Wokeism of the day *Revised Mod Note in OP and threadbanned users*

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Yes

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6974860/

Not sure how much stead I'd be putting in that one.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Strumms wrote: »

Errrr...Who mentioned neurosurgeons ?

Brain surgery is rare, the brain heals itself, but is slow, nerve disorders require extremely intensive, and long term rehabilitation, 5/6/7 years in some cases, physio, exercise of an intensive and expert nature..

Gender realignment a lower priority ? Yes, that’s how medicine works..

By your logic why not take a couple of cancer specialists, heart specialists and retrain and realign to expand the gender reassignment program?

Maybe I’d have got the help I needed publicly for my illness if I’d threatened to top myself, but I just had to be content with waiting, being told no... then paying my own way...

You mentioned neurosurgery when you tried to convince us that finding issues and transgender prioritisation were the same
thing.

Strumms

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You mentioned neurosurgery when you tried to convince us that finding issues and transgender prioritisation were the same
thing.

No I didn’t, please quit lying and attempting to misrepresent my views.....“inpatient hospital rehabilitative treatments following brain injuries“.. that’s what I said.... most people recovering from brain injuries/conditions surgery is not going to help... the brain needs to heal and nerves need to regenerate.... this is encouraged by basically healing time, coupled with serious amounts exercise and physio,and I’d imagine most people reading would be grateful if you’d argue the points I made as opposed to what you think, or whatever reason you seem to wish to misrepresent my views...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Strumms wrote: »

No I didn’t, please quit lying and attempting to misrepresent my views.....“inpatient hospital rehabilitative treatments following brain injuries“.. that’s what I said.... most people recovering from brain injuries/conditions surgery is not going to help... the brain needs to heal and nerves need to regenerate.... this is encouraged by basically healing time, coupled with serious amounts exercise and physio,and I’d imagine most people reading would be grateful if you’d argue the points I made as opposed to what you think, or whatever reason you seem to wish to misrepresent my views...

You said:

"people are being REFUSED inpatient hospital rehabilitative treatments following brain injuries, nerve disorders, and a host of other long term illnesses..... the case I know of funding wasn’t available"

Nerve disorders means neurosurgery.

But this is an irrelevant because, as you say b yourself, it's a funding issue and nothing to do with transgender.

Strumms

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You said:

"people are being REFUSED inpatient hospital rehabilitative treatments following brain injuries, nerve disorders, and a host of other long term illnesses..... the case I know of funding wasn’t available"

Nerve disorders means neurosurgery.

But this is an irrelevant because, as you say b yourself, it's a funding issue and nothing to do with transgender.

A nerve disorder doesn’t mean neurosurgery ... sorry, unless you have a suitable medical qualification that enables you to overrule the consultants in the Mater Brain institute I’d suggest you desist with coming out with that kind of misleading content...

There are multiple ‘treatments’... that’s what I said ‘ treatments’ not requiring... never mentioned surgery once.... a nerve disorder doesn’t mean neurosurgery... take it from someone who knows.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Strumms wrote: »

A nerve disorder doesn’t mean neurosurgery ... sorry, unless you have a suitable medical qualification that enables you to overrule the consultants in the Mater Brain institute I’d suggest you desist with coming out with that kind of misleading content...

There are multiple ‘treatments’... that’s what I said ‘ treatments’ not requiring... never mentioned surgery once.... a nerve disorder doesn’t mean neurosurgery... take it from someone who knows.

Well agree to disagree on that and, as you are trying to use lack of funding to target transgender treatments, we'll agree to disagree on you being someone who knows. If you were, you'd have told us why.

Now, as this is not the thread for this, we're done here

Strumms

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Well agree to disagree on that and, as you are trying to use lack of funding to target transgender treatments, we'll agree to disagree on you being someone who knows. If you were, you'd have told us why.

Now, as this is not the thread for this, we're done here

I’m not attempting to do any such thing. You however are on record as disingenuously misleading boards claiming I said certain things which i didn’t so.. . I’ve disproved those accusations of yours as above...

You can disagree all you like, I’d have told you what exactly ? I’ve enabled the conversation with my opinion and my experience of not being able to obtain funding for rehabilitative treatments for an illness / problem, I’ve needed to spend thousands over the last 3 years of my own dosh enlisting physiotherapists, hydrotherapists, and other expertises which the government or indeed health services didn’t really give a rats about helping me with.... despite paying a great amount of tax over a significant duration 20 plus years...

I’m not targeting anything or anybody, ... I’m simply advocating that people undergoing treatments for illness, sicknesses, or disability be of the ability to get access to rehabilitation and rehabilitative treatments and would appreciate that be rectified ahead of the agenda which you are representing this evening.

We disagree, that’s ok...

WOKEism of the day. Uncle Bens losing the Uncle in order to be more inclusive. I wonder what the gender neutral of Bens will become?

Hande hoche!

Deleted User wrote: »

WOKEism of the day. Uncle Bens losing the Uncle in order to be more inclusive. I wonder what the gender neutral of Bens will become?

Now that Ben has disowned me, have switched to Tilda.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

WOKEism of the day. Uncle Bens losing the Uncle in order to be more inclusive. I wonder what the gender neutral of Bens will become?

Maryanne, where did you get the idea this had anything to do with gender?

It's because in America, black men were called "Uncle" because it was deemed too respectable to address them as "Mister", which might have implied they had any status.

E.g. Uncle Tom's Cabin.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Maryanne, where did you get the idea this had anything to do with gender?

It's because in America, black men were called "Uncle" because it was deemed too respectable to address them as "Mister", which might have implied they had any status.

E.g. Uncle Tom's Cabin.

Even if that were true, that meaning is not applicable in 2021 - so why remove it?

Butson

Butson wrote: »

America is going to eat itself alive with this nonsense.

With every passing year those nut job white supremacists on Louis Theroux documentaries appear to be more prescient in predicting that the US will eventually find itself in a race war.

In the early 2000's this seemed to be nonsense. But every year it feels like the elastic band of white people is being stretched further and further. Hopefully things calm down and we go back to the MLK policy where people can actually unify rather than judge each other on skin colour alone.

eskimohunt

eskimohunt wrote: »

Even if that were true, that meaning is not applicable in 2021 - so why remove it?

"Even if that were true" -- it's a well-known reference.

Why remove it? Probably because terms like uncle and aunty (Aunt Jemima) date back from the segregation era, when terms like this were acceptable, and people want to show they're not acceptable anymore.

I'd turn that question back on you -- why is it important to retain this?

None of this is "woke", btw, it's bread-and-butter anti-racism. Like much of this thread.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'd turn that question back on you -- why is it important to retain this?

None of this is "woke", btw, it's bread-and-butter anti-racism. Like much of this thread.

Because I'm against the re-writing of history for the sake of placating a minority of very vocal offense-seekers.

I wouldn't even say that it was "important to retain", but it sets a bad precedent where any form of historical misgiving is weaponized today as a means to undermine a person or company.

We see the same strategy, a la statues. For me, they are part of the historic landscape - both the good and bad of a country.

Let's extend the logic. There are plenty of homophobic writers and artists and politicians down the ages. Should they all be taken down?

As a gay person myself, I honestly don't care if they held those views. I could, if I wanted to, play the victim card and demand that these statues be taken down because they represent historical homophobia.

But I don't. Because I accept that views and actions in the past are what they are: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Better to be stoic and honest than try to make yourself feel better by wiping history clean.

eskimohunt

eskimohunt wrote: »

Because I'm against the re-writing of history for the sake of placating a minority of very vocal offense-seekers.

I wouldn't even say that it was "important to retain", but it sets a bad precedent

It doesn't set any precedent. This isn't a court of law. You just don't go around calling black people terms like uncle, aunty, or mammy in 2021, unless they are related to you. This isn't complcated.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It doesn't set any precedent. This isn't a court of law. You just don't go around calling black people terms like uncle, aunty, or mammy in 2021, unless they are related to you. This isn't complcated.

You didn't answer my question.

Should all statues, authors, paintings of those who were clearly homophobic for the past 500-years be taken down / removed / destroyed?

Should statues of Jesus be taken down because of the homophobic parts of the Bible?

eskimohunt

eskimohunt wrote: »

You didn't answer my question.

Should all statues, authors, paintings of those who were clearly homophobic for the past 500-years be taken down / removed / destroyed?

Should statues of Jesus be taken down because of the homophobic parts of the Bible?

Absolutely not. Those are artefacts.

This is just a commercial product for sale that is printed freshly every day. Surely you see the difference between a racial term that is produced on cardboard on a daily basis, and a statue that represents a product of its time and was created centuries ago.

You haven't said why it's important to retain words like Uncle and Aunty about black people, only expressing a vague desire that history not be rewritten. This isn't history it's a bag of rice. I have to conclude something else is wrong.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Maryanne, where did you get the idea this had anything to do with gender?

It's because in America, black men were called "Uncle" because it was deemed too respectable to address them as "Mister", which might have implied they had any status.

E.g. Uncle Tom's Cabin.

Pardon my ignorance, but does inclusive mean gender?

My quip about a gender neutral Ben was just my poor attempt at humour.

It’s removing the mans picture as well as dropping the Uncle. “The brand is not just changing its name and image on the package. It is also taking action to enhance inclusion and equity and setting out its new brand purpose to create opportunities that offer everyone a seat at the table," the company said.” https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54269358

Get Real

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Maryanne, where did you get the idea this had anything to do with gender?

It's because in America, black men were called "Uncle" because it was deemed too respectable to address them as "Mister", which might have implied they had any status.

E.g. Uncle Tom's Cabin.

Genuine question, do you not find it ironic that it's White, English speakers dictating what is and isn't acceptable anymore? In this case, Kristin Kroepfl of Mars, appealing to their Western Market?

Aunt and Uncle are used in India all the time for example as terms of endearment and respect, towards strangers and elders of no relation. Should their culture now conform to these ideals?

The use of gender related pronouns, a hugely topical subject at the moment, again pushed by white, English speakers. What about the use of masculine and feminine pronouns in French for example or German? Or countless other languages. Do we start imposing these rules on other cultures and languages?

What happened to all beliefs and cultures doing their thing, but respecting and communicating with each other? Sharing. And also acknowledging the past, but seeing how far we have come.

I love multiculturalism, shared societies and liberalism. It enriches us as humans.

But for some, it's become pure cancel and anything else is wrong. I find some behaviour hugely ironic, given that privileged, white English speakers are imposing rules, to right the wrongs of... privileged, white English speakers imposing rules...

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It doesn't set any precedent. This isn't a court of law. You just don't go around calling black people terms like uncle, aunty, or mammy in 2021, unless they are related to you. This isn't complcated.

Nobody goes around calling black people those terms. They would soon receive swift retribution if they did.

This is a box of rice that somebody, who was probably bored, one day decided it was racist and demanded that it be changed. They didn't really care one way or the other but thought they would make a furore and see how far they got with it. The spineless managers of Uncle Ben's desperate to avoid racism allegations, didn't argue back but instead bent the metaphorical knee to the complainants.

I'd say most black people are bemused by developments like this. No sane person could look at a box of Uncle Ben's and see anything other than a box of bloody rice.

Tyrone212

[Deleted User] wrote: »

With every passing year those nut job white supremacists on Louis Theroux documentaries appear to be more prescient in predicting that the US will eventually find itself in a race war.

In the early 2000's this seemed to be nonsense. But every year it feels like the elastic band of white people is being stretched further and further. Hopefully things calm down and we go back to the MLK policy where people can actually unify rather than judge each other on skin colour alone.

A race war over a bag of rice? Interesting...
What next. WW3 over toast.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Absolutely not. Those are artefacts.

This is just a commercial product for sale that is printed freshly every day. Surely you see the difference between a racial term that is produced on cardboard on a daily basis, and a statue that represents a product of its time and was created centuries ago.

You haven't said why it's important to retain words like Uncle and Aunty about black people, only expressing a vague desire that history not be rewritten. This isn't history it's a bag of rice. I have to conclude something else is wrong.

No, I don't.

Because the application of Uncle Ben's today is purely commercial / brand recognition.

Today, it has nothing to do with what you describe.

And as for your disapproval of tearing down statues, you are now fighting among brethren - because there are many on your side of the argument anti-Ben's rice, who support tearing down statues for precisely the same kind of 'offense' utterances.

Get Real

Get Real wrote: »

Genuine question, do you not find it ironic that it's White, English speakers dictating what is and isn't acceptable anymore? In this case, Kristin Kroepfl of Mars, appealing to their Western Market?

It isn't really, in this case. What would happen if I walked up to a black man in the States and called him uncle? The expression 'a man's mouth can often be a danger to his face' springs to mind. I would have deserved it.

This probably isn't really relevant here, as some posters (and probably black irish people) might not even know about the reference. So I can somewhat understand the bewilderment. That's fair enough. But it is an unacceptable cultural reference elsewhere, that's also fair enough. No big deal, they should drop it.

Aunt and Uncle are used in India all the time for example as terms of endearment and respect, towards strangers and elders of no relation. Should their culture now conform to these ideals?

Yeah, I'm aware of that, it's also common across the middle-east but that's not the norm in America where this issue got traction. Nobody is saying that the words uncle/ aunty are bad, even when used for people who are not your uncle.

This just has a very specific connotation towards black people, in a specific country, and the company is distancing itself from it for commercial reasons.

eskimohunt

eskimohunt wrote: »

And as for your disapproval of tearing down statues, you are now fighting among brethren - because there are many on your side of the argument anti-Ben's rice, who support tearing down statues for precisely the same kind of 'offense' utterances.

I only have 3 brothers. I have no brethren.

This is about a bag of rice. Nobody here is speaking for the entire left-wing.

Edit
Literally got up from the table after I wrote this, opened the cupboard and this fella was glaring at me

Tyrone212

Tyrone212 wrote: »

A race war over a bag of rice? Interesting...
What next. WW3 over toast.

No that's not what I said. The race war was in relation to the demonising of white people and the nonsense CRT.

The Uncle Ben's thing is a symptom of a bigger problem.

The evidence that surgery helps suicidal ideation in trans patients is lacking in the biggest survey out there. Sweden 1973-1993

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

Yeah_Right

Anyone who thinks the Uncle Ben's thing is anything other than marketing, is an idiot. I guarantee you the company did research and focus groups and found it made commercial sense to change. It all comes down to profit.

Yeah_Right

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Anyone who thinks the Uncle Ben's thing is anything other than marketing, is an idiot. I guarantee you the company did research and focus groups and found it made commercial sense to change. It all comes down to profit.

Normally that's the case. However these days it seems like corporations are making some very hasty, panicky decisions these days under the watchful glare of the woke twitter crowd. Nike, Gillette and Coca Cola have all recently seen share prices fall in response to some of their woke nonsense.

KevRossi

Milky Bar kid can't be white.
Uncle Ben can't be black.

What about the Bisto kids? Are they next for the chop? One's blonde, one's a ginger.

randd1

If Uncle Bens had to drop the Uncle part because of possible racist wording, should we then also ban the word nigge* from being used anywhere given it's far more serious racist origins? Or the word snowman, hick, cracker, honkey, whitey regarding white's? Or any of the terms used to describe Asians? Or Hispanics?

Now I'd doubt very much that most people would mind tackling racist wording. But if we're going to tackle racist wording, should we not tackle it all, instead of picking and choosing what is acceptable and what isn't? Surely one of the standards required for the aim of an equal society in everyone is treated equally.

BTW, the people most likely to call a black person an Uncle Tom? Other blacks, and usually in referring to police officers.