Authors Behaving Like A**holes

[IlyaP]

10 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Was the guardian not that site that posted a pro Katherine Hale story after she basically stalked a girl that gave her a bad review on goodreads?

I've tried to locate this Katharine Hale person on web searches and Goodreads. Nothing comes up. 

Who is she? You've sparked my curiosity. (Which, to be fair, it doesn't take much to make me curious.)

[Ran]

4 minutes ago, IlyaP said:

I've tried to locate this Katharine Hale person on web searches and Goodreads. Nothing comes up. 

Who is she? You've sparked my curiosity. (Which, to be fair, it doesn't take much to make me curious.)

Kathleen Hale is the person being referred to.

[Darth Richard II]

Yeah, sorry, let me edit that

 

also, lol at the Gor bit above

[Myshkin]

44 minutes ago, IlyaP said:

My goal here was not to further the strand of thought concerning plagiarism. 

Rather: imagine how weird it would be to have someone from a different culture and cultural context write about your culture in a way that rang hollow and false and have that writer be applauded for it. 

Some of the responses we're seeing to American Dirt are responses to cultural chauvinism, and that's something worth stopping and meditating on. 

Maybe I should clarify my position for you. I am not defending Cummins against any accusations other than the accusation of plagiarism. If you are trying to convince me of the validity of any of the other accusations, you needn’t bother, I’m already onboard.

[IlyaP]

7 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

Maybe I should clarify my position for you. I am not defending Cummins against any accusations other than the accusation of plagiarism. If you are trying to convince me of the validity of any of the other accusations, you needn’t bother, I’m already onboard.

Oh I'm not arguing the plagiarism thing. I don't think I'm in any position to make those claims. Better to let the voices of those making the claims speak. I'm more interested in the experience of cultural chauvinism, which resonates strongly with me due to my lived experiences and encounters with it. 

[IlyaP]

34 minutes ago, Ran said:

Kathleen Hale is the person being referred to.

Katheleen! That's why I was having no success in finding this person! 

Thank you Ran!

[Myshkin]

14 minutes ago, IlyaP said:

Oh I'm not arguing the plagiarism thing. I don't think I'm in any position to make those claims. Better to let the voices of those making the claims speak. I'm more interested in the experience of cultural chauvinism, which resonates strongly with me due to my lived experiences and encounters with it. 

Then I don’t know why you’re arguing with me.

[IlyaP]

1 minute ago, Myshkin said:

Then I don’t know why you’re arguing with me.

Crossed wires, I suspect. 

[polishgenius]

6 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

Hell must be frozen, now i agree with heartofice.

Don't. The Guardian has their moments of shittitude but Lawrence Fox is an arsehole and deserves to be pilloried for the stuff he came out with and his subsuquent career lurch into a latter-day Piers Morgan.

[Darth Richard II]

6 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Don't. The Guardian has their moments of shittitude but Lawrence Fox is an arsehole and deserves to be pilloried for the stuff he came out with and his subsuquent career lurch into a latter-day Piers Morgan.

Oh, I don't disagree, I just share his dislike for the guardian.

[Wall Flower]

1 hour ago, Darth Richard II said:

Oh, I don't disagree, I just share his dislike for the guardian.

Maybe it just suits my left wing sensibilities but the Guardian Australia is one of the few papers not owned by the evil empire (the Murdochracy) and actually makes an attempt to hold our government to account on issues like climate change and offshore detention. Can't really comment on the Guardian UK, though. Curious as to what you hate about it.

[IlyaP]

37 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

Maybe it just suits my left wing sensibilities but the Guardian Australia is one of the few papers not owned by the evil empire (the Murdochracy) and actually makes an attempt to hold our government to account on issues like climate change and offshore detention.

Will take Guardian AU any day over the Sydney Morning Herald or The Daily Terrorgraph. 

[Darth Richard II]

46 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

Maybe it just suits my left wing sensibilities but the Guardian Australia is one of the few papers not owned by the evil empire (the Murdochracy) and actually makes an attempt to hold our government to account on issues like climate change and offshore detention. Can't really comment on the Guardian UK, though. Curious as to what you hate about it.

Hate is too strong a word. They have just published some, eh, opposite of left leaning articles over the year that makes me take anything by them with a grain of salt, let's say, like the Hale thing above.

[Heartofice]

Like almost all online news outlets, the Guardians opinion pieces are a dumpster fire of over the top click bait, filled with outrageous lefty headlines that defy logic. The Guardian is world famous for it, it’s one thing it does really well.

[Wall Flower]

1 hour ago, IlyaP said:

Will take Guardian AU any day over the Sydney Morning Herald or The Daily Terrorgraph. 

Yeah the Daily Terror and the Australian have devolved into right wing propaganda sheets and the SMH is heading that way since it was sold - I think Kerry Stokes owns it now?

[Wall Flower]

1 hour ago, Darth Richard II said:

Hate is too strong a word. They have just published some, eh, opposite of left leaning articles over the year that makes me take anything by them with a grain of salt, let's say, like the Hale thing above.

Fair enough. Given the domination of Murdoch in the Aussie market, the Guardian looks positively socialist in comparison. Plus there are always a lot of comments from people whining for England about the wokeness of Dr Who and other British shows in the TV section (which does come from the Guardian UK) so that usually gives me a bit of a laugh.

On the subject of bad authors, I think my WTF reading of a Gor book as a teenager was one of the things that gave me a push towards Feminism (along with being forced to do sewing at school). Probably not the effect John Norman was going for.

[Varysblackfyre321]

14 hours ago, Heartofice said:

It is quite amusing to see the Guardian (and Twitter)  as usual lose it's mind after someone says something sensible on Question Time, and decide they are the devil incarnate. But carry on posting Guardian links..

Could you explain your disagreement with the actual things being called out by the guardian link in question?

Instead going ”pbffft, guardian they suck.” as if that in itself is reason to dismiss anything they’ve said or are current saying?

The specific link you seem to be referring to doesn't even just reference Fox’s statements on Question time-the ”sensibility” of much what garnered controversy being debateble.

It also cites him crying racism over Sikhs being depicted in a movie about WW1.

Which is hypocritical as hell given his moaning about how people are to quick to call stuff racist.

He went as far as calling it institutionally racist-something he says doesn't really believe in-by virtue of acknowledging there were those who fought for Britain who weren't white. 

All he wanted he to do was watch a movie about heroic white men, doing heroic things.  And he was mildly discomforted  being forced to see that they're none-whites fighting too. 

Would you contend that Fox was acting reasonable here?

[Heartofice]

35 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Could you explain your disagreement with the actual things being called out by the guardian link in question?

Instead going ”pbffft, guardian they suck.” as if that in itself is reason to dismiss anything they’ve said or are current saying?

The specific link you seem to be referring to doesn't even just reference Fox’s statements on Question time-the ”sensibility” of much what garnered controversy being debateble.

It also him crying racism over Sikhs being depicted in a movie about WW1.

Which is hypocritical as hell given his moaning about how people are to quick to call stuff racist.

He went as far as calling it institutionally racist-something he says doesn't really believe in-by virtue of acknowledging there were those who fought for Britain who weren't white. 

All he wanted he to do was watch a movie about heroic white men, doing heroic things.  It’s clearly oppression him being ”forced” to see that they're none-whites fighting too. 

 

Why is Fox suddenly in the news? Why is he being mentioned in the Guardian at all? Because of his Question Time appearance. Before that point he was almost entirely unknown (so not sure why he was even invited on). 

All he said on Question Time was it wasn't racism motivating Megxit.. and that Britain is one of the most tolerant places on the planet. Two statements I completely agree with. He then pointed out the hypocrisy of the woman talking to him about racism when she made blanket judgements about him based on his race. This has of course blown up into Fox being a force of evil for some and a hero to others. It's quite ridiculous. 

The stuff he said about WW1 was the one thing he has apologised for.  He certainly wasn't crying racism for it though.. so no idea why you say that. 

( edit I’ve now seen his comment on that and I get it)

Quote

All he wanted he to do was watch a movie about heroic white men, doing heroic things.  It’s clearly oppression him being ”forced” to see that they're none-whites fighting too. 

In the words of Fox 'BORING'.

What he was talking about, and I do get his point, was that the Sikh character appeared to be a very deliberate attempt by the movie to make a political statement rather than depict reality, and it took him out of the movie and its immersion. I think it's a valid statement and it had the same effect on me. Whilst watching it I realised what the movie was trying to do and my first reaction was 'hmm, pretty sure that you would be pretty unlikely to see a lone Sikh soldier on the western front. They would either be in a regiment together and more than likely wouldn't be fighting in Europe'. Doesn't mean it didn't happen or couldn't happen, but it certainly came across more as a signal at politics than trying to tell the story in question. But of course the Guardian readers lose their minds about this and say it's because he only wants to see white people.. because Racism. Do you not see how that level of dishonesty does the Guardian no favours?

[Peadar]

19 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Whilst watching it I realised what the movie was trying to do and my first reaction was 'hmm, pretty sure that you would be pretty unlikely to see a lone Sikh soldier on the western front. They would either be in a regiment together and more than likely wouldn't be fighting in Europe'. 

First of all, lots of Sikhs did fight in Europe -- that's a historical fact. One if five of the soldiers fighting for Britain in World War One were from the Indian Sub-Continent. 20% of these were Sikhs. The image below is entitled "For the glory of the Raj: Indian troops charging the German trenches at Neuve Chapelle, March 1915."

As for the single Sikh we see in the movie, well, a close look at the screen will show that the soldiers in the truck are wearing the patches of several *different* regiments. They are a ragtag group of stragglers. What are the chances of seeing a single Yorkshire man in the midst of recruits from Surrey?  Small, I'd say...

[Heartofice]

4 minutes ago, Peadar said:

First of all, lots of Sikhs did fight in Europe -- that's a historical fact. One if five of the soldiers fighting for Britain in World War One were from the Indian Sub-Continent. 20% of these were Sikhs. The image below is entitled "For the glory of the Raj: Indian troops charging the German trenches at Neuve Chapelle, March 1915."

As for the single Sikh we see in the movie, well, a close look at the screen will show that the soldiers in the truck are wearing the patches of several *different* regiments. They are a ragtag group of stragglers. What are the chances of seeing a single Yorkshire man in the midst of recruits from Surrey?  Small, I'd say...

Again, the point wasn’t that it couldn’t have happened, it was that it suddenly seemed to take me out of the movie because it seemed to be making a political point.