I don't want to debate whether this is "cancel culture" (thankfully, Orman is not in a position to be hurt by these loons), but it's absolutely effing nuts.
First, note the assumption that the org. cannot tolerate a speech that dissents from current political dogma. Discussing personal obstacles to wealth doesn't negate "systemic barriers." But no, *every speaker* has to follow the party line. This is a totalitarian mentality.
Second, note the knee-jerk "marginalized groups" talking points. Asians, on average, are higher-income than other groups. Gays, on average, earn more than straight people.
Note too this isn't just "more speech" (fine for anyone to criticize Orman's limitations!). No, her talk has to be *condemned* (it also won't be published).
Note too that this isn't targeting "reactionary white men." Orman is a pro-Obama Jewish lesbian who grew up poor.
My point isn't that Orman is a victim. She certainly isn't. The victim is mainstream American culture, which is infested with a toxic totalitarian mentality.
/FIN
(Or at least working-class. Not sure about the "poor" part.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's terrible and white supremacist to try to drum up sympathy for perps of anti-Asian violence theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
... oh wait this was before the Atlanta shootings and this person was talking about "the optics of a Black or brown person assaulting or attacking" Asians
Honestly, I don't want to be flippant about this issue but this article is such a stark demonstration of how toxic the Current Moment is
What a blinkered piece by @GiniaNYT on #WoodyAllen & "Manhattan." nytimes.com/2021/03/05/nyr…
It's not true no one in the film questions Isaac's relationship w/a 17-y-o. Mary (Diane Keaton) suggests, plausibly, that it's his escape from feeling threatened by the power of grown women.
Isaac is also *not* shown as a man of "unimpeachable moral character." He's shown as narcissistic, egotistical and often dishonest. He's frequently made to look ridiculous. He's also ultimately a sexual loser, like many other Allen alter egos.
Also, the idea that many women in the '70s didn't object to age-disparate relationships was b/c they didn't feel empowered is remarkably agency-denying.
The other day someone questioned whether the 2019 Katie Ishizuka/Ramon Stephens study exposing alleged racism in "Dr. Seuss" was related to the anti-#DrSeuss push. Why, yes it is. (It began in 2017 when Ishizuka's first version of the paper appeared.)
The Ishizuka paper is not only a paranoid exercise in decoding "harmful" tropes everywhere, it's also wildly fraudulent. Here, for instance, is a passage about the racist symbolism of ink stains in a Cat in the Hat sequel... which forgets to mention that the ink is PINK.
Am I concerned about what a rights holder does with some mostly minor works? Maybe not, but I'm certainly concerned when a classic author is targeted for a takedown that peddles lies and omits important details such as Dr Seuss's anti-racist work.
This piece is a good example of how crazy, paranoid & potentially authoritarian social justice discourse about "embedded" or subtly "inscribed" racist images/tropes can be.
Let's say that the Cat in the Hat really was partly based on images from black minstrelsy. (Dr. Seuss, apparently, said he was based partly on a real-life, black elevator operator, Annie, who wore gloves & had a mischievous smile.)
So what? How does this make the book "harmful"?
1. It's very unlikely that anyone would associate the Cat in the Hat with black people. 2. Even if they did, the Cat is a *positive* figure. (He's only there to entertain/inspire two white kids? Yeah, so are a lot of other magical figures in kid lit who are clearly white.)
I decided to investigate. Here's the passage from the review.
Intrigued even more, I got the book on Kindle. Here are the offending passages.
Oh, and McNeil's comment about his "attraction" to women in a Zika seminar in Puerto Rico? He describes the seminar leader as "an attractive young woman." STRING HIM UP!
It's kind of hilarious that these guys would pick a still from "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" for their glorious image of trad manhood, because, well....
(stop reading now if you haven't seen the film and don't want to be thoroughly spoiled. also, go see it!)
What we see here is a young lawyer, Ranse Stoddard (Jimmy Stewart -- not exactly *young* here, but he's supposed to be), taking shooting lessons from rancher Tom Doniphon (John Wayne) to fight back against the thug Liberty Valance (Lee Marvin), who has robbed & humiliated him.
But ... Ranse sucks at shooting & other trad macho stuff. He's a college boy who insists on the rule of law & starts a local literacy program. Before his law practice takes off, he washes dishes & waits table at the tavern, wearing an apron, & is mocked as "the new waitress."