We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
In order to save freedom of expression it became necessary to destroy it “Protect women from chilling effect of misogyny, Ofcom urges tech firms”, the Times reports:
Ofcom has told social media companies to stamp out misogyny, arguing that it is having a “chilling effect” on women’s freedom of expression online.
Emphasis added.
The media regulator, which is preparing to police tech firms under powers granted by the Online Safety Bill, said that companies have a duty to protect women from harmful content.
Ofcom spoke to 6,000 people for its Online Nation study, and found that over the past month women were more likely than men to have seen content that “objectifies, demeans or otherwise negatively portrays” their gender.
Of the women surveyed, 43 per cent said they were likely to be distressed by harmful content, compared with 33 per cent of men. Some 60 per cent of women highlighted trolling as being particularly concerning, whereas only 25 per cent of men were anxious about online abuse.
Ofcom said that women spent more time online than men, but felt less able to express an opinion or be themselves on social media platforms.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
So now the modern state’s role is to wield the monopoly on violence to protect fragile mental case women who spend all their time online and get over-sensitized to online BS. Just fucking great. How much more stupidly retarded are we going to get in service of these whiny bitches?
So now the unelected Ofcom has been issued with a stick to beat free speech. I suppose we can only hope that they’ll be as useless at that as they are everything else.
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
We know about the phrase “Go woke, go broke” for businesses.
What’s the equivalent phrase for government agencies and quangoes?
For government agencies, the phrase is “Go woke, get a larger budget.” For quangoes, it depends on the charisma of the leader.
“Objectifies” is so wonderfully plastic and elastic.
(God help them if they ever run into any of the large number of women who like that kind of thing on the side.
“You’re censoring my expression of my sexuality to try and protect me, you paternalist misogynists” would be a hilarious and accurate riposte.
But then “you’re misogynists for blanketing all women as fragile, delicate flowers in need of outside protection from fucking memes” is already dead on even apart from that.)
No, it’s “God help the women”, no matter how large their number, who complain about online or in-person harm from a modern wokeness that puts women very firmly at the bottom of the intersectional hierarchy.
It was always sort-of obvious that mere women were the lowest-of-the-low intersectional category, but their inferior status has been made very official now. Just eight days ago, in Ricky Gervais mouth, it was a joke:
But on the BBC website there is no ‘if’ (and nothing to laugh at) in either the reported rape or the enforcement of pronouns.
The quote is from an anonymous BBC source of The (London) Times, (non-paywalled summaries, with links to Times article, are here and here). ‘Believe all women’ didn’t last five years. To be believed now, you’re best bet is to have only claimed to be one for less time than that.
But it would be very unfair to suggest women’s new lowliness in wokeness is only at the hands of trans, as we can see from this Seattle Times story
or the practice of ‘restorative justice’ (even worse than ‘social justice’) in New York:
The ability of the woke to increase the statistical danger to women from people who make no claim to be women is, I fear, the greater danger.
So, Sigivald, I regret to state that the woke will be quite untroubled by your (correct) suggestion that the online harms ‘protection’ of women will be rejected by many of them. The PC are far beyond being embarrassed by objective contradictions in their narratives.
The only reply to the woke claim that they care about women is, “No, you don’t!” They don’t mind seeing women yell at an unwoke cis-white-male, but that only reminds me of the scene in ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ where the oppressed women are allowed the occasional relief of beating up males who dare to oppose the regime (the regime fools the women into thinking they’re rapists or otherwise bad). And if you want a joke that will last a lot longer than Ricky Gervais’ before becoming mere fact, laugh at the absurdity of Margaret Atwood imagining that it would be a right-wing patriarchy that would cause this. 🙂
Simply block any woman from accessing the internet or e-mails and problem solved, eh? 100% total elimination of anything harmful that they may inadvertently see … or will the mere existence of stuff that they cannot see STILL be objected to?
Answers on the back of a postcard to the usual address.
Keeping ’em barefoot and pregnant solves the problem you say?
How very enlightened of you.
😐
Well, we did end up calling them Karens and not Kevins. Unless you chalk that up to bare chance . . .
😉
’…felt less able to express an opinion or be themselves…’
No loss, then? Let the rest of us have our say untroubled by these weak sisters…
bobby b,
The “Karen” thing really bugs me. It is so incredibly… Well, let’s do a switcheroo and call young black males “Dwaynes” and ladle on the stereotypes. The people who use the term “Karen” would crucify you – possibly literally. What really gets me is they don’t seem to understand their own use of stereotypes here. Well, most don’t. I suspect some know exactly what they are doing.
So, Seattle police have effectively defunded themselves for one of the most serious of crimes. Magic.
NickM, it bugs me too. I suppose the stereotype arose because “Karen” was a common female name for a particular generation, but given that it was my generation, that means that (literally) some of my best friends are called Karen.
NickM (June 3, 2022 at 12:50 pm), merely calling young black males ‘Dwaynes’ would be meaningless. For it to compare to ‘Karen’, the term ‘Dwayne’ would have to mean someone who engaged in a certain behaviour that was (or was claimed to be) more common in young black males than in others but not done by all young black males, or even a majority of them. ‘Dwayne’ would be the name for that behaviour, for that stereotype – and if it were more common in black males than in others then the stereotypical mental picture of a ‘Dwayne’ would be of a black man.
In Crocodile Dundee II, an early joke is that Leroy’s business is legit, but because he is a young black male called Leroy “everyone expects you to be bad” and he – knowing the street-value of that reputation – seeks to keep the idea alive in his circle.
Calling a young woman “a right little Sharon” has (or at least had) almost the same meaning as calling her an Essex girl in the UK (IIRC, the name was thought to be more common in Essex than in the UK generally). The majority of girls called Sharon, and of girls who live in Essex, do not fit the stereotype. The majority of such UK girls as do are neither called Sharon nor reside in Essex (and likewise for ‘Essex man’). But, while I know nothing about Sharon, for centuries, up to today, the suggestion of a slight (sometimes not so slight) statistical tendency in Essex can be supported.
Sometimes (not always) the very media who blow you up for using the stereotype’s name are the ones who created it in the first place. I’ve a vague idea Sharon was a character in some soap when that one first came in. Was Leroy the names of a character in some soap or film before Crocodile Dundee? ‘Nurse Ratchet’ has been used to describe Hillary and those like her; IIUC that is strictly a media-created stereotype name.
A stereotype is the verbal equivalent of a statistical summary, and can be equally accurate, incomplete or inaccurate. A set’s average does not tell you its standard deviation. The mode does not tell you how long the tails are. There’s quite a difference between something being true of 100% of some group and the same thing being true of 100% more of that group than of some other group. Etc., etc.
Whenever patterns of behaviour become common enough to be noticed, people will need to name them. And whenever patterns of behaviour are rare but political correctness pretends they are common, the PC will name them.
If not Karen, what? In the UK we also have the useful term ‘jobs-worth’. (Do others have it too?) He (a jobs-worth is more stereotypically a he in the popular imagination) is less aggressive than a Karen but his ruthless prioritisation of his pettiest administrative convenience over interpreting some rule sanely instead of with highly-inconvenient absurdity can lead to the same outcome. That name comes from the phrase he stereotypically says to excuse making your life hell. Is there anything the Karen stereotypically says?
Olha que coisa mais linda mais cheia de graça
É ela menina que vem que passa
Num doce balanço caminho do mar
Moça do corpo dourado do sol de Ipanema…
What is the Oxfam punishment for the above?
The British Totalitarian Democracy continues to be build step by step. That is why i was very cynical about Brexit, while it is better to have 2 totalitarians regimes instead of just 1, i never believed the strange dreams of “liberation” that were exposed here and in other places, the British political-journalist-bureaucratic culture is often even worse than EU one.
They don’t have as much cover now. In the past they could pretend to their constituents that while they personally deplored x, the EU regulations meant we must implement x, and that access to the single market was worth it overall. Now, if the totalitarians want x they must pass a law in our own Parliament. Is this difference worthwhile? Time will tell. We’ve only had one dubiously Conservative government since we left the EU. While they are rare there are left wingers who are against these strides towards a police state, so it will be interesting to see what a future Labour government does, though I do admit I don’t hold out too much hope.