UK graduate thrown out of gay club after "triggering" Blurred Lines is played

Dave_The_Sheep

The King of Moo wrote: »

A little worse than a nursery rhyme, no?

Of course it is.

Is it disrespectful to women treating this hypothetical woman like nothing more than a cheap sex object? Absolutely. If they're OK with that, that's fine.

I'm not sure it promotes rape though, after reading the lyrics. "I know you want it" doesn't mean "I know you want it and I'm going to give it to you regardless of what you say".

Maybe I don't think about it enough.

hatrickpatrick

zeffabelli wrote: »

The sender police and feminists are like the new nuns for the 21st century.

It's actually astounding how they manage to consistently miss this fact. Most of them despise social conservatism if you ask them, for obvious reasons - and yet half of what they preach is essentially an extreme form of social conservatism, just using different criteria.

It creates amusing cognitive dissonance when these folk are confronted with the fact that their "ban everything" crusades match up fairly well with people like Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump etc. Usually causes quite a bit of fluster and an abrupt change of subject.

Kev W

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, you are inconsistent. Your problem is that you are happy to allow self-identification when it suits, yet not when it does not. Identify is subjective, but only when you say so.

As to evidence, all you've managed to muster up is that sexuality and orientation is on a sliding scale (if you actually bother to read what you've posted), not actual gender. And even if gender were, you've yet to show where it can be self-identified and be considered accurate or even sane to do so. In fact, it has long been known that not all that identify as transsexuals are in fact transsexuals, which is why they need to go through a process of psychological evaluation before any treatment can commence.

All you appear to be doing is defending some, frankly, spoilt middle-class college girl and a current fashion for people to self-identify.

Your problem is that you think believing oneself to be non-binary is equivalent to believing oneself to be a dead emperor. One is physically impossible, the other is not. You've beaten that false equivalency into the dirt by now, it simply doesn't work.

Incidentally, since there is a process of psychological evaluation before gender reassignment surgery can commence and that hasn't stopped gender reassignment surgery from happening, doesn't that indicate that one can be born with a gender identity distinct from their physical sex? Someone must be passing these evaluations.

All you seem to be doing is defending a DJ who publicy verbally abused a woman because she expressed a negative opinion about a song he was playing.

bucketybuck

Kev W wrote: »

I specifically said if it wasn't obvious.

If it wasn't obvious?

How is gender not obvious? Are you saying that if you see tits you don't check gender? That you only ask if the person is ugly and has a flat chest? Are you saying that attractive people don't have gender issues?

Your views appear to be extremely offensive and ignorant of the realities of gender.

HardenendMan

"What's your pronoun preference?"

Ahh ha ha ha ha. Funniest line ever.

hatrickpatrick

The King of Moo wrote: »

If a lot of it's at the level of "Blurred Lines" I'd rather not.
Even if there are worse songs lyrically, it doesn't justify the awfulness of "Blurred Lines'" lyrics.

Of course it doesn't, but nothing can justify censorship on the grounds of offence - not unless we want to rewind the clock on social liberation from various thought police over the centuries, most recently the church.

Kev W

The King of Moo wrote: »

If a lot of it's at the level of "Blurred Lines" I'd rather not.
Even if there are worse songs lyrically, it doesn't justify the awfulness of "Blurred Lines'" lyrics.

Don't let that rubbish tar the entirety of hip hop for you. there's great stuff out there.

galljga1

What think ye of this lady?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11678667/Rachel-Dolezal-who-pretended-to-be-African-American-says-she-identifies-as-black.html

zeffabelli

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's actually astounding how they manage to consistently miss this fact. Most of them despise social conservatism if you ask them, for obvious reasons - and yet half of what they preach is essentially an extreme form of social conservatism, just using different criteria.

It creates amusing cognitive dissonance when these folk are confronted with the fact that their "ban everything" crusades match up fairly well with people like Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump etc. Usually causes quite a bit of fluster and an abrupt change of subject.

It astounds me too how the feminists and egalitarianists can't see the Puritanism and how they are out to destroy fun and everyone's sex lives with their political bull****.

Now you have these morons invalidating consent if under the influence of alcohol, so essentially have taken my adulthood away from me.

razorblunt

galljga1 wrote: »

That would be 2. It's non binary.

Bah, I hate those non binary folk.

The King of Moo

zeffabelli wrote: »

Music dance and art has always been dirty, sexy, filthy, earthy and playing with boundaries. That's what makes them so much fun.

Should we ban elvis because of his pelvic choreography? Shakespeare for his dirty jokes?

The sender police and feminists are like the new nuns for the 21st century.

No, because they're not as sexist and dismissive of consent, and I don't like things to be banned because they offend some people. Which is why I never once suggested banning "Blurred Lines," just noting that it's good to make people aware of how creepy it is.

jungleman wrote: »

@King of Moo

I'm not going to quote your comment because all of the scrolling would drive everyone mad.

It's a sleazy song but the way everyone lost their minds over it was a bit much. It's a song. Just a song. People have become so egotistical and self obsessed that a song is enough to send them into a frenzy.

People need to get outside, go for a walk, and get their sense of perspective back.

I agree to an extent. Doubtless there are many more songs with horrific lyrics out there, but...

People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy (Batman, 2005)

"Blurred Lines" got all the attention because it was famous and widely-played because it's really catchy. In a sense it's not fair, but we can't expect the general public to get angry about songs they haven't heard. And if it draws attention to a more general trend of sexist, rapey lyrics in popular music (I'm not clued in enough to know if there is such a widespread trend), then there's at least a positive coming out of it.

It's like poor old Cecil the lion. Yes, there are other animals being poached all the time, but this was a popular, tame-ish lion and if the furore surrounding his death draws attention to poaching and canned hunting, again, there's a positive coming out of it.

It's also worth remembering that regardless of how many people do what they've done, Robin Thicke and that dentist are still complete a**holes.

I identify as [latex](\sqrt-1)^2[/latex].

i is bein' real, man.

Bio Mech

Kev W wrote: »

Complete consistency in fact. Since it's impossible for a living person to be Napoleon Bonaparte as he is dead, the fact of Bonaparte's death is sufficient proof that anyone claiming to be him is at the very least lying or delusional.

I would conjecture that its quite possible to be Napoleon through the process of re-incarnation. I think we are wrong to consider life in an alive or dead binary way. When someone could be in any number of quantum states neither alive nor dead. I consider myself trans-existing. Hey you cant prove me wrong. You cant prove a negative and look at all the research into kharma.

kylith

CruelCoin wrote: »

And you don't see it as impolite to ask every person you meet "How do you identify?"

How many obviously male/female people would be offended that you would even have any kind of doubt as to what they are. You're going to offend far fewer by not asking.

Gotta agree with this. If you identify as different to your physical appearance the onus is on you to tactfully, and without getting bent out of shape, that you would prefer a different pronoun. It's not feasible to ask everyone you meet how you should address them in case 0.05% of them identify differently.

I know it's not the same but I don't like my name, however I wouldn't expect people who don't know me to know that and ask what they should call me so I say "Just call me 'nickname'".

galljga1 wrote: »

Personally, I think Blurred Lines is one of the best pop songs of this decade.

Weird Al's version is better.

zeffabelli

The King of Moo wrote: »

No, because they're not as sexist and dismissive of consent, and I don't like things to be banned because they offend some people. Which is why I never once suggested banning "Blurred Lines," just noting that it's good to make people aware of how creepy it is.



I agree to an extent. Doubtless there are many more songs with horrific lyrics out there, but...



"Blurred Lines" got all the attention because it was famous and widely-played because it's really catchy. In a sense it's not fair, but we can't expect the general public to get angry about songs they haven't heard. And if it draws attention to a more general trend of sexist, rapey lyrics in popular music (I'm not clued in enough to know if there is such a widespread trend), then there's at least a positive coming out of it.

It's like poor old Cecil the lion. Yes, there are other animals being poached all the time, but this was a popular, tame-ish lion and if the furore surrounding his death draws attention to poaching and canned hunting, again, there's a positive coming out of it.

It's also worth remembering that regardless of how many people do what they've done, Robin Thicke and that dentist are still complete a**holes.

How about the rape of the Sabine women, the rape of Persephone? Should we take those off museum walls?

Kev W

Bio Mech wrote: »

I would conjecture that its quite possible to be Napoleon through the process of re-incarnation. I think we are wrong to consider life in an alive or dead binary way. When someone could be in any number of quantum states neither alive nor dead. I consider myself trans-existing. Hey you cant prove me wrong. You cant prove a negative and look at all the research into kharma.

Actually that would mean you used to be Napoleon.

Wright

But Noah and Georgia are still unhappy. Noah said: “The manager didn’t even use the right pronouns for Georgia”.

Georgia identifies as “gender non-conforming” and prefers to use both “she and “they” pronouns, adding: “Noah as far as I know identifies as non-binary”.

OK ♡♡♡♡ off now luv. Millenials.
Can imagine this one down the Welfare office.

"Ummm, where's the non-conforming non-binary check box?"

People who are actually sexually assaulted don't tend to go throwing this information around; attention seeker through and through.

valoren

"You address me by my proper title, ya little bollox!"

Kev W

Kev W wrote: »

Actually that would mean you used to be Napoleon.

Tenses are a social construct

Into The Blue

The real outrage here should be, why are 'uk graduate' and 'gay club' significant enough to be in the title?

Kev W

zeffabelli wrote: »

How about the rape of the Sabine women, the rape of Persephone? Should we take those off museum walls?

Once again, for clarity's sake:

NOBODY ON THIS THREAD IS CALLING FOR A BAN.

NOBODY IS SUPPORTING CENSORSHIP.

STOP PRETENDING THAT'S THE ARGUMENT.

The King of Moo

tritium wrote: »

Misogynistic, possibly though that songs writers have a different view than the outrage posse who saw a chance to get some headlines off someone else's creative work. Dodgy on consent? Well only if you ascribe to a very narrow interpretation given by agenda groups pushing outrage and ignore a significant amount of the songs lyrics that don't fit that narrative...




And his does this equate to a right of censorship? Should a club, catering to thousands of people get it's song list approved by all patrons? How far should we take this? Can I object to certain national anthems at sports events because they trigger memories of colonial oppression? Can I insist certain movies are never shown because they trigger memories of the death of a loved one? Or should we expect people to be adults and maybe just go to the bar when these come on?

My point that you responded to was actually a general one. Should we put the protection of precious little flowers ahead of everything else? Should one person be able to restrict others just to satisfy their own needs? Let's say I really want to hear that song because it reminds me of a good or special time in my life, why would I be any less deserving if being accomodated here?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Of course it doesn't, but nothing can justify censorship on the grounds of offence - not unless we want to rewind the clock on social liberation from various thought police over the centuries, most recently the church.

I don't agree at all with censorship on the grounds of offence. I'm very liberal when it comes to censorship. The only main area I would agree with censorship in is in keeping some things from young children.

At the same time, if a private club or radio station chooses not to play "Blurred Lines" I can understand that and respect that, as it's their choice to make.
Equally, I can understand them choosing to play it as it's really catchy.

It's always worth pointing out that Georgia didn't expect the DJ to stop playing it on her behalf. I think it was just a misguided political statement.

Kev W

Wright wrote: »

OK ♡♡♡♡ off now luv. Millenials.
Can imagine this one down the Welfare office.

"Ummm, where's the non-conforming non-binary check box?"

People who are actually sexually assaulted don't tend to go throwing this information around; attention seeker through and through.

So now we have an accusation that she's lying about being raped?

Awesome.

This thread is filling up with awesome people.

LizT

Mod

I hate to stifle the discussion on gender identity because quite frankly, it's a discussion that needs to be had. But I have to unfortunately because people can't seem to discuss it in a rational manner and the thread has gone to sh1te.

If you have an agenda to push, boards is not the place for it. Know that you are being watched very carefully and bans will be handed out soon. You know who I'm talking to, if not, PM for clarification.

I'm not sure there's much point in keeping this thread open but if people can try and discuss this story in a civil manner and disregard the gender identity bit of it, we may have a chance.

ohnonotgmail

The King of Moo wrote: »

If a lot of it's at the level of "Blurred Lines" I'd rather not.
Even if there are worse songs lyrically, it doesn't justify the awfulness of "Blurred Lines'" lyrics.

Nobody said it does. But to jump all over it because it is objectively worse than other songs is just nonsense. rap and hip hip, but rap especially, bring misogyny to a whole different level than this song.

Into The Blue

Into The Blue wrote: »

How do you ad pacman faces on the touch site?

type :pac:

This thread has pretty much become Kev W vs the world.

speedboatchase

Into The Blue wrote: »

The real outrage here should be, why are 'uk graduate' and 'gay club' significant enough to be in the title?

I used 'UK graduate' rather than graduate in case people assumed before clicking that this story took place in Ireland. I thought that mentioning it was a gay club was relevant because the people who were kicked out mention that they thought they were in a "safe space", when in reality people had no time for their 'trigger warning' squeamishness.

Wright

speedboatchase wrote: »

I used 'UK graduate' rather than graduate in case people assumed before clicking that this story took place in Ireland.

Yes everyone else assumed this too; I think that guy is making the 'hilarious' insinuation that all UK graduates are gay or something.

The King of Moo

zeffabelli wrote: »

How about the rape of the Sabine women, the rape of Persephone? Should we take those off museum walls?

I'm getting a bit annoyed that you keep suggesting I'm pro-censorship, when I've repeatedly stated that I'm not.
Can you stop doing that?

Now: I don't think we should if they're in public museums and they're considered of significant artistic value, and public museums and galleries have a duty to display significant works. But if a museum or gallery got consistent complaints about particular works, then they could do something simple like have a small note in the guide or subtly on a wall mentioning their content.
I'd imagine not many people would find offence with them due to their historical distance and, crucially, they're not suggesting that rape is ok or consent is unclear, which is a message it's very easy to pick up from "Blurred Lines."

And if a small private gallery chose not to display certain minor works, then more power to them, it's their right, and people have an equal right to complain about their decision.

It's almost like there are subtleties to these situations, bizarrely enough.

B0jangles

Deleted User wrote: »

This thread has pretty much become Kev W vs the world.

Kev W vs. The dregs of AH more like.

awec

Kev W wrote: »

If it's not obvious when meeting, the phrase "what's your pronoun preference?" works.

This sentence made me burst out laughing. What absolute bollocks. :pac:

Samaris

Ok, there's a couple of different arguments in here, as far as I can see. There is a bit of a tendency to wait for someone to say something unreasonable an then dismissing everyone who identifies as something other than their biological sex as delusional idiots. Which is unfair.

My opinion on this is that Georgia was being a bit unreasonable to try talk to the DJ right in the middle of the song. She said herself that she wasn't expecting him to turn off the song, so what was she expecting? A better response would be to ...I don't know, complain about the song in another way, rather than picking on one random DJ that was playing it.

However, the DJ was also a dick in his response, especially making it so public to humiliate her for a bad choice. And especially since no-one else would have any idea what it was about, just the DJ calling some random person a silly bitch.

As regards using the incorrect pronouns, yes, no-one involved could possibly be expected to know what Georgia's preferred pronouns are. She was showing the characteristics of a female, so she was referred to as female.

HOWEVER. There does seem to be a spectrum of sexuality. And transgender has certainly been in the news enough for us all to have gotten an idea of people not wishing to be called the pronoun that they don't feel themselves to be, particularly when they are putting a lot of work in to be the other gender. Dismissing the entire argument because one person went over the top is like dismissing all feminist arguments because one raging shouter is being obnoxious, or dismissing the concept of a round planet because the person saying it is also saying that Australians are upside down.

There does seem to be people just waiting in the wings for something like this, just so they can say that lol, they knew it didn't exist all along. Equality is when you can have an asshole in your "corner" without everyone being tarred with the same brush for their comments.


Pre-edit: Using game consoles or oranges or anything else for mocking gender identities is rather obnoxious too.

Edit: ack, sorry Mod, I'd written that while the conversation was still evolving. Is the above ok?

awec

awec wrote: »

This sentence made me burst out laughing. What absolute bollocks. :pac:

What's your pronoun? Honestly, I prefer being identified as an adjective.

tritium

The King of Moo wrote: »

It's always worth pointing out that Georgia didn't expect the DJ to stop playing it on her behalf. I think it was just a misguided political statement.

Her note to the DJ was "I don't want to hear this ****" coupled with an emotionally loaded story -how can that be interpreted as anything other than an expectation to have it stopped. And then in spite of her protestations subsequently about not meaning this she later states she wants it banned or at least given a special warning status.

Maximus Alexander

"Well met lifeform, I hope that your mental and emotional states are within the spectrum that you consider adequate, or better than adequate, insofar as emotional states are accessible to you. Alternatively, I hope that your respiratory, biological or life supporting systems are operating optimally."

Would that be sufficiently inoffensive way to address somebody?

whomitconcerns

the rest of it...
https://www.facebook.com/groups/luufemsoc/10153008753858263/

....we are all doomed with people like this

The King of Moo

tritium wrote: »

Her note to the DJ was "I don't want to hear this ****" coupled with an emotionally loaded story -how can that be interpreted as anything other than an expectation to have it stopped. And then in spite of her protestations subsequently about not meaning this she later states she wants it banned or at least given a special warning status.

And I agree that Georgia's method was pretty stupid, and I don't think playing a warning before the song would work (it'd kill the atmosphere, for one).
Though I can give Georgia just a little leeway, considering their judgement could have been clouded by emotion. But any stupid statements after the initial moment are entirely on Georgia.

I understand why people are repulsed by the song, but I don't think it needs to go beyond clubs deciding if they want to play it or not.

And if someone were in a club and were annoyed it was played, they could email the management to express their dislike of the song later.

kylith

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

"Well met lifeform, I hope that your mental and emotional states are within the spectrum that you consider adequate, or better than adequate, insofar as emotional states are accessible to you. Alternatively, I hope that your respiratory, biological or life supporting systems are operating optimally."

Would that be sufficiently inoffensive way to address somebody?

Lifeform? LIFEform?! What about those who identify as undead, you prick? :pac:

Penn

Samaris wrote: »

However, the DJ was also a dick in his response, especially making it so public to humiliate her for a bad choice. And especially since no-one else would have any idea what it was about, just the DJ calling some random person a silly bitch.

As regards using the incorrect pronouns, yes, no-one involved could possibly be expected to know what Georgia's preferred pronouns are. She was showing the characteristics of a female, so she was referred to as female.

HOWEVER. There does seem to be a spectrum of sexuality. And transgender has certainly been in the news enough for us all to have gotten an idea of people not wishing to be called the pronoun that they don't feel themselves to be, particularly when they are putting a lot of work in to be the other gender. Dismissing the entire argument because one person went over the top is like dismissing all feminist arguments because one raging shouter is being obnoxious, or dismissing the concept of a round planet because the person saying it is also saying that Australians are upside down.

Completely agree. I genuinely do believe in spectrums regarding both sexuality and gender. Everyone should be free to identify as the sexuality or gender they wish (none of this "Well then I identify as carpet" nonsense). But I think it's unfair to complain about someone using the wrong pronoun, unless they're purposefully doing it to be a dick. Even if we know how someone wishes to be referred to, we subconsciously identify others based on a range of factors and standard pronouns are part of our lexicon.

Into The Blue

Wright wrote: »

Yes everyone else assumed this too; I think that guy is making the 'hilarious' insinuation that all UK graduates are gay or something.

No, not that at all. I just don't see why those bits of info were required in the title. But the op explained. End of.

pmasterson95

B0jangles wrote: »

Kev W vs. The dregs of AH more like.

I dont identify as a dreg how dare you.

CruelCoin

galljga1 wrote: »

What think ye of this lady?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11678667/Rachel-Dolezal-who-pretended-to-be-African-American-says-she-identifies-as-black.html

Fine, "i'm black at heart", whatever.

She'll obviously have no issue with me identifing as turquoise so.

RWCNT

How come all the highly original "I identify as black/tall/a lamp" type responses from the usual crew of geniuses are being tolerated here when they're usually reprimanded in other TG-related threads?

Wright

Into The Blue wrote: »

End of.

Not really. Any decent op will place the person/story, what about 'UK graduate' gets your thong riding up?

ohnonotgmail

Wright wrote: »

Not really. Any decent op will place the person/story, what about 'UK graduate' gets your thong riding up?

probably more the "graduate" bit than the "uk" bit. like that makes them in some way special.

pmasterson95

RWCNT wrote: »

How come all the highly original "I identify as black/tall/a lamp" type responses from the usual crew of geniuses are being tolerated here when they're usually reprimanded in other TG-related threads?

This all you and kev have left? Oh no our agenda and faux outrage has been showed up. Please save us powers that be and end these points we dont have an excuse for.



I believe the thing is you report and then they decide action. Begging for help/rescuing publicly isn't the procedure

Kev W

pmasterson95 wrote: »

This all you and kev have left? Oh no our agenda and faux outrage has been showed up. Please save us powers that be and end these points we dont have an excuse for.



I believe the thing is you report and then they decide action. Begging for help/rescuing publicly isn't the procedure

What?

RWCNT

pmasterson95 wrote: »

This all you and kev have left? Oh no our agenda and faux outrage has been showed up. Please save us powers that be and end these points we dont have an excuse for.



I believe the thing is you report and then they decide action. Begging for help/rescuing publicly isn't the procedure

What agenda and faux outrage? This is my first post in the thread. I would never report a post, I think people should be allowed to post whatever. I'm just curious about the reason for the double standard.

Wright

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

probably more the "graduate" bit than the "uk" bit. like that makes them in some way special.

I'm betting on the polar opposite I'd say he thought the incident happened here, and we were specifying it was a UK person because that made them in some way special.