is what the bottom really wants (unsurprisingly). The word is just symbolic target, it's not fault of the word that they are at bottom.

You would be surprised at the power of symbols. If an entire generation is taught to think of a group in clearly dehumanising terms and that it is okay to refer to them as 'monkeys', the N-word, 'junglebunnies' and so forth, they will start to perceive that group as subhuman on a level below that of conscious thought. It will become a basic assumption that is never challenged. There is a reason that Hitler and the Nazis attempted to entirely revise the German language and outlawed a great many terms -- it was behavioral modification on a national scale. There are books written on the topic.

2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

It might work with the N-word, but too much activists now are focusing just on the words, up to the point when they fail doing any real progress in their cause.

Yes, that is what the people resisting the activists want you to believe. They are well aware that their OWN behavioral modifiers are being challenged, so they do their best to resist or slow down the change. One way of doing so is attacking the very basis they do it on.

2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

To be fair, it's harder for them to make any real progress because objectively, the people they fight for (or at least claim to fight for) are NOT in as bad positions as African Americans were in 1955.

...the 'logic' in that sentence makes my brain hurt.

2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

(Except women in traditional Arabic countries, but not many activists are fighting for them.)

You are really underestimating these women if you think they are not desperately fighting for themselves. Or why else would you constantly be reading of arrests being made and brutal punishments inflicted on the offenders...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Old Hack said:
Just now, hkmaly said:

(Except women in traditional Arabic countries, but not many activists are fighting for them.)

You are really underestimating these women if you think they are not desperately fighting for themselves. Or why else would you constantly be reading of arrests being made and brutal punishments inflicted on the offenders...

There's also the recent controversy over Saudi Arabia cutting relations with Canada because we showed concern over the imprisonment of women's rights activists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:
4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

More seriously, I meant that the ones we actually hear the call for stop using that word from are not the ones at the very bottom. Those might not like it but if it would be just them, the majority and the decision makers would just ignore them. Like, was Martin Luther King Jr. at bottom? No, he was outstanding student, skipping classes, he was attending college, had B.A. in sociology and B.Div. (that's something to do with theology) and then Ph.D. He was working at Church, wasn't unemployed or minimal wage employee on fast food chain. That's NOT bottom.

I must disagree. Martin Luther King was exceptional but he was middle class at best and his power stemmed from the bottom. What is more, he was also planted squarely beneath the oppression he was fighting. He was not the equal of a white man in a similar position.

I did say it's not from top, so I'm not sure what you disagree with.

However, you have point about him being under the oppression he was fighting. I mean, him being under it is obvious, but you have point that that's something new - having results WHILE being under the oppression.

In historical cases, the results came only after the oppression was no longer in progress.

1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

You would be surprised at the power of symbols. If an entire generation is taught to think of a group in clearly dehumanising terms and that it is okay to refer to them as 'monkeys', the N-word, 'junglebunnies' and so forth

The "monkeys" and "junglebunnies" are dehumanizing because of other meaning they have. The N-word, as far as I'm aware, had ALWAYS just one meaning. Well, ok, it also used to mean the color, but that's hardly dehumanizing ...

(EDIT: ... although I did said that in case of N-word, it might've worked. Like, in helping challenging those assumptions.)

1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:
4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

To be fair, it's harder for them to make any real progress because objectively, the people they fight for (or at least claim to fight for) are NOT in as bad positions as African Americans were in 1955.

...the 'logic' in that sentence makes my brain hurt.

The logic is based on the similar idea that having 2000% growth of user base is easier if you start with five people than if you start with thousand.

... although maybe "visible" progress would be clearer word choice.

1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:
4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

(Except women in traditional Arabic countries, but not many activists are fighting for them.)

You are really underestimating these women if you think they are not desperately fighting for themselves. Or why else would you constantly be reading of arrests being made and brutal punishments inflicted on the offenders...

I didn't meant to underestimate those women. I wanted to point out the number of activist who are NOT fighting for them but are choosing other groups to fight for ... safer ones. Fighting for rights of women in traditional Arabic countries is less safe than fighting for rights of women in US ...

13 minutes ago, Scotty said:

There's also the recent controversy over Saudi Arabia cutting relations with Canada because we showed concern over the imprisonment of women's rights activists.

... I'm not sure what is controversial about that. Canada showing concern over the imprisonment of women's rights activists is logical and expected for modern democratic country. Saudi Arabia cutting relations in retaliation is logical and expected from conservative absolute monarchy with elements of theocracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hkmaly said:

I didn't meant to underestimate those women. I wanted to point out the number of activist who are NOT fighting for them but are choosing other groups to fight for ... safer ones. Fighting for rights of women in traditional Arabic countries is less safe than fighting for rights of women in US ...

If you think ANY form of activism is 'safe' or that activists go into what they do to lead safer lives, look at the safe lives of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela (though I guess you can argue that political prison is 'safe'), or even less notable ones like current generation feminists and Black Lives Matter activists being exposed to death threats, doxxing, 'swatting', rape threats and smear campaigns aimed at destroying their lives. It is an activist act just to protest one's own sexual violation, especially if the sexual predator is in a powerful social position. If you do so, you might find all of the above launched at you in very short order.

Also, there might be those who fight who simply choose to do so while hiding from the spotlight. When my late Uncle Georg spread anti-Nazi pamphlets, he didn't do it while wearing a sandwich board reading "COME HERE FOR YOUR NEWS FROM THE FREE WORLD. DOWN WITH THE NAZI OPPRESSORS." It allowed him to last longer, you see, though they did catch him eventually and put him in jail for the rest of the war.

I am too emotionally exhausted to argue this any further with someone playing Devil's Advocate for the sake of it. Allow me to boil down political correctness to the simplest possible principle. "Don't call people shitty things. It encourages you to think of them the same way." That's all there is to it and if you think that is pointless I feel sorry for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

If you think ANY form of activism is 'safe' or that activists go into what they do to lead safer lives, look at the safe lives of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela (though I guess you can argue that political prison is 'safe'), or even less notable ones like current generation feminists and Black Lives Matter activists being exposed to death threats, doxxing, 'swatting', rape threats and smear campaigns aimed at destroying their lives. It is an activist act just to protest one's own sexual violation, especially if the sexual predator is in a powerful social position. If you do so, you might find all of the above launched at you in very short order.

There is difference between "safer" and "safe".

For example, receiving death threats is generally safer than receiving death sentences.

13 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Also, there might be those who fight who simply choose to do so while hiding from the spotlight. When my late Uncle Georg spread anti-Nazi pamphlets, he didn't do it while wearing a sandwich board reading "COME HERE FOR YOUR NEWS FROM THE FREE WORLD. DOWN WITH THE NAZI OPPRESSORS." It allowed him to last longer, you see, though they did catch him eventually and put him in jail for the rest of the war.

... hmmm ... true, I might be underestimating number of this kind of activists due to them not being so public.

13 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

I am too emotionally exhausted to argue this any further with someone playing Devil's Advocate for the sake of it. Allow me to boil down political correctness to the simplest possible principle. "Don't call people shitty things. It encourages you to think of them the same way." That's all there is to it and if you think that is pointless I feel sorry for you.

That's not the part I'm arguing with. If only political correctness was really just about this ...

... uuuhhhh ... we got pretty far from the etymology of word "bimbo" ... maybe we should try to stop.

(Maybe I should try to stop as you seem to be trying already.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, hkmaly said:

... I'm not sure what is controversial about that. Canada showing concern over the imprisonment of women's rights activists is logical and expected for modern democratic country. Saudi Arabia cutting relations in retaliation is logical and expected from conservative absolute monarchy with elements of theocracy.

The controversy comes in the fact that there are Canadians that believe Trudeau (our Prime Minister) should have minded his own business on the subject because Saudi Arabia was a big trade partner for a while especially in terms oil and getting that dropped would result in gas prices going up here, basically it boiled down to a group of people would who rather have affordable gas over women's rights, which to me, is pretty sad...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Touching on the subject of how efforts to erase words tend not to work very well: The very act of telling people not to say a word keeps it in the public consciousness (though I suppose this isn't such a problem if you only tell people not to say it in response to them saying it). Also in the case of words used as insults, there's the phenomena of the people who those insults are flung at trying to reclaim the word.

...Anyway, getting back to the comic: for those who aren't patrons, the alternate version is now available on twitter: https://twitter.com/egsafterdark/status/1046189366505349120

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this